Answering Lee Baker's "Challenging Questions"

On his Website, Lee Baker, a former Latter-day Saint, has presented four questions he (falsely) claims to be "original." Here are my responses thereto:

 Question One: Alleged Denials of Polygamy

Actually, section 101 from the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants is not a lie at all; it is true. The Church was not practicing plural marriage and it was not made a practicing tenet of the faith of the Latter-day Saints until 1852.

Furthermore, as Brian Hales notes, the article was written, in part, as a reaction to accusations of communal wives:

It seems plausible, even likely, that beginning in 1831, some uninformed individuals assumed that the law of consecration included a community of wives as one of its tenets, even publishing such claims, although there is no indication that this is how the Mormons interpreted the law of consecration. Understandably, Church leaders would actively seek to deny such untrue allegations in a document on marriage to be included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. (Brian Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy [3 vols.; Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013], 1:168; for a full discussion of section 101 of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, see 1:153-82)

Another alleged lie from Joseph Smith about polygamy is the following from May 26, 1844:

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclemation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives....This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this....What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjerurs"-Joseph Smith (History of The Church 6:410-411)

Joseph is speaking of events in 1830 when he began to proclaim the Gospel, not when he entered the practice of plural marriage. Furthermore, since Joseph Smith never put his marriages on the public record books, he could use legal evidence in a court of law to prove marital status to but one wife. No one could bring evidence that would hold up in court against him at that time and he knew it. This is why he referred to the fact that he could prove them all guilty of perjury.

For more, see Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy 1:173-77.

Question Two: Genesis 17:11 (JST)

JST Gen 17:11 reads as follows:

And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know for ever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.

‎For Baker, this means that Joseph Smith erred in teaching that males had to be circumcised at eight years of age and not at the eighth day. However, Joseph is, in a midrash-like manner, attempting to show that the children (note there are no qualifications here--only males, of course, were circumcised, so this is more all-inclusive) are not "responsible" until they are eight years of age--what is in view is not when male children are to be circumcised, but when they will be "accountable" before God, that is, responsible for their own actions. Being circumcised does not mean, ipso facto, that the child is morally responsible at eight days of age, such would be an absurdity (cf. Lev 4:2, 13, 27; 5:15; Num 15:24, 25, 27 where one sins "ignorantly")

That this is the case is proven by JST Gen 17 itself. How so? Here is what verse 17, just six verses later(!) reads:

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations;

Commenting on JST Gen 17:11, Robert J. Matthews wrote the following:

Another interesting item has to do with the age at which a child begins to be accountable before the Lord. A statement in D&C 68:25-28 dated November 1831 places the time of baptism and accountability at eight years of age. There is no statement specifying the age of eight years in any earlier section of the Doctrine and Covenants or in any other scriptures. The Book of Mormon is emphatic that little children are without sin and do not need baptism, but it does not say at which age they begin to become accountable and should be baptized. However, in the New Translation the age of accountability is revealed to Abraham in Genesis 17:11 . . . This was written in Old Testament Manuscript 2 on page 41. The exact date of the writing is not specified but page 11 of the manuscript if dated December 1, 1830, and page 61 is dated April 5, 1831. Hence this information was recorded in Genesis 17:11 of the manuscript sometime between December 1830 and April 5, 1831. This means that the Prophet had dictated this statement, about the accountability of children at eight years of age, as part of the new translation of Genesis by as much as seven to ten months before it appeared in D&C 68. In other words, the information was most certainly known to Joseph Smith for quite some time before being recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. The exact date when the age of accountability was revealed to Joseph Smith is not known, but the documentary evidence currently available links that information to the New Translation in the early spring of 1831.

