There is a video that is making the rounds on youtube, “Mormon Secrets: What the Missionaries Don’t Tell You” by a user with the name, “"Saved XMormon” (an Evangelical Protestant). There are a number of errors in this short presentation; one can view it here (warning: the temple is parodied in this video):
Here are some of the errors, distortions, and examples of yellow journalism one finds in this presentation:
The Claim God chose Joseph Smith at the First Vision to Restore the Church
Firstly, in LDS belief, Joseph Smith was foreordained in the pre-existence to restore the Church; he was not chosen at the First Vision. Such was attested in a revelation given to President John Taylor in Salt Lake City on June 27, 1882:
Behold, I raised up my servant Joseph Smith to introduce my Gospel, and to build up my Church and establish my Kingdom on the earth; and I gave unto him wisdom and knowledge and revelation, and intelligence pertaining to the past, the present, and the future, even to that extent which was not known among men; and I endowed him with power from on high, and conferred upon him the Priesthood of Aaron, and also the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which is after the order of the Son of God, even the holiest of all, and after the power of an endless life, and administereth forever in this world and the world to come. He was called and ordained to this office before the world was. He was called by me, and empowered by me, and sustained by me to introduce and establish my Church and Kingdom upon the earth; and to be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to my Church and Kingdom: and to be a King and Ruler over Israel. (Revelation to John Taylor, June 27, 1882, John Taylor Papers, LDS Church Archives, as cited by John A. Tvedtnes, Organize my Kingdom: A History of Restored Priesthood [Bountiful, Utah: Cornerstone Books, 2000], 13)
Additionally, the presentation tried to show Joseph Smith’s experience as “odd,” coupled with his being called by God. However, one could easily parody, in a similar manner, the apostle Paul’s vision of Jesus on the Damascus Road and, in a comedic manner, denigrate the claim Jesus chose him to be an apostle. Of course, as with so many Evangelical critics of “Mormonism,” consistency is thrown out of the window by this critic, demonstrating a lack of intellectual integrity and honesty—such a theme continues throughout the video.
God told Joseph, at the First Vision, that Christianity had become completely corrupt
Firstly, it was Jesus, not God (the Father) who told Joseph Smith that the creeds of Christianity were corrupt, not Christianity as a whole:
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight . . . (JS-History 1:19)
To claim that the LDS Church teaches that Christianity in all things is wrong is a non sequitur (e.g., many groups believe in the salvific importance of water baptism; all teach a supernatural worldview; most, outside liberal Protestant groups, accept the physical resurrection and future Parousia of Jesus Christ, etc). Joseph Smith (and Jesus) opposed the man-made creeds that post-dated the New Testament that did result in a perversion, not a clarification of teachings, such as those dealing with Christology (see, for e.g., my article, Latter-day Saints have chosen the true, Biblical Jesus). Joseph Smith himself would say the following on the topic of creeds:
I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;’ which I cannot subscribe to.” Joseph Smith, Discourse to Saints, October 1843; DHC 6:57.
The Prophet Joseph Smith also stated the following:
..I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints … are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time…
Joseph Smith, January 1843,History of the Church, 5:215; from “History of the Church” (manuscript), book D-1, p. 1433, Church Archives.
Joseph Smith, January 1843,History of the Church, 5:215; from “History of the Church” (manuscript), book D-1, p. 1433, Church Archives.
It is clear that the creator is clueless about true Latter-day Saint teaching on this point.
How can “Mormonism” be “Christian” if Christianity is wrong?
The argument presented is illogical. Latter-day Saints believing that all other denominations within Christianity to be wrong is not the same as not being Christian. This is the same mistake that Eric Johnson made in a review of Stephen Webb’s book, Mormon Christianity. Johnson wrote:
In fact, if Mormons are Christians (synonymous), then I wonder if Christians (like Webb considers himself and I think I am too) are Mormon
While Eric Johnson (and the rest of the team at MRM) are not exactly well known for having a good grasp of logic (and biblical exegesis, among many other things, such as intellectual integrity, as demonstrated, for example, by Bill McKeever’s poor performance in a debate on justification), this is just stupid to the nth degree. “Mormonism” would be considered a subset of the broader category of Christianity, which is the perspective of Webb and others, not that they are one to one equivalent (Webb is a Roman Catholic and would consider himself to be a “Christian”; that defeats the nonsense Johnson is imputing to him). Such a comment by Johnson would result in “theist” and “Muslim” being one to one equivalent (of course, this is a straw-man he deceptively foists upon Webb).
God the Father being a “man” and not a “spirit”
No doubt the creator is trying to, implicitly, suggest that LDS theology is contradicted by John 4:24. However, if such is the case, it just shows that the author is poorly informed about this verse and biblical scholarship and exegesis.
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24 [NRSV])
John 4:24 is one of the most common proof-texts used against the Latter-day Saint belief that God the Father is embodied. However, from the get-go, one must note the irony that most critics who raise this verse are Trinitarians. Why? In this verse, there is a differentiation, not just between the persons of Jesus and the Father, but between Jesus and God (θεος)! Notwithstanding, there are some elements on this verse that are often overlooked by critics.
Firstly, the Greek of this verse is:
πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν
The phrase, often translated, “God is spirit” is in bold. In Greek grammar, this is a qualitative predicate nominative, which deals with, not composition, but one's qualities. Furthermore, from the context, this refers to man’s worship of God, not the composition of deity. Jesus is addressing a Samaritan, whose theology privileged Mount Gezirim, while the Jews privileged Jerusalem, one of the many disputes between them. Jesus, instead, echoing the universalism of the New Covenant, states that proper worship of God will not be localised in one place. In other words, this verse does not address God's physiological nature--only the means by which men communicate with God. Such must be done spiritually (i.e., spirit to spirit), and must develop a spiritual nature.
Furthermore, taking the absolutist view of this verse to its "logical" conclusion, one would have to state that it is a requirement that men are to shed their physical bodies in order to worship God--if God is only spirit and this passage requires men to worship God "in spirit," then men must worship God only in spirit. Thus, to cite John 4:24 against the teachings of Mormon theology is to claim that men cannot worship God as mortal beings, which is ludicrous. It would also akin to absolutising 1 Cor 15:45, and stating that Christ currently exists in an unembodied spirit, notwithstanding Christ's corporeal ascension (Acts 1:11) and His being depicted as embodied in post-ascension visions of Jesus (e.g., Acts 7:55-56).
A related criticism that has been raised by some opponents (e.g., Craig Blomberg in How Wide the Divide?) is that if God were to possess a physical body, this would make divine omnipresence impossible as God would be rendered "limited" or "finite" by that body. Therefore, God, in LDS theology, could not be omnipresent, something required by this verse. However, Latter-day Saints affirm only that the Father has a body, not that his body has him. The Father is corporeal and infinitely more, and if a spirit can be omnipresent without being physically present, then so can a God who possesses a body and a spirit.
Indeed, the Bible affirms that, though the Father has a body (e.g., Heb 1:3), His glory, influence and power fills the universe (Jer 23:34). He is continually aware of everything in the universe and can communicate with, and travel to, any spot instantaneously (Psa 139:7-12).
Furthermore, a question that is begged is that “spirit” is immaterial. However, many early Christians believed that “spirit” was material (e.g., Origen [who rejected a corporeal God, so such is significant], On First Principles, Preface 9 and Tertullian, Against Praxaes, 7), something consistent with LDS theology (D&C 131:7).
Another related verse that is often raised by critics is that of Luke 24:39. However, as with John 4:24, this is another example of eisegesis. What Evangelical critics fail to note is that the converse of the statement is not true. A living physical body most definitely does have a spirit. In fact, it is physically dead without one (James 2:26). A spirit alone does not have a physical body. But if God has a physical body, he also has a spirit. Therefore, even though God is corporeal, it is appropriate to say that God "is spirit" (as in John 4:24), for spirit is the central part of His nature as a corporeal being.
Moreover, it would not be appropriate to say that God is only a spirit based on this verse--here, Christ clearly has a spirit and a physical body. His spirit had just been recombined with His perfected and glorified physical body in the resurrection, a point He took great pains to demonstrate (Luke 24:41-43). He was not, however, "a spirit" in the sense of being only a spirit.
In unique LDS Scripture, we find something similar to John 4:24 echoed in D&C 93:33-35:
For man is spirit, The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy. And when separated man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.
In this pericope, man is said to be “spirit,” though such does not preclude embodiment. Furