Response to Jones

A response to Breaking Down Barriers Between Latter-day Saints and Mainline Christians by Tom Jones

Kevin C. Hill
(c) Copyright Kevin C. Hill, 1999. All rights reserved. Presented by the Mormon Fortress (www.mormonfortress.com)

Some critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have claimed that Joseph Smith changed his doctrine regarding the nature of The Godhead. They claim that in the early period of The LDS Church the teachings on The Godhead are more Trinitarian in nature and follow a classical theistic approach. Indeed, they claim that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and other non-canonical sources teach a concept of God similar to that found in the Protestant world and that up until approximately 1838 the LDS Church taught this concept of God. One individual, Tom Jones has written a paper repeating these claims. The position he takes is not new. (1)

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that the claim that Joseph changed his view of God is incorrect. I will demonstrate that his early understanding about the nature of God was no where near the classical theism preached in the Christian world of his day. I will also demonstrate that the knowledge of God revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith by the time of his death in 1844 was a progressive revelation about God’s nature rather then an about face claimed by the critics. To accomplish this I will respond to the paper by Tom Jones Breaking Down Barriers Between Latter-day Saints and Mainline Christians. In his paper Mr. Jones relies heavily on The Lectures on Faith, particularly The Fifth Lecture, to illustrate his points. He attempts to argue that the lectures were scripture and authored by Joseph Smith. While the Lectures have much value and worth in their teachings and doctrines they present as part of this paper I will show that:

1. The Lectures were not considered scripture and were not on par with the revelations contained in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

2. The question of authorship of The Lectures is far from certain and in fact studies demonstrate that Sidney Rigdon was the primary writer of the Lectures.

3. Regardless of the outcome of items 1 and 2 above The Lectures do not teach what Mr. Jones insists they do, that Joseph Smith taught the God of classical theism in early LDS history.

The approach taken will be to respond point by point to Mr. Jones’ paper. Not only will I address the issues Mr. Jones raises about the Lectures on Faith but also I will respond to other issues Mr. Jones raises in his paper. Because I provide Mr. Jones’ entire paper in the body of the text of this paper I will not footnote it.

So let’s not say, “what’s the use, you’ve got your beliefs and I’ve got

mine, so let’s just agree to disagree”. Let’s contend for the faith, gently

First a general observation I would like to make is regarding Mr. Jones use of the Joseph Smith translation when citing biblical passages. I am sure he is aware that the JST is not the official scriptural version of the Old and New Testaments used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact there is much evidence that Joseph Smith never considered his work of the translation of the Bible as complete. (2) I can only suppose that Mr. Jones thinks that if a JST passage contradicts the position of the LDS Church on the nature of God was not changed in the JST, it demonstrates that Joseph believed something that he later changed his thoughts on. There are two problems with this. First as already stated the JST was never completed. Second, the Biblical citations that Mr. Jones uses in his attempt to demonstrate that Joseph believed one thing and then changed to another are verses that Joseph believed in 1830 and in 1844. Latter-day Saint Christians believe those same passages today. However, The interpretation of those scriptures by Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saint Christians today may vary from the classical theistic straight jacket that Mr. Jones places upon their interpretations and attempts to place on Joseph Smith, early Latter-day Saints and Latter-day Saints today. Please do not misunderstand my position. I believe the JST provides much revealed doctrine and valuable insights. But I believe that Mr. Jones use of JST in his paper serves no useful purpose to the issues addressed.

One way to approach this is to take a look at a time when LDS and traditional

This initial opening seems to me to be a straw man. The reader is now led into a false premise right from the beginning and is told up front that Latter-day Saint theology agreed with the Protestant view of God when the facts demonstrate differently. Based on this premise, Mr. Jones will select items from LDS writings and scripture he feels back up his points. However, based on my findings it seems that he will missed much evidence to the contrary. He will also apply his evangelical understanding upon the LDS scripture and teachings he relies on. So, my first question to Mr. Jones is who says we agreed?

Additionally Mr. Jones does not provide any documented teachings of his side of the equation at all in his paper. Absent from his paper are the concepts of the orthodox creeds that attempt to interpret the Biblical passages that teach about God in a way that we believe are outside of the true meaning of such passages. Absent from his paper is anything about the hundreds of years it took traditional Christianity to formulate and conform their Christological differences if in fact they yet have. What he begins with is his interpretations of his selective sources of LDS teachings regarding the subject with no background of what classical theism is all about. It seems that a summary of classical theism and what exactly it is that Mr. Jones thinks we agreed about would have been in order.

Did we really agree with classical theism in early LDS teaching? No we did not, at least not like Mr. Jones asserts at the very outset of his paper. The evidence demonstrating this will be illustrated as we progress.

attributes.”(You’ll find a photocopy of this page on page 4 of Appendix A,

hereafter referred to as A-4). The lesson then proceeds to examine the attributes of God as given by

attributes was that God has always been God: “even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God” (1835 D&C, p. 37; A-4) “he is God over all, from everlasting to everlasting” (1835 D&C, p. 39; A-4)“seeing that these are attributes of the Deity, they are unchangeable -being the same yesterday, today, and forever... for God never changes, therefore His attributes and character remain forever the same.” (1835 D&C, p. 51; A-5)These are foundational truths which the 1835 D&C, the Bible, Latter-day Saints and orthodox Christians held in common in 1835.

