Scriptural Mormonism: Latter-day Saints and the Bible

Response to Mike Thomas, “Mormons and the Bible”

On Bobby Gilpin's "Mormonism Investigated" blog, Bobby has posted an article by Mike Thomas of Reachout Trust (hereafter "ROT") entitled, "Mormons and the Bible." One can access it here. In this post, I will be interacting with some of Mike's arguments and underlying theological presuppositions.

If the name "Mike Thomas" and/or ROT sounds familiar to LDS readers, it is probably due to the fact that LDS scholars and apologists, including Mike Parker and Daniel C. Peterson, interacted with, and soundly refuted the late Doug Harris and Mike Thomas on their false claims about the role and status of the prophet Joseph Smith in LDS theology and their slanderously false claim that Joseph plays a greater role in LDS soteriology than Jesus Christ. The entire email exchanges from the late 1990s can be found here. At the time, Harris was the head of the group; now Mike is the chairman thereof following Doug's passing in May 2013.

Additionally, Ronnie Bray, an English Latter-day Saint apologist who is now living in Arizona, interacted with ROT, including Mike Thomas, in the past. Ronnie's Website can be found here which documents many more instances of ROT's track record of duplicity when discussing matters relating to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Furthermore, this is not the first time I have interacted with Bobby's blog on issues pertinent to "Mormonism." I wrote two lengthy papers in response to articles Bobby himself wrote, and they are:

Latter-day Saints have chosen the True, Biblical Jesus

Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology

In this response, Mike Thomas’ comments will be in red and my responses will be in black.

In an attempt to support the straw-man that “when LDS Church leaders speak, the thinking has been done for Latter-day Saints,” Mike Thomas writes:

For Mormons it is a great deal more difficult yet straight forward in a strange sort of way. The first question a Mormon asks is not, ‘Which Bible translations are reliable?’ but,’What does the church have to say?’ And this is not a simple seeking after counsel, ‘Pastor, which translation would you recommend?’ We all do that from time to time. What is important to a Mormon is, ‘what is the ‘official’ stance of the church?’ It is this that is ‘right’ in the eyes of your typical LDS believer.

This speaks volumes about the degree of trust Mormons put in their leaders. Its fallen out of fashion now, as has so much old fashioned Mormonism, but it used to be proudly said:

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan — it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the Kingdom of God.”(Improvement Era, June 1945)

The (unofficial) Mormon apologetics site FAIR has attempted to refute the idea that this is ‘official’ Mormon thinking, even dragging out from Mormon archives a letter from the Mormon leader George Albert Smith appearing to say as much. You can read it here. But it doesn’t wash because anyone who has dealt with Mormonism, more, anyone who has been a Mormon will tell you this is the attitude of the average True Believing Latter-day Saint to this day.

As one who “has been a Mormon” and is a “true believing Latter-day Saint,” let me say that the above is simply false.

Those who read the email exchanges (linked above) Thomas had with Mike Parker et al., will see that intellectual integrity and honesty are things he clearly lacks and this is more proof thereof. The statement from the Improvement Era was refuted by none other than George Albert Smith, as noted by Mike, and he even links to an article hosted by FairMormon (PKA "FAIR") that reproduces the letter from George Albert Smith refuting such. However, this alone refutes his straw-man presentation—George Albert Smith was president (not just a leader) of the Church when he wrote this letter in response to this errant article (his presidency running from May 1945 to April 1951). If Mike Thomas is correct, and LDS jettison Pres. George Albert Smith’s comments, then this ipso facto refutes his claim that LDS blindly follow their leaders as it would represent just the opposite! In reality, however, it has always been the case that LDS leaders have urged Church members not to accept their words at face-value and/or have openly admitted to their own fallibility. Consider the following representative examples:

Were the former and Latter-day Saints, with their Apostles, Prophets Seers, and Revelators collected together to discuss this matter [the nature of Deity], I am led to think there would be found a great variety in their views and feelings upon this subject, without direct revelation from the Lord. It is as much my right to differ from other men, as it is theirs to differ from me, in points of doctrine and principle, when our minds cannot at once arrive at the same conclusion. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 2:123)

I do not believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church; that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, as far as they go, but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities. (Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses, 2:314).

I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied . . . Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders fo the people, saying, 'if the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' that is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord. (Brigham Young; JOD 3:45)

As you have been told hundreds of times, how easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction unless you actually know the mind and will of the Spirit yourselves. (Brigham Young; JOD 4:368)

February 8, 1843, Joseph Smith wrote, "[I] visited with a brother and sister from Michigan who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet;' but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such" (History of the Church 5.265).

Joseph Smith occasionally used wording such as "this is my counsel" (History of the Church 1.455) or "I therefore warn" (Nauvoo Neighbor, June 19, 1844)

“We have heard men that hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything that they were told to do by those who preside over them (even) if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent human beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong.themselves.”

—[unsigned editorial [perhaps Samuel W. Richards]., Millennial Star, Vol. 14, Num.38, pp.594

Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an apostle or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support will be gone; but if we lean on God, He will NEVER fail us. When men and women depend upon GOD ALONE and trust in HIM ALONE, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside." (George Q. Cannon, Deseret Weekly News 43:322 [March 7, 1891])

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works." (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)

President Harold B. Lee declared, "If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth" (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69).

The Latter-day Saints do not do things because they happen to be printed in a book. They do not do things because God told the Jews to do them; nor do they do or leave undone anything because of the instructions that Christ gave to the Nephites. Whatever is done by this Church is because God, speaking from heaven in our day, has commanded this Church to do it. No book presides over this Church, and no book lies at its foundation. You cannot pile up books enough to take the place of God's priesthood, inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost. That is the constitution of the Church of Christ. … Divine revelation adapts itself to the circumstances and conditions of men, and change upon change ensues as God's progressive work goes on to its destiny. There is no book big enough or good enough to preside over this Church. (Elder Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, October 1916, p. 55. Quoted by Loren C. Dunn, in General Conference, Ensign May 1976, p.65-66)

"We who have been called to lead the Church are ordinary men and women with ordinary capacities.” (Boyd K. Packer, "Revelation in a Changing World," Ensign [November 1989]: 16.

"We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators." (James E. Faust, "Continuous Revelation," Ensign [November 1989]: 11)

"I am not a perfect man, and infallibility does not come with the call [of Apostlehood]." (Robert D Hales, Ensign, May [1994]:78)

"the President is not infallible. He makes no claims to infallibility. But when in his official capacity he teaches and advises the members of the Church relative to their duties, let no man who wants to please the Lord say aught against the counsels of the President." (Alma P. Burton, Ensign, Ensign, [October 1972]:6)

Though general authorities are authorities in the sense of having power to administer Church affairs, they may or may not be authorities in the sense of doctrinal knowledge, the intricacies of church procedures, or the receipt of the promptings of the Spirit. A call to an administrative position itself adds little knowledge or power of discernment to an individual. (Elder McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. "General Authority")

With all their inspiration and greatness, 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. (Elder McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. "Prophets")

In addition, I would urge one to read the article on George Smith's response (which includes the reproduction of his letter) in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19:1 (Spring 1986), pp. 35-39 (.pdf of entire issue).

With respect to the scope and formation of Latter-day Saint theology, Mike Thomas is in conflict with the official teachings of the LDS Church in his erection of a straw-man caricature of how Latter-day Saints approach this and related issues. Much of his comments in this section and elsewhere reflect that of Desmond Ferguson's, an Anglican critic of the Church from Dublin whom I have interacted with. In a post, "On the Scope and Formation of Latter-day Saint Doctrine," I wrote the following which is rather a propos for this response:

[The LDS] church [sic] also believes in a living prophet whose teachings would be superior to the Book of Mormon, for the church [sic] teaches there are ongoing revelations through the living prophet.

For someone who has purported to have studied “Mormonism” since the 1950s, this is an incredibly facile and superficial analysis of Latter-day Saint beliefs and the formulation of doctrine. Firstly, the Church believes that not only is the president of the Church a prophet but so are his counsellors and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

What distinguishes Joseph Smith and his successors is not the spirit of prophecy, or being a Prophet, but the apostleship. Wilford Woodruff explained that "anybody is a prophet who has a testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy. The Elders of Israel are prophets. A prophet is not so great as an Apostle. (Journal of Discourses [hereafter "JOD"] 13:165).

Brigham Young explained the differences between the titles "prophet," "apostle," and "president." In a conference address delivered April 6, 1853, he said:

Perhaps it may make some of you stumble, were I to ask you a question. Does a man's being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, No! A man may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the President of the Church. Suffice to say, that Joseph was the President of the Church, as long as he lived; the people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station by the voice of the people. Can you find any revelation appointing the President of the Church? The keys of the Priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or in eternity, but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people; though he held the keys of the Priesthood, independent of their voice. (JOD 1:113)

To Brigham Young, being a prophet was secondary to being an apostle and having keys from God. He explained the difference in these words:

Many persons think if they see a Prophet they see one possessing all the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth. This is not so; many persons have prophesied without having any Priesthood on them at all . . . To be a prophet is simply to be a foreteller of future events; but an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ has the keys of the Holy Priesthood, and the power thereof is sealed upon his dead, and by this he is authorized to proclaim the truth to the people, and if they receive it, well; if not, the sin be upon their own heads. (JOD 13:144).

As to the formation of LDS doctrine, Ferguson gives the impression (and this is the view he presents to others when he discusses the Church) is that LDS believe that when a leader speaks, that is the end of discussion, a view condemned as heretical by George Albert Smith himself when acting as president of the Church(!)

In reality, for something to be considered an official, authoritative teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it must be ratified by the First President and the Quorum of the Twelve, and accepted by the common consent of the Church.

Consider the following from Brigham Henry Roberts:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine. (B. H. Roberts, sermon of 10 July 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle, printed in Deseret News, 23 July 1921, sec. 4, p. 7)

Recently, on an online discussion, LDS philosopher, Blake Ostler, defined LDS doctrine rather accurately when he wrote:

Doctrine is: (1) a teaching that has been taught consistently by the Church; (2) is contained in scripture that is based on revelation as opposed to scriptural texts that are merely policy statements (e.g., D&C 135 or the Proclamation on the Family); and (3) has been accepted by common consent. There is always the caveat that a revelation accepted by the Church leaders and common consent of the Saints (and nothing less) can change a prior doctrine or doctrinal practice.

In May 2007, the Church itself released a document entitled, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" that discussed the nature and limits of LDS doctrine and its formulation:

· Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

· Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Many more examples from LDS sources could be offered, but it should be clear that if one compares official Latter-day Saint teaching with Ferguson’s utterly facile treatment thereof, one will see a world of difference.

Please keep in mind that this is not due to ignorance on the behalf of Mike Thomas; he was a Latter-day Saint for 14 years (1972-1986), so it is deliberate deception and a lack of intellectual integrity which is part-and-parcel of the modus operandi of most (not all) Evangelical critics of Latter-day Saint theology and Scripture.

For those wishing to delve into this issue into more detail, See Dennis B. Horne, Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluating Doctrinal Truth (Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2005). While I disagree with his rejection of macro-evolution, it is a solid discussion of the pertinent issues.

First, the editorial from the Church News makes clear that the KJV is ‘the official Bible of the Church.’ For most Mormons, this means the debate is over and the question officially answered.

The KJV being the official translation of the Church in the English-speaking world (which is true) does not mean that the issue of modern translations is “over” if he wishes to portray LDS as being unable to use (good, scholarly) modern translations; I for one use a few myself, including in classroom settings (NRSV; 1985 JPS Tanakh; Lexham New Testament), though I also use the original language texts as I studied biblical languages in university (e.g., Nestle-Aland 28^th edition; BHS [Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia]; Rahlfs Septuaginta [LXX], etc), and many other LDS I personally know do the same (and not just those involved in LDS apologetics and scholarship); furthermore, it should be noted that neither I nor those who have appealed to modern translations in talks or classes have ever been admonished for such (and modern translations have been used at General Conference and in the Ensign, such as "Honoring His Holy Name" [Ensign, March 1994]). There is a difference between a singular English translation (KJV) being the official translation of a Church and the question of whether other translations can be used. Of course, I realise this article is for Evangelicals who know next to nothing about “Mormonism,” so I am not surprised at the lack of intellectual integrity Mike Thomas displays here.

One should also note that the Religious Studies Centre of Brigham Young University is currently engaged in producing translations and commentaries on individual books of the New Testament (the Brigham Young New Testament Commentary series), Richard D. Draper and Michael D. Rhodes, Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (2015) and S. Kent Brown, The Testimony of Luke (2015) have been published. Forthcoming volumes (as of the writing of this article) include Julie M. Smith's translation and commentary of Mark. One has to wonder why Mike Thomas did not interact with that piece of information vis-à-vis the LDS Church and modern, scholarly translations of the Bible.

How often I have listened to a sermon delivered from a King James Bible to find the preacher spend half the time explaining the obscurity of the text, rather than delivering the message of the text. In the Mormon Church this is particularly problematic since the other texts they use – Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price – are written in a pigeon King James language (It truly isn’t the real thing).

While one can have some difficulty with the verbiage of the KJV if one is not acquainted with it, it is not hard to remedy, as the difficulties are often exaggerated (and if Mike’s pastor has to spend 50% of the time during a sermon struggling with KJV verbiage, it speaks volumes of his and/or his congregants' intellectual abilities, not the KJV itself). Furthermore, anyone who wishes to examine the meaning of KJV words can just google Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, which is always helpful. In my (admittedly, subjective) personal experience, both as a convert from an agnostic background and one who has spent most of his 11 years (as of writing [March 2016]) as a baptised Latter-day Saint in callings related to teaching (e.g., Gospel Doctrine), and 15 years of researching “Mormonism,” most Latter-day Saints who get over the initial “hump” of how “odd” KJV verbiage is at first quickly overcome this barrier, and it is usually just out-dated words that can be difficult at times (hardly half the time!), and the odd word or two where one of the meanings is no longer part of the active semantic force in modern English (e.g., “let” in 2 Thess 2:7--at the time, both "allow" and "hinder" were part of the active semantic domain of the term, which is no longer the case in modern English, thus, the reason why modern translations render the verb κατέχω as "restrains" [NRSV] or "holds back" [NIV]).

As for the pot-shot against the language of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, as it is not the focus of his response, I will just simply request interested readers pursue the relevant articles of Stanford Carmack, published in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Thought, on the question of the language of the Book of Mormon (author's profile page with links to his articles are here); cf. Royal Skousen’s articles, "The Original Language of the Book of Mormon: Upstate New York Dialect, King James English, or Hebrew?" and “The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon.”

Third, the KJV is accepted only, ‘as far as it is translated correctly.’ This is one of the many neat little get-out clauses that pepper Mormonism and comes from the eighth Article of Faith: ‘We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly; we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.’

Anyone, regardless of their background (barring those within the KJV-only camp), and regardless of preferred translation(s), accepts the KJV/NIV/NRSV, etc., “as far as [they are] translated correctly.” I don’t know Mike’s experience with translation of texts from one language into another, let alone translating biblical Hebrew and Greek into English, but such is a sound approach to the Bible. Furthermore, there are many mistranslations in the KJV. To give two important examples pertinent to the central issue of Christology--Tit 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 in the KJV read as follows:

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ. (Tit 2:13)

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (2 Pet 1:1)

In these two texts, the KJV translators understood the underlying Greek to refer to two persons (God [the Father] and Jesus); however, after the KJV was translated, a grammatical rule was rediscovered by Granville Sharp which demonstrates that the KJV reading is in error, and based on the grammar (definite article + noun + the coordinating conjunction και + anarthrous noun) refers to the same person, not two. To put it a bit differently:

When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person. (Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, p.3 as cited by Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996], 271)

For instance, the Greek phrase from Tit 2:13 τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ("our mighty God and our Saviour"), per this rule, predicates both θεος and σωτηρ of one person (Jesus), not two (this rule also applies to 2 Pet 1:1). Compare the KJV with the rendition of Tit 2:13 in the NRSV, for instance (emphasis added):

While we wait for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

This rule is much more nuanced than what I have presented; as Wallace noted:

the second noun refers to the same person mentioned with the first noun when:

(1) neither is impersonal;

(2) neither is plural;

(3) neither is a proper name.

Therefore, according to Sharp, the rule applied absolutely only with personal, singular, and non-proper nouns. The significance of these requirements can hardly be overestimated, for those who have misunderstood Sharp’s principle have done so almost without exception because they were unaware of the restrictions that Sharp set forth. (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 271-72)

For a book-length discussion, see:

Daniel B. Wallace, Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance (Peter Lang, 2008).

Another theologically-motivated corruption to the Bible that is contained in the KJV and other translations can be seen in Deut 32:7-9. The NRSV of this pericope reads:

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.

One will note that this differs from the KJV; the Masoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the DSS has the reading "sons of god" or, as ANE scholars understand the term, "gods."

In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford, 2014), we read the following note on page 419:

Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.

For other instances of theologically-motivated corruptions to the Old Testament texts, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3d ed.: Fortress Press, 2011).

With respect to the New Testament, while the false claim of 99.9% level of textual purity is often bandied about by Evangelicals (more on this momentarily), the earlier one goes back, the wider the textual divergences between biblical texts. For instance, Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, commenting on the Gospel of John portrayed in two manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and p75) reveal 85% agreement, leaving 15% disagreement. This is a far-cry from the 99.9% figure! Further, Comfort and Barrett also reveal that the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews in p13 and p46 display 80% agreement and 20% disagreement (see Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, ed. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts [2d ed.: Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishing, 2002], 504, 83).

One common mistake (if not down-right lie) one hears from many Evangelical apologists is that the text of Isa 53 in the Masoretic Text and the Qumran Text have no textual differences, being one example of the perfect (or near-perfect [99.9% is a figure that Norman Geisler et al., likes to throw out]). However, such is without any basis in reality. Sadly, this “argument” appears in many popular works (e.g., Josh McDowell’s poorly researched book, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict).

Michael S. Heiser, an Evangelical scholar, presents these differences in a paper entitled, "Letter Differences in Isaiah 52:13-53:12.” One should read it and even save it for future reference, as this claim is very popular though it is simply false. Hopefully honest Evangelicals who are made aware of this will drop this very errant, if not deceptive, argument.

There are many instances, including where the KJV is dependent upon deficient manuscripts (e.g., 1 John 5:7 being a well-documented example), and the same applies to many modern translations. Mike, as the end of his article, mentions how for thirty years he has used the NIV, a translation many find to be deplorable, such as N.T. Wright, who, in his book, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision (which is a must-read for those who wish to study the topic of salvation, especially as it is presented in the Pauline corpus), wrote the following with respect to the NIV

In this context, I must register one strong protest against one particular translation. When the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one of those who hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about itself, that it was determined to translate exactly what was there, and inject no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses. This contrasted so strongly with the then-popular New English Bible and promised such an advance over the then rather dated Revised Standard Version, that I recommended it to students and members of the congregation I was then serving. Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul’s letters, not least Galatians and Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said. I do not know what version of Scripture they use at Dr. Piper’s church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.

This is a large claim, and I have made it good, line by line, in relation to Romans in my big commentary, which prints the NIV and the NRSV and then comments on the Greek in relation to both of them. (Wright, Justification, pp.51-53)

An example of a mistranslation can be seen in the NIV’s attempt to protect the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, viz. that the Bible is the final rule of faith and that all other sources of authority are subordinate to such, never en par with inscripturated revelation. In 2 Thess 2:15 (cf. 3:6), the NIV renders it as follows:

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachingswe passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Compare the KJV’s rendering:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.

The term translated as “teachings” is the Greek term παραδοσις, which does not mean “teachings” but “tradition” or “something handed down.” The Greek term for “teaching” is a totally different word, διδασκαλια. Why would the NIV fudge things here? Simply, this has been a text that Catholics have appealed to in order to (1) neutralise the Protestant claim that the biblical texts are the final rule of faith and (2) to support the Catholic claim that oral, apostolic traditions are also an authority of equal authority to the written word of God (cf. 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3). No doubt, in order to neutralise a possible Catholic appeal to this verse, the NIV translator’s allowed their Evangelical Protestant epistemology to, frankly, pervert this verse.

(Of course, I would challenge the Catholic claim that this verse supports their having access to oral traditions that are apostolic in origins; I would argue [and would be happy to debate anyone on this point] that Catholic dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption, as well as beliefs such as the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation are without meaningful exegetical or historical support, and clearly would not be part of the παραδοσις Paul handed down to the various churches he preached at. For instance, on the Bodily Assumption, there is no explicit biblical evidence for it, and no early Patristic testimony thereto until several centuries after this fact [for a full analysis of the development of this belief, see Stephen Shoemaker’s book, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption, published by Oxford]).

Approaching the KJV (and all other translations of the Bible) cautiously (or, in the words of the 8^th Article of Faith, “as far as [they are] translated correctly”) is sound and it is the functional position of practically any informed reader and student of the Bible, whether or not one will openly acknowledge such.

So, the Mormons are left with a Bible translation that is beautiful, if obscure enough to need modern translations to help understanding, probably faithful to the text available to translators 400 years ago, but ultimately not an absolutely reliable translation. For that we need a prophet.

Mike Thomas is in a similar position with the ESV and other translations he uses (esp. if he does not know Hebrew or Greek, which seems to be the case). He is relying upon a good translation, but one that is not perfect (no translation is).

Furthermore, one has to understand one of the presuppositions Thomas, a Protestant, holds to--the formal sufficiency of the Protestant Bible which is the doctrine of sola scriptura. I have discussed this issue in great detail already on my blog, including providing an exegesis of the key verses used to support this (click here for a book-length work that discusses sola scriptura), including 2 Tim 3:16-17; Matt 4:1-11 and 1 Cor 4:6, so I won't rehash things here. However, for Thomas, as there is no greater authority than the Bible (all other authorities are to be subordinated to it), appealing to a source that has equal authority to the Bible is not allowed in such an epistemological framework.

However, that such is the biblical model is without dispute where it is the authorised leadership of the Church that makes a doctrinal decision, even if scant or actually no meaningful biblical evidence is available to them (from the historical-grammatical method of exegesis). For instance, in Acts 1:20, we read:

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick (επισκοπη [office]) let another take.

If one examines this verse, Peter is using two texts from the Psalter—Psa 69:25 and 109:8. However, nothing in these two verses says anything about Judas, apostolic succession, or the continuation of the need to have twelve apostles. If one reads these texts in their context, David is talking about people and events in his own day. Psa 69, David is addressing the sinful people of his time who had betrayed him and how he pleads for God to bring about judgement (v.25). Psa 109 is about the court of David where David says that, once an officer in his court has been removed, another will take his place.

Therefore, a text or series of texts that may be seen as “weak” at best, in light of further explicit revelation, be used by the Church to support a doctrine. Another potent example would be the case of the use of Amos 9:11 (LXX) in Acts 15 by James. The text is used as Old Testament support for the belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes. In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation helps settle the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)

This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו), was also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).

This is very problematic to the presuppositions of the inerrancy of the Autographia as well as sola scriptura to Mike Thomas et al.

This really nullifies the following fallacious comment and the faulty presuppositions behind such:

So, ‘living prophets’ define what is ‘official’ and Mormons give this advice precedence in their choice of Bible. These ‘living prophets’ however cannot produce a more reliable translation than the KJV. In the absence of a better Bible, and with no inclination to look at modern scholarship, the priority in Mormonism is to ‘living prophets’ followed by the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, only then turning to Joseph Smith’s ‘Inspired Version,’ and last the KJV, which is only to be understood in light of Mormonism, a Mormonism that cannot correct it, though neither can it completely trust it.

I am sure if Mike Thomas were transported back to the Council of Jerusalem, for instance, we would read the following:

So ‘living apostles’ like Peter and James define what is ‘official’ and Christians give this advice precedence in their choice of sacred writings. These ‘living prophets’ however cannot produce a more reliable translation than the LXX, as seen in their basing a doctrine on the faulty text of Amos 9:11! In the absence of a better Tanakh and with no inclination to look at modern scholarship, the priority among these Nazarenes is to the ‘living prophets’ followed by their oral traditions [and a few years later, the New Testament].”

If the above sounds stupid, it is meant to be, as it is a parody; unfortunately, Mike’s comments above were said in all seriousness (more on the issue of "Mormonism" and the question of the production of a "correct" translation at the end of this post in response to another Evangelical critic).

Another silly comment passed off as a serious criticism is the following:

The KJV is not, according to the Mormon narrative, ‘inspired’ since it was put together by intelligent, well-meaning, men who ultimately relied upon the ‘human wisdom’ that Talmage insists would disqualify such a work.

Does Mike honestly think he is not in the same boat as a Protestant who rejects special revelation taking place today? I really doubt he thinks his NIV and ESV are “inspired” and does not rely upon “human wisdom” (e.g., use of then-current scholarship and best available manuscripts) as all translations do. Again, such stupidity only shows (1) lack of intellectual integrity and (2) this article is for boundary-control so gullible Evangelicals who know nothing about Mormonism will be bamboozled by Mike Thomas.

Some comments on the JST/Inspired Version are made; for the sake of brevity (as this article is lengthy already, and a full discussion of the JST, its textual and reception history, and nature would require an entire discussion of its own), I will direct interested readers to this page which answers Thomas's comments and criticisms, as well as presenting a good bibliography on JST-issues at the end of each article. For those who wish to delve deeply into the JST, including the manuscripts (e.g., to examine Joseph Smith's marked Bible), I highly recommend tracking down a copy of Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible--Electronic Library as well as Robert J. Matthew's seminal work, "A Plainer Translation" Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary (BYU Press, 1975) and this recent presentation on JST 1 Corinthians by Kevin L. Barney ("The Joseph Smith Translation of 1 Corinthians: Toward an Eclectic Approach"). To be brief, Matthews, Barney, and the majority of modern LDS scholars and apologists who have examined the JST have concluded (rather soundly) that the text of the JST reflects many things, including:

Restoration of original text
Restoration of what was once said or done but which was never in the Bible
Editing to make the Bible more understandable for modern readers
Editing to bring biblical wording into harmony with truth found in other revelations elsewhere in the Bible
Changes to provide modern readers teachings that were not written by original authors.

I want you [the LDS reader] to take another seat, the seat of someone who has been invited to join your church and who already has access to, and regularly reads a modern translation of the Bible. This person understands something of how we got our Bible, the process by which it is translated, and the quality and quantity of research material available to modern Bible translators.

Why should this person join your church? Remember you are sitting in their chair now, outside looking in. Especially in light of the what your leaders have said about the ‘official’ church Bible, why should this person join your church?

Again, Mike is assuming what he has to prove—sola scriptura. Latter-day Saints are pretty open with the fact that we are not bound by the Bible (or the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price). We hold, as did Paul, that the Church is the ground and pillar of the truth, not the Bible or any other text (1 Tim 3:15; cf. Matt 16:18-19; 18:18, etc), and it was the Church and its leadership that explicated the teaching that Gentile converts would not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant (Paul’s letters were not inscripturated at the time, so Romans and Galatians cannot be logically used to nullify this). Furthermore, one should become a Latter-day Saint as our theology is consistent with sound biblical exegesis (see, for instance, my previous responses to the Mormonism Investigated blog linked above [or the other works on my blog]) and that Evangelical Protestantism preaches a false gospel on central issues such as Christology and justification. Furthermore, on the issue of authority, at least, we can answer the central theological issues that divide Protestants, and no, I don’t mean silly, trivial issues like whether instruments should be used in worship. Now, while it is true that Latter-day Saints can, and do, disagree with one another on a host of issues (e.g., how “loose” or “tight” the translation of the Book of Mormon was), we don’t have the same disagreements amongst Protestants on key theological issues; consider the following lists of doctrines Protestants disagree with one another over, both historically and in modern times, and results in many of the denominations thereof:

· Baptismal regeneration

· Mode of baptism

· Infant Baptism

· Eternal Security

· Nature of the Eucharist (e.g., consubstantiation vs. spiritual presence view vs. purely symbolic view)

· The nature of sola fide

· The nature of “saving faith”

· The intent of the atonement (limited vs. universal vs. hypothetical universal views)

· Nature of predestination

· Whether God is active or passive in reprobation (supralapsarian vs. infra/sublapsarian perspectives)

· If God’s saving grace can be resisted

· Whether repentance is necessary for salvation

· Nature of justification

· Nature of sanctification

· Nature of “righteousness” in justification

· Whether Christ has one will or two wills

· The nature and limits of sola scriptura itself

One could go on, but these are not minor issues such as whether stringed instruments should be used in worship services, but issues that are of soteriological importance or some other great theological importance (e.g., justification). Furthermore, there are many issues, within the realm of morality, that are also debated amongst Protestants due to the paucity of any explicit material in the Bible (sometimes, pure silence due to their being modern issues), such as contraception; abortion on demand; masturbation; surrogate motherhood; euthanasia, etc. Again, these are not “minor issues,” and examples could be multiplied, and Protestantism, holding to the unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura, cannot, and will not ever be able to, settle these issues authoritatively.

Unlike Protestants who rely on a passive source (Scripture has to be interpreted; Scripture does not actively interpret itself and give us the proper exegesis thereof, even when one biblical author uses the writings of another, his use has to be interpreted by a reader thereof), Latter-day Saints have an active authority alongside Scripture (which is broader than the Bible [Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants; Pearl of Great Price]), something that has happened throughout its history, even in esoteric issues (e.g., the debate between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt on the question of whether the person of God should be the recipient of worship or his attributes—the church authoritatively declared the former to be orthodox, the latter heterodox).

As one example of where Mike Thomas and his flavour of Protestantism is wrong about the Gospel itself pertains to the issue of whether baptism is salvific (showing that it is Evangelicals who have nothing to offer vis-a-vis the Gospel, not Latter-day Saints). This is an issue that has split Protestantism throughout its history. However, Mike Thomas holds that water baptism is not salutary (at least, that is the position he held in both the 1997 and 2008 editions of his volume on Mormonism where he discusses baptism). However, when one examines the biblical texts, his position is shown to be opposed to biblical theology on an issue of salvific importance. For instance, take Acts 2:38:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Outside of John 3:3-5, this is perhaps the favourite text used in support of baptism being salvific. Here, in this verse, we have a statement from Peter that seems to teach rather explicitly that the instrumental means of the forgiveness of sins is water baptism.

The Latter-day Saint interpretation of Acts 2:38 can found in a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1831:

Wherefore, I give unto a you commandment that ye go among this people, and say unto them, like unto mine apostle of old whose name was Peter: Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus, who was on the earth and is to come, the beginning and the end; Repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins: And whoso doeth this shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of the hands of the elders of the church. (D&C 49:11-14).

Proponents of the symbolic view of baptism have made much about the preposition εις (“for” in Acts 2:38), which reveals much about the deceptive use of Greek many critics of the Restored Gospel engage in.

Some have argued, following the lead of J.R. Mantey, that εις in this verse as a “causal” or “resultant” meaning; namely, one is baptised because they had a remission of sins before baptism. An example from everyday English would be, “I took a tablet for my migraine”—one did not take the tablet to bring about a migraine, but because of one having a migraine, then they took a tablet.

However, this “causal” meaning of the Greek preposition εις can be refuted on many counts:

Firstly, both baptism and repentance are tied together, through the use of the coordinating conjunction και ("and"). If one wishes to suggest we are baptised because of our remission of sins, then the passage would also suggest that we must repent because of our remission of sins precedes repentance (in other words, our sins are forgiven, so as a result, we repent). I am unaware of any theological system that teaches such a view, and for good reason--it is a grossly unnatural, eisegetical reading of the construction.

Secondly, modern Greek grammarians (even those who hold the symbolic view of baptism) have refuted Mantey’s comments about εις. For instance, Daniel Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, pp. 370-71, we read the following:

On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that εἰς could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal εἰς was not evident in such passages as Acts 2:38.³⁹

On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s nonbiblical examples of a causal εἰς so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation):

It is quite possible that εἰς is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal εἰς cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.⁴⁰

Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal εἰς fell short of proof. . . .In sum . . . his ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction

Notes for the above:

³⁹ See J. R. Mantey, “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament,” JBL 70 (1952) 45-58 and “On Causal Eis Again,” JBL 70 (1952) 309-311.

⁴⁰ Ralph Marcus, “The Elusive Causal Eis,” JBL 71 (1953) 44. Cf. also Marcus’ first article, “On Causal Eis,” JBL 70 (1952) 129-130.

Another refutation of this argument comes from Matt 26:28. Speaking of the then-future shedding of his blood and its relationship to the Eucharistic cup, Christ says:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The Greek phrase, “for the remission of sins” is εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν; in Acts 2:38, it is exactly the same, except in Acts 2:38 there is a definite article (των) before “sins,” not causing any change in the meaning. Here, we see that those who hold to a “causal” meaning of εις in Acts 2:38 have to engage in a gross inconsistency (or, if they are consistent, adopt a very novel soteriology)—holding such an interpretation of εις, one will have to conclude (if one is consistent) that the remission of sins comes first, which then gives cause for the shedding of Christ's blood. The atonement, then, is no longer an action of Jesus in this sense. Of course, as with the "causal" interpretation of εις in Acts 2:38 is based on eisegesis, this interpretation of Matt 26:28, too, wrenches the underlying Greek out of context. Of course, only Latter-day Saints and others who hold to baptism being salvific can be consistent in their approach to both Matt 26:28 (on the relationship between remission of sins and the shedding of Christ’s blood) and Acts 2:38 (for the remission of sins and baptism).

Some critics of this view of baptism point to Matt 12:41:

The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at (εις) the preaching of Jonas [OT Jonah]; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

The argument is that εις here clearly has a “causal” meaning, as one cannot repent “into” one’s preaching or teaching. However, for those who make this argument (e.g. Eric Johnson), it reveals a poor grasp of how language works. In English, it is nonsensical to say, as the Greek of this verse reads, “into the proclamation of Jonas”; therefore, to make sense to English readers, most translations render εις as “at.” However, for a Greek reader and speaker, it is perfectly natural to think/read of one converting “into” the preaching of another. Think of the French way to ask for directions—in French, it is “pour aller” followed by “to” (á) and the destination. “Pour aller” literally means “for to go.” However, this would not be rendered into English as “for to go,” but “how do you get to”; however, for a French speaker, it is proper to speak of “how to go” to a certain place. Comments about Matt 12:41 that justify εις having a “causal” meaning only shows ignorance of both the Greek language and how language works, as there is often an inability to render perfectly one language into another without a translator having to take liberties to ensure readers will understand it in English.

Moreover, that modern scholarly grammarians agree with the "traditional" rendering of the preposition in Acts 2:38 are numerous; in perhaps the most scholarly Koine Greek lexicon on the market (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [BDAG]), the following definition of εις is offered, with Acts 2:38 being an example of the preposition carrying the meaning with "into" or "with a goal towards" (within the context of Acts 2:38, one is baptised into/with a goal towards a remission of sins, supporting baptism being salvific, not merely symbolic [emphasis added]):

f. to denote purpose in order to, to (Appian, Liby. 101 §476 ἐς ἔκπληξιν=in order to frighten; Just., A I, 21, 4 εἰς προτροπήν ‘to spur on’) εἰς ἄγραν in order to catch someth. Lk 5:4. εἰς ἀπάντησιν, συνάντησιν, ὑπάντησίν τινι (s. these 3 entries) to meet someone, toward someone Mt 8:34; 25:1; J 12:13. εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς as a witness, i.e. proof, to them Mt 8:4; 10:18; 24:14 al. εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven Mt 26:28; cp. Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Ac 2:38. εἰς μνημόσυνόν τινος in memory of someone Mt 26:13; Mk 14:9; cp. Lk 22:19 al. (εἰς μνημόσυνον En 99:3). εἰς ὅ for which purpose (Hdt. 2, 103, 1) Col 1:29; otherw. 2 Th 1:11 with this in view; εἰς τί; why? (Wsd 4:17; Sir 39:16, 21) Mt 14:31; Mk 14:4; 15:34; Hm 2:5; D 1:5. εἰς τοῦτο for this reason or purpose Mk 1:38; Lk 4:43 v.l.; J 18:37; Ac 9:21; 26:16; Ro 9:17; 14:9; 2 Cor 2:9; 1J 3:8; Hs 1:9 (Just., A I, 13, 3). εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο for this very reason 2 Cor 5:5; Eph 6:22; Col 4:8. W. subst. inf. foll. (X., Ages. 9, 3, Mem. 3, 6, 2; Just., A I, 9, 5) in order to (oft. LXX; neg. μή in order not to; s. B-D-F §402, 2) Mt 20:19; 26:2; 27:31; Mk 14:55 and oft.—εἰς ὁδόν for the journey 6:8.

Evangelical apologist, Gary F. Zeolla of "Darkness to Light Ministries," wrote an article entitled, "Questions about Baptism." In an attempt to downplay the salvific role of baptism in Acts 2:38, he wrote that:

"[R]epent" and "be baptized" in Acts 2:28 [sic; he means v.38] have different grammatical forms so they are not both linked with "the remission of sins." On the other hand, in Acts 3:19, the verbs "repent" and "be converted" do have the same grammatical forms. But baptism is not mentioned. So baptism is to be submitted to AFTER repentance and conversion.

This is a rather silly argument, but it does show that the old adage, "a little Greek is a dangerous thing" is alive and well.

The term translated as "repent" in Acts 2:38 is μετανοήσατε which is the imperative aorist active of the verb μετανοεω. The term translated as "be baptised" is βαπτισθήτω, the imperative aorist passive of the verb βαπτιζω. The difference (which the apologist does not tell us) is simply between an active and passive voice. Of course, as repentance is something one does, while baptism is something that is done to the person, that is the reason for the difference in voices. There is no hint whatsoever that Acts 2:38 separates baptism from the remission of one's sins, notwithstanding this rather weak argument.

In Acts 3:19, the term translated as "be converted" is ἐπιστρέψατε, again, the imperative aorist active, this time of the verb επιστρεφω, "to turn/return." However, it is simply question-begging to claim that, just as baptism is not mentioned in this verse, ipso facto, baptism is not salvific, in spite of texts explicitly tying it into salvation (e.g., Rom 6:1-4). Furthermore, it is akin to advocates of "no-Lordship" theologies citing Acts 16:31 ("Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved") as precluding repentance from salvation, in spite of other verses which are explicit in repentance being tied into the salvation formula (e.g., Rom 10:9, 13). Evangelicals, like Zeolla, are guilty of implicitly denying the practice of "tota scriptura" (taking into account the entirety of the Bible's message on a topic) an important element of the Protestant doctrine and practice of Sola Scriptura.

R.C.H. Lenski, the great Lutheran commentator, wrote on this verse and how it demonstrates that water baptism is salutary:

Our acceptance of baptism is only acceptance of God’s gift.

This is emphasized strongly in the addition: “for or unto remission of your sins.” It amounts to nothing more than a formal grammatical difference whether εἰς is again regarded as denoting sphere (equal to ἐν), R. 592, or, as is commonly supposed, as indicating aim and purpose, R. 592, or better still as denoting effect. Sphere would mean that baptism is inside the same circle as remission; he who steps into this circle has both. Aim and purpose would mean that baptism intends to give remission; in him, then, who receives baptism aright this intention, aim, and purpose would be attained. The same is true regarding the idea of effect in εἰς. This preposition connects remission so closely with baptism that nobody has as yet been able to separate the two. It is this gift of remission that makes baptism a true sacrament; otherwise it would be only a sign or a symbol that conveys nothing real. In order to make baptism such a symbol, we are told that Peter’s phrase means only that baptism pictures remission, a remission we may obtain by some other means at some later day. But this alters the force of Peter’s words. Can one persuade himself that Peter told these sinners who were stricken with their terrible guilt to accept a baptism that pointed to some future remission? Had he no remission to offer them now? And when and how could they get that remission, absolutely the one thing they must have? And how can Ananias in 22:16 say, “Be baptized and wash away thy sins!” as though the water of baptism washed them away by its connection with the Name?

Ἄφεσις, from ἀφίημι, “to send away,” is another great Biblical concept: “the sending away” of your sins. How far away they are sent Ps. 103:12 tells us: “as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.” Measure the distance from the point where the east begins to the point where the west ends. Nor does David say, “as far as the north is from the south,” lest you think of the poles and succeed in measuring the distance. Again Micah 7:19: “Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.” Even today the sea has depths that have never been sounded. The idea to be conveyed is that the sins are removed from the sinner so as never to be found again, never again to be brought to confront him. God sends them away, and he would thus be the last to bring them back. When the sinner appears before his judgment seat, his sins are gone forever. This is what our far less expressive “forgiveness” really means. Nor does the guilt remain, for sin and guilt are one: sin gone, guilt gone! (Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (pp. 107–108). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.)

To have some insights into the false soteriology of Mike Thomas et al., let us examine some pertinent texts from the book of Romans, as he cites it a few times in his "testimony"; on Rom 10:13, he offered this (lame) interpretation to support sola fide:

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, regardless of who they are or what they have done. You only have to call.

Let us actually examine Rom 10:9-13:

That is thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

This pericope is often touted as “proof” for Sola Fide, as it stresses confessing and calling upon the name of the Lord and the importance of believing in Jesus. Of course, Latter-day Saints agree in the total necessity of confessing Jesus and calling upon his name (επικαλεω is often a technical term in the LXX and NT for an act of prayer) and the importance of belief in Jesus (cf. Articles of Faith 3, for e.g.). However, notice that things like repentance are not mentioned in this text, notwithstanding its importance in salvation (e.g. Matt 3:2; Acts 2:38-39 [the latter pericope having been exegeted in detail above]), and baptism is not mentioned, again notwithstanding its salvific importance in the New Testament (cf. Rom 6:1-4 earlier in Paul’s letter). Moreover, Paul is using Deut 30:6-16, a pericope that stresses the importance of obedience, not simply faith alone, when one is within God’s saving covenant (“covenantal nomism" for those familiar with theological terminology), refuting the appeal to Rom 10:9-13 as “proof” of Sola Fide:

And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. And the Lord thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee. And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day. And the Lord thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the Lord will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers: If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is 1 not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Indeed, Paul did not teach the Protestant concept of sola fide, and instead, among other things that are antithetical to Mike Thomas's theology, baptismal regeneration. In Rom 6:1-4, we read:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grave may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν) were baptised into his death (εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν)? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death (διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον): that like as (ὥσπερ) Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so (οὕτω) we also should walk in newness of life.

In the symbolic view, baptism is similar to the relationship a wedding ring has to being married—it is an outward sign of something that it did not effect. In the sense of their understanding of salvation, it is an outward sign of one having been saved and being incorporated “into Christ.” However, Paul’s theology of baptism in this pericope is antithetical to this perspective. The apostle speaks of one being baptised “into [εις—see the discussion of this preposition in the comments on Acts 2:38] Christ,” including being a partaker of his death and resurrection, with baptism being the instrumental means thereof (through use of the preposition δια). Furthermore, Paul, through his use of the conjunction ωσπερ and adverb ουτος, both meaning "just as," likens Christ’s being raised by the Father to our being given, by the Father, newness of life through the instrumental means of baptism. There is no exegetical wiggle-room, so to speak, for a purely symbolic view.

Furthermore, for the symbolism of our incorporation into the death/burial and resurrection/newness of life “in Christ,” only baptism by immersion would be acceptable, but that is a different topic for a different day.

That this is the view of baptism in Romans has strong scholarly support, too. For instance:

The explanatory γαρ in 6:5 links the verse with his previous comments about the believer’s death with Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His argument appears to be that believers died to sin and should no longer live under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism proves that they participate in the death of Jesus and experience a spiritual death to the power of sin (6:3). Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have been buried with Jesus through their participation in water-baptism, a baptism that identifies them with the death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21]) and thereby kills the power of sin in their lives, so that they would live with Jesus in the resurrection just as Jesus presently lives in the power of his physical resurrection (6:4). Believers who died to the power of sin by being baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly (αλλα και) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died = τω ομοιωματι του θανατου αυτου) will participate in a future resurrection (just as Jesus has already been resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015], 178).

In Romans 6:1-14 the ritual of baptism is explicitly interpreted as a reenactment of the death and resurrection of Jesus in which the baptized person appropriates the significance of that death for himself or herself. In this understanding of the ritual, the experience of the Christian is firmly and vividly grounded in the story of the death and resurrection of Christ. These qualities of reenactment of a foundational story and the identification of the participant with the protagonist of the story are strikingly reminiscent of what is known about the initiation rituals of certain mystery religions, notably the Eleusinian mysteries and the Isis mysteries.[71]

One of the distinctive features of Roans 6 is that Paul avoids saying “we have risen” with Christ; rather he speaks of “newness of life.” The implication of Paul’s restraint is that the transformation is not complete. There is still an apocalyptic expectation of a future, fuller transformation into a heavenly form of life. This expectation fits with Paul’s use throughout the passage of the imperative alongside the indicative. “Newness of life” is a real, present possibility, both spiritually and ethically, but the actualizing of that possibility requires decision and commitment as well as grace.[72]

Notes for the Above:

[71] For the story or ιερος λογος of the Eleusinian mysteries, see the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. An English translation of this hymn, along with an introduction and bibliography has been published by Arvin W. Meyer, The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 17-30. For an account of the initiation into the mysteries of Isis, see Apuleius, The Golden Ass, Book 11. See also Plutarch’s On Isis and Osiris. Meyer has include book 11 of the Golden Ass and selections from Plutarch’s work (ibid., 176-93 and 160-72).

[72] Note that the author of Colossians does not hesitate to say that Christians have risen with Christ (2:12, 3:1). Baptism is also linked to the resurrection of Christ in 1 Pet 3:21. See also the related interpretation of baptism as rebirth in John 3:3-8 and Titus 3:5.

Source: Adela Yarbro Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Leidin, The Netherlands: Brill, 2000), 237.

The evidence of the New Testament for baptism being salvific is overwhelming (for more discussions on the salvific nature of water baptism and exegesis of the other key texts, such as John 3:1-7, click here), and yet is a doctrine of soteriological (and eternal) consequences that Mike Thomas and any other Protestants reject, but Latter-day Saints embrace. It is “Mormonism” that is reflective of true “Biblical Christianity,” not the perverted theology Mike Thomas holds to. In addition, the voice of early Christian history is against the purely symbolic understanding of water baptism; indeed, so overwhelming is the evidence for baptismal regeneration in the patristic literature that even critics of the doctrine are forced to admit it has the unanimous consent of all the patristic authors who commented on the issue. William Webster, a Reformed Protestant apologist, admits to such in his book, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1995), 95-96 when he wrote (emphasis added):

The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers . . . From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.

As Webster correctly noted, the unanimous consent of the early Christian fathers was that baptism was necessary for salvation, and not a symbol. Outside Gnostic circles which disdain the material world, such was the position of Christianity until the time of John Calvin (1509-1564). Furthermore, no early Christian commentator ever disagreed with the association of baptism with the “water” in John 3:3-5. As representative examples:

For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, “Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXI)

And therefore it behoves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXII, section 21)

[T]his salvation proves effectual by means of the cleansing in the water; and he that has been so cleansed will participate in Purity; and true Purity is Deity. You see, then, how small a thing it is in its beginning, and how easily effected; I mean, faith and water; the first residing within the will, the latter being the nursery companion of the life of man. But as to the blessing which springs from these two things, oh! how great and how wonderful it is, that it should imply relationship with Deity itself! (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, ch. XXXVI).

. . . Water is the matter of His first miracle and it is from a well that the Samaritan woman is bidden to slake her thirst. To Nicodemus He secretly says:—“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” As His earthly course began with water, so it ended with it. His side is pierced by the spear, and blood and water flow forth, twin emblems of baptism and of martyrdom. After His resurrection also, when sending His apostles to the Gentiles, He commands them to baptize these in the mystery of the Trinity. The Jewish people repenting of their misdoing are sent forthwith by Peter to be baptized. Before Sion travails she brings forth children, and a nation is born at once. Paul the persecutor of the church, that ravening wolf out of Benjamin, bows his head before Ananias one of Christ’s sheep, and only recovers his sight when he applies the remedy of baptism. By the reading of the prophet the eunuch of Candace the queen of Ethiopia is made ready for the baptism of Christ. Though it is against nature the Ethiopian does change his skin and the leopard his spots. Those who have received only John’s baptism and have no knowledge of the Holy Spirit are baptized again, lest any should suppose that water unsanctified thereby could suffice for the salvation of either Jew or Gentile. “The voice of the Lord is upon the waters…The Lord is upon many waters…the Lord maketh the flood to inhabit it.” His “teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn which came up from the washing; whereof everyone bear twins, and none is barren among them.” If none is barren among them, all of them must have udders filled with milk and be able to say with the apostle: “Ye are my little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you;” and “I have fed you with milk and not with meat.” And it is to the grace of baptism that the prophecy of Micah refers: “He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us: he will subdue our iniquities, and will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.” (Jerome, Letter LXIX to Oceanus, section 6)

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. (Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapter LXI, "On Christian Baptism")

Another example would be Philip Schaff, author of works such as The Creeds of Christendom (3 vols.) In his monumental 8-volume work, History of the Christian Church, Schaff, a Reformed Presbyterian, is forced to concede that this doctrine was universally taught since the early days of the Christian faith, in spite of his own theological objections to such a theology of baptism:

"Justin [Martyr] calls baptism 'the water-bath for the forgiveness of sins and regeneration,' and 'the bath of conversion and the knowledge of God.' "It is often called also illumination, spiritual circumcision, anointing, sealing, gift of grace, symbol of redemption, death of sins, etc. Tertullian describes its effect thus: 'When the soul comes to faith, and becomes transformed through regeneration by water and power from above, it discovers, after the veil of the old corruption is taken away, its whole light. It is received into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; and the soul, which unites itself to the Holy Spirit, is followed by the body.' ...."From John 3:5 and Mark 16:16, Tertullian and other fathers argued the necessity of baptism to salvation....The effect of baptism...was thought to extend only to sins committed before receiving it. Hence the frequent postponement of the sacrament [Procrastinatio baptismi], which Tertullian very earnestly recommends...." (History of the Christian Church, 2:253ff)

"The views of the ante-Nicene fathers concerning baptism and baptismal regeneration were in this period more copiously embellished in rhetorical style by Basil the Great and the two Gregories, who wrote special treatises on this sacrament, and were more clearly and logically developed by Augustine. The patristic and Roman Catholic view on regeneration, however, differs considerably from the one which now prevails among most Protestant denominations, especially those of the more Puritanic type, in that it signifies not so such a subjective change of heart, which is more properly called conversion, but a change in the objective condition and relation of the sinner, namely, his translation from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of Christ....Some modern divines make a distinction between baptismal regeneration and moral regeneration, in order to reconcile the doctrine of the fathers with the fact that the evidences of a new life are wholly wanting in so many who are baptized. But we cannot enter here into a discussion of the difficulties of this doctrine, and must confine ourselves to a historical statement." [patristic quotes follow] "In the doctrine of baptism also we have a much better right to speak of a -consensus patrum-, than in the doctrine of the Holy Supper." (Ibid., 3:481ff, 492)

So, not only is Mike Thomas et al. on the wrong side of the Bible (a text they hold to be formally sufficient and the ultimate authority on matters relating to faith and morals), but also on the wrong side of history, too. In reality, it is Evangelical Protestantism that has nothing to offer anyone, as it is a false, damnable gospel with a false conception of salvation and false conception of Christ (cf. Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:3-4).

Unlike Bobby Gilpin (who is an online acquaintance who I am on good terms with, even if we strongly disagree with one another on the nature of the Gospel) who I view to be well-meaning but very errant, Mike Thomas should (and probably does) know better. His willingness to lie through his teeth was proven by Mike Parker, Daniel Peterson et al., back in the late 1990s; and in this present article under view, his lack of intellectual integrity and scholarly abilities has yet again been proven by this recent article.

Concluding Statements

What should be noted is that Latter-day Saints do have an active authority, external to Scripture that can provide definitive answers on these important moral and theological issues. That is one reason, among many, why one should become a Latter-day Saint. Mike Thomas and his flavour of Protestantism, is, funnily enough, anti-biblical to its core (cf. Gal 1:6-9). It is Protestantism that has nothing to offer except the consolation prize of a false gospel and spiritual deception in this lifetime and destruction in the next.

To understand the importance of this, Let me quote an Evangelical (Eric Laranjo) who commented on Bobby Gilpin’s facebook page when Bobby posted Mike’s article thereon:

It seems to me that the Mormon Church, with its living prophets and apostles, and Joseph Smith's seer stone and priesthood authority, that they would have come out with their own translation of the Bible by now. They have had nearly 200 years.

Simple—such is not necessary. The reason why the leadership of the LDS Church has not sought to (and probably never will) produce a critical edition of the Old and New Testaments, answering authoritatively every single textual variation and any other objection, is that, as we have seen, the Latter-day Saint hermeneutic is informed, not just by the biblical revelations, but also the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit within the LDS Church, the latter authority being an active authority that can, as with the upper echelons of the Church in Acts 15 and elsewhere, answer authoritatively issues relating to theology and morals if and when a dispute arises.

Take, for instance, the phrase found in all four of the institutional narratives of the Eucharist, “this is my body” (Greek: τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου [Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19]; alt. τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα [1 Cor 11:24]). The theological meaning of Christ’s words in this phrase has long been disputed, and not just between Roman Catholics and Protestants, the former who accept the authority of Fourth Lateran (1215) that dogmatised transubstantiation wherein the phrase is understood that Christ transformed all but the outward appearances of the bread into His body, but within Protestantism itself, both historically and modern. For instance, amongst the magisterial Reformers, while all disagreed with the Catholic view of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice (intimately tied into Transubstantiation), Luther held to consubstantiation, wherein Christ was truly and substantially present with and in the consecrated bread (and wine), but there was no change in the substance thereof and was not a propitiatory sacrifice offered up to God; Calvin, while wishing to hold to a variety of Real Presence but also wishing to reject such crassly literal readings of the Catholics and Luther et al., held that Christ was present in a “spiritual” sense during the celebration of the Eucharist, while Zwingli and the Swiss Sacramentarians held to a purely symbolic view of the Eucharist, jettisoning any concept of “Real Presence.” Luther also battled the likes of Andreas Karlstadt et al. on the nature of the Eucharist and its relationship to salvation (see his 1525 work, “Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments.” One can find an on-line edition here or consult pp. 153-301 of The Selected Works of Martin Luther, Volume 3: 1523-1526, ed. Theodore G. Tappert).

When one examines the disputes between the Protestant Reformers and their followers on this issue, they divided with one another over this issue, viewing it of being salvific, not a “minor, tertiary at best” issue, and one Luther wanted to go to war over!. Indeed, writing years after the Marburg Colloquy held in October 1529, Calvin wrote a booklet wherein he stated that a correct understanding of the Lord’s Supper (and baptism) were necessary for salvation (see his A Treatise on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; for a discussion of the Marburg Colloquy and the disparate theologies of the Eucharist amongst the early Reformers and their followers, see Hermann Sasse, This is My Body: Luther's Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar and George H. Williams, The Radical Reformation).

While the LDS Church has never produced an “official” exegesis of this contentious phrase and its relationship to a theology of the Eucharist, the entirety of Latter-day Saint scripture and the guidance of the Church has explicated that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are not transformed in any substantial manner, and that allows one to know which interpretations are acceptable and which are not, and one has the backing of both modern revelation and the Church as guides (although careful exegesis of the phrase, “this is my body” supports the LDS view of rejecting the Lutheran and Catholic/Eastern Orthodox views of “Real Presence”; see my exegesis of the phrase here), and this represents one truly important theological issue that can be resolved, not by providing an authoritative perfect translation of the Bible, but in light of the entirety of God’s revelation, something Protestants of all stripes are cut off from.

The same applies for many other issues of theological importance that are debated today, as well as the “proof-texts” the disparate positions cite (some of which are listed above).

Finally, Mike Thomas had a perfect opportunity to interact with, in a fair, honest, and scholarly manner, the issue of the Bible, its transmission and translation, and its role and function among Latter-day Saints. On all these points, as well as the issue of consistency, he failed miserably in his criticisms thereof. He also demonstrated, time and time again, not only a lack of scholarly abilities but a lack of intellectual integrity, something that has been part-and-parcel of his past discussions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

For those who wish to pursue a scholarly discussion on the topic of LDS and the Bible instead of Mike Thomas' polemical piece, see Philip. L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion (2d ed.: Oxford University Press, 2013).

Update: For a full refutation of sola scriptura, something Thomas presupposed but never proved throughout his article, see Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura.

Update: Thomas Wayment of BYU has produced a scholarly translation and commentary on the New Testament: The New Testament: A Translation for Latter-day Saints A Study Bible

Scriptural Mormonism

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Latter-day Saints and the Bible

Blog Archive

About Me

Search This Blog