What’s This Mormon Thing?

Hostile Anti-Mormon posts subject to editing or deletion

Posts Tagged ‘Mormon Beliefs’

1 Nephi 14:9 – The Great and Abominable Church- Which One Is It?

Posted by JLFuller on January 24, 2009

Is there one evil and corrupt church that is the church of the devil and which one do Mormons think it is? The Book of Mormon passage (1st Nephi 14: 9) that many misunderstand and from which many people (a few Mormons too) think seperates Mormons from everyone else really provides a clearer understanding of this doctrine.  It says Behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil.” Some cite comments made by a few very early church members and leaders, right after the church was founded, as supporting the notion that this is one particular church. They were in error. The LDS Church does not teach and does not believe that any other established church as we know them is the Great and Abominable Church.  Rather we believe the “church” spoken of is all the people who fight against God. The next verse helps to clarify. 

Verse 10 continues. ” Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.I suppose some used this verse to suggest that there are only two players – Mormons and everyone else. But that just isn’t so and never has been.  

Verse 12 further identifies who the players are. “I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.” 

Just as is said, the number of the people in God’s church is few and they are on all the face of the earth. We interpret that as meaning members of God’s Church are all those that seek after Him and seek to have Him guide their lives. They are many good people who abide by and seek to live their lives according to God’s will in whatever light that has been given them. These can be and are people in every religious denomination. The others, members of the Great and Abominable Church, are those who corrupt, persecute, defame, malign and abuse people with whom they disagree and over whom they seek advantage or dominion. They fight against godliness. They seek to destroy and enslave. In short, they seek the things of this world and reject God.  

We believe  the gospel has always been on the earth, But it was only in its fullness for certain periods of time and then only according to how much the people could accept and live. We believe that to hear, know and understand the gospel but not live it, or abide by it, results in condemnation. In many cases, giving the people everything would just set them up to fail. So as an act of a loving father, God only allowed as much as the people could live.  But it would have been available if the people were ready for it. 

The advent of Jesus Christ restored the full gospel to the earth once again. But because of the wickedness of the people, and the Great and Abominable church, it was lost when the last apostle died. The record of the entire gospel – which we know was under attack even during the time of Christ and the Apostles – was further attacked afterward. Eventually, much of the record of the Gospel was removed or distorted and only a part of it remains in the traditional canon today. God had said it would happen but that He would restore it in the end times. The Book of Mormon is that restored Gospel. It was being kept by a separate group of God’s people on the American continent.   

Within the group of people identified in Nephi as those who are not members of the Great and Abominable Church, you find the Mormons. While we were still in our pre-mortal life, we took upon ourselves the obligation to take this message to the rest of the world. We understand and accept that some will find a certain resonance with what we claim and will want to learn more. Others, for various reasons, will not.  That doesn’t make them part of the other group though. They may have hardened their hearts and been swayed by the craftiness of men. It is expected.

All people learn and are ready to receive in their own time. It may mean those who reject the message in this life will learn of the fullness of the gospel after they pass over to the other side where they will be taught by Christ’s missionaries as it says in John 5:25. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.”

So, we Mormons are very much a part of the Church of the Lamb of God just as Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Catholics and Jews and all the other good and godly people of the earth. We also accept that membership in any one church or religious group does not exclude a person from membership in the Great and Abominable Church too. Now I understand some people are going say this is too black and white and that there are many shades of gray. That is true. There are many interpretations of scripture that lead to long and deep discussions. But for a short hand version of who Mormons are and how we see ourselves fitting into the world, this I think works – for now.  I invite others to put a finer point on my comments if they wish to do so. I am coachable. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

The Journal of Discourses – Not an Authorized Source of Mormon Doctrine

Posted by JLFuller on January 12, 2009

Just about everyone who questions LDS doctrine cites the JoD as an authorized source of true Mormon doctrine but is it a reliable source of current Mormon beliefs and practices? No, it is not. So I suggest that people who quote from it refrain from saying it is.  If it is important enough for you to comment on, check with an authoritative organ of the Church for an authentic answer to your questions or response to a statement before you publish what you think we believe.  We understand people make mistakes. We all do. Certainly I err and have to revisit something I said to clarify. But deliberately and knowingly misinforming others is not a mistake.  Don’t get caught up in bearing false witness. 

So why isn’t it authoritative? The JoD was written and printed in Great Britian between 1854 and 1886.  According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, a MacMillian publication edited by religion professors at BYU and some others, “It served as the printed word of the LDS Church for members who had no access to the Deseret News in Salt Lake City. It most often published sermons of Church leaders which were not always considered to be official statements of doctrine.”  At best it is an historic resource which often contains authorized doctrine of the times, but not always. 

Former BYU Religion Department Dean Dr. Robert Millet  presented a paper in 2004 to the faculty on Church doctrine. In it he again re-iterated how offical doctrine is determined. In his presentation he said   “…let me affirm at the outset that I understand implicitly that the right and authority to declare, interpret, and clarify doctrine rest with living apostles and prophets.” Dr. Millet re-affirmned what LDS members have been told for decades and in fact longer than that.  The prophet and the Twelve, when acting in concert, are the sole source of doctrine. Other members have no authority to declare what doctrine is. I should emphasize the living part of his statement.  There are no other authoritative sources. Our recently departed President and prophet, Gorden B. Hinckley said that a living prophet was better than a dead one, and so it is.

Authoritative sources are Church published teaching resources such as manuals and other printed documents, pamphlets, letters from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, presentations made at semi annual Conference or statements or proclamations issued by the Church. There are many highly reliable sources to which one can turn to report on Church doctrine such as Church magazines, official Church organ publications and schools such as BYU, presentations by individual General Authorities and other Church leaders. However, unless the message presented originates from one of the sources of authorized doctrine, it cannot be considered authentic. That means personal opinions don’t count even if they come from a high ranking leader. I encourage readers to read Dr. Millet’s paper and read his footnotes as a means of confirming what he said. 

Now, so I don’t mix messages here, counsel from our leaders is important. Guidance from our bishops, stake and branch presidents and others is intended to aid us in understanding gospel principles. We believe in taking their guidance and using it as an aid in our lives. When they provide us with guidance they will refer us to where their guidance comes from. We as members and they as leaders note, or should note,  when we state our opinions or those of others and if our message is not clear we hasten to clarify. Teachers are provided with training and teaching aids and manuals along with authoritative sources, from which their message is taken. In all cases, presenters of the message should have spoken with the aid and presense of The Holy Ghost after sincere prayer and supplication to the Lord. We as receivers of their message are admonished to pray for confirmation by the Holy Ghost of what is  said.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

What if Mormons are right and Catholics and Protestants wrong?

