Month: June 2008

Tonight, I don’t plan to critique Mormon theology so much as I plan to emphasize true Christian theology. This comes after being in an online discussion with a Mormon who is making fundamental mistakes in understanding the Trinity. I’ve had the missionaries over at our apartment discussing the Trinity and I find it amazing the mistakes that are made.

I’m not asking everyone to immediately convert to Trinitarianism if they’re a Mormon. Naturally, I’d have no complaints if you did. That is my ultimate goal. However, I realize the Trinity is a complex subject. My first goal then is not to have you accept orthodox Trinitarianism but to at least help bring some understanding to what is really meant when Christians use the word “Trinity.”

The first mistake often made in the understanding of the Trinity is what I call the assumption of unipersonalism. Truthfully, this came from a friend a long time ago and I have stuck with it so kudos to him. This is the mistaken assumption that whenever one sees the mention of God in text, they will automatically assume God must be one person.

Thus, whenever they see God communicating with Jesus then it’s time to jump up and down. “See? There you have it!” Um. No. It’s in fact what we would expect in the Trinity. I have no problem with Jesus referring to his Father as God. Why would I? Does Jesus deny the deity of the Father? Was Jesus secretly an atheist as he lived on Earth?

If we see a passage like John 20:17, it does not affect us. It is what we expect to happen instead. The problem is so many Arians will come to us and think that we are crippled. No. Your straw man version of the Trinity is crippled. Fortunately, it’s not the Trinity I hold to. When you’re ready to approach the Trinity I believe in, come back and we’ll talk.

The second major problem is in saying separate and distinct. You can say separate if you want. I would prefer distinct instead. Separate implies physicality. (For Mormons out there, remember that we do not believe that God is physical in his essence including the Father. While the Son dwells in a body today, it is an aspect of his humanity and not his deity and is not essential to his deity.)

To say both is simply redundant and does imply physicality. Note that we insist that they are distinct persons. There are some Mormons, like the one I’m in a debate with right now, that think that as soon as they show the Father and the Son are not the same person, that they have refuted Trinitarianism. In fact, they have helped establish it. (Meanwhile, check Mosiah 15 in the BOM and see how the heading says Christ is both the Father and the Son.)

The final mistake I wish to address is the idea that the persons of the Trinity are individuals. There is a fine distinction here in that an individual would mean one that exists independently of the others. That is not the case in Trinitarianism. The Son is eternally begotten from the Father and being a good Protestant, I see the Holy Spirit as proceeding from them both.

The way we arrive at Trinitarianism is simple also. We look at the whole of Scripture and notice it teaches a number of things.

There is one God.

The Father is God, The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

The Father is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Father or Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or Son.

Please note also what is going on when we say “X is God.” We do not mean, for instance, that Jesus is the Trinity. We simply mean that Jesus fully partakes of the divine essence. It is simply theological shorthand to say “Jesus is God.” This also gets into Greg Stafford’s argument against the Trinity.  Stafford is the author of such works as “Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended.” He has a syllogism as follows:

God is a Trinity.

Jesus is God.

Jesus is a Trinity.

It’s a fallacy of equivocation on God. In the first premise, God refers to a being. In the second, God refers to a nature. In a valid syllogism, all the words must maintain the same meaning. Granted, refuting that argument does not prove Trinitarianism true. In fact, it’s not my goal here to prove that it is. It’s simply my goal to state what it teaches.

The Trinity is also what sets Christianity apart from every other system. You won’t find anything else like it anywhere else. If there is no Trinity, there is no Christianity. For this writer, the Trinity is not only a strong reason for believing in Christianity, but the concept itself is one of the strongest reasons for believing in the existence of God himself, but that is another post.

Again, I have not sought to prove Trinitarianism to be true. There are a number of Scriptures I could go to to argue for it and that is another blog. I have not sought to prove the Mormon conception false. That has been done in other blogs and could be done again. I have simply wanted to clear the air so that all may know what is really at stake and what is really being taught. If you wish to argue against a view, do try to understand it first after all.

In the 18th chapter of the book of Acts, we read that Paul had some friends who were Asiarchs. Asiarchs?! What are those? The skeptics cried out for years!

Well, now we’ve found three other references to Asiarchs.

The same was said for Tetrarchs.

We’ve found other references to Tetrarchs.

Luke, the writer of Acts, the gospel of Luke has been seen as astutely accurate. Of course, not every problem in biblical archaeology is dealt with, but Luke is shown to be accurate with languages, coinage, geographical references, titles, and even the depth of seawater. It is quite fair to give Luke the benefit of the doubt if we think him incorrect.

The OT has several references to Hittites. For the longest time, it was believed that the Bible was in error on this point. There are no Hittites!

Well, we then found the Hittite library.

Archaeology has helped explain other aspects of Scripture. Why did Belshazzar in Daniel 5 offer Daniel the third highest position in his kingdom? Simple! He was a co-regent under Nabodinus. The third was the highest he had to offer!

It has even been said that whenever an archaeologist’s spade hits the ground in the Middle East, a liberal is converted. You can go to the Middle East today and see the biblical world and take home a piece of history. (And it’s one of my dreams to do so one day.)

What about the BOM?

There has not been a finding of a BOM city, person, artifact, inscription, Scripture, etc. The BOM speaks of the reading of the Scriptures and surely there would be some over here then, but so far, we have yet to find one. The people that lived on this continent, such as the Mayans, mention nothing about the millions of people that supposedly lived in their own backyard.

The Hill Cumorah was supposed to be a place where there was a battle to end all battles between the Lamanites and Nephites. The Lamanites were the winners. In all of this battle at Cumorah though, we have yet to find one single sign of such a battle. To make it more interesting, the Mormons do own the rights to that hill and digging could be commenced at any point to excavate the site. For some reason though, it hasn’t been.

Why could that be?

After all, if the BOM is true and this can show it, then would it not be best to go on and dig and demonstrate it to the world?

On the other hand, if the BOM isn’t true, isn’t it a service to every Mormon in the world to go and reveal that this is the case?

The truth is that there is no way whole cities and civilizations could exist over here with no remains left behind at all. There would be coins. There would be houses. There would be writings. There would be weapons. We’ve even found fecal matter that has been determined to be thousands of years old! Surely we would find something.

Instead, we’ve found nothing.

Could it be because we’ve found nothing because there’s nothing to find?

Maybe….

The account of Joseph Smith’s vision of God the Father and God the Son is foundational to Mormonism. If it didn’t happen, as former president Gordon Hinckley has said, then the work of Mormonism is a fraud. If it did happen, then it is the greatest event of all. I partially agree. (I think the greatest event of all would be the resurrection of Christ.) If the vision did happen, then I want to know about it. If it didn’t though, then that should be just as much known.

Last night, I thought about this as I was going through a pamphlet our missionaries left behind called “The Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith.” I read through it and I noticed something interesting about the historical account of what happened. Let’s consider how it went.

1820:First vision

September 21st, 1823-Appearance of Moroni.

January 18th, 1827-Joseph Smith marries Emma Hale

April 5th, 1829-Oliver Cowdery arrives.

April 7th, 1829-Book of Mormon translation commences.

May 15th, 1829-Smith and Cowdery receive Aaronic Priesthood from John the Baptist.

There is something strange about this account.

There is no date given to what would be the most important event of all! Surely if any day was to be remembered, it would be the day one saw God. We don’t even have a month! We’re told it’s in the Spring of 1820. That’s it. Why is the date not recorded? (Considering there are nine different versions of the account, that could have something to do with it.)

In speaking of those differences, Jeff Lindsay has tried to compare them to the differences in Paul’s accounts of seeing the risen Christ. The only question often asked though is what happened to the companions. What is most likely understood is that they heard a sound but they did not understand what it was that they were hearing.

However, the other problem is that the account could not have happened by biblical standards. In Exodus 33:20, we read what God says to Moses when Moses asks to see his glory.

But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

And yet, is there any doubt that Joseph Smith saw just that? How can this be?

Now someone might think this is just the Bible. Not so! The Doctrines and Covenants say what is required to see the face of God in Chapter 84.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

I was thinking of Mormonism and Polytheism as a title, but let’s face it folks. Two m’s makes a much cooler mnemonic device! Anyway, that’s our topic today. One thing that is quite apparent in Mormonism is the belief that there are many gods. Oddly enough, this is said to be true according to the Bible. Often, this is based on a hideous understanding of the Trinity. What does the Bible say though about monotheism?

The first place to begin is in Genesis 1:1. We are told that in the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. God alone. No one else. In other tales, we will hear of gods involved in creation. The Genesis account starts off with one God in a clearly monotheistic sense. The usage of “our” in verses like Genesis 1:26-27 fits in with a Trinitarian context which is also monotheistic.

When we get to Deuteronomy 6:4, we are told that the Lord God is one. The word “one” is echad and again, fits in with a Trinitarian concept. However, this is more a statement of monotheism than anything else. Please keep in mind also that monotheism is belief that there is only one God. it is not believing in many gods but acknowledging one. That is called henotheism. If you believe there is more than one god, you are in some sense a polytheist.

When we get to Isaiah especially, we see a strong charge of monotheism as God issues his charge against the idols of the day. Observe Isaiah 43:10

“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.

This in Mormon thought would be Jesus talking since Jesus is Jehovah in their system. But isn’t it true in Mormonism that his Father became a god and then Jesus became one seeing as he had to attain his godhood also? That would mean that God the Father was a god formed before Jesus. It would also mean that all good Mormons who become gods are gods formed after him.

The passage is stating monotheism for all eternity. Before YHWH, there were no other gods and after him, there are going to be no new gods. Of course, this is simply a blanket statement as before YHWH is a way of saying that he is the only one. There was no time when YHWH was not.

Now some have said that this is talking about idols. This makes no sense though. We would all know idols were formed after YHWH. YHWH is certainly no idiot in the Scriptures either. He would know that the people were making idols. The problem was what the idols represented. They were to represent other gods. YHWH says the idols are in vain because there are no other gods to be represented.

To be sure we get the message, we have Isaiah 44:6

“This is what the LORD says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

And Isaiah 44:8

Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

When we get to the NT, things aren’t much different. In 1 Cor. 8, we read the following:

4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Note what he says. There is no God but one in verse 4. In verse 5, he says there are many things that are so-called gods and lords. They are called that, but there is no reality to the charge. In verse 6, he says though that for us, there is but one God and one Lord. (This is a Christianized version of the Shema. See Richard Bauckham’s “God Crucified.”) So what does it mean if you say there is more than one God and Lord?

It means you’re not in Paul’s “us” and that “us” is in reference to Christians.

James is an epistle written to Jewish Christians. These are Christians who have a strong background obviously in Judaism and what does he say in James 2:19?

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

In other words, he’s pointing to the Shema and saying that it is good that they believe that, but they need to act accordingly. At least the demons shudder! Let’s not skip over what he says though. Belief in one God is true. If James had believed there was more than one god, this would be a good time to correct it.

However, there is another text that is relevant to the discussion. What does the Book of Mormon say? In Alma 11, Alma is in debate with Zeezrom about God.

26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?

When the Mormon missionaries last visited us, I had some time with one of them alone and we managed to discuss the cross. I talked about how I was at their church and I did not see a cross anywhere. This struck me as quite interesting so I chose to discuss it, knowing quite well what I would hear, and indeed, that is what I heard.

I was told that for the Mormons, they do not choose to focus on the cross. That was the low point as it was. They choose to celebrate the empty tomb. To a degree, many of us can sympathize with this. Certainly, Christianity is not Christianity if there is no empty tomb and certainly, that tomb being empty is something to celebrate. Yet at the same time, we in Christianity celebrate what we call “Good Friday”, the day Jesus died on the cross.

This was also forefront in the mind of the apostles. A brief search through an online concordance brought up numerous verses with the word “Crucified.” Here are some:

Romans 6:6

For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—

Note that Paul identifies our transformation with crucifixion.

1 Cor. 1:13

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

And with the Corinthian church, he identifies it as a main event. He didn’t say resurrected but crucified. For Paul, the cross is where atonement was made. (Contrast to the Mormon saying it was also made in the garden.)

And what did Paul preach? 1 Cor. 1:23

but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

What did he desire to know? 1 Cor. 2:2

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

In talking about righteousness and how it comes in Galatians 3:1, Paul says this:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

And note also a search for the word “Cross”

1 Cor. 1:17-18

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Notice the message that Paul says he brings. It’s the message of the cross.

Galatians 6:14

May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Ephesians 2:16

and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

Notice that the cross is where Paul says reconciliation took place.

Philippians 3:18

For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ.

Notice that opposing the ministry of Jesus is seen as opposing the cross. It is equated with the message of the gospel.

Colossians 1:20

and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Again, notice that the peace, or atonement, is made through blood shed on the cross, not blood in the garden.

Colossians 2:

14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Notice that the law against us was put to death on the cross and the powers of darkness that were at work were triumphed over at the cross.

Now make no mistake, the empty tomb is essential, but the cross was important. Why?

Philippians 2 tells us that Christ was obedient to death on a cross. Note how Hebrews 12:2 also says he endured the cross scorning its shame.

Those are two clues. They tell us the cross was shameful. Deuteronomy 21:23 tells us that anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse, and this was seen as crucifixion later on to Israel. There were numerous Messiah claimants in Israel at the time of Christ. They all had one thing in common though. When they died, their movements died with them.

That would especially be if they were crucified. Why? Who wants to follow someone under a curse of God?

Yet for Christ, that didn’t end it. It led to the beginning. No cross. No empty tomb.

What does the resurrection mean to the cross?

It means that God accepted the sacrifice of Christ. It means that he vindicated his claims as well. It means that he was not a blasphemer when he claimed to be God. He was speaking the truth. It means that we do have forgiveness. Paul makes this clear in his writings in such places as 1 Cor. 15. The empty tomb is as important to him as the cross, but the cross is important.

Could it be that there really is a lack of atonement in the doctrine of Mormonism and that’s why the cross isn’t there? Let’s be sure on this friends. If the Scripture highlights the cross as a point of victory and Mormonism doesn’t want to show it, there’s something telling going on. The cross is where we receive our atonement. It is where we were reconciled to God.

Is the cross a symbol of shame today? Nope. It is the way God reverses things. Today, it is a symbol of victory. God takes what is a thing of shame and makes it a thing of honor.

If the Mormons don’t want a cross in their church, it will be their problem. I’m pleased to see a cross in any church and even wear one around my neck to remind me of the great truth it conveys.

Today, I was visiting a friend’s church who I went out of state to visit. The lesson today was on the Holy Spirit in Sunday School. I always get concerned when this topic comes up because people have so many misconceptions about the Holy Spirit and they come from an experiential basis. When we were told the Holy Spirit prompts us what to say and what things to do I wanted to raise my hand and say “Excuse me! Scripture for that?” I was a visitor though and being nice, but I did get to talk to the teacher some afterwards.

He had talked about how when you do something right, the Holy Spirit gives you a good feeling, and when you do something wrong, the Holy Spirit gives you a bad feeling. I think if this was really the case though, we’d all do good a whole lot more than we do and we’d all do evil a whole lot less. There are times we do good and feel miserable and times we do bad and feel great about it.

But when my time came to talk to him about that point in the last paragraph, I asked him if he thought the Book of Mormon was true. He told me he hadn’t read it so he didn’t know. A fair enough answer. However, I pointed out that in the end, they tell you to pray about it and if you get that burning in the bosom, well that’s the Holy Spirit telling you it’s true.

Never mind that Scripture never says anything like that. Never mind that Scripture says to ignore the signs and wonders and look to the message of truth for even a false prophet can have signs and wonders. Never mind that feelings are a terrible basis for believing something about the world external to you. If it feels good, it’s true!

I don’t think we can deny that something happens in the Mormon experience and it’s something powerful. However, that does not mean that it is something of God. We are told to test the spirits in Scripture. The test is not “Does it make me feel good?” or “Does it make my bosom burn?” The test is whether it agrees with what has already been revealed.

Many of us have all had times when we “felt” something for sure about the external world. How many of us have turned in a paper and felt for sure we would fail it only to realize we didn’t? How many of us have gone to the doctor feeling like we’ll be told we have Bubonic Plague only to be told we have a disease that’s easily treatable? How many of us have felt we’d get fired for a screw-up only to realize if anything, we received a mild reprimand?

When it comes to truth, we have to have more than feelings. When I doubt my faith, I don’t look to a feeling. I had good feelings when I converted. I don’t look to those at all. I look to the coherence of the Christian worldview. I look at the evidence of the veracity of Scriptures. I look to the reasons why I believe that God exists and Jesus is his only begotten Son and why I think he rose from the dead.

Yes. That is the foundation.

We can’t look at our worldview and say “Well, there’s no evidence for it and the worldview has necessary contradictions at its core, but I have a good feeling about it.” It has to be more than that! That’s what I see going on in Mormonism though. There is no evidence for the BOM and all evidence against it. There are necessary contradictions at the heart such as the doctrine of eternal progression. What will it be? The external world, or a feeling? Feelings are quite capable of lying to us. Facts are not. We can misinterpret them of course, but they are blunt, “in your face” realities.

Sadly, this is where Evangelicalism is going today with our emphasis on experience. I was describing to a professor here how we went to the Mormon church and simply heard an account of an experience in a testimony. He said “Not much different from many evangelical churches.” I sadly had been thinking the same thing myself and agreed.

If we base truth entirely on our experiences, then we are prone to be easily duped by any feeling that comes along. Experience is important. I don’t deny that. Experience is rooted in reality though. For a Christian, the Scriptures interpret the experience. The experience does not interpret the Scriptures. It’s time we put things in the right order.

We’ve been talking lately about Mormonism. I have also mentioned the missionaries visiting our house. The last time we had them over, one of our missionaries asked a great question. “What about all the denominations?” We have to remember that Joseph Smith’s start allegedly was that he wasn’t sure which denomination was right and was told by God the Father that he was to choose none of them for they were all an abomination to him.

This isn’t a question just Mormons ask though. This is a question raised by Catholic apologists and raised by skeptics against the Christian faith and by Christians themselves. What is to be the answer to this? Is Christianity really so divided that we have to have thousands of denominations. (From what I hear, the most common number is 30,000+.

To begin with, the number is just false. If you have two independent Baptist churches on each side of the street, each one of them is considered a denomination. In fact, even within Catholicism, there are a number of denominations. I’ve asked people to give me a list right off without looking online or using other sources, just going on memory, of twenty denominations. It takes a long time for most people to name just twenty. (Seems odd considering there are supposed to be over 30,000.

But what about Mormonism? Actually, Mormonism has its own number of sects as well. Smith’s wife formed the Reformed Latter-Day Saints when Joseph Smith died. It was led by the prophet’s grandson Joseph Smith Jr. who was known as Little Joe. This is just one sect of the Mormon movement. There are many others, for instance, the Fundamental Latter-Day Saints.

Furthermore, how is it an answer to all the denominations to just create one more denomination that is claiming that it has the truth? It just makes things tougher. In fact, to add whole new Scripture presents an extra obstacle as we have a hard time understanding the Scripture we have at times, and yet it’s supposed to be easier with another one?

Let’s not forget the main important detail. I am a Baptist at heart. I can preach happily in a Baptist church. I can do the same though in a Restoration movement (The teaching of Alexander Campbell) church, a Methodist church, a Lutheran church, a Presbyterian church, etc. Why? It is because we unite on what is the essential truth.

Christian is not a meaningless word. It has deep content to it. It refers to one who believes in the full deity of Christ and his full humanity. They believe in the Trinity. They believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. They believe in salvation by grace through faith. You could not, for instance, say you were a Muslim and you did not believe Muhammad was a prophet. There are some essential things to believe to be a Muslim just as there are a Christian.

Those essential things are the things that unite us and the things we need to focus on. I’m not saying secondary issues are unimportant. I have opinions on the age of the Earth, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, eschatology, views of the church, etc. However, I make it a point to unite on what is most important. It’s one reason Deeper Waters does not comment much on secondary issues.

Thus, I understand the importance, but the Mormons are missing what is going on. We are far more united than we are divided and we all unite on the essential truths. This is one reason we don’t unite with the Mormons also. They disagree with us on those essential truths. It means something specifically to be a Christian, and Mormonism doesn’t fit into the picture.

I’ve been writing on Mormonism and mentioning that my roommate and I do have Mormon missionaries visiting us. Today, one of the topics we talked about was the idea of eternal progression. For those who don’t know, the idea is that God was once a man like we ourselves are now and that he progressed until he reached Godhood. In his famous King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith said the following:

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. [endquote]

Note this. This is the first principle. This is what surprised me when the Mormons I were talking to today said that this was deep. One of them said he’d only been in the church for three years. I had to say though that this is a first principle. Please keep in mind what Smith himself says in the discourse:

It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. [endquote]

It is NECESSARY! It’s not that it’s a nice thing. It’s not that it will give us a deeper walk. It’s necessary. Shouldn’t this be something the whole church is familiar with? However, it seems this doctrine is being shied away from. Former President Gordon Hinckley was asked about this in the August 4th, 1997 issue of TIME magazine and said this:

‘I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it,’” [endquote]

Honestly, when I hear the president of the church saying “I don’t know if we teach that,” then it makes me wonder “If the president doesn’t know this, who would? If anyone ought to know what a church is teaching, it ought to be the president of the church!” Could it be that Mormonism is trying to shy away from this doctrine in order to appear more Christian?

How can the doctrine be true is the main question I have though. There are so many problems with this. The biggest one is the impossibility of transversing an infinite. However, God is described in the BOM as one who does not progress to Godhood but is unchangeable. See what Moroni 8:18 says:

For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. [endquote]

Note also from all eternity to all eternity. How could such be the case and yet a moment of time came when the unchangeable changed into being the unchangeable? If he did such, then he is not unchangeable and it is certainly not from all eternity to all eternity. Could it possibly be the case that this doctrine is a doctrine Smith came up with later on after writing the Book of Mormon?

There is also the problem that the finite simply cannot be come infinite. It would mean that there was some amount added to the finite that made it become infinite. But how can you add something and get infinity? There is no point where you have one more and then you have infinity. Infinity is a totally different concept from that.

Why bring this up? Because a worldview to be true has to be philosophically tenable and that is a problem I have with the BOM worldview. Mormonism is not a worldview that is logically consistent. It is most especially seen in this doctrine of eternal progression. If it contains an essential contradiction at heart, then the worldview must be false.

Remember also that this is a first principle. Smith pointed out that we must start out right. Thus, if the first principle is right, what does that say about the whole thing? The answer is clear to me, and I hope to an honest seeker, they will be willing to look at this and see if maybe Mormonism really is a false worldview and it’s time to give a second look at orthodox Christianity.

In chapter 13 of 1 Nephi in the BOM, Nephi is having a conversation with an angel. The following verses come from that chapter:

23 And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.

I’ve been blogging lately on Mormons and with my speaking soon at my church on Mormonism, it could be going on for a couple of weeks. If there is one tactic you can be sure you will be the recipient of when a Mormon knocks on your door, it is the testimony. In this, you will be told by the Mormon that the Holy Spirit has confirmed to him the truth of the Book of Mormon. (BOM)

This is a convincing tactic to many in our day and age. We are caught up entirely in experience and feeling the Holy Spirit. (I remember being at a church once and hearing someone in a band performing say the best thing about it was that you could really feel the Spirit there. Pray tell what this means? Why not that the pastor is expounding on truth or the church has people growing to be like Christ? Instead, the best thing is a subjective experience that we’re not sure what it is even?)

So what is going on? Is there any reason to reject this experience, this burning in the bosom?

YES!

For one thing, we have yet to see hard evidence for the veracity of anything in the BOM. I know there are claims, but these claims aren’t taken seriously for good reason. We have enough evidence of the contrary in fact, such as Joseph Smith claiming to get the book of Abraham out of an Egyptian document when we know today it was actually the Book of the Dead. But hey, what do Egyptologists know?

However, if the BOM is true, then we should expect some evidence. We should expect copies of the OT to be found over here. We should expect to find ruins of temples that the Nephites built over here. We should expect to find remains from the battles that were supposedly fought. Instead, we have come up with nothing at all.

Whereas the Bible has a totally different story. That’s another blog though.

Thus, I don’t see the Holy Spirit saying one thing and what I can see with my eyes saying another. Readers know my thoughts on these subjective experiences anyway. If you want to use one, fine, but make sure you have external facts to back it up also.

Also, the only pieces of data that seem to count are those in favor of the BOM. We have to do double-blind tests now for new drugs because doctors used to get so excited when giving a new drug to a patient thinking it’d cure them that the placebo effect would kick in. It wasn’t a valid test. Now, the doctors don’t know even which drug is the placebo and which isn’t.

The point is that how do we not know that the accounts of people having a burning in the bosom are not simply emotional excitement worked up? We only know by comparing it with people who pray the prayer in the book of Moroni in the BOM and get a negative answer. We could look at each case and see why the results turned out differently.

However, imagine doing a placebo test and saying you were only going to accept the results that agreed with what you were trying to prove? It would hardly be a valid test. Someone who is open will want to know why things did not work out as they were intended to do in certain cases. Unfortunately, the BOM doesn’t give much leeway.

Also, why should it only be Mormon experiences? Why not the New Age experience? Why not the Jehovah’s Witness experience? Why not your experience or mine? The only reason to have the BOM experience be at the forefront is arbitrary. Again, we need to go to something outside of the experiences in order to determine who has an experience rooted in truth.

Finally, the experience can’t be the final arbitor because experience is not self-interpreting. You need something outside the experience to interpret it. What I’ve asked Mormons lately is what it would mean if Jesus did not rise from the dead. It’s amazing how long it takes them to come up and say “I guess my faith would be shaken.” Paul had no hesitation in 1 Cor. 15. He said he knew his faith was in vain, that he was to be pitied above all men, and that he was still in his sins.

Consider this though for the Mormon. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the experience must be interpreted another way. This means that something outside of the experience is indeed interpreting the experience. Whatever is outside of it then must be a higher authority than the experience themselves. That would be the facts. What we can find about the BOM outside of experience, and what Scripture tells us as well.

Unfortunately, you can expect this technique to show up often and it’s the foundation. Whenever you hear a Mormon speak, you will most often hear the testimony. Be prepared. Giving your own can be helpful and I’m not against it in this case. It would be best for you to stick with Scripture though to determine what is true. If Mormonism doesn’t match up, and it doesn’t, at the end of the day, their experience can’t overrule that.