1. I do agree that God can do whatever He chooses, yet at the same time I also recognize that He certainly does not speak from Heaven audibly as a “normal” form of communication, but instead He has chosen to use the mediating voices of His prophets and apostles. Furthermore, when Christ came, He was the culmination of the promises of God, and the perfect revelation of His nature. This is why Hebrews 1:1 says, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” It would seem from this text that God’s revelation of Himself has been completed in the work of Christ, which was given to us by those who were eyewitnesses to His ministry and His resurrection. Any further Revelation would be unnecessary, as Christ has provided for us not only a guide for how to live (through His ministry of preaching, and the words of His apostles) and He has even given us a picture of how He would bring all things together in Himself in the coming judgment (found explained fully in the Revelation given to John, the beloved apostle). On a question like this, the burden of proof is not on the person who says that revelation has concluded with the close of the apostolic era, but rather it is on the person who would contend that it has continued outside of any verifiable prophetic calling. The Old Testament prophets had the accompanying signs and fulfillments of their prophecies which gave credibility to their words. The apostles had the calling of Christ to confirm their ministry. Since God spoke by the prophets before Christ, and revealed Himself finally in Christ through the preaching of the apostles, I see no further need of additional revelation.
2. I say a “different Christ” because I do believe that, while I am certain that you are well-meaning in your pursuit, that the picture of Christ’s person and work in Mormonism is contrary to that which is demonstrated in Scripture. I will use an example to make my point: I am sure there is another Keith Foskey in the world somewhere. I am equally sure that if we were together in a department store, and someone called “Keith Foskey” over the loudspeaker, that we both might assume the call was for us. Yet, the person calling on Keith Foskey knows the character, nature and personality of the Keith Foskey he is intending to reach, and only one of us is the one. Now, that may seem simplistic, but allow me to elaborate. When a Mormon calls Jesus a “created being” and a Christian calls Jesus the “Eternal Creator of all things” then this is two different people with the name Jesus. When the Mormon describes Jesus as the “Spirit child” of Elohim, and a Christian says that Jesus is “The eternally begotten Son”, then this is a different Jesus. I am not engaging in theological hairsplitting. Christians believe in the Trinity, that God is one in His Being, and Three in Person; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These three are coequal, coeternal, and distinct yet inseparable. The ancient creeds of the Church, which are formed upon the bedrock of Scripture, remind us of what Christians have long held as orthodoxy concerning the person of Christ. Mormonism denies the creeds, and substitutes an entirely different Christology - and as such, a different Jesus. Furthermore, here is a quote from one of your own LDS leaders who himself said that Mormons believe in a different Jesus: “In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).
3. I will not argue that you can certainly claim for yourself witnesses; yet you must realize that the list you have provided is quite different from what I meant by witnesses. By claiming “Peter, James, John, John the Baptist, Moses, Elias, and even the Lord Jesus Christ” as witnesses to Mormonism, you are claiming witnesses who are witnesses from beyond the grave, as none of these were alive in the flesh during the life of Joseph Smith. When I referenced those who had witnessed Christ’s resurrection, I meant of course the living, breathing testimony of the early church who saw with living eyes the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now, I recognize that Christ Himself called God the Father as His witness when He was on the earth, but His miraculous works were verifying the work of the Father within Him. Lastly, I mentioned that Joseph Smith had claimed to have prophetic visions, but that these were unaccompanied by any validation. I will here go further to say that Smith destroyed his own credibility as a prophetic when he made the following prophecy: “I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted” (History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 394; May 1843). The Bible is clear that a prophet who utters words of prophecy which go unfulfilled does not speak for God. "But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. 21And you may say in your heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken? 22When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him," (Deut. 18:20-22, NASB)
4. I will simply say that such a belief fails to recognize the belief in the Trinity (as described above) and thus denies the orthodox understanding of Christ. Christ, though in His incarnation became “heir” and thus we are His “co-heirs” did not become deity. He already was deity, being both with God and God Himself (as taught in John 1:1, and understood properly only in keeping with the doctrine of the Trinity) and as such, He is not the “spirit-brother” of Lucifer.
5. The father / son relationship is not something that came about in the incarnation. Christians orthodoxy has always affirmed what is called “eternal sonship” that Christ is eternally begotten, but not made. The Athanasian Creed helps clarify this teaching. “The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.  The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.  The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.” As such, Christ can call God His father from all eternity, and not simply because of any supposed marriage between Elohim and Mary. (Note: I would also agree that intercourse is not a sin, and if this was the way God chose that He would have been righteous to do so, but the Bible describes the Holy Spirit as the active agent in bringing about the pregnancy of the virgin Mary.)
6. I understand your desire to protect Joseph Smith from his own words, and to claim that the majority of his teaching is in keeping with a humble nature. Yet, I would be remiss to not say that I believe you are skipping the obvious at this point. Joseph Smith claims to have established “The Church” in the world, and that all other churches and creeds are an abomination (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 5-6). As such, to someone outside of Mormonism like myself, these words do not resound with humility, but with contempt. Now, if he was correct, he had every right to claim those things. Yet, I remain unconvinced in his righteousness, and I then would see his entire ministry as an attack against genuine Christianity.
QUESTIONS:
1. I believe the Bible for many reasons, not the least of which is the testimony of the early church who gave their lives for the testimony of their faith in the resurrected Christ (stories of which abound in the writings of early church history; far more than just the 12 apostles). Furthermore, I also believe that the Bible has an internal and external testimony which transcends any other written work in history. It was written over a period of 1500 years, by 40 different authors, in three languages, yet it remains consistent in itself and its message. Throughout the pages of the Old Testament, God provided prophetic utterances, all of which came to life in history, some even as specific as the naming of a king prior to his birth (Isaiah 45:1). Along with this we have the many prophecies concerning Jesus, all of which were fulfilled (His being born of a virgin, His place of birth, His being crucified, etc.). Likewise, the New Testament demonstrates prophetic utterances as Christ Himself said that the Temple in Jerusalem would fall within a generation, and it was destroyed in AD70 (40 years is a generation, and Jesus would have been crucified around AD30) under the Roman leader Titus, never to be rebuilt. Externally, many archaeological finds have continued to support the Bible’s teachings about the places and people of Scripture, which simply adds more evidence to a book which already has such a tenacious testimony. |
Older
Top