Posted by JLFuller on January 9, 2009

Eamonn McCann, an Irish writer, writes in the Belfast Telegraph in August 2008, concerning the Catholic response to The Church of Jesus Christ’s of Latter Day Saints’ doctrine of baptism for the dead. The LDS Church has sought the baptism and other records owned by the Catholic Church to use in doing this vicarious work. This practice and discussion has drawn a wave of comments from Catholics and non-Catholics alike. In the article, McCann postulates that baptising babies makes less sense than baptising the dead. Indeeed, the baby is oblivious to the ordinance and requires an adult to act as mouth accepting the ordinance and making lifetime commitments in his stead. The infant has a lifetime to  learn about the complex belief system and then make up his mind as to whether he believes it or not and wishes to continue as a Catholic. The dead however are in a far different situation. I think the reader will find this an interesting article.

Posted in Americanism, Anti-Mormon, Baptist, Biblical searching, Book of Mormon, Catholic, Christian Service, evangelical, Historic Christianity from a Mormon Perspective | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Solomon Spaulding, The B of Mormon – Joseph Smith was Functionally Illiterate

Posted by JLFuller on August 4, 2008

Joseph Smith Jr could not have written the B of M nor could he have used Spaulding as the basis for it. He was functionally illiterate. He didn’t have the skills. I think even most anti-Mormons gave up on that years ago – but you never know. So, just in case there are people who don’t know we landed on the moon in 1969, that Dwight D. Eisenhower is no longer president and the Soviet Union collapsed, here is a brief quote from Lance D. Chase that gives the history.   

“The Spaulding Manuscript is a fictional story about a group of Romans who, while sailing to England early in the fourth century A.D., were blown off course and landed in eastern North America. One of them kept a record of their experiences among eastern and midwestern American Indian tribes. The 175-page manuscript was first published as a 115-page monograph in 1885, some seventy years after the death of its author, Solomon Spaulding (sometimes spelled Spalding). The only known manuscript was lost from 1839 until its discovery in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1884. It was promptly published by both the Latter-day Saints and Reorganized Latter Day Saint churches to refute the theory of some critics that it had served as an original source document for the Book of Mormon, supposedly supplied to Joseph Smith by Sidney Rigdon.” http://farms.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=445 

Anyone who has read or is otherwise familiar with the Joseph Smith Jr. story should recognize he could not have written or created a work as sophisticated as The Book of Mormon or The Pearl Of Great Price nor could he have edited the Inspired Edition of bible. And just as he could not have written the B of M he could not have used the Spaulding manuscript as the basis for the B of M. Smith was not competant to do either given with his skill level. He had what is considered today to be an inadequate education. He was, in fact, functionally illiterate. I invite readers to go to The Joseph Smith Papers Project and read some of his own hand written journals and other writings. What is presented was written almost ten years after the B of M was written – all this is after he had been tutored and was a more experienced writer – even then he never met a punctuation mark he liked. I think you will see that what I say is correct. Certainly the LDS Church has said for years that in his youth his lack of education made it impossible for him to create such a work. The implication is that he had some help. 

Some commentators have agreed. But they suggest the help he received was from his Church associates such as Martin Harris or Sidney Rigdon both of whom held responsible positions in the nascent Church. What they do not say is that both of these men left the Church over disagreements with Smith and denounced him. But neither ever renounced* their previous testimonies about where the Book of Mormon came from or that it was translated by Joseph Smith in the manner he and they always claimed. That is, the Book of Mormon was presented to Joseph by an angel of the Lord on gold and brass plates and that Joseph translated them using the methods he described. 

*I have not found any secular source claiming these men ever renounced their stories about the origins of the B of M. If anyone has such information I would like to see it. 

Go to the Oberlin College website to see what they have to say about the Spaulding Manuscript. It is in thier library.




Posted in Anti-Mormon, Christian bible, Mormon History | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 35 Comments »

Mormon Ministry – Just How Different?

Posted by JLFuller on July 16, 2008

Just in case there are some who read this but know nothing about Mormons, let me take minute to tell you about us and why we are not like any other Christian denominations. First, we believe in Jesus Christ, the same one as in the New Testament. We believe the bible is the word of God, that Christ died to atone for mankind’s sins and by doing so made it possible for every human being to be resurrected after death. This is the salvation we read about in the scriptures. By His sacrifice we are saved from being cast into outer darkness (eternal hell) with Satan and his followers. God has told mankind that He cannot abide sin in the least degree so in our sinful state we would not be able to live with God so what Christ did makes us eligible to attain a heavenly state. We also believe that there is nothing we can do by ourselves that merits what has been given to us so in a very real way, Christ bought us. We are His. We believe in baptism by emersion by one holding the authority to perform that ordinance. We take Holy Communion weekly, we call it the Sacrament. We believe in the laying on of hands to heal the sick and to convey priesthood authority and that marriage between a man and a woman is a Holy ordinance. I could go on. So far, you might say, Mormons are not different from most  other Christian denominations and you would be right.

What makes us different and riles most other Christian Churches, we call them historic or traditional Christians, is that we believe God restored His original Church in 1830 through a young man named Joseph Smith Jr. It was after Joseph prayed for guidance as to which church he should join, according to Joseph’s account, that he was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ. He was told that he should join none of the churches of his day because they all had adopted creeds which were an abomination to God. In time Joseph would be given the responsibility of restoring Christ’s original Church along with the many teachings and ordinances which had been lost or removed from scripture over the centuries. Joseph would be given plates upon which were written the records of a people who had lived in the New World centuries before and that those records would testify that Jesus was the Christ and that the Holy Bible was in fact the word of God. Joseph would be able to translate them with the aid of heavenly beings and that this would be the most correct of all the scriptural works of God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is that Church today. We are known as Mormons after a prophet named Mormon who lived 1400 years ago. He compiled all the records of the book we call the Book of Mormon, a testament of Jesus Christ. It was Mormon’s records that were given to Joseph to translate. 

As you can image some religious people take serious exception to what Joseph said and the teachings of his new church. Many said then and say today that we are not Christian because of our view that their theology is not what Christ taught in the first century but has become infused with man’s teachings and ideas. Most churches just leave us alone but some have an active campaign against us. Some of what they say is legitimate but wrongly understood, incomplete or misinterpreted. Others are deliberate in their distortions. We, however, do not attack other churches but just proclaim the doctrine we believe was given us to preach. We are a missionary church which means we go into the community to make the message of the gospel, as we understand it, available to others. In fact we have been very successful having grown to the fourth largest church in North America. Most of our membership came from other churches so you can image how we are viewed in some circles. 

But just as we are a missionary church and seek new members, we also have strict guidelines to which members must adhere. Some members leave the church over these things. Being uncompromising rankles some members especially those who want to preach their own views in our Churches while desiring to be considered authoritative and legitimate. But we are a structured Church and all authority concerning doctrine comes from a prophet and 12 apostles just as in Christ’s time. If these people don’t recant and get back to the official Church doctrine they are excommunicated. Personal conduct such as adultery and homosexuality or other sex offenses are cause for excommunication too and a fair number of members are dropped from the roles of the church every year for those reasons. There are those who leave for other reasons too.