There are many items to address here. First is the use of the citation 1835 D&C. Mr. Jones believes the Lectures on Faith were scripture. He attempts to bolster his position that the Lectures on Faith were scripture by using the title of an LDS book of scripture that no longer contains The Lectures on Faith. His reference to them as the 1835 D&C confuses the modern day reader by referring to the portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants that contained the Lectures as “the D&C” rather than to carve out the Lectures and refer to them as a separate document, which they were. That the lectures were bound into the 1835 D&C I do not dispute. But were the Lectures on faith considered on par with the revelations contained in the 1835 D&C? Were they scripture? The answer is no. This point is illustrated by Wade Englund in his paper The Wolf Huffs and Puffs But Does He Blow My House Down? Wade Englund is responding to an associate of Mr. Jones. In this section of his paper Wade is answering an accusation that Wade dismisses the importance of The Lectures on Faith:

“It's not that I was trying to dismiss the importance of the Lectures on Faith; but rather, I was trying to get Mr. Farkas to accurately cite the source of his quote (Lectures on Faith, not the D&C), and not mislead the reader into thinking that the Lectures are scripture, which they are not--though, admittedly, they were, for a time, bound together with scripture in the D&C. The reason he wishes to make this an issue, and why he cannot just be satisfied with correctly stating that the quote comes from the Lectures on Faith, is because his argument rests upon one lone piece of obscure or esoteric evidence. And, since he eventually posits that lonely piece of evidence against D&C 130:22 (which the LDS believe is scripture), it would seem rather pale in comparison. Hence, the flurry of dubious augmentation, and misleading labeling.

As a preface for what is about to be discussed, there should be pointed out that various revelations were first compiled and published in 1833 as the "Book of Commandments". The Lectures on Faith (or at least the 1st, 5th and 6th Lectures) were first published in May and June of 1835 in the Church's monthly paper in Kirkland called "Messenger and Advocate". The Book of Commandments, and all seven Lectures of Faith were not combined to form the "Doctrines and Covenants" until September of 1835. After they were combined, they were still left segregated into separate parts (Part First called "Theology: Lectures on the Doctrines of the Church of the Latter Day Saints of Faith", and Part Second called "Covenants and Commandments of the Lord to His Servants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints"). Subsequent to that publication, the Lectures were also published separately in the "Millennial Star" in England from 1840 to 1843, and in the "Messenger and Advocate" in Pennsylvania from 1835 to 1836. The Lectures and the Book of Commandments were later separated in 1921, with the Lectures of Faith being designated as the "Lectures on Faith", and the Book of Commandments retaining the title of "Doctrines and Covenants".(Lectures on Faith, Dahl—Authorship and History, Pp. 14-16).

I find this significant to the discussion at hand in two ways. First, the lectures were never co-mingled (though they were co-published) with the revelations, thus demonstrating that they were never considered by the Church to be on par, or of the same authoritative and canonized nature. Second, because they have always been handled as discrete entities, and particularly because they began being published

separately, and have been published separately for over 67 years; and given the respective titles that they have been published under for the last 67 years; I believe it is misleading to cite as the source of a Lectures on Faith quote by saying, "in the Doctrines and Covenants.”(3)

Next, as for the language from The Third Lecture regarding the importance of a knowledge of God’s character, perfections and attributes I whole-heartedly agree. Indeed we read in John 17:3:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

An understanding and knowledge of God, about God and his nature are essential components required to exercise faith unto salvation. Latter-day Saint Christians would not dispute this. With that thought firmly entrenched in our minds we can examine the quotes above that Mr. Jones uses from The Lectures on Faith. The three quotes Mr. Jones says are from the Doctrine and Covenants are from The Lectures on Faith: Lecture Third and Lecture Fourth. While Mr. Jones does attach to his paper an appendix that includes excerpts of the sections of text from which he takes his quotes, he selectively uses a few items in the body of his paper that reinforce his point. Also in his text attachments he has a tendency to underline the sections he has already quoted. This draws the reader’s attention to the section Mr. Jones would like them to remember and reinforce. He also has what I find an annoying tendency to put notes in the column of the attachments that repeat what he has already said in his text and dramatize his point further. Many of these notes are again from Mr. Jones interpretations of passages or sections that Latter-day Saint Christians did and currently understand differently than Mr. Jones does.

An examination of the full text of the Third and Fourth Lectures shows that the major focus is on the eternal and unchanging nature of God’s attributes and character. Very little is really said about God always being God. In the early parts of Lecture Third we read:

6. Having previously been made acquainted with the way the idea of his existence came into the world, as well as the fact of his existence, we shall proceed to examine his character, perfections, and attributes, in order that this class may see, not only the just grounds which they have for the exercise of faith in him for life and salvation, but the reasons that all the world, also, as far as the idea of his existence extends, may have to exercise faith in him, the Father of all living.

And how are we to know of these things that the Third Lecture is to examine? Lecture Third goes on to tell us it is by the revelations which God has given to us. This would encompass both ancient and modern day revelations. The key to understanding what is up and coming, or what it is that we are going to examine, specifically is found in the following passage from Lecture Third:

8. Having said so much we proceed to examine the character, which the revelations have given of God.

It is His Character and the way he approaches mankind that we will now focus on. His Character is what The Third Lecture of Faith is all about. His consistent behavior is emphasized as well. Let us compare side by side the selective passages Mr. Jones uses to set us up for his up for what he thinks is the grand change. Let us also keep in mind the third premise of this paper found in my introduction; that The Lectures on Faith do not really say what Mr. Jones thinks they do.

