Deeper Waters

Reader’s note: This is the one I wrote tonight after finding the last one didn’t publish for some reason.

Oddly enough, something went wrong last night and the blog I wrote didn’t get published. I only got that impression this morning when I got up and saw that no one had looked at last night’s blog. I’m thankful though for all the readers that kept coming. If you ever don’t see a new blog in the morning, let me know and I’ll see what I can do.

Today, I’d like to discuss what love is. This won’t be anything exhaustive. What I want to do is give a good and basic look and clear away the big false ideas we have about love in our society today. I highly recommend anyone getting a copy of C.S. Lewis’s “The Four Loves” and see his remarkable thoughts on this. (I also recommend especially the audio, the one book we have a recording of Lewis himself reading.)

Lewis speaks of four loves which the Greeks knew of. We, today, unfortunately have one word. I can say that I love apologetics, I love a lady, I love my friends, I love my family, and I love God, and the same word is used for each. We all know that each of those has a different kind of love to it and it has a different degree of love.

Storge was the kind that referred to simple affection. This is the kind of love you even expect from the stranger on the street. You expect to be treated this way by virtue of being a human being. Phileo refers to the love of friendship and as one who now lives with a roommate, I find out more and more the great joy that is this kind of love. Eros refers to sexual love and, yes, as a single guy this is a kind of love that is on my mind often. Agape referred to divine love and the Christians quickly took this in in order to describe the love of God.

Let’s notice something love is not described as though, even in the great love chapter of 1 Corinthians 13. Love is not described as an emotion. Now someone might immediately object that I have a cold view of love. Not at all. I have a deep view of it. I do not deny that love is capable of producing emotions. (And considering the opposite sex, INDEED IT CAN!) However, love itself is not the emotion. We could say we are experiencing feelings of love, in a sense, to be more accurate.

Emotions tend to be reactionary. Love is not to be reactionary though. It is to be proactive. It is to seek the good in others. Now there are responses of love of course and a situation can come that can bring to mind loving ideas, but it is an action to be done to seek the good of the other simply for the sake of the other. Seeking the good of the lady, for instance, only to get a night of passion and then ditch her in the morning is hardly love.

I believe this is the number one hang-up in the area of love. We reach a point in a relationship where our feelings seem to have dissipated. We wonder then if there is a problem. Are we losing devotion to this person or thing? Could it be many marriages today are divorcing early because the feelings do flow after awhile and the people have decided that the feelings were the love?

I view it as the opposite. You are being called to a deeper love at this stage. It does not mean the feelings are gone for good, as feelings do ebb and flow, but that they are not going to be the basis. The honeymoon is over and now you must plan your life together and you must learn to have love for this person or thing based on the person or thing itself.

Consider what I mentioned earlier of apologetics. There are times I have a deep love for what I do and there are times I think “I’ve gotta drag myself through this book?” Those feelings also ebb and flow I realize due to health concerns of mine, personal stress, my job that I don’t enjoy at this time, financial matters, thoughts of certain ladies in my life, dealing with family and friends, trying to have free recreational time, etc.

Of course, it could also be some apologetics books are just boring and sometimes they’re class work and class work is not usually as fun as work you give yourself to do. (Dear readers, there are times writing a blog is not even the utmost joy in my mind and yet, it seems that I do it every day because I believe it is important.)

However, I see my love in my reactions. I can have a passive attitude towards what I do and I’ll be at work bored and then suddenly turn and look. “Men in white shirts and black pants! Were those Mormons?!” My reactions show where my loyalty lies. “Did I hear someone mention the Bible?” Again, reactions show where the loyalty lies.

I’d ask mothers to consider this an example as well. Imagine changing your baby’s dirty diaper for instance. Were you, at that moment, always filled with great joy and love for that child? Were you filled with great love and joy when you were woke up at 2 A.M. after a tired day and one you had to go to work the next morning early and yet you heard that baby crying?

Yet you do it anyway? Why? Because you do love even when the feeling is not there.

I would contend that if you love someone for the feeling they give you, then you are using that person as a means to your own happiness. I would also contend that we can do the same with God. This is one of my concerns with our experience-driven church. We want so much to have these grand experiences and God is just a way to get to them. One of the greatest joys in your Christian life could be when you get to the point where you serve God even when you don’t have feelings of love for him. C.S. Lewis has written about this as the Law of Undulation in the Screwtape Letters. (Which I have blogged about before.)

