In a section
entitled “No Need for a Prophet Today,” Christina Darlington writes the
following against the Latter-day Saint belief in modern apostles and prophets:
Is it true that without the revelations of a
modern-day prophet, God’s people would be led astray?
No! The Bible says in Hebrews 1:1-2: “God . .
. spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.”
Likewise, Luke 16:16 states, “The law and the
prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached,
and every man presseth into it.”
What these Scriptures are teaching is that up
until the time of Christ, God used prophets to speak to His people, but now
through Christ, every Christian has direct access to personal revelation from
God through His Holy Spirit . . . Jude 3 exhorts believers to “contend for the
faith: which was once delivered unto
the saints.” According to Strong’s Concordance,
the Greek word (απαξ, hapax) translated “once” means “one (or
a single) time.” So in other words, the gospel was delivered “once” and for all
time. (Christina R. Darlington, Misguided
by Mormonism But Redeemed by God’s Grace: Leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints for Biblical Christianity [2d ed.; 2019], 109-10, 112,
emphasis in original)
Needless to
say, Darlington is engaging in the eisegesis that she often accuses Latter-day
Saints of engaging in. For a refutation of all these texts (and others), see:
On p. 109,
Darlington notes that Latter-day Saints often appeal to Amos 3:7 to support our
belief in modern apostles and prophets. While I agree that, contextually, this
is not about the need of modern prophets per
se, Amos 3 (including v. 7 itself) is evidence supporting a Latter-day
Saint doctrine that Darlington rejects—the divine council and council of gods.
On this, see:
David E.
Bokovoy, "בקעי תיבב ודיעהו ועמש: Invoking
the Council as Witnesses in Amos 3:13," Journal of Biblical Literature,
Vol. 127, No. 1 (Spring 2008), pp. 37-51 (available online here)
Darlington
tries to utilise two biblical texts to support the belief we do not need apostles
and prophets. The following is her first example:
In John 14:26: Jesus promised, “But the
Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, he shall teach you all
things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said
unto you.”(Ibid., 110, emphasis in original)
Firstly, it
should be noted that, per the context of this verse, Jesus is speaking to the
apostles, not every single believer! This alone would refute Darlington, but be
that as it is, Latter-day Saint theology has no issue with this promise; in
fact, we believe that the Holy Ghost can and will lead individual believers
into truth. Indeed, the Prophet Joseph stated that it was the duty of all Latter-day Saints to be prophets:
For
instance, in a sermon from August 1839 (as recorded by Willard Richards),
Joseph Smith said:
No man is a minister of Jesus Christ, without
being a Prophet. No man can be the minister of Jesus Christ, except he has the
testimony of Jesus & this is the Spirit of Prophecy. (The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo
Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, eds. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W.
Cook [Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 1991], 10)
Furthermore,
texts such as the famous Moroni 10:3-5 clearly teach that the Holy Spirit can
and will lead individual believers to spiritual truth.
However,
there are many problems with Darlington latching onto this text to the exclusion
of the rest of the New Testament's teachings on ecclesiology. Jesus, after all,
did establish a Church with the ability to “bind and loose” (Matt 16:16-18;
18:18), and when it came to issues that were of theological importance for all
within the Church, such were not decided by subjective religious experiences,
but the upper echelons of the Church and the authority of the Church itself. A
prime example is that of Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem.
Acts 15 opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council being called Verse 7 tells us that there was much debate among them. Apparently, they could arrive at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a new Gentile convert had to be circumcised.
This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.
This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.
Notwithstanding, Acts 15:7 records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders. Three times in this speech he invokes the name of God to back up his single authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole Church. In verse 7 he says that God chose him, singularly, to give the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 15:10 he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation - that men are saved by grace, not works of law and only after that, does James stand up, as bishop of Jerusalem, and cite Amos 9:11-12. Needless to say, there is nothing in Acts 15 to support the formal sufficiency of Scripture--indeed, Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the cessation of circumcision, speaking only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was interpreted to mean that the influx of Gentile converts into the Church fulfilled the text (see Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical lens," if you will, that helped this was not Scripture, but Peter's experiences as recorded in vv.1-11 and the "cherry on top" was the ecclesiastical decision made by the apostles of the Church. This is part-and-parcel of Latter-day Saint ecclesiology, but it contrary to Darlington's Protestant theology.
Indeed, with respect to the Council and its use of scripture, James uses Amoa 9:11 in a way that, had a Latter-day Saint used a biblical text in like-manner, Darlington would be crying "foul!" How so?
Indeed, with respect to the Council and its use of scripture, James uses Amoa 9:11 in a way that, had a Latter-day Saint used a biblical text in like-manner, Darlington would be crying "foul!" How so?
Amos 9 is used in the Council of Jerusalem 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).
For previous responses to issues raised in her book, see the listing at:
Listing of Responses to Christina R. Darlington's "Misguided by Mormonism"
We can say
something similar with Darlington’s appeal to 1 Cor 15:1-4, where she argues
that this text
. . .
teaches that the gospel consists of belief in Jesus Christ’s death for our
sins, His burial and His resurrection. But did you know that most Mormons today
think that this simple gospel taught in the Bible is complete? (Ibid., 111)
Firstly,
this text was written during time of special revelation and inscripturation. If
such was truly enough, there would be no need for any inscripturated revelation
after Paul wrote First Corinthians.
Secondly Latter-day
Saints have issue with the “gospel” being narrowly defined as such; indeed,
Jesus repeated a similar definition of the “gospel” in 3 Nephi 27:13-21:
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 repenteth and
is baptized 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 into 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 his 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 baptized 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. (3 Nephi 27:13-21)
Thirdy, Darlington would have to claim that Jesus was in error, for he
was preaching "the gospel of kingdom" in Matt 9:35, but it was only afterwards in Matt 16 when he revealed that he would have to suffer, die, and be
resurrected:
From that time forth
began (Ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο) Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go
unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and
scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. (Matt 16:21)
Finally,
Darlington, while absolutising this text, is begging the question. Yes, the
gospel consists in the saving work of Jesus, that is not disputed. However, how does one appropriate such is the
issue as well as how does one maintain right-standing before God? That is the
issue. You will note that Darlington, if she were consistent, would have to
fault her own theology, as it tells you what you must believe in that is not
explicitly stated in 1 Cor 15:1-4, such as imputed righteousness, baptism as
merely symbolic, Creedal/Latin Trinitarianism, etc. As three examples of how her
Protestant theology is anti-biblical and Latter-day Saint theology is on solid biblical
grounds, see, for e.g.:
Against Imputed Righteousness:
Against a merely symbolic understanding of water baptism:
Against the Protestant understanding of the Atonement:
Finally, in a section entitled "No Need for a Restored Priesthood" (pp. 115-16), Darlington uses the standard Protestant approach to the issue, such as relying on outdated understandings of απαραβατος in Heb 7:24 and claim it means the Melchizedek Priesthood is "non-transferable" as well as that the Aaronic Priesthood was abrogated with Jesus (p. 115). For those interested, I would suggest pursuing my book:
After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood (2018) (a free PDF is available to anyone who requests at IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTcom)
For articles on this blog on the priesthood, including those that address directly Heb 7:24 and the Aaronic Priesthood in LDS theology, see:
As usual, Darlington is on an exegetical fishing trip, and not only has forgotten the fishing poles--she never knew how to fish in the first place.
For previous responses to issues raised in her book, see the listing at:
Listing of Responses to Christina R. Darlington's "Misguided by Mormonism"