JONES QUOTE		ORIGINAL QUOTATION

*even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."* *he is God over all, from everlasting to everlasting* *seeing that these are attributes of the Deity, they are unchangeable—being the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever—* *for God never changes, therefore his attributes and character remain forever the same*		9. Moses gives us the following account in Exodus 34:6: "And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness and truth." Psalms 103:6-8: "The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed. He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel. The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy." Psalms 103:17-18: "But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; to such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them." Psalm 90:2: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, *even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."* Hebrews 1:10-12: "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: they shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." James 1:17: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Malachi 3:6: "For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." 10. Book of Commandments, chapter 2, commencing in the third line of the first paragraph: fn "For God doth not walk in crooked paths; neither doth he turn to the right hand nor the left; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said: Therefore his paths are strait, and his course is one eternal round." Book of Commandments, chapter 37, verse 1: fn "Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday and forever." 11. Numbers 23:19: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." 1 John 4:8: "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." Acts 10:34-35: "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with him." 12. From the foregoing testimonies we learn the following things respecting the character of God: 13. First, that he was God before the world was created, and the same God that he was after it was created. 14. Secondly, that he is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in goodness, and that he was so from everlasting, and will be to everlasting. 15. Thirdly, that he changes not, neither is there variableness with him; but that he is the same from everlasting to everlasting, being the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; and that his course is one eternal round, without variation. 16. Fourthly, that he is a God of truth and cannot lie. 17. Fifthly, that he is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that fears God and works righteousness is accepted of him. 18. Sixthly, that he is love. 19. An acquaintance with these attributes in the divine character, is essentially necessary, in order that the faith of any rational being can center in him for life and salvation. For if he did not, in the first instance, believe him to be God, that is, the Creator and upholder of all things, he could not center his faith in him for life and salvation, for fear there should be greater than he who would thwart all his plans, and he, like the gods of the heathen, would be unable to fulfill his promises; but seeing *he is God over all, from everlasting to everlasting,* the Creator and upholder of all things, no such fear can exist in the minds of those who put their trust in him, so that in this respect their faith can be without wavering. From Lecture Fourth 19. Such, then, is the foundation which is laid, through the revelation of the attributes of God, for the exercise of faith in him for life and salvation; and *seeing that these are attributes of the Deity, they are unchangeable—being the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever—which gives to the minds of the Latter-day Saints the same power and authority to exercise faith in God which the Former-day Saints had; so that all the saints, in this respect, have been, are, and will be, alike until the end of time; for God never changes, therefore his attributes and character remain forever the same. And as it is through the revelation of these that a foundation is laid for the exercise of faith in God unto life and salvation, the foundation, therefore, for the exercise of faith was, is, and ever will be, the same; so that all men have had, and will have, an equal privilege. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES* What was shown in the third lecture? It was shown that correct ideas of the character of God are necessary in order to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation; and that without correct ideas of his character, men could not have power to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation, but that correct ideas of his character, as far as his character was concerned in the exercise of faith in him, lay a sure foundation for the exercise of it. (Lecture 4:1.) What object had the God of Heaven in revealing his attributes to men? That through an acquaintance with his attributes they might be enabled to exercise faith in him so as to obtain eternal life. (Lecture 4:2.) Could men exercise faith in God without an acquaintance with his attributes, so as to be enabled to lay hold of eternal life? They could not. (Lecture 4:2-3.) What account is given of the attributes of God in his revelations? First, Knowledge; secondly, Faith or Power; thirdly, Justice; fourthly, Judgment; fifthly, Mercy; and sixthly, Truth. (Lecture 4:4-10.)

Before I begin a discussion of the ellipses used above I would like to clarify one thing. Latter-day Saint Christians believe and believed the verses in scripture discussing the eternal nature of God. This includes Joseph Smith, even up to the time of his death. The only statement by Joseph Smith that could be construed to state differently is from the King Follet discourse, which I should point out, has never been canonized into the LDS canon of scripture. In the book How Wide the Divide, Stephen Robinson, when discussing canonized passages that teach the doctrine of deification, points out that:

“To the scriptural passages above I would add Lorenzo Snow’s epigram and Joseph Smith’s statement in the funeral address for King Follet that God is an exalted man. Neither statement is scriptural or canonized in the technical sense, and neither have been explained or elucidated to the church in any official manner, but are so widely accepted by Latter-day Saints that this technical point has become moot.”(4)

This is an important point to keep in mind as I move on in the paper. It will be critical to understand that not only was this statement never canonized it was never explained any further by Joseph Smith. The fact that the teaching about God in the King Follet sermon is one that Joseph Smith did not view as a complete change, but rather an expanded understanding of God, will be discussed further below.

Returning to the quotes above, Mr. Jones provides only three statements to establish his position. Of those three the strongest one that establishes God as God from all eternity in the way an evangelical Christian would interpret it is the first from Psalms 90:2. However, the language Mr. Jones leaves out “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world” could be interpreted to mean that God was God only before the beginning of this world, or this eternity. As to what God was before “the mountains were brought forth, or ever…formed the earth” the scripture is silent.

The other passage above that may lend credibility to Mr. Jones position is from Lecture Third item 19. However, viewing Lecture Third item 19 in total context, we see that the passage is focusing on the character and divine attributes of God, not on him always being God in the classical theistic sense. The last excerpts from Lecture Fourth focus entirely on the eternality and unchangeability of God’s characters and attributes but not on God existing always as God. In fact even in the ellipses Mr. Jones uses from Lecture Fourth it is clear that these passages speak of God’s attributes and character rather than whether or not God was always God. Now, taking Lecture Third, as a whole, we can present a summary of what we actually learn from the lecture. A review of items 12-18 reveal that we know that the character of God includes the fact that He was God before and after the world was created, that He is merciful, slow to anger, full of goodness, that He does not change regarding these things, He is a God of truth and does not lie, He is not a respecter of persons and He is love. Again we see that the language of being everlasting, without variableness, and unchanging apply to these characteristics of God and not to the question of whether or not he was always God.