 Over the years there has grown up a substantial number of ex-Mormons who have taken severe umbrage with Church disciplinary actions and have become quite vocal if not militant in their condemnation of us. Many of these ex-Mormons have joined other churches and with a few attaining positions of authority. Some make attacks on the Church a tenet of their religious doctrine. You will hear them referred to as anti-Mormons. They are not to be confused with other denominations whose theology is different from ours but refrain from the overtly militant activities of the anti-Mormons. We respect everyone’s right to believe what ever they chose however and respect legitimate dialog with those who are respectful in return.   

There other things about our theology that historic Christianity thinks are heretical too. I disagree of course. Our beliefs are not heretical or orthodox – they are heterodox.  But for our basic beliefs you can go here.


Posted in Anti-Mormon, Christian Love, Christian Service, Joseph Smith Jr., Mormon, Mormon History, Mormonism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Born Again In Order To Understand the Things of God

Posted by JLFuller on July 12, 2008

This post is taken from an article printed in The Ensign, November 1981. It is by a truely inspired man of God. I did not appreciate Elder Romney until after I grew up. He is gone now, but the simplicity of his message is golden. He talks to the question we all face sooner or later: Are we ready to better understand the things of God?

“In the third chapter of John, it is written that Nicodemus, a very wise man, in fact a member of the Sanhedrin, came to see Jesus by night—he did not yet have enough courage to come to see him during the daytime. But he came to Jesus by night, and said:

“Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” (John 3:2.)

In this statement Nicodemus unwittingly but clearly revealed the fact that he did not know who Jesus was. All he could see in the Son of God was a great teacher. This was all he could be expected to see, however, because he based his knowledge of who Jesus was upon what he had seen and heard of the Master’s miracles. Perceiving this, Jesus informed him that the knowledge of divine things could not be had through man’s normal senses”. Marion G. Romney, “Except a Man Be Born Again,” Ensign, Nov. 1981,

And so it is with the things of God. Our Savior testified that it is so. Without His assistance and the presence of The Holy Ghost human beings have only their own unlearned understanding and that of other men to guide them. But there is another plain where His help can be had in understand the things of God. The Holy Ghost can be at our side whispering of the correctness or lack of it, in our understanding.

Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?  And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” 

And so said the Savior in Matthew 16:13-17. In fact this principle is foundational to Christ’s Kingdom for he said in the next verse

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This personal revelation that Peter experienced and Christ remarked could not be had through man’s normal senses was later to be made available to all when He said he would build His Church upon it that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The Savior continued with Nicodemus –

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” said Jesus. (John 3:3.)

Although Nicodemus was wise in the things of the world, he could not understand this simple statement of truth. As a matter of fact, his answer revealed amazement:

“How can a man be born when he is old?” he said. “Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” (John 3:4.)

Jesus, still persisting in his efforts to get him to understand, continued: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5.)

Here we have the Savior saying that the kingdom of God can neither be seen nor entered except one be born again.

But Nicodemus still could not understand. Jesus then stated the great law: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” That is, that which we learn through our normal senses has to do with this earth. “And that which is born of the Spirit,” he said, “is spirit.” (John 3:6.) The things that we learn through the process of inspiration are of God, of the Spirit.

Everyone who would know God the Eternal Father and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent, must receive such knowledge by the Spirit. Church members have, of course, been through the process. They have been baptized and confirmed members of the Church and have had hands laid upon their heads for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Through these ordinances the door is unlocked. Submission to this is absolutely essential to rebirth. But to obtain life eternal one must so humble and purify himself that he in fact receives through the power of the Holy Ghost a personal witness that God is his Eternal Father and that Jesus Christ is God’s Son and our personal Savior as well as the Redeemer of the world.


Posted in Biblical searching, Christian bible, Mormon, Mormon History, Mormonism, testimony, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dean To BYU Religious Education Faculty: What Is Our Doctrine?

Posted by JLFuller on June 23, 2008

Reprinted with permission of Dr. Millet.

Address to BYU Religious Education Faculty

September 12, 2003

What Is Our Doctrine?

Robert L. Millet

                We have been charged to “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom. Teach ye diligently,” the Lord implores, “and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand” (D&C 88:77-78). But what exactly are we to teach? What is doctrine?

Before beginning this chapter, let me affirm at the outset that I understand implicitly that the right and authority to declare, interpret, and clarify doctrine rest with living apostles and prophets. This chapter will thus only speak about doctrine and in no way attempt to reach beyond my own stewardship.


Doctrine: Its Purpose, Power, and Purity

                Doctrine is “The basic body of Christian teaching or understanding (2 Timothy 3:16). Christian doctrine is composed of teachings which are to be handed on through instruction and proclamation. . . . Religious doctrine deals with the ultimate and most comprehensive questions.”[1] Further, “Gospel doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation. It comprises the tenets, teachings, and true theories found in the scriptures; it includes the principles, precepts, and revealed philosophies of pure religion; prophetic dogmas, maxims, and views are embraced within its folds; the Articles of Faith are part and portion of it, as is every inspired utterance of the Lord’s agents.”[2]

                The central, saving doctrine is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of humankind; that he lived, taught, healed, suffered and died for our sins; and that he rose from the dead the third day with a glorious, immortal, resurrected body (1 Corinthians 15:1-3; D&C 76:40-42). It was the Prophet Joseph Smith who spoke of these central truths as the “fundamental principles” of our religion to which all other doctrines are but appendages.[3] Elder Boyd K. Packer taught: “Truth, glorious truth, proclaims there is . . . a Mediator. Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice. This truth is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them.”[4]

Such counsel really does point us toward that which is of most worth in sermons and in the classroom, that which should receive our greatest emphasis. There is power in doctrine, power in the word (Alma 31:5), power to heal the wounded soul (Jacob 2:8), power to transform human behavior. “True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior,” Elder Packer explained. “The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. That is why we stress so forcefully the study of the doctrines of the gospel.”[5] Elder Neal A. Maxwell also pointed out that “Doctrines believed and practiced do change and improve us, while insuring our vital access to the Spirit. Both outcomes are crucial.”[6]

We are under obligation to learn the doctrines, teach them properly, and bind ourselves to speak and act in harmony with them. Only in this way can we perpetuate truth in a world filed with error, avoid deception, focus on what matters most, and find joy and happiness in the process. “I have spoken before,” President Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “about the importance of keeping the doctrine of the Church pure, and seeing that it is taught in all of our meetings. I worry about this. Small aberrations in doctrinal teaching can lead to large and evil falsehoods.”[7]

How do we “keep the doctrine pure”? What might we do?

1. We can teach directly from the scriptures, the standard works. The scriptures contain the mind and will and voice and word of the Lord (D&C 68:3-4) to men and women in earlier days and thus doctrine and applications that are both timely and timeless. “And all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man [or woman] of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (JST, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

                2. We can present the doctrine in the same way the prophets in our own day present it (D&C 52:9, 36), in terms of both content and emphasis. Mormon wrote: “And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, organized priests; . . . and he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught” (Mosiah 18:18-19, emphasis added). “Therefore, they did assemble themselves together in different bodies, being called churches; every church having their priests and their teachers, and every priest teaching the word according as it was delivered to him by the mouth of Alma. And thus, notwithstanding there being many churches they were all one church, yea, even the church of God” (Mosiah 25:21-22, emphasis added).

                3. We can pay special attention to the scriptural commentary offered by living apostles and prophets in general conference addresses; cross reference the same into our scriptures; and teach this commentary in conjunction with the scripture. For example, we can study what

• Elder Jeffrey R. Holland taught concerning the Parable of the Prodigal Son in the April 2002 general conference;

• Elder Robert D. Hales taught concerning the covenant of baptism in October 2000;

• Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin taught concerning the principles of fasting in April 2001;

• Elder Dallin H. Oaks taught concerning conversion and “becoming,” as well as his thoughtful commentary on the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard in October 2000;

• Elder M. Russell Ballard taught concerning “Who is my neighbor” and what may be called the “doctrine of inclusion” in October 2001. And so forth.

                4. We can teach the gospel with plainness and simplicity, focus on fundamentals, and emphasize what matters most. We do not tell all we know, nor do we teach on the edge of our knowledge. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that “it is not always wise to relate all the truth. Even Jesus, the Son of God, had to refrain from doing so, and had to restrain His feelings many times for the safety of Himself and His followers, and had to conceal the righteous purposes of His heart in relation to many things pertaining to His Father’s kingdom.”[8]

                5. We can acknowledge that there are some things we simply do not know. President Joseph F. Smith declared: “It is no discredit to our intelligence or to our integrity to say frankly in the face of a hundred speculative questions, ‘I do not know.’ One thing is certain, and that is, God has revealed enough to our understanding for our exaltation and for our happiness. Let the Saints, then, utilize what they already have; be simple and unaffected in their religion, both in thought and word, and they will not easily lose their bearings and be subjected to the vain philosophies of man.”[9]


Doctrinal Parameters

In recent years, I have tried to look beneath the surface and discern the nature of the objections that so many in the religious world have toward the Latter-day Saints. To be sure, the phenomenal growth of the Church poses a real threat to many; more specifically, the Christian groups resent the way we “steal their sheep.” We are not in the line of historic Christianity and thus are neither Catholic nor Protestant. We believe in scripture beyond the Bible and in continuing revelation through apostles and prophets. We do not accept the concepts concerning God, Christ, and the Godhead that grew out of the post-New Testament church councils. All of these things constitute reasons why many Protestants and Catholics label us as non-Christian. We have tried, with some success I think, to speak of ourselves as “Christian but different.” There is another reason we are suspect, however, one that underlies and buttresses large amounts of anti-Mormon propaganda, namely, what they perceive to be some of our “unusual doctrines,” many of which were presented by a few Church leaders of the past.

Let me illustrate with an experience I had just a few months ago. A Baptist minister was in my office one day. We were chatting about a number of things, including doctrine. He said to me, “Bob, you people believe in such strange things!” “Like what?” I asked. “Oh, for example,” he said, “you believe in blood atonement. And that affects Utah’s insistence on retaining death by a firing squad.” I responded: “No we don’t.” “Yes you do,” he came right back. “I know of several statements by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Jedediah Grant that teach such things.” “I’m aware of those statements,” I said. I then found myself saying something that I had never voiced before: “Yes, they were taught, but they do not represent the doctrine of our Church. We believe in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, and that alone.” My friend didn’t skip a beat: “What do you mean they don‘t represent the doctrine of your Church? They were spoken by major Church leaders.”

I explained that such statements were made, for the most part, during the time of the Mormon Reformation and they were examples of a kind of “revival rhetoric” in which the leaders of the Church were striving to “raise the bar” in terms of obedience and faithfulness. I assured him that the Church, by its own canonical standards, does not have the right or the power to take a person’s life because of disobedience or even apostasy (D&C 134:10). I read to him a passage from the Book of Mormon in which the Nephite prophets had resorted to “exceeding harshness, . . . continually reminding [the people] of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God, . . . and exceedingly great plainness of speech” in order to “keep them from going down speedily to destruction” (Enos 1:23).

This seemed to satisfy him to some extent, but then he said: “Bob, many of my fellow Christians have noted how hard it is to figure out what Mormons believe. They say it’s like trying to nail green Jell-O to the wall! What do you people believe? How do you decide what is your doctrine and what is not?” I sensed that we were in the midst of a very important conversation, one that was pushing me to the limits and requiring that I do some of the deepest thinking I had done in a long time. His questions were valid. They were in no way mean-spirited. They were not intended to entrap or embarrass me or the Church. He simply was seeking information. I said: “You’ve asked some excellent questions. Let me see what I can do to answer them.” I suggested that he consider the following three ideas:

1.       The teachings of the Church today have a rather narrow focus, range, and direction;

central and saving doctrine is what we are called upon to teach and emphasize, not tangential and peripheral teachings.

2. Very often what is drawn from Church leaders of the past is, like the matter of blood atonement mentioned above, either misquoted, misrepresented, or taken out of context. Further, not everything that was ever spoken or written by a Church leader in the past is a part of what we teach today. Ours is a living constitution, a living tree of life, a dynamic Church (D&C 1:30). We are commanded to pay heed to the words of living oracles (D&C 90:3-5).

                3. In determining whether something is a part of the doctrine of the Church, we might ask: Is it found within the four standard works? Within official declarations or proclamations? Is it taught or discussed in general conference or other official gatherings by general Church leaders today? Is it found in the general handbooks or approved curriculum of the Church today? If it meets at least one of these criteria, we can feel secure and appropriate about teaching it. We might also add that included within the category of “all that God does reveal” would be certain matters that fall under our injunction to maintain “sacred silence.”  For example, the content of the temple endowment today would certainly be considered a part of the doctrine of the Church.

                A significant percentage of anti-Mormonism focuses on statements by Church leaders of the past that deal with peripheral or non-central issues. No one criticizes us for a belief in God; in the divinity of Jesus Christ or his atoning work; in the literal bodily resurrection of the Savior and the eventual resurrection of mankind; in baptism by immersion; in the gift of the Holy Ghost; the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, etc. But we are challenged regularly for statements in our literature on such matters as the following:

                • God’s life before he was God;

                • how Jesus was conceived;

                • the specific fate of sons of perdition;

                • teachings about Adam as God;

                • details concerning what it means to become like God hereafter;

                • that plural marriage is essential to one’s exaltation;

                • why Blacks were denied the priesthood prior to 1978, etc.


In that spirit, we must never allow a person not of our faith to teach us—to insist, in fact, upon—what we believe. If as an active, practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I do not have the right to introduce or declare doctrine, why should someone from outside my faith be allowed to do so? 


Loyalty to Men Called as Prophets

While we love the scriptures and thank God regularly for them, we believe that one can have sufficient confidence and even reverence for holy writ without believing that every word between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21 is the word for word dictation of the Almighty or that the Bible now reads as it has always read. Indeed, our own scriptures attest that plain and precious truths and many covenants of the Lord were taken away or kept back from the Bible before it was compiled (1 Nephi 13:20-29; Moses 1:40-41; Articles of Faith 1:8).[10] But we still cherish the sacred volume, recognize and teach the doctrines of salvation within it, and seek to pattern our lives according to its timeless teachings.

In like manner, we can sustain with all our hearts the prophets and apostles without believing that they are perfect or that everything they say or do is exactly what God wants said and done. In short, we do not believe in apostolic or prophetic infallibility. Moses made mistakes, but we love and sustain him and accept his writings nonetheless. Peter made mistakes, but we still honor him and study his words. Paul made mistakes, but we admire his boldness and dedication and treasure his epistles. James pointed out that Elijah “was a man subject to like passions as we are” (James 5:17), and the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”[11] On another occasion the Prophet declared: “I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.”[12] “I can fellowship the President of the Church,” said Lorenzo Snow, “if he does not know everything I know. . . . I saw the . . . imperfections in [Joseph Smith]. . . . I thanked God that he would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority he placed upon him. . . for I knew that I myself had weakness, and I thought there was a chance for me.”[13]

Every member of the Church, including those called to guide its destiny, has the right to be wrong at one time or another—to say something that simply isn’t true. They also have the right to improve their views, to change their minds and correct mistakes as new light and new truth become available. The Prophet Joseph once remarked: “I did not like the old man [a brother Pelatiah Brown] being called up for erring in doctrine. . . . It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”[14] Elder McConkie stated that “I do not get very troubled about an honest and a sincere person who makes a mistake in doctrine, provided that it is a mistake of the intellect or a mistake of understanding, and provided it is not on a great basic and fundamental principle.” He also explained that “If you err in some doctrines, and I have, and all of us have, what we want to do is get the further light and knowledge that we ought to receive and get our souls in tune and clarify our thinking.”[15] 

As we have been reminded again and again, whom God calls, God qualifies. That is, God calls his prophets. He empowers and strengthens the individual, provides an eternal perspective, loosens his tongue and enables him to make known divine truth. But being called as an apostle or even as president of the Church does not remove the man from mortality or make him perfect. President David O. McKay explained that “when God makes the prophet He does not unmake the man.”[16] “I was this morning introduced to a man from the east,” Joseph Smith stated. “After hearing my name, he remarked that I was nothing but a man, indicating by this expression, that he had supposed that a person to whom the Lord would see fit to reveal his will, must be something more than a man. He seemed to have forgotten the saying that fell from the lips of James, that [Elijah] was a man subject to like passions as we are, yet he had such power with God, that he, in answer to his prayers, shut the heavens that they gave no rain for the space of three years and six months.”[17]

“With all their inspiration and greatness,” Elder Bruce R. McConkie declared, “prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their problems without inspiration in many instances.”[18] “Thus the opinions and views, even of a prophet, may contain error, unless those opinions and views were inspired by the Spirit.”[19]

“There have been times,” Elder Harold B. Lee pointed out, “when even the President of the Church has not been moved upon by the Holy Ghost. There is, I suppose you’d say, a classic story of Brigham Young in the time when Johnston’s army was on the move. The Saints were all inflamed, and President Young had his feelings whetted to fighting pitch. He stood up in the morning session of General Conference and preached a sermon vibrant with defiance at the approaching army, declaring an intention to oppose them and drive them back. In the afternoon he rose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address the tempo of which was the exact opposite of the morning sermon. Whether that happened or not, it illustrates a principle: that the Lord can move upon his people but they may speak on occasions their own opinions.”[20]

In 1865 the First Presidency counseled the Latter-day Saints: “We do not wish incorrect and unsound doctrines to be handed down to posterity under the sanction of great names, to be received and valued by future generations as authentic and reliable, creating labor and difficulties for our successors to perform and contend with, which we ought not to transmit to them. The interests of posterity are, to a certain extent, in our hands. Errors in history and in doctrine, if left uncorrected by us who are conversant with the events, and who are in a position to judge of the truth or falsity of the doctrines, would go to our children as though we had sanctioned and endorsed them. . . . We know what sanctity there is always attached to the writings of men who have passed away, especially to the writings of Apostles, when none of their contemporaries are left, and we, therefore, feel the necessity of being watchful upon these points.”[21]

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated: “I have worked with seven Presidents of this Church. I have recognized that all have been human. But I have never been concerned over this. They may have had some weaknesses. But this has never troubled me. I know that the God of heaven has used mortal men throughout history to accomplish His divine purposes.”[22]   On another occasion President Hinckley pleaded with the Saints that “as we continue our search for truth . . . we look for strength and goodness rather than weakness and foibles in those who did so great a work in their time. We recognize that our forebears were human. They doubtless made mistakes. . . . There was only one perfect man who ever walked the earth. The Lord has used imperfect people in the process of building his perfect society. If some of them occasionally stumbled, or if their characters may have been slightly flawed in one way or another, the wonder is the greater that they accomplished so much.”[23]

Prophets are men called of God to serve as covenant spokesmen for his children on earth, and thus one should never take lightly what they say. The early Brethren of this dispensation were the living prophets for their contemporaries, and much of what we believe and practice today rests upon the doctrinal foundation they laid. But the work of the Restoration entails a gradual unfolding of divine truth in a line upon line fashion. Some years ago my colleague Joseph McConkie remarked to a group of religious educators: “We have the scholarship of the early brethren to build upon; we have the advantage of additional history; we have inched our way up the mountain of our destiny and now stand in a position to see things with greater clarity than did they. . . . We live in finer houses than did our pioneer forefathers, but this does not argue that we are better or that our rewards will be greater. In like manner our understanding of gospel principles should be better housed, and we should constantly be seeking to make it so. There is no honor in our reading by oil lamps when we have been granted better light.”[24]  Thus it is important to note that ultimately the Lord will hold us responsible for the teachings and direction and focus provided by the living oracles of our own day, both in terms of their commentary upon canonized scripture, as well as the living scripture that is delivered through them by the power of the Holy Ghost (D&C 68:3-4).


Facing Hard Issues

My experience suggests that anti-Mormonism will probably continue to increase in volume, at least until the Savior returns and shuts down the presses. Because we believe in the apostasy and the need for a restoration of the fulness of the gospel, we will never be fully accepted by those who claim to have all the truth they need in the Bible. But I want to note two things about anti-Mormonism: First, anti-Mormon material definitely affects more than those who are not Latter-day Saints. Not only does it in some cases deter or frighten curious or interested investigators, but it also troubles far more members of the Church than I had previously realized. I must receive ten phone calls, letters, or e-mails per week from members throughout the Church asking hard questions that have been raised by their neighbors or by some propaganda they read. A short time ago a young man (married, with a family) phoned me in late afternoon, excused himself for the interruption, and then proceeded to tell me that he was teetering on the edge of leaving the Church because of his doubts. He posed several questions, and I responded to each one and bore my testimony. After about a half hour chat, he offered profound thanks and indicated that he felt he would be okay now. Such an experience is not uncommon. I guess what I’m saying is that antagonistic materials are here to stay and are affecting adversely both Latter-day Saints and the attitudes of those of other faiths.

Second, very often the critics of the Church simply use our own stuff against us. They don’t need to create new material; they simply dig up and repackage what some of our own Church leaders have said in the past that would not be considered a part of the doctrine of the Church today. Latter-day Saints are eager to sustain and uphold their leaders. Consequently, we are especially hesitant to suggest that something taught by President Brigham Young or Elders Orson Pratt or Orson Hyde might not be in harmony with the truth as God has made it known to us “line upon line, precept upon precept” (Isaiah 28:10; 2 Nephi 28:30).

Some time ago a colleague and I were in southern California speaking to a group of about 500 people, both Latter-day Saint and Protestant. During the question and answer phase of the program, someone asked the inevitable: “Are you really Christian? Do you, as many claim, worship a different Jesus?” I explained that we worship the Christ of the New Testament, that we believe wholeheartedly in his virgin birth, his divine Sonship, his miracles, his transforming teachings, his atoning sacrifice, and his bodily resurrection from the dead. I added that we also believe in the teachings of and about Christ found in the Book of Mormon and modern revelation. After the meeting an LDS woman came up to me and said: “You didn’t tell the truth about what we believe!” Startled, I asked: “What do you mean?” She responded: “You said we believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and you know very well that we don’t believe that.” “Yes we do,” I retorted. She then said with a great deal of emotion: “I want to believe you, but people have told me for years that we believe that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary and thereby Jesus was conceived.” I looked her in the eyes and said: “I’m aware of that teaching, but that is not the doctrine of the Church; that is not what we teach in the Church today. Have you ever heard the Brethren teach it in conference? Is it in the standard works, the curricular materials, or the handbooks of the Church? Is it a part of an official declaration or proclamation?” I watched as a 500-pound weight seemed to come off her shoulders, as tears came into her eyes, and she simply said: “Thank you, Brother Millet.”

Not long ago, Pastor Greg Johnson and I met with an Evangelical Christian church just outside Salt Lake City. The minister there asked us to come and make a presentation (“An Evangelical and a Latter-day Saint in Dialogue”) that Greg and I have made several times before in different parts of the country. The whole purpose of our presentation is to model the kind of relationships people with differing religious views can have. This kind of presentation has proven, in my estimation, to be one of the most effective bridge-building exercises in which I have been involved.

                On this particular night, the first question asked by someone in the audience was on DNA and the Book of Mormon. I made a brief comment and indicated that a more detailed (and informed) response would be forthcoming soon in a journal article from a BYU biologist. There were many, many hands in the air at this point. I called on a woman close to the front of the church. Her question was: “How do you deal with the Adam-God doctrine?” I responded: “Thank you for that question. It gives me an opportunity to explain a principle early in our exchange that will lay the foundation for other things to be said. I took a few moments to address the questions, “What is our doctrine? What do we teach today?” I indicated if some teaching or idea was not in the standard works, not among official declarations or proclamations, was not taught currently by living apostles or prophets in general conference or other official gatherings, or was not in the general handbooks or official curriculum of the Church, it is probably not a part of the doctrine or teachings of the Church.

I was surprised when my pastor friend then said to the group: “Are you listening to Bob? Do you hear what he is saying? This is important! It’s time for us to stop criticizing Latter-day Saints on matters they don’t even teach today.” At this point in the meeting, two things happened: first, the number of hands of questioners went down, and second, the tone of the meeting changed quite dramatically. The questions were not baiting or challenging ones, but rather efforts to clarify. For example, the last question asked was by a middle-aged man. He stood up and said: “I for one would like to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for what you have done here tonight. This thrills my soul. I think this is what Jesus would do. I have lived in Utah for many years, and I have many LDS friends. We get along okay; we don’t fight and quarrel over religious matters. But we really don’t talk with one another about the things that matter most to us, that is, our faith. I don’t plan to become a Latter-day Saint, and I’m certain my Mormon friends don’t plan to become Evangelical, but I would like to find more effective ways to talk heart to heart. Could you two make a few suggestions on how we can deepen and sweeten our relationships with our LDS neighbors?”

These experiences highlight for me the challenge we face. I have no hesitation telling an individual or a group “I don’t know” when I am asked why men are ordained to the priesthood and women are not; why Blacks were denied the blessings of the priesthood for almost a century and a half; and several other matters that have neither been revealed nor clarified by those holding the proper keys. The difficulty comes when someone in the past has spoken on these matters, has put forward ideas that are out of harmony with what we know and teach today, and when those teachings are still available, either in print or among the everyday conversations of the members, and have never been corrected or clarified. The questions underlying all of this are simply “What is Our Doctrine? What are the teachings of the Church today?” If we could somehow help the Saints (and the larger religious world) know the answer to those questions, it would no doubt enhance our missionary effort, our convert retention, our activation, and the image and overall strength of the Church. If presented properly, it need not weaken faith or create doubts. It could do much to focus the Saints more on the central, saving verities of the gospel.

It’s inevitable that some persons, either Latter-day Saints or those of other faiths, who are told that not everything stated by an LDS prophet or apostle is a part of the doctrine of the Church and of what we teach today, will be troubled and ask follow-up questions: “Well then, what else did this Church leader teach that is not considered doctrine today? How can we confidently accept anything else he taught? What other directions taken or procedures pursued by the Church in an earlier time do we not follow in our day?” The fact is, one need not take such an approach. This is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. We must never allow ourselves to overgeneralize and thus overreact. Nor must we be guilty of discounting all that is good and uplifting and divinely-given because of an aberration. After all, because a prophet once expressed an opinion or perhaps even put forward a doctrinal view that needed further clarification or even correction, does not invalidate all else that he did or said. I would certainly hate to be judged that way and have no desire to be guilty of doing the same to the Lord’s anointed. God calls his prophets, and God corrects them. He knows their strengths, and he knows their weakness.

                Those of other faiths who leap to criticize the Church and question its truthfulness because of past teachings from Church leaders that are not accepted as doctrine today, would do well to ask themselves if they are prepared to apply the same standards of judgment to their own tradition, their own prominent speakers, or their own past. This is like asking someone, “Would you like to better understand Roman Catholicism today? Then study carefully the atrocities of the Crusades or the horrors of the Inquisition.” Or: “Would you like a deeper glimpse into the hearts of Lutherans today? Then make it your business to study the anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther.” Or: “Would you care to better understand where Southern Baptists are coming from? Then simply read the many sermons of Baptist preachers during the time of the Civil War who utilized biblical passages to justify the practice of slavery.”

                There is one final matter that follows from the above. True doctrine has what might be called “sticking power”—it is taught and discussed and perpetuated over time, and with the passing of years seems to take on greater significance. Time, experience, careful and ponderous thought, and subsequent revelation through prophets—these all either reinforce and support, or bring into question and eventually discount a particular idea. To the Latter-day Saints the Lord Jesus declared: “And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God. For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.” (D&C 98:11-12; compare Isaiah 28:9-10; 2 Nephi 28:30).

For example, in the early days of the restored Church, an idea was perpetuated by some that sons of perdition would eventually be restored and allowed to experience mortality again. Not only did Joseph Smith denounce the idea, but modern revelation that speaks of the inseparable union of body and spirit in the resurrection defies it.[25] On the other hand, doctrines such as the proper relationship between the grace of God and the good works of man, the redemption of the dead, exaltation through eternal marriage, and the overall significance of temples—these matters have been discussed and clarified and reinforced by those holding the keys of the kingdom, to such extent that we not only accept them fully as true and from God, but we also grasp their profundity even more than when they were first made known. Falsehood and error will eventually be detected and dismissed by those charged to guide the destiny of the kingdom of God, but truth, as Joseph Smith observed, “will cut its own way.”[26]


Further Illustrations

We discussed earlier that one of the ways to keep our doctrine pure is to present the gospel message the way the prophets and apostles today present it. Similarly, our explanations of certain “hard doctrines” or deeper doctrines should not go beyond what the prophets believe and teach today. Let’s take two illustrations. The first is an extremely sensitive matter, one that does now affect and will yet affect in the future the quantity and quality of convert baptisms in the Church. I speak of the matter of the Blacks and the priesthood. I was raised in the Church, just as many of you were and was well aware of the priesthood restriction. For as long as I can remember, the explanation for why our black brethren and sisters were denied the full blessings of the priesthood (including the temple) was some variation of the theme that they had been less valiant in the premortal life and thus had come to earth under a curse, an explanation that has been perpetuated as doctrine for most of our Church’s history. I had committed to memory early on the article of our faith that states that men and women will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression (Articles of Faith 1:2) and later read that “the sins of the fathers cannot be answered upon the heads of the children” (Moses 6:54), but I had assumed that these principles somehow did not apply to the Blacks.

In June of 1978 everything changed—not just the matter of who could or could not be ordained to the priesthood, but also the nature of the explanation for why the restriction had been in place from the beginning. Elder Dallin H. Oaks, in a 1988 interview, was asked: “As much as any doctrine the Church has espoused, or controversy the Church has been embroiled in, this one [the priesthood restriction] seems to stand out. Church members seemed to have less to go on to get a grasp of the issue. Can you address why this was the case, and what can be learned from it?” In response, Elder Oaks stated that “If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, ‘Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,’ you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reason to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that. The lesson I’ve drawn from that [is that] I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.”

Then came a follow-up question: “Are you referring to reasons given even by general authorities?” Elder Oaks answered: “Sure. I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon that reason by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk-taking. . . . Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies.”[27]

In other words, we really do not know why the restriction on the priesthood existed. “I don’t know” is the correct answer when we are asked “Why?” The priesthood was restricted “for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which he has not made fully known to man.”[28] I have come to realize that this is what Elder McConkie meant in his August 1978 address to the Church Educational System when he counseled us to “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whosoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

“We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more. . . . It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them.”[29]

It seems to me, therefore, that we as Latter-day Saints have two problems to solve in making the restored gospel available more extensively to people of color: First, we need to have our hearts and minds purified of all pride and prejudice. Second, we need to dismiss all previous explanations for the restriction and indicate that while we simply do not know why the restriction existed before, the fullness of the blessings of the restored gospel are now available to all who prepare themselves to receive them. Elder M. Russell Ballard observed that “We don’t know all of the reasons why the Lord does what he does. We need to be content that someday we’ll fully understand it.”[30]

Now to the second illustration. I think that I have never opened myself to questions before a group of persons not of our faith that I have not been asked about our doctrine of God and the Godhead, particularly concerning the teachings of Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow. I generally do not have too much difficulty explaining our view of how through the Atonement man can eventually become like God, become more and more Christlike. For that matter, Orthodox Christianity, a huge segment of the Christian world, still holds to a view of theosis or human deification. The Bible itself teaches that men and women may become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), “joint heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:17), gain “the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16), and become perfect, even as our Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48). The Apostle John declared: “Beloved, now are we the [children] of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). Perhaps more important, this doctrine is taught powerfully in modern revelation (D&C 76:58; 132:19-20).

The tougher issue for many Christians to deal with is the accompanying doctrine set forth in the King Follett Sermon[31] and the Lorenzo Snow couplet[32]—namely, that God was once a man. Latter-day scriptures state unequivocally that God is a man, a Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57) who possesses a body of flesh and bones (D&C 130:22). These concepts are clearly a part of the doctrinal restoration. We teach that man is not of a lower order or different species than God. This, of course, makes many of our Christian friends extremely nervous (if not angry), for it appears to them that we are lowering God in the scheme of things and thus attempting to bridge the Creator/creature chasm.

I suppose all we can say in response is that we know what we know as a result of modern revelation, and that from our perspective the distance between God and man is still tremendous, almost infinite. Our Father in heaven is indeed omnipotent, omniscient, and, by the power of his Holy Spirit, omnipresent. He is a gloried, exalted, resurrected being, “the only supreme governor and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell; . . . in him every good gift and every good principle dwell; . . . he is the Father of lights; in him the principle of faith dwells independently, and he is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings center for life and salvation.”[33] Modern revelation attests that the Almighty sits enthroned “with glory, honor, power, majesty, might, dominion, truth, justice, judgment, mercy, and an infinity of fullness” (D&C 109:77).

And what do we know beyond the fact that God is an exalted Man? What do we know of his mortal existence? What do we know of the time before he became God? Nothing. We really do not know more than what was stated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that is precious little. Insights concerning God’s life before Godhood are not found in the standard works, in official declarations or proclamations, in current handbooks or curricular materials, nor are doctrinal expositions on the subject delivered in general conference today. This topic is not what we would call a central and saving doctrine, one that must be believed (or understood) in order to hold a temple recommend or be in good standing in the Church.

This latter illustration highlights an important point: Doctrine means teaching. If we do not teach something today, it is not part of our doctrine today. This does not, however, mean that it is untrue. A teaching may be true and yet not a part of what is taught and emphasized in the Church today. Whether it is true or not may in fact be irrelevant, if indeed the Brethren do not teach it today or it is not taught directly in the standard works or found in our correlated curriculum. Let’s take another question: Was Jesus married? The scriptures do not provide an answer. “We do not know anything about Jesus Christ being married,” President Charles W. Penrose stated. “The Church has no authoritative declaration on the subject.”[34] So whether he was or was not is not part of the doctrine of the Church. It would be well for us to apply the following lesson from President Harold B. Lee: “With respect to doctrines and meanings of scriptures, let me give you a safe counsel. It is usually not well to use a single passage of scripture [or, I would add, a single sermon] in proof of a point of doctrine unless it is confirmed by modern revelation or by the Book of Mormon. . . . To single out a passage of scripture to prove a point, unless it is [so] confirmed . . . is always a hazardous thing.”[35]



                There is a very real sense in which we as Latter-day Saints are spoiled. We have been given so much, have had so much knowledge dispensed from on high relative to the nature of God, Christ, man, the Plan of Salvation, and the overall purpose of life here and the glory to be had hereafter, that we are prone to expect to have all of the answers to all of the questions of life. Elder Neal A. Maxwell pointed out that “the exhilarations of discipleship exceed its burdens. Hence, while journeying through our Sinai, we are nourished in the Bountiful-like oases of the Restoration. Of these oases some of our first impressions may prove to be more childish than definitive. . . . In our appreciation, little wonder some of us mistake a particular tree for the whole of an oasis, or a particularly refreshing pool for the entirety of the Restoration’s gushing and living waters. Hence, in our early exclamations there may even be some unintended exaggerations. We have seen and partaken of far too much; hence, we ‘cannot [speak] the smallest part [which] we feel’ (Alma 26:16).”[36]

We have much, to be sure, but there are indeed “many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God” yet to come forth (Articles of Faith 1:9). The Lord stated to Joseph Smith in Nauvoo: “I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times” (D&C 124:41; compare 121:26; 128:18). As Elder Oaks observed, we have been given many of the commands but not all of the reasons why, many of the directives but not all of the explanations. I state to my classes regularly that it is as important for us to know what we do not know as it is for us to know what we know. Far too many things are taught or discussed or even argued about that fit into the realm of the unrevealed and thus the unresolved. Such matters, particularly if they do not fall within that range of revealed truth we teach today, do not edify or inspire. Often, very often, they lead to confusion and sow discord.

This does not in any way mean that we should not seek to study and grow and expand in our gospel understanding. Peter explained that there needs to be a reason for the hope within us (1 Peter 3:15). Our knowledge should be as settling to the mind as it is soothing to the heart. Elder Maxwell taught that some “Church members know just enough about the doctrines to converse superficially on them, but their scant knowledge about the deep doctrines is inadequate for deep discipleship (See 1 Corinthians 2:10). Thus uninformed about the deep doctrines, they make no deep change in their lives.”[37] President Hugh B. Brown once observed: “I am impressed with the testimony of a man who can stand and say he knows the gospel is true. But what I would like to ask is ‘But, sir, do you know the gospel?’ . . . Mere testimony can be gained with but perfunctory knowledge of the Church and its teachings. . . . But to retain a testimony, to be of service in building the Lord’s kingdom, requires a serious study of the gospel and knowing what it is.”[38] On another occasion President Brown taught that we are only required to “defend those doctrines of the Church contained in the four standard works. . . . Anything beyond that by anyone is his or her own opinion and not scripture. . . . The only way I know of by which the teachings of any person or group may become binding upon the Church is if the teachings have been reviewed by all the Brethren, submitted to the highest councils of the Church, and then approved by the whole body of the Church.”[39]  Again, the issue is one of focus, one of emphasis—where we choose to spend our time when we teach the gospel to both Latter-day Saints and to those of other faiths.

There is a valid reason why it is difficult to “tie down” Latter-day Saint doctrine, one that derives from the very nature of the Restoration. The fact that God continues to speak through his anointed servants; the fact that He, through those servants, continues to reveal, elucidate and clarify what has already been given; and the fact that our canon of scripture is open, flexible, and expanding—all of this militates against what many in the Christian world would call a systematic theology.

It is the declaration of sound and solid doctrine, the doctrine found in scripture and taught regularly by Church leaders, that builds faith and strengthens testimony and commitment to the Lord and his kingdom. Elder Maxwell explained that “Deeds do matter as well as doctrines, but the doctrines can move us to do the deeds, and the Spirit can help us to understand the doctrines as well as prompt us to do the deeds.”[40] He also noted that “When weary legs falter and detours and roadside allurements entice, the fundamental doctrines will summon from deep within us fresh determination. Extraordinary truths can move us to extraordinary accomplishments.”[41]

The teaching and application of sound doctrine are great safeguards to us in these last days, shields against the fiery darts of the adversary. Understanding true doctrine and being true to that doctrine can keep us from ignorance, from error, and from sin. The Apostle Paul counseled Timothy: “If thou put the brethren [and sisters] in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the word of faith and of good doctrine whereunto thou hast attained. . . . Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” (1 Timothy 4:6, 13.)


[1] Holman Bible Dictionary, ed. Trent C. Butler (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1991), 374.

[2] Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 204.

[3] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 121; cited hereafter as TPJS.

[4] Conference Report, April 1977, 80, emphasis added; cited hereafter as CR.

[5] CR, October 1986, 20.

[6] One More Strain of Praise (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1999), x.

[7] Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 620.

[8] TPJS, 392.

[9] Gospel Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1971), 9.


[10] Compare TPJS, 9-10, 61, 327.

[11] TPJS, 278.

[12] TPJS, 268.

[13] Cited by Neal A. Maxwell, in CR, October 1984, 10.

[14] History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., ed. B.H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:340.

[15] “The Foolishness of Teaching,” address to Church Educational System (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981), 12.

[16] CR, April 1907, 11-12; see also October 1912, 121; April 1962, 7.

[17] TPJS, 89.

[18] Mormon Doctrine, 608.

[19] Bruce R. McConkie, “Are the General Authorities Human?” address delivered at the Institute of Religion Forum at the University of Utah, 28 October 1966.

[20] The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 542.

[21] Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Daniel H. Wells, in Messages of the First Presidency, 6 vols., comp. James R. Clark (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 2:232.

[22] CR, April 1992, 77.

[23] “The Continuous Pursuit of Truth,” Ensign, April 1986, 5.

[24] “The Gathering of Israel and the Return of Christ,” the Sixth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators’ Symposium, August 1982, Brigham Young University, typescript, 3, 5.

[25] TPJS, 24; see also D&C 93:33; 138:17.

[26] TPJS, 313.

[27] Provo Daily Herald, 5 June 1988, 21.

[28] David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner, First Presidency Message, January 1970.

[29] “The New Revelation on Priesthood,” in Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 132.

[30] Spoken at Elijah Abel Memorial Service; reported in Church News, 5 October 2002, 12.

[31] TPJS, 345-46.

[32] Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 1.

[33] Lectures on Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985), 2:2.

[34] “Editor’s Table,” Improvement Era, September 1912, 1042.

[35] Teachings of Harold B. Lee, 157.


[36] CR, April 1996, 94-95.

[37] Men and Women of Christ (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 2.

[38] Personal correspondence to Robert J. Matthews, 28 January 1969; cited in Matthews, “Using the Scriptures,” 1981 Brigham Young University Fireside and Devotional Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1981), 124.

[39] An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, ed. Edwin B. Firmage (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1988), 124.

[40] That My Family Should Partake (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1974), 87.

[41] All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1979), 4.

Posted in Anti-Mormon, Biblical searching, Christian bible, Greg Johnson, Mormon, Mormon History, Mormonism, Standing Together Ministries, testimony | Tagged: , , , , , , | 5 Comments »