If anyone wants to know of personal examples here, I have had mornings where I’ve got up and I’ve even been angry at God. Things haven’t gone well in my life and I don’t understand why it’s happening and why he’s letting me go through it and why he’s still so absent, and yet I get on this computer and see people spreading lies about him and his Word and I can’t stay silent. I don’t say this to brag about myself. I say this simply to give a glimpse into my own life for others to show I understand this. Part of the greatest joy I find in fact is trusting God when trust seems ridiculous and I have nothing to base that trust on except him alone.

If love is not an emotion, it is a commitment. That is also what marriage is. Marriage is the ultimate commitment one person can make to another and it’s a shame that we’re seeing that commitment diminished more and more. The sexual commitment between one man and one woman is truly unique in the nature that it has.

Love is seeking the good of the other for the sake of the other and if anything is an example of this, it is the blessed Trinity. Each person loves the other for the sake of the other and who the other is. This is the kind of love also that we are to show to each other. We are to treat each other as persons and not merely as means to an end. (Yes. That is something Kant got right.)

And maybe this is part of our problem today in society. We have lost sight of what it means to be a person and we have seen each person instead as a tool to our own happiness. Have you sat down recently and thanked God for the persons in your life? Readers might remember the time I blogged about going to bed one night and realizing my roommate’s room was right across from mine and that I had a great person here with me and that is a gift of God. (It brings great joy to ponder that now.)

Now some might think I’ve said little on what love truly is. I probably have simply because it is such a great mystery. One is more apt to speak little than to speak much and risk getting something totally wrong. I pray what I have said so far has been correct. Tomorrow, I plan to look at what sex itself is, which will be the eros portion of love specifically, the only one we’re going to examine in-depth in this look.

This is going to be talking about love mainly in relation to marriage. Please note that this will not be an exhaustive look at the nature of love. It will be enough though to state my position on the matter. I also do have in mind that the Greeks knew four types of love.

Storge, which would be affection and the kind of love we all expect from everyone, even strangers.

Phileo, which is the love of friends.

Eros, which would be sexual love.

Agape, which the NT quickly took to refer to the love of God.

I believe all four are present in marriage. Storge is the general love that they have for each other as they are now family. Phileo is that each one is now the best friend of the other. Eros is in, well, I think if I have to tell you where eros is you’re better off reading some books on human anatomy and biology first. Agape is the blessing of God on the couple living in submission to him.

A misnomer thrown out right away though is that love is an emotion. Let it be clear that love can produce strong emotions, but love itself is not an emotion. It is much deeper. Love is looking at a person and that includes not just when you have deep emotional feelings. Otherwise, you are simply loving that other person because of the feelings.

Emotions as we have them are reactionary. That means you have an emotion in response to something outside of you. Love is not meant to be reactionary though. It is proactive. It is meant to go on and act regardless of the emotions. The person who loves only when the emotion is there is not in love with the person but in love with love, and if one is loving a person only for the sake of love and not for the sake of the person, then they are using that person.

This also gets us into the idea of cohabitation in marriage. Some couples will say “Well would you drive a car without test driving it?” Well, no. I wouldn’t. However, there is one major difference that is being overlooked that must be pointed out.

People are not cars.

Yeah. I know that’s hard for some people to accept, but they’re not. If you want to use the test drive theory, then let it simply be asked to the couple. This is one question I would love to ask the two of them together and have both of them answer. Which one of the couple is the driver and which one of them is the car? I can imagine the chaos that would result.

It is an insult to either person to say “I will be with you only if you please me sexually.” Now granted there are sometimes biological problems, but these are few and far between. You don’t want to build a habit based on the rarities in the world.

People are to be loved regardless. A woman is meant to sexually please a man and a man a woman, but that is as a person and not as an object. In fact, for the two people truly in love, they should be focusing on the pleasure of the other. Love seeks the good of the other after all. True love will not want to know how the spouse can please them but how they can please the spouse.

So what is love then? It is a true commitment and joy regardless of the emotions at the time. While it can show emotions, it does not rely on the emotions. Instead, it looks at what objectively the other person is instead of at a subjective experience. Again, I do not deny the emotions. They are a good part and enjoyable part, but they are not all and part of our problem in understanding love today is that we’ve confused the emotions love produces at times with the reality itself.

A few days ago, I was at work and taking a lady’s check and I noticed that she worked for a pre-natal company. I made a remark about how she must deal with birth a lot in her industry. She asked how I knew and I told her it was on the check. She then asked if I had any kids and I indicated my finger. She didn’t catch on to which I said “I’m unmarried.” She then said, “Oh that means nothing. Many girls come in who are unmarried.”

Ironically, what she said could be the way many approach marriage and sexuality today. When it comes to sexual purity, not having a wedding ring means nothing.

As a single guy, I am one who notices many ladies and I look to see how many of them have rings. If they have wedding rings, I have to say “Off-limits”, no matter how cute they are. (And many times, it is something I have to say regretfully but with thinking that some guy is a lucky guy.) Today though, it is true that many a family can be seen with the parents not having rings. Many a girl can be seen pregnant and not wearing a ring.

This ties in with the post yesterday about homosexual marriage of course. G.K. Chesterton once said the problem is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. Instead, it’s been found difficult and left untried. I believe the same is happening for marriage today. Marriage is being found difficult and is being left untried. It’s easier to live together or to just have free sex.

What happens in the end is that we have a society that does not know what marriage is, hence, there is an urge to re-define it. We do not know what sex is any more even, hence we have confused actions with essences. We also do not know what happiness is any more in that we have equated it with satisfying our own desires.

I believe a wedding ring should mean something. Marriage should be treated as holy and sacred especially by the church and it’s time to return to that. I plan to write, and this could even be started tomorrow, more on why I think it is that marriage is failing and place this on such topics of what love is, what sex is, and what happiness is.

The story this post is based on is available here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121400362307993399.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I renamed it homosexual because I believe the word gay means something specific. It refers to one who is happy. I will not allow the homosexual community to take away the true meaning of the word from me to define themselves. I will call them homosexuals. That is simply what they are. If they want to call me a heterosexual, that is fine. That is what I am.

I’m not going to quote this article entirely, but I will be referencing pieces and I trust the reader can follow along.

Our writer, Jonathan Rauch, says this in the second paragraph on why we should keep homosexual marriage:

To understand why, imagine your life without marriage. Meaning, not merely your life if you didn’t happen to get married. What I am asking you to imagine is life without even the possibility of marriage.

Now let’s be sure on one thing so we’re not playing word games at the start. Historically, marriage has meant one thing. It has meant one man and one woman united together and that has been for the purpose of producing children. I say this because part of the goal in the homosexual community is to redefine marriage and I want us to be on the lookout for having the deck stacked beforehand.

The third paragraph says:

Re-enter your childhood, but imagine your first crush, first kiss, first date and first sexual encounter, all bereft of any hope of marriage as a destination for your feelings. Re-enter your first serious relationship, but think about it knowing that marrying the person is out of the question. (endquote)

Already, we know we’re not dealing with the Christian worldview as we’re told to imagine our first sexual encounter. I would hope most of us who are Christians are practicing chastity until marriage. (Celibacy is the term for the lifelong covenant. Chastity is to be used for those who intend to abstain from sexual intercourse until marriage.)

The reality is that this is simply an emotional appeal. I can in fact look back now on my first crush and realize that there is no chance whatsoever for a relationship. We have to accept that. However, could it be that some relationships shouldn’t happen because they are not proper? If my first crush, for instance, was on a married lady, does that mean to avoid being brokenhearted, I should have been allowed to murder her husband and marry her? (And it wasn’t for those concerned.)

Rauch says that this kind of world will have more sex and less marriage. AIDS is the quilt of this world. However, could it be that the solution is not to re-define marriage but to actually practice marriage? Someone once asked G.K. Chesterton what he thought of civilization. He said he thought it was a great idea and someone should try it sometime.

Sadly, this is where we Christians have failed. Our divorce rate is just as high as the world’s is. We are not really practicing true marriage and if the world wants to look to other practices instead, then we have to take the blame where it belongs. We have been more impacted by the culture than we have been an impact on the culture.

Rauch wants us to remember that marriage isn’t just a contract between two people. That’s true. He’s left something important out though. It’s a contract between a man and a woman. We have to describe marriage the way that it is. If we can re-define marriage, we can make it anything we want to be and it’s valid to ask “Where do we draw the line?”

Later, he has this paragraph:

This is a fantastically fruitful bargain. Marriage makes you, on average, healthier, happier and wealthier. If you are a couple raising kids, marrying is likely to make them healthier, happier and wealthier, too. Marriage is our first and best line of defense against financial, medical and emotional meltdown. It provides domesticity and a safe harbor for sex. It stabilizes communities by formalizing responsibilities and creating kin networks. And its absence can be calamitous, whether in inner cities or gay ghettos. (endquote)

The problem again is that this is equivocation. This is about heterosexual marriage and it does provide those benefits. Please notice that homosexuals don’t naturally have children. If a man and a woman can’t have children due to infertility, it is because of a flaw within the system. A homosexual couple cannot have children because the system itself is entirely flawed.

Does marriage provide a safe harbor for sexual intercourse? (Which is the fruition of sex. What we call gender today is more properly called sex. I have sex already in virtue of being male.) However, this is intercourse between a man and a woman. It provides an outlet for the powerful passions that are produced by sexuality.

Rauch goes on to say:

In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: (endquote)

However, he has yet to tell me what is inhumane about it. What is not being allowed? It is already being assumed that these desires are good ones that we should be promoting in our society. Are they though? The proper question in the homosexual marriage debate is not “What will make people happy?” The proper question is “What is moral?” Rauch will have to give the standard by which this is inhumane.

Saying history has turned a corner doesn’t help either. A society says relativism will only hurt the homosexual cause for if society changes and homosexuals are not seen as people, what is to be done then? Proponents of marriage like myself have a love for homosexuals as people while not promoting the act of homosexuality. We base that on objective morality. They bear God’s image as well.

His next paragraph after this goes as follows:

Because parents want happy children, communities want responsible neighbors, employers want productive workers, and governments want smaller welfare caseloads, society has a powerful interest in recognizing and supporting same-sex couples. It will either fold them into marriage or create alternatives to marriage, such as publicly recognized and subsidized cohabitation. Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising children out of wedlock.

The first is simply an argument of pragmatism. I don’t care how pragmatic legalizing homosexual marriage would be. I simply care about “Is it moral?” Now we have considered how much less an ideal homosexual marriages would create. That is why we are against them. The family means one thing and it is not to be redefined to mean something else. We as humans are to discover reality. We are not to create it.

The next point is about the slippery slope. Rauch says that homosexual marriage laws will involve few and modest changes. Modest changes such as totally re-defining what marriage is for all society? Last I checked, that is not a modest change. That is a huge change. Again, I am more interested in the act of homosexuality itself. “Is it moral?” If not, then why should I validate it by calling it marriage?

And actually, the slippery slope is quite valid because it does involve us re-defining what marriage is and what reason is there for not having it be polygamous or between relatives or with something that a group like NAMBLA would be happy with?

So what is the ultimate fallacy in all of this?

Homosexuals are not wanting the same rights. They are wanting different rights. They can marry someone legally of the opposite sex. So can any heterosexual. The homosexual movement wants to change that and the misnomer of love has been used to do that. Love has been reduced to an emotion in our society today. It does involve emotions, but it itself is not an emotion. It is a producer of emotions, but true love is love that is there when the emotion is not.

Also, this is difficult because historically, marriage has not been about love. It has been about children. It has been about the future of society and that is all the state cares about. When a man and a woman come together, the state doesn’t care if they love each other. It cares about whether or not they are going to build a family of children.

Is homosexual marriage good for America? No. What is good for America? When marriage is properly lived and exemplified and for we in the church, that falls largely on our doorstep. Maybe if we started getting things done in our own relationships properly, other people would see the idea and actually pursue it and defend it.

I’m going to go on and wrap up what’s been said about Mormonism here for now. It’s not to say the topic will never be broached again. After the missionary visit later this week, I might write about it again. The blogs don’t come out on any sort of schedule normally. However, I do have some other topics I want to write about and need to write about.

I just write this tonight for the Mormons out there and ask that you really consider what is being said. I don’t expect everything to be believed immediately. I’m fine with that. All I ask is that you consider something. From my worldview, there is how you will spend the afterlife at stake. It is the same for yours as well, although each of our worldview treats it differently. In mine, for instance, it involves spending the rest of one’s life in what would be called in Mormonism “Outer darkness.”

This is about truth. If Joseph Smith was a prophet, I agree that it is important and we should all listen to him. If, however, I am right and he wasn’t a prophet, then what does that mean to say “God has said” when God has not said? What does it mean to have Scripture that claims to be inspired of God if God did not inspire it? What about works like the D&C which claim to have revelations from God if they were not revelations of him?

What does it mean to say God was once a man and attained Godhood if he did not? What does it mean to say Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer if he is not? What does it mean to say that we are saved by grace through faith after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23) if the truth is that we are saved by grace through faith alone?

It’s a very serious charge.

Why do I believe what I believe? Because I see archaeological findings in the Middle East confirm Scripture again and again. I see the Bible is entirely consistent with itself. I see that we have more manuscripts of the NT closer to the time period than any other ancient document. I see a theological and a philosophical worldview that is sturdy, has explanatory power, and that when the teachings of Christ are applied, they do work.

However, when I approach Mormonism, I have no reason to believe the first vision, I find the golden plates account suspicious especially after events like the Kinderhook Plates and the Salamander Letters and the Book of Abraham papyri being shown to be of the Book of the Dead. I find the BOM contradicts Scripture as well as Mormon doctrine. I find that there is no archaeological evidence for Mormonism. I find that the entire theological and philosophical framework behind the view is a disaster.

I am given in exchange, a feeling.

Now I can make a decision on what worldview I will believe based on my mind or on my feelings. Jeremiah 17:9 warns me about how deceptive the heart is. I am told though to test all things in 1 Thess. 5:21. I find Scripture passes the test and so does orthodox Christianity then. I find no reason though to believe that Mormonism passes the test.

Mormon friend. Do consider this greatly. Read both sides by all means. I have no problem with doing that. I ask that you base what you are doing on more than a feeling though. Base it on truth.

We’ve been talking about Mormonism a lot lately. While knowing the facts is important, there are some basic reminders that people should keep in mind when witnessing to Mormons, especially the Mormon missionaries that come to your door.

First, don’t slam the door in their face or tell them they’re in a cult. Honestly, do you really think that’d work for you? Now let’s suppose you’re in a hurry though and do have to be somewhere else, and I mean you have to be there. Be courteous. Just say, “I’m sorry. I really can’t right now. I have to be somewhere else. Can you come back another time?” If you can give a time, that’s even better.

Second, if you don’t know an answer to a question, admit it. Just say “That’s a good question. Let me do some looking in on that.” Such an answer will be respected and will show the Mormon that you actually do care about truth. By all means then, head to your library. Be able to read the Mormon thought and the Christian thought.

Third, move away from feelings. The Mormon evangelism tactic places a lot of emphasis on feelings. You want the Mormon to instead start looking at the facts about the BOM. These include such things as contradictions to Mormon doctrine as well as the lack of archaeological evidence to back the BOM. Be prepared for a fallback to “I have a testimony of the Holy Ghost” and be ready to counter it.

Fourth, make absolutely sure you know your own Bible. If you do not know your Bible and you are one that is prone to emotional experiences, you are fresh meat for conversion to Mormonism. You need to know as much Scripture as possible, the way to apply that Scripture, and you need to know orthodox Christian doctrine like the doctrine of the atonement and the doctrine of the Trinity.

Fifth, if you can, make sure you know their own doctrine as well. I don’t meet Mormons often who know, for instance, about the King Follett Discourse and the doctrine of eternal progression. Make sure you know Mormon history. Make sure you know about polygamy and blacks not holding the priesthood and Danites and the Mountain Meadows Massacre. (If some of you want to know what I mean by those, then that’s a sign that you need to do some checking.)

Sixth, be friendly always. The Mormons I know are really great people and we genuinely like them. I would love it if they could interrupt their mission to hang out with us playing a video game or watching a movie. When they come, offer whatever you can. If you live in a hot area for instance, get something to drink for them. Try and get something to eat as well. This is especially good to do on holidays when they are away from their family and can’t speak to them.

Seventh, remember that Christ must be exalted above all. It’s very tempting to see this as simply winning arguments. Winning the argument is important of course, but you must do what you can to win the soul. If you are working with them, you’re going to be in for the long haul. You’re asking someone to change their entire way of thinking and it won’t be easy.

Evangelism is important, but it’s also something that’s incredibly enjoyable and rewarding. Evangelism for others will not only help them, but will also strengthen you in your worldview. If you get caught in the adventure, God bless you on your journey. Be sure to pray for the missionaries and yourself as you witness to them. If anyone has seen a conversion, let me know also. I’d love to hear about it.

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?