I understand that Mr. Jones and his associates will not agree with the interpretation of the passages above. Perhaps I am belaboring this point. Yet I think it is worthwhile to explore the issue and concept of God’s immutability and the eternality from the LDS viewpoint. First is the interpretive view Latter-day Saint Christians place, and did place, on these passages. The second is how the LDS view is consistent with the Hebrew view to whom the majority of the passages regarding the God’s everlasting or eternal nature came. Wade Englund discusses the interpretive view:

Interpretive accuracy and exegetical soundness. The remaining biblical passages refer to God as the "everlasting God" (Gen 2:33; Isa 40:28; Rom 16:26), or the "Eternal God"(De 33:27), and that "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."(Ps 90:2). While these passages may seem clear as to how long God has been God--particularly the last passage, an exegetical case can be made that even these passages do not negate the possibility of God having been something other than God, nor do they necessarily mean that there has never been a time when God has not been God. Take for example those biblical passages which talk of the "Lord God of Israel, from eternity, and to eternity"(Ps 41:13, 106:48). Given the finite existence of Israel, do these passage negate the possibility of God having been something other than the God of Israel, and do they necessarily mean that there has never been a time when God has not been the God of Israel? What about the several "eternal covenants"(1 Chron 16:17; Ps 89:34; 105:8-10; 111:9; Isa 54:10; 55:3; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 37:26; Heb 13:20-21), or "everlasting covenants"(Ge 17:7; Le 16:34; 24:8; 2Sa 23:5; Isa 24:5), which God has made with Israel? Given that these covenants were first made, and some were even changed, or subsumed, at some point during mortal history (Heb 7:22; 9:15;12:24); does the designation "eternal covenant" mean that there has never been a time when each of these covenants did not exist as a covenant? Finally, there are numerous biblical passages which speak in the present tense of things which are not yet, but will be "eternal", or "everlasting", in the future. (Ps 112:6; Isa. 51:11; 55:3; 56:5; 60:15; Mt 19:29; Lk 16:9; Jn 10:28; 17:22; Act 13:48; Heb 9:15; 1Jn 2:25), or where they have become such at some point in time (Jn 3:36; 2 Th 2:16; Heb 5:9; 9:12; 1Jn 5:11). With this understanding in mind, it is clear that, while the biblical passage that refer to God as an "eternal" or "everlasting" God, may be interpreted by some to mean that he has always been God; they do not, in light of other biblical passages, require such an interpretation; and can even leave open the consistent belief that God has not always been God. And, given the fact that the LDS have long held that the contents of the Bible, and other books of canon, are the "word of God", and true; and given the wide-spread belief (though not doctrine) of LDS members, which they share in common with Joseph Smith, that God, the Father, was once a spirit personage, who became a mortal man, died and was resurrected, even as was the case with his Son, who has done nothing save what the Father has also done (Jn 5:19); and given that the LDS see God's eternal nature, and his having once been a man, to be consistent concepts that are simple and true; one should easily be able to determine that Joseph Smith, and the members of the LDS faith, accept, as valid, the later interpretation of the "eternal" and "everlasting" passages. Since it is the LDS perspective that is under question, this is the perspective that counts. (5)

The above demonstrates there are many differing connotations on what exactly eternity, everlasting and eternal means. The evangelical LDS critic always applies the metaphysical restraint on passages that refer to God and eternity while they ignore the same restraint for other verses speaking of things that were considered eternal and everlasting. Latter-day Saints may apply a different paradigm than evangelicals. This does not mean LDS Christians are wrong nor does it mean that they changed their doctrine. In fact the LDS view of unchanging and eternal is more in line with Hebrew thinking which was not bound by the Hellenistic metaphysical mindset. Barry Bickmore writes:

Our detractors constantly point out Bible verses concerning God's unchanging and eternal nature to show that the scriptures do contradict the Prophets teachings. Even the Book of Mormon states, "I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from

all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18) However, it can easily be shown that the LDS interpretation of the scriptures is in harmony with the mindset of the ancient Hebrews, while mainstream Christians apply Hellenistic assumptions to the text.

The ancient Greeks were absolutely enamored with metaphysics – with "being," "essence," "eternity," etc. The Greek philosophers pondered incessantly about how the material world relates to the true reality, whereas for the Hebrews the material world was reality. When they wrote

about God, they didn't obsess about his "being" or "essence," but rather focused on His relationship to men and the world. Likewise, when they spoke of God's nature and eternity, they used relative terms -- relative, that is, to them. For example, many of the Biblical passages which speak of God's immutability do so in terms of His honesty, justice, mercy, and constancy. (See Titus 1:2; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hebrews 6:18; Genesis 18:25; Ezekiel 18:14-32; Isaiah 46:10-11; Mark 13:31; Matt. 24:35; Luke 1:20; James 1:17; Daniel 6:26: Hebrews 6:18-19) Christopher Stead explains, "The Old Testament writers sometimes speak of God as unchanging. In Christian writers influenced by Greek philosophy this doctrine is developed in an absolute metaphysical sense. Hebrew writers are more concrete, and their thinking includes two main points: (1) God has the dignity appropriate to old age, but without its disabilities . . . ; and (2) God is faithful to his covenant promises, even though men break theirs . . ."3 (Cf. Isaiah 40:28; Exodus 34:9-10) When God is described as "From everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm 41:13 NEB), the word translated as "everlasting" is the Hebrew olam, which means "(practically) eternity" or

"time out of mind."4 Another Psalm (104:5 NASB) says that God "established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever." And yet Isaiah (24:20 NEB) saw a future time when "the earth reels to and fro like a drunken man . . ..” To the Hebrew mind these passages were not contradictory, because terms like "everlasting" and "forever" were

relative terms, and they had no conception of "eternity" and "infinity" as modern people see them.

So it is with the Latter-day Saints. We see such scriptural statements about the "everlasting" and "unchanging" God as an indication of God's perfect and unchanging moral character, as well as God's eternity relative to men. God is spoken of as the "only true God," because in relation to us this is perfectly true. Given this Hebrew mindset, it is easy to see how Latter-day Saints can accept the biblical statements about God and also believe that God was once a man.... (6)

Jones:

So what’s the problem?

Today, our beliefs on just this one basic point are so different that we have

traditional Christian churches, and the Mormon Church, each claiming that the

other has a false god, or gods:

The above is an attempt by Mr. Jones to define the LDS Church outside of the umbrella of Christianity. His comment that we have traditional Christian Churches and the Mormon Church is his attempt to draw a line in the sand. He attempts to accomplish exclusion of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the definition of Christianity. His use of “traditional Christian churches” also is an attempt to make it seem that there is an us or them approach. This dichotomy is not quite as cut and dry as he would like his reader to think. Of course we are not sure what Mr. Jones means by traditional Christian Churches. Does he mean protestant? Does he mean only those of the evangelical strain? Does he include Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Oneness Pentecostals? Is he aware that there are varying views on God’s nature among some of these groups and differing views among the pre-Nicene Apologists and post-Nicene Fathers? (7) If they differ in their view from Mr. Jones does he exclude them from the umbrella of Christianity? Perhaps, perhaps not. This is what Peterson and Ricks, (8) and Robinson (9) call the exclusion (from Christianity) by definition.

Jones:

“The false gods of Christendom bear the same names as the true Gods of the

Bible. Beyond this they have little resemblance. They are described in the

creeds that the Lord told Joseph Smith were `an abomination in his sight’ “

(Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness For The Articles of Faith, p. 55)

The above quote from Bruce R. McConkie is no doubt couched in strong language. This was often a hallmark of the writings of Elder McConkie. However, I must point out that the above reference, as with other references to unofficial publications by members of The LDS Church are the views of the author. This is made clear in the preface of the book Mr. Jones quotes above:

Only the scriptures, official statements, and other publications written under assignment from the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles are considered authorized publications of the Church. Other books, including those written by General Authorities, such as this one, are the responsibility of the author. (10)

This is a critical distinction for much of what anti-Mormon writers rely on in their criticism of The LDS Church comes from sources outside the above criteria. Most of the critic’s arguments fall apart when they are forced into an examination of official LDS doctrine. This in no way means I disagree with the statement above by Elder McConkie, nor am I endorsing it. It is fairly clear that from the inception of the Church, Latter-day Saints have rejected the statements about God found in the extra Biblical creeds of orthodox Christianity. This is the point Elder McConkie is making. Never the less the statement does not exclude other sects of Christianity from the definition of Christianity as are our critics are so quick to do to us.

Jones:

What happened?

If, only 162 years ago, we believed the same essentials of faith in God, how

is it that we now have different Gods?

The straw man is here reinforced. We did not believe the same essentials. The answer, Mr. Jones, is nothing happened the way you insinuate here. There was evolution in understanding about God but not the drastic change that is insisted upon.

Jones:

Evidently it all started at the April, 1844 Conference of the Church, when

Joseph Smith made public a dramatic change in his teachings about the nature

of God. He said:

“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will

refute that idea...he was once a man like us” (TPJS2, p. 345-346; A-7)

As noted above, this sermon was delivered "at the April conference of the

Church, 1844." (TPJS, p. 342; A-7) As most LDS know, that makes this message

the word of the Lord to them (see Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p.155).

Joseph no longer believed and taught, as he did in the 1835 D&C, that God was

God from all eternity. That which was absolutely necessary for our salvation

in 1835, was no longer true nine years later. The new LDS God, starting in

1844, was once a mortal man, without the powers of Godhood, who became a god.

Prior to 1844, God had been the independent creator of all things. Now, he

was dependent on another, who came before him, to bring him into being and

sustain him.

Joseph Smith’s teachings about the nature of God had been nearly in line with

the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Christian churches. But, with this new

God, he had departed from his own faith and scriptures (apostatized).

Ironically, many Latter-day Saints profess to believe both, that God has been

God from all eternity, and that he was once a man who became a God. But

Joseph Smith didn't believe both at the same time. First, he admitted having

believed the 1835 doctrine by saying, "We have imagined and supposed that God

was God from all eternity." Then he said he was refuting that idea. In other

words, in 1844, he was proving it wrong. It was no longer true.

The approach to the presentation of these issues by Mr. Jones is such that I will need to break the above down into pieces. Mr. Jones begins with one sentence from The King Follet discourse. This is his sole evidence of what he calls a “dramatic change.” How dramatic of a change this teaching was or is will be discussed further.

Before that discussion I want to examine the statement by Mr. Jones “As most LDS know, that makes this message the word of the Lord to them (see Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p.155).” I was rather surprised because I did not know this. Perhaps I fall out of the purview of “most LDS” but I always thought I was a relatively main stream Latter-day Saint Christian. I always thought the word of the Lord to Latter-day Saints was in the LDS canon and official pronouncements of the First Presidency. For something to be considered doctrine it is required to be presented to The Church and accepted based on the law of common consent (see D&C 26:2, 28:12-13). In other words to become doctrine the item presented must be conference ratified. This is the pattern that has been established from the inception of the LDS Church. There is no doubt that Latter-day Saints view the remarks of the general authorities of the Church that are given in General Conference as valuable and insightful. The addresses are to be read for inspiration, guidance and for the benefit of the saints. They may even consider the talks given in general conference as direction regarding what doctrines and teachings should be emphasized at any given time. However they are not considered the word of the Lord on the same level as canonized scripture and official pronouncements by The First Presidency unless they are presented to the Church and thus canonized. The only exception to this procedure is when what is taught is in agreement with the standard works of the Church.

One of the most recent examples of this procedure was in the October 1978 session of general conference:

Membership approves revelation

Church News, October 7, 1978, p.5

The revelation extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members was accepted Saturday afternoon, Sept. 30, by the members of the Church "as the word and will of the Lord." At the second general session of conference, President N. Eldon Tanner presented for approval the revelation, which had been announced June 9. President Tanner said, "President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted and approved it. "It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

After reading the June announcement, President Tanner said, "Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer and revelator and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we, as a constituent assembly, accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hands." President Tanner said that approval by the congregation in the Tabernacle appeared unanimous. (My emphasis)

As I stated above, I was so surprised by the statement about all information from a conference is the word of the Lord that I thought I would look at the reference Mr. Jones used from Mormon Doctrine.

CONFERENCES

See DISTRICTS, FAST MEETINGS, SACRAMENT MEETINGS, SOLEMN ASSEMBLIES, TESTIMONY MEETINGS, WORSHIP. 1. Latter-day Saints assemble periodically in various conferences "to worship the King, the Lord of hosts" (Zech. 14:16-19); to be built up in faith, testimony, and desires of righteousness; to transact the business of the Church; to sustain the officers whom the Lord has appointed to administer the affairs of his kingdom; and to receive, from those appointed so to serve, the counsel, inspiration, and revelation needed in both temporal and spiritual fields.

Conferences are far more than religious conventions in which views are expressed, differences resolved, and policies adopted. Rather they consist in a series of meetings at which the mind and will of the Lord is manifest to the people by the mouths of his servants. The Church being a kingdom, not a democracy, instruction and direction comes from above; it does not originate with the citizens but with the King. Songs, prayers, sermons, testimonies, reports, and sometimes recreational undertakings are woven into conference schedules. (11)

The passage by Elder McConkie does not say that the word of the Lord is given rather that the will of the Lord is manifest. There is a difference. Our canonized scripture is the word of the Lord. The mind and will of the Lord from our conferences are provided to instruct, edify and guide. Conference talks are only officially the word of the Lord once they enter into the canon by the prescribed and established procedures or if they are in agreement with the current canon. If a sermon given in conference (or at any other point in time for that matter) is outside of the standard canon it must be ratified by the Church to be considered doctrine by which we are bound. Besides, last time I checked the book Mormon Doctrine was not the official manual for LDS Church teaching and protocol. If Mr. Jones wants to tell us what the word of the Lord is to us I suggest he rely on official statements of procedure. As can be seen from the above, Mr. Jones flat out missed the mark on this one.

Moving on, Mr. Jones now has, with one fell swoop, relying on one lone sentence concluded that Joseph Smith no longer believed as he did in 1835. Perhaps Mr. Jones just might consider that as the Prophet Joseph Smith received revelation over the course of his ministry that additional light and knowledge added greater understanding to exactly what certain verses of scripture speaking of God’s eternality really mean. Mr. Jones then puts words into Joseph Smith’s mouth when he says “That which was absolutely necessary for our salvation in 1835, was no longer true nine years later.” I am not sure where Mr. Jones is coming from on this one. I have read the King Follet discourse from which Mr. Jones is quoting many times. I have found nothing to indicate that Joseph Smith said that which was essential for salvation nine years previously was no longer essential. Remember that the Lectures on Faith that Mr. Jones quotes from tells us that an understanding of God’s nature is essential for salvation. The writer of the lectures then provides information that, as demonstrated above, focuses primarily on God’s characteristics. Reviewing the King Follet discourse, we find that Joseph Smith is reinforcing this point as he teaches more about the nature of God and His characteristics:

In the first place, I wish to go back to the beginning—to the morn of creation. There is the starting point for us to look to, in order to understand and be fully acquainted with the mind, purposes and decrees of the Great Elohim, who sits in yonder heavens as he did at the creation of this world. It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. (12)

Additionally, I wonder if Mr. Jones missed the language directly following the quote he uses from the King Follet sermon where the prophet tells us “These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God…(13). So Joseph is still telling us it is necessary to understand the nature of God, and his character. He is only expanding upon our understanding. Mr. Jones sees this as a flat out turn around. Others see it as additional light, knowledge and understanding while still viewing God as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

The fact that the fullness of Godhead encompasses these attributes and that Joseph Smith believed this close to the time of the King Follet Discourse is exhibited by D&C 132:20 which says, when speaking of the LDS belief in human deification, “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” (My emphasis). This revelation was recorded July 12, 1843, only 10 months prior to the King Follett discourse. The idea being taught in the passage from D&C 132 is that those children of our Heavenly Father that are deified will have attributes that are considered everlasting and eternal. This passage of LDS scripture is a strong example that Joseph Smith’s view of the unchanging nature of God was not a complete change and that “Joseph no longer believed and taught, as he did” in prior years as Mr. Jones insists. Rather, a different and additional perspective is being added.

That Joseph Smith viewed this teaching presented in 1844 as consistent with the passages in The Lectures on Faith and other similar passages in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price is further illustrated by the fact that these passages were left intact and still are. They were believed by Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saints in 1844 and are today. If Latter-day Saint Christians really did view this as a change than it would have been simple to change the passages that seem difficult. I am aware from personal correspondence with Mr. Jones that he believes there is a lack of integrity in other changes in LDS scripture. Why then were these other passages not changed to coincide with this supposed about face in the teachings of Joseph Smith? Since there was an 1844 addition of the Doctrine and Covenants published it seems that Joseph Smith would have had opportunity, prior to him being murdered, to change the canon to coincide with this supposed about face. That no such adjustment or changes were made strengthens the LDS position that the ideas presented in the King Follet discourse were not viewed as an major about face. That Mr. Jones finds it ironic that “many Latter-day Saints profess to believe both, that God has been God from all eternity, and that he was once a man who became a God” is frankly, his problem. Just because we may interpret passages of scripture with additional revelation, light and knowledge does not make a belief ironic. Because we do not interpret scripture with the same metaphysical Hellenistic universal view as Mr. Jones, does not make it the change Mr. Jones thinks is there. In making these claims Mr. Jones demonstrates his ignorance of a full scope of LDS doctrine and the belief that both God and man are eternal in nature. I would suggest he prayerfully study D&C 93 for further light and knowledge on this topic.

To summarize we can see that Joseph Smith held beliefs in 1835 that were expanded upon in 1844. The ideas he presented were not a complete change. That they added additional light and knowledge and a different perspective is not questioned. Robert Millet provides comments on the King Follet discourse and earlier LDS teachings that further strengthen this idea:

Finally, Joseph Smith's teachings about Deity in no way suggest that God is a finite being. Elohim is an exalted man, but he possesses in their fulness the attributes of Godhood. We have no indication whatever that Joseph changed his views on God's infinite nature between the time of the Lectures on Faith and the King Follett Sermon. In short, I find no evidence to suggest that Joseph the Prophet "outgrew" the lessons about God found in the Book of Mormon (for example, 2 Nephi. 9:20; Alma 26:35; Moroni. 7:22) or the Lectures on Faith (4:11-19), or that he in some way "progressed" beyond the notion that our Father in Heaven is, in fact, God Almighty. M. L. Davis, a Washington correspondent for the New York Enquirer offered this description of Joseph Smith in a letter to his wife dated 6 February 1840:

My dear Mary:--I went last evening to hear "Joe Smith." the celebrated Mormon, expound his doctrine. I, with several others, had a desire to understand his tenets as explained by himself. He is not an educated man; but he is a plain, sensible, strong minded man. Everything he says, is said in a manner to leave an impression that he is sincere. There is no levity, no fanaticism, no want of dignity in his deportment. . . .

He commenced by saying, that he knew the prejudices which were abroad in the world against him, but requested us to pay no respect to the rumors which were in circulation respecting him or his doctrines. He was accompanied by three or four of his followers. He said, "I will state to you our belief, so far as time will permit." "I believe," said he, "that there is a God, possessing all the attributes ascribed to Him by all Christians of all denominations; that He reigns over all things in heaven and on earth, and that all are subject to his power."

He then spoke rationally of the attributes of Divinity, such as foreknowledge, mercy &c. (Quoted in Ehat and Cook, eds., Words of Joseph Smith, 32)

James Burgess recorded a sermon of the Prophet delivered on 9 July 1843 in which Joseph explains how God can be both omnipresent and at the same time "a personage of tabernacle." "What part of God is omnipresent?" Joseph asked. He responded: "It is the Spirit of God which proceeds from him; consequently, God is in the four winds of heaven, and when man receives intelligence is it not by the Spirit of God?" (Quoted in Ehat and Cook, eds., Words of Joseph Smith, 230-31, spelling and punctuation corrected). One is able to better appreciate Joseph Smith's humility before the Almighty in a prayer offered on 23 August 1842:

O, thou who seeth and knoweth the hearts of all men; thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah, God; thou Elohim, that sitteth, as saith the Psalmist, enthroned in heaven; look down upon thy servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of thy Son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him, even the faith of Elijah; and let the lamp of eternal life be lit up in his heart, never to be taken away. And let the words of eternal life be poured upon the soul of thy servant, that he may know thy will, thy statutes, and thy commandments, and thy judgments to do them. (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 252-53,spelling and punctuation corrected).

In 1842, just two years before his death, the Prophet explained concerning the Great God: "The past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal now."(History of the Church 4:597). Simply because God has not always been God, it need not follow that he is not now a possessor of that fulness of light, truth, and glory that constitute him as infinite.

In the Lectures on Faith, God is described as being the perfect and infinite embodiment of every good attribute and virtue. For example, he is said to possess a fulness of knowledge, faith or power, justice, judgment, mercy, and truth. Indeed, the lectures explain that unless the Saint does know and acknowledge that God possesses these attributes in perfection he cannot exercise faith in him unto life and salvation (see Lectures on Faith, 4:1-19). But though God is absolute in the sense that he embodies and possesses the perfections of Deity, he is not absolute or transcendent in the classical creedal sense--in the sense that he is unapproachable, is "the wholly other," beyond the reach or comprehension of finite man. Rather, the God described in the Lectures on Faith, like the God spoken of a decade later in the King Follett Sermon, is one who can be known and understood, who can be approached and seen, even by mortal man. Lecture 2 declares:

Let us here observe that after any portion of the human family are made acquainted with the important fact that there is a God, who has created and does uphold all things, the extent of their knowledge respecting his character and glory will depend upon their diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him, until, like Enoch, the brother of Jared, and Moses, they shall obtain faith in God, and power with him to behold him face to face. (4:55)

Lecture 5 teaches that man can become a joint heir, a coinheritor with Christ to all that the Father has; further, he can, through the Spirit, become one with the Father and the Son, be "transformed into the same image or likeness" of "him who fills all in all." Thus, "as the Son partakes of the fullness of the Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be partakers of the same fullness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so, in like manner, the saints are to be one in them" (5:2-3). In short, the God of the Lectures on Faith is one who desires to glorify his children and make them even as he is. (14)

Finally I would like to make two additional points. Above Mr. Jones states “The new LDS God, starting in 1844, was once a mortal man, without the powers of Godhood, who became a god. Prior to 1844, God had been the independent creator of all things. Now, he was dependent on another, who came before him, to bring him into being and sustain him.” Aside from the fact that the language of a “new LDS God” is the worst example of a red herring, I found very little in the King Follet discourse to back up what Mr. Jones insists. No where could I find that God is not the independent creator of all things as far as we may interpret what all things may mean. No where in the discourse did I find the teaching that God was dependent on another who came before Him. Mr. Jones is applying his own interpretation and putting words into the mouth of Joseph Smith. However, there is much to indicate that Joseph viewed God the Father’s mortal experience much the same as Jesus Christ’s. For example in the very discourse under scrutiny we find:

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease for ever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said; As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do we believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. (Footnote: The argument here made by the Prophet is vey much strengthened by the following passage “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. John 5:29)

The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. (15)

These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same…(16) (Bolding and emphasis added)

This leads to the second point regarding the nature of Jesus Christ. Classical theists view the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as One God but separate persons or personalities. In general Latter-day Saints would agree. Where we differ is in the creedal declarations making the Father, Son and Holy Ghost of the same substance. An evangelical Christian believes that the Father is a spirit. They may also believe that Christ was a spirit prior to his mortal existence. I ask then how does the classical theist reconcile Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and forever" with the pre-mortal, mortal and post mortal experience of Jesus Christ? If Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, and Jesus existed with the Father prior to his mortal life (John 1:1), entered mortality and took upon himself the form of a man (Philippians 2:6-8), grew and learned (Luke 2:40, Hebrews 2:10, 5:8), was resurrected with a glorified immortal body (Luke 24:36-39, Acts 1:3, 1 Corinthians 15), ascended into heaven with that glorified body (Acts 1:9-11), is in heaven with that body (Acts 7:55-56), and will return with that body (Acts 1:11, 1 John 3:2), then how do classical theists, such as Mr. Jones reconcile Hebrews 13:8 to these definite "changes" in the bodily nature of Jesus and God?

One way they explain it is that Jesus has two distinct natures, one human (including a human body and spirit) and one divine (which is the Divine Substance). Jesus' human nature grew and was exalted, whereas the Divine Nature has always been changeless. However, even this seems to fall short of a pure unchanging God and cannot really be coordinated with the monotheistic statements of the Old Testament. The big question is actually how a static "Substance" could have any meaningful relationship to a changing human nature. So by providing a reconciliation with Hebrews 13:8 Mr. Jones must place the same restrictions on himself and other classical theists that are placed on Joseph Smith and the supposed changes he made. It seems if Christ was one of the three personalities of God that existed as a spirit and was of the same substance as God prior to his earthly ministry, and he now exists as a resurrected glorified Man, or “theophoros”, the forever God Man, (Hank Hannegraaff, President of CRI and host of the daily radio call in show The Bible Answer Man often uses the term “theophoros”, the forever God-Man, when emphasizing the point that Jesus is in heaven with his resurrected glorified body forever) that there was a substantial change in God's nature. Additionally, Jesus Christ now has additional experiences and perspectives that God the Father has not had. Perhaps the writers of the New Testament “changed” the Hebrew view of God a tad bit. Or, perhaps they added an additional perspective to our understanding about God similar to Joseph Smith in the King Follet discourse. As Wade Englund writes:

...doesn't the very subject matter of the King Follet Discourse (the eternal and immortal nature of man, eternal life is in knowing the Father and the Son, the righteous will live in eternal burnings, God is a self-existent being, the spirit of man is co-eternal with God--having no beginning and no end, they are one eternal round) serve more to give new meaning and understanding to, rather than contradict, the pre-1844 revelations regarding the "eternal" and "everlasting" God? (17)

The answer to Wade Englund’s question is no doubt a resounding yes!

Jones:

On seeing this for the first time, it’s understandable that most LDS would

want to question this information, so let’s answer some of the more frequent

questions:

Mr. Jones now moves on to the substance of his paper. Because he repeats some of his arguments in expanding his position I too may repeat some of the points I have made above and if necessary add to my arguments.

Mr. Jones suggests that most Latter-day Saints would want to question his sketchy and forced introduction. I agree. However, his suggestion that this is news to Latter-day Saint Christians may be not be correct. In fact the forced questions he is about to present suggest that Latter-day Saints are, at least in general, acquainted with the Lectures on Faith. If not then why would he assume these questions would be asked? Almost all are familiar with parts of the King Follet Discourse. In other words the information Jones presents is not first time news to most Latter-day Saints. Additionally the use of questions in this format to structure his criticism forces a one sided debate. Mr. Jones sets up the question and then