One further observation may be in order. The law of circumcision as revealed to Abraham was to be performed when the child was eight days old, which practice continued in Old and New Testament times. Since the statement in the New Translation concerning the age of accountability was given to Abraham in explanation of and in association with both, there is a strong suggestion that the eight days were symbolic of the eight years. Even the manner of the wording suggests that connection: the passage speaks first of the covenant of circumcision and then says, “that thou mayest know forever . . .” The word that seems to be the connecting link between the two main thought of the passage. On this basis and the early dating of the manuscript, I would conclude that the age of accountability was made known to the Prophet Joseph while translating the seventeenth chapter of Genesis, early in the year 1831. The age of accountability is a fundamental concept of the gospel as revealed in the last days, and its relationship to the New Translation further illustrates the importance of the Prophet’s work in making the translation. (Robert J. Matthews, “A Plainer Translation” Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary [Provo, UT.: Brigham Young University Press, 1975], 260-261; emphasis in original)

Had Joseph Smith wished to argue that the ancient Israelites were circumcised at eight years, not eight days, of age, he could have made changes to all the other relevant texts. He did not. Furthermore, he left Luke 2:21 untouched; here is what the verse reads in the 1867 RLDS edition:

And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus; which was so named of the angel, before he was conceived.

 Question Three: The Book of Mormon and the Fulness of the Gospel

Baker, with respect to the phrase, "the fulness of the gospel,” begs a number of important questions, including the definition of “gospel.” Baker assumes (falsely) it means an explicit discussion of all things (he is reading his acceptance of the formal sufficiency of the Bible back into terms—classical eisegesis!) In reality, scripture defines the gospel more narrowly.

The Book of Mormon itself is explicit that it contains only the lesser things (i.e., basic teachings) in 3 Nephi 26:1-12:

And now it came to pass that when Jesus had told these things he expounded them unto the multitude; and he did expound all things unto them, both great and small. And he saith: These scriptures, which ye had not with you, the Father commanded that I should give unto you; for it was wisdom in him that they should be given unto future generations. And he did expound all things, even from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory-- yea, even all things which should come upon the face of the earth, even until the elements should melt with fervent heat, and the earth should be wrapt together as a scroll, and the heavens and the earth should pass away; And even unto the great and last day, when all people, and all kindreds, and all nations and tongues shall stand before God, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil--If they be good, to the resurrection of everlasting life; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of damnation; being on a parallel, the one on the one hand and the other on the other hand, according to the mercy, and the justice, and the holiness which is in Christ, who was before the world began. And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people; But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people. And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken. And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them. And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people. Therefore I, Mormon, do write the things which have been commanded me of the Lord. And now I, Mormon, make an end of my sayings, and proceed to write the things which have been commanded me.

Many Latter-day Saints have also (correctly) pointed out that the term “gospel” simply means “good news,” and that the Book of Mormon defines the “gospel” in 3 Nephi 27:13-21 which records the very words of the resurrected Jesus Christ when He appeared in Mesoamerica after His resurrection:

Behold, I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works. And it shall come to pass, that whoso repent and is baptised in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast unto the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father. And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words. And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into this rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end. Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptised in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do.

In the above pericope, the “gospel” is defined as being the good news about the life, divine mission, atoning sacrifice, triumphant resurrection, and further glorious final coming of Jesus Christ. As the Book of Mormon contains the most lucid explanations of the atonement of Jesus Christ (e.g. 2 Nephi 2; 9; Mosiah 15; Alma 34; 42), it qualifies as containing the fullness of the gospel.

In a number of revelations, the Lord commands the preaching of “the fullness of the gospel.” For instance, note these two texts from the Doctrine and Covenants, dating from 1836:

And cause that the remnant of Jacob, who have been cursed and smitten because of their transgression be converted from their wild and savage condition to the fullness of the everlasting gospel. (D&C 109:65)

And next spring let them depart to go over the great waters, and there promulgate my gospel, the fullness thereof, and bear record of my name. (D&C 118:4)

I find these two verses to be significant as they were revealed to Joseph Smith during a period of inscripturation, even according to opponents of the LDS Church. Obviously, during this time, various practices and doctrines were developing and were being revealed, and yet, Joseph Smith could command the preaching of the “fullness of the gospel” in 1836. One could argue that this is further evidence that the term does not mean “totality of doctrine and practices,” but a simpler concept, as outlined above.

Some opponents charge that D&C 42:12 teaches the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel and therefore the Book of Mormon is superfluous, even according to LDS teachings. The verse reads as follows:

And again, the elders, priests, teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fullness of the gospel.

This is a rather superficial reading of the verse. The Bible is coupled with the Book of Mormon (note the use of the coordinating conjunction “and”), so the “fullness of the gospel” is either being said of the Book of Mormon alone or the Book of Mormon coupled with the Bible.

Even the New Testament defines the "gospel" more narrowly than Baker does:

Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed you--unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. (1 Cor 15:1-4 NRSV)

Another example would be how, in the gospels, Jesus and his followers are said to preach the gospel of the kingdom (e.g., Matt 4:23; 9:35), but it is only after this gospel preaching is inaugurated that Jesus reveals that He would have to die (Matt 16:21)!

Let us examine some of the alleged contradictions between modern LDS theology and the Book of Mormon Baker cites

The Number of God:

Baker alleges that Alma 11:27-39 and similar texts contradict D&C 121:32 and 132:20 on the "number" of God. However,  this is eisegesis. We have shown from the above that the Bible affirms the ontological existence of beings called "gods," something consistent with the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith elsewhere (e.g., Sermon in the Grove). What about the Book of Mormon?

Before we provide exegesis of the pertinent texts,  we should note what Latter-day Saint theology actually is; in spite of anti-LDS claims that "Mormonism" is "polytheistic," such is far from the truth. Blake Ostler summed up succinctly the LDS position (“Kingship Monotheism”) rather cogently:

There are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], p. 43).

Furthermore, we have to present what Latter-day Saint theology teaches, something Baker does not do without showing his utter lack of intellectual integrity. In Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term—in our theology, by definition, God is the one supreme, absolute being, the ultimate source of the entire universe, the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator, ruler, and preserver of all things (cf. Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine [2d ed.: Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1979], p. 317). In LDS theology, this refers to--

(1) God the Father, the ultimate power and authority of the whole universe (e.g., D&C 121:32)

(2) The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the three members of the Godhead, who are perfectly united as One God in that they share the same will, love, and covenant with one another (cf. Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7)

Also, the term “God,” as well as divine titles are used of the person of Jesus Christ in LDS theology; as one example, D&C 19:1, 16-18:

I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, yea, eve I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the World . . . For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all that they might not suffer if they would repent. . .

The “oneness” of the persons of the Godhead is not a metaphysical oneness, a much later development in Christian theology, later ratified during the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth centuries onwards, but the same oneness Christ expects us to have with Him:

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou havest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. (John 17:21-22)

That such is the case can be seen in 3 Nephi 19:29, which should serve as a "controlling verse" for Book of Mormon theology:

Father, I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world, because of their faith, that they may be purified in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one, that I may be glorified in thee.

The Greek fathers of the Christian church had a term “perichoresis,” basically meaning, “Dancing in unison,” to describe the inter- and intra-personal relationship between the members of the Godhead; such is similar to an informed LDS Christology. Furthermore, this matches the 1916 First Presidency statement on the relationship between the Father and the Son (entitled, “The Father and the Son”), one of divine agency (investiture); the following comes from section 4 of the statement:

4. Jesus Christ the "Father" By Divine Investiture of Authority

A fourth reason for applying the title "Father" to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30; see also 17:11, 22); yet He declared "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); and further, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43; see also 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 20:35 and 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (Doc. & Gov. 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father's name; and so far as power, authority and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.

We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the Angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that Angel the Lord said: "Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him" (Exodus 23:21).

The ancient apostle, John, was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John" (Revelation 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God" (Rev. 22:8, 9). And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (verses 12, 13). The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying "I come quickly," "I am Alpha and Omega," though he meant that Jesus Christ would come, and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega.

 Let us provide the text that critics often cite:

And Zeezrom said unto him, Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek] answered No. (Alma 11:26-29)

One should note from the get-go that the person of the Father is in view here. Later, there is a differentiation between “the one true God” and the Son of God, Jesus Christ:

And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God? And he [Amulek] said unto him, yea. And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God. (Alma 11:32-35)

The idea that the Father is the “one true God” is not inconsistent with either Latter-day Saint theology on the plurality of gods and/or any high Christology. Indeed, such comments are part-and-parcel of the New Testament itself, where the Father is said to be the only true God, and the Son is distinguished, not just from the person of the Father, but God (Greek: θεος). If Baker were consistent , they would either drop this argument or at least modify such. Then again, their target audience is not informed members of the Church but Evangelicals who, like them, know next to nothing about “Mormonism.” Note the following example (many more could be offered)--

In John 17:3, we read:

αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

"Now this is life of the age to come that they may know you the only one who is the true God and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ" (my translation).

The title, τον μονον αληθινον θεον (“the only one who is the true God”) is predicated upon a single person, not a “being” composed of three “persons” (however one wishes to define “person”), and such is predicated upon the singular person of the Father, with Jesus himself distinguishes himself in John 17:3 from “the only true God.” Absolutising this verse, this is a strictly Unitarian verse as only a singular person is within the category of being the “only true God." However, in Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities. That this is the Christological model of “Biblical Christianity” can be seen in many places, such as Heb 1:8-9:

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast love righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.

This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim ­­eloheyka)].

Logically, one has to conclude a plurality of Gods, unless one wishes to explicitly reject at least one of premises a-c from the following:

A. There are at least three divine persons.

B. Every divine person is God

C. If every “a” is a “b,” there cannot be fewer B's than A's

D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.

I am aware of the "three persons/one being" or "three 'whos' in the one 'what" idea--however, Trinitarianism also states:

Jesus = God

Father = God

Spirit = God

Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son

Numerically, there is only one God

God = Father, Son, and Spirit

To put it into logical language:

Jesus = x

Father = x

Spirit = x

Numerically, there is only one x

Only by using one definition of "God" when speaking of the triune "being" of God and another definition of "God" when predicated upon the persons of the Trinity can one get away from a logical/mathematical impossibility (3 "x"'s equalling 1 "x") or a form of modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person. The latter is condemned (rightfully) as heresy and antithetical to the biblical texts by Trinitarianism; the former, however, is not allowed, as the various person are said to be numerically identical to the "One God." This is not a "mystery" (something that cannot be understood perfectly, like the atonement of Jesus Christ), but a logical, mathematical, and I argue, a biblical-exegetical impossibility.

As we have seen, Baker, a Trinitarian, is using “arguments” that would refute their own theology. So much for consistency and fairness, let alone intellectual integrity

Further, Alma 11 is consistent with LDS belief that there is only One God (the Father). However, it only shows theological and biblical illiteracy to claim that this refutes multiple gods being in the midst of the true God (cf. Deut 32:7-9 from Qumran [discussed above]). In the Hebrew Bible, "gods" are found in reference to heavenly beings that are not supreme, but have true/ontological existence. For example, there are divinities that are inferior or subordinate to, or are divinities only by permission of the head God. Such divinities were felt to have religious power and authority, but only by participation/permission from the higher God. In the Old Testament, such would include members of the court of El alongside angels and possibly gods of foreign nations. The various mediating principles and half-personified divine attributes found in the Hebrew writings such as the דבר  or the divine word of Wisdom would belong to this class. In the New Testament, "the Word" and "the Mediator" are also used in this sense in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of John. In such passages, Christ is viewed as a subordinate being even though he is considered a divine and meriting some form of worship which, ultimately, goes back to the Father (cf. Phil 2:5-11).

One possible criticism is that modalism is in view in Alma 11, as Jesus is called “the very Eternal Father” in v.39. However, as we have seen previously, there is a clear distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son in this chapter. Furthermore, “[eternal/everlasting] Father” is a title of Christ in the Book of Mormon, denoting his role as the creator. Note, for instance, the words of King Benjamin in Mosiah 3:8:

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Only by confusing the title of “Father” with the person of God the Father can one claim such, but such would reflect pretty poor exegesis skills (cf. Isa 9:6 where the title אביעד ["Eternal Father"] is used of a Messianic figure).

The above should be compared with other passages in the Book of Mormon that distinguish "God" from "Jesus," including:

And the people went forth and witnessed against them-- testifying that they had reviled against the law, and their lawyers and judges of the land, and also of all the people that were in the land; and also testified that there was but one God, and that he should send his Son among the people, but he should not save them; and many such things did the people testify against Alma and Amulek. Now this was done before the chief judge of the land. (Alma 14:5)

In the above passage, the category of the “One God” is exhausted by the Father of Jesus, not the “Trinity,” something consistent with New Testament texts such as John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:4-6, Eph 4:5-7; and 1 Tim 2:5.

A related question would be “if the Father is "the only true God" does that mean Jesus is an idol?” This question, however, ignores the biblical witness that there are (true) beings who are called “gods” (e.g., Deut 32:7-9, 43; Psa 29:1; 82:6, etc), not “false gods” or “idols.” Instead, the term “true” (Greek: ἀληθινός) in John 17:3 refers to God the Father being intrinsically God; as we know from texts such as Heb 1:3 and the unanimous consent of the Patristics, only the person of the Father is God in an underived sense (autotheos); the Son is divine based on His participation with the Father.

The “either Jesus is true God in the same sense of the Father, or he is an idol”-approach is nothing short of an either-or fallacy. For instance, in John 6:32, we read:

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you note that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven (τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν).

Jesus is referred to being “true” bread, using the same adjective in John 17:3 (ἀληθινός). However, the bread (manna) the Israelites received in Exo 16 was not “false” or “non-existent” bread; however, it was not the archetypal bread that Jesus truly is, as only the latter can give eternal life to those who consume; the former could only satiate physical hunger and could not provide salvation.

John 17:3 is clearly a non-Trinitarian verse as is Alma 11:44 and related texts in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The LDS view, that allows for a polysemic meaning to the term (true) G/gods is consistent with the entirety of the biblical witness, something that Trinitarian and Socinian theologies do not allow for. This “either-or” approach is based on eisegesis, as it is based on a common logical fallacy.

There is no real contradiction between the Book of Mormon and modern Latter-day Saint theology.

God's Word being unchanging (Alma 41:18)

Now the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared them whosoever will may walk therein and be saved. (Alma 41:8)

According to some critics, the above is refuted by the following:

Wherefore I the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord. Wherefore, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servant Thomas, that he shall take up his journey speedily to the land of Missouri, and my servant, Selah J. Griffin shall also go with him. (D&C 56:4-5)

If Baker wishes to absolutise such texts to produce a "contradiction," he will have to jettison Exo 32-33 and similar passages from the Bible (see above). Furthermore, he will have to throw out the book of Jonah and the following passage from Jeremiah, among many other passages:

If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planned, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. (Jer 18:7-10 NIV)

 In reality, there is yet again no meaningful contradiction. The commands or decrees will not change in their definition. Revoking means that God does not always require us to follow the commandment in question. Such was the case with the contingent promises discussed in D&C 56:4-5 as well as Jer 18:7-10.

God being unchanging and being God eternally

For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. (Moroni 8:18)

Many Evangelical critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its theology point to this verse, as well other similar verses in the Book of Mormon and other unique Latter-day Saint Scriptures (e.g., Mormon 7:22; Moroni 10:28; D&C 20:28) that Latter-day Saint scripture refutes the belief that the Father experienced mortality, as did the Son, as Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett Discourse, as well as the doctrine of eternal progression. How can Latter-day Saints harmonise their theology with such texts? Note a number of things that show Evangelicals are guilty of superficial reading of these texts:

1. The attributes of deity have always existed, having no beginning and will have no end, regardless of who holds or shares these attributes.
2. The ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins did not understand such terms in the same way as we do today. Our ideas on the meaning of "eternal" and its cognate terms are wholly modern ideas which were not believed as they are before the fourth century; indeed, the term we often translate as eternity (Hebrew: עוֹלָם Greek: αιων/αιωνιος) and related terms, alongside having a qualitative meaning, meant an undetermined and unspecified period of time to the ancients. They were forced to use such words in repetitive phrases to come near the concept, but even then the meaning still had inherent time constraints. If we understand such phrases in the Book of Mormon as ancients understood them, the conflict vanishes. Our concepts of eternity and time are wholly modern concepts which ancient Semites and others did not hold to; they are later, post-biblical constructions. [1]
3. The Book of Mormon (and biblical) authors cannot be speaking of metaphysical natures not being changed; if such were the case, this would contradict the claim that Jesus Christ emptied himself to become a man like us (cf. Heb 2:16-18 and Phil 2:5-11 where Jesus experiences a kenosis), notwithstanding Heb 13:8 stating that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
4. In Latter-day Saint theology, intelligences, and all the attributes inherent within intelligence (e.g., personality) have existed throughout all eternity (e.g., D&C 93:29); God the Father has existed in like-manner, according to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith[2]
5. Note the language of D&C 132:20: “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting . . .”

As for Psa 90:2, the Hebrew reads:

בטרם הרים ילדו ותחולל ארץ ותבל ומעולם עד עולם אתה אל

The 1985 JPS Tanakh renders the verse thusly:

Before the mountains came into being, before You brought forth the earth and the world, from eternity to eternity You are God.

The Hebrew phrase אתה אל (“you are” and “[a] god”) appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible:

And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God [NRSV: You are El [god] Roi] seesth me . . .(Gen 16:13)

Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. (Isa 45:15)

And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshiah: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil. (Jonah 4:2)

The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "you are a god." Latter-day Saints can reconcile this biblical passage with our theology of God the Father having experiencing a mortality of his own under the premise that, once he was perfected/exalted (similar to how Jesus was--Phil 2:5-11; Luke 13:32; Heb 1:4; 5:9, etc) to being "[a] God," he remained "[a] God" "from everlasting to everlasting" (cf. D&C 132:20, quoted above and the discussion regarding the ancient understanding of "eternity").

Notes for the Above

[1] For a thorough study of the meaning of the αιων/αιωνιος and their ancient meanings, see Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aionios and Aidios in Classical and Christian Texts (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2007). For the difference between Semitic and post-biblical Greek concepts of "time" and "eternity," see Thorleif Bornan, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek (New York: Norton, 1970).

[2] As representative examples, taken from The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Centre, 1980), ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook; spelling errors in original text retained: "God was a self exhisting  being, man exhists upon the same principle. God made a tabernacle & put a spirit in it and it became a Human soul, man exhisted in spirit & mind coequal with God himself . . . Intelligence is Eternal & it is self exhisting" (p. 346); "Intelligence exists upon a selfexistent principle" (p. 360); "I believe that God is eternal. That He had no beginning, and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end. I believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning; it can have no end” (p. 33)

God as "spirit":

Baker is not the first critic to use this "argument." On p. 226 of their book, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine argued that the Book of Mormon is in conflict with Latter-day Saint theology, citing Alma 22:10 and Alma 31:15:

And Aaron said unto him, Yea: he [God] is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? (Alma 22:10)

Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.

According to Rhodes and Bodine, the Book of Mormon explicates an incorporeal God, in opposition to D&C 130:20 and defined Latter-day Saint theology. However, just as Rhodes and Bodine are guilty of eisegesis in their treatment of various biblical texts (search this blog for previous discussions of their work), they are also guilty of eisegesis of the Book of Mormon.

With respect to Alma 22:10, the use of the phrase, "Great Spirit" was Ammon's way of communicating the concept of God to someone who knew deity as "Great Spirit." Furthermore, the people mistook Ammon for the Great Spirit, notwithstanding the fact he was clearly corporeal (see Alma 18:2-5, 11 [from the same chapter Baker references])! Obviously, use of the phrase does not preclude God being corporeal.

With respect to Alma 31:15, such a verse is part of a prayer of an apostate group, the Zoramites, and is not a reflection of the theology of the Book of Mormon prophets themselves so to claim that the theology of the Book of Mormon is in conflict with Latter-day Saint theology about the nature of God is a non sequitur. It would be similar to arguing that the Gospel of John denies the virginal conception and birth of Christ as the Jewish opponents of Jesus believe Joseph to have been the biological father of Jesus (John 6:42)! Of course, that would be a nonsensical reading of the Gospel of John when read in context, just as the charge made by anti-Mormons such as Baker is nonsensical and reflective of an ignorance of the Book of Mormon text itself.

Polygamy:

It is interesting that Baker will cite Jacob 2:24 but did not continue reading. Had he done so, he would have read verse 30, which blows him out of the water (square brackets added for clarification):

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to engage in plural marriage]; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [monogamy].

The Book of Mormon does not state that all instance of plural marriages are an abomination before the eyes of God.

What is also often overlooked in this discussion is that Jacob 2: 24 is based on Deut 17:17, a text dealing with the ideal king from the perspective of the Deuteronomists:

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. (Jacob 2:24)

Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (Deut 17:17)

The Deuteronomy text warns against a Davidic king “multiplying” the amount of possessions he has, including gold, silver, and horses (see v.16). Contextually, it should be obvious that what is being condemned is not a linear increase of such things, including wives, but an exponential and/or forbidden increase thereof. As mentioned previously, in the case of King Solomon, he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kgs 11:3 [which also resulted in his embracing their idolatrous practices]), while David had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba, whom he would later marry as a polygynous wife, after murdering her husband to cover his tracks. Combined together, they truly had “many wives and concubines,” something condemned by Deut 17:17 and Jacob are unbecoming of a true Davidic king. That is what is abominable vis-à-vis the polygyny of David (and Solomon), not their polygyny per se, let alone the practice of polygyny in general.

For more, see Mike Parker, The Book of Mormon and the Fulness of the Gospel

Question Four: The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon

 Sadly for Baker, Sourceflix's (PKA Living Hope Ministries) production, The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon has long been refuted by LDS scholars and apologists. There has been a couple scholarly LDS responses to this “documentary,” including reviews by Brant Gardner (an anthropologist specialising in Mesoamerica) and Dr. David Bokovoy (expert in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible). The reviews can be found online here:

Brant Gardner, "Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion."

David E Bokovoy, “The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon: Still Losing the Battle.”

FAIRLDS (now FairMormon) produced a DVD responding to the “documentary,” too, featuring leading LDS scholars (e.g., Daniel Peterson; John Tvedtnes; John Sorenson). An online version can be found here:

It should also be noted that Stephen Smoot, James Stutz, and I researched and wrote a response to another "documentary" by Joel Kramer et al., The Bible vs. Joseph Smith:

Joel Kramer Vs. The Bible and Joseph Smith

Additionally, some Book of Mormon sites have been found  The River of Laman and its Valley of Lemuel, the burial site Nahom, and the garden spot Bountiful in the Arabian Peninsula have all been found and verified. These are all non-biblical sites, and in the case of the River of Laman and Bountiful, continue to be mocked as impossible by many critics of the Book of Mormon. In the case of Nahom, altars have been found attesting to its name pre-dating the Book of Mormon (it is referenced in the passive voice in 1 Nephi 16:34) as well as its function as a burial spot. Furthermore, the seal of Mulek, the son of Zedekiah has been recently discovered, too. While Baker is clearly unaware of such, the evidence for Book of Mormon historicity continues to grow in leaps and bounds. As for the New World, readers should pick up a copy of John L’ Sorenson’s volume, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Books (Deseret and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2013) and Brant Gardner’s book examining the text as history, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Greg Kofford Books, 2015). A good summary of the evidences from various aspects of the book can be seen in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, ed. Parry et al (FARMS, 2002).

Baker, alongside being woefully informed about the basics of biblical exegesis, theology, and "Mormonism," is also ignorant of the Book of Mormon and its scholarship.

Conclusion

In a facebook post [update: this f/b account has been deleted by Baker], Baker stated the following about these questions:

Yet, in all honesty, I offer any Mormon anywhere in the world the motivation of $1,000.00 to take the time to answer the four questions that drove me out of the Mormon Church, they are attached to this post.

As Baker has been soundly refuted on all these questions, he can click on the link here so he can send me the $1,000.00 or alternatively my mailing address for the cheque (heck, I'll even take it all as an amazon voucher!). He can also prove good on his promise in the article to desist in his misinformed "arguments" against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.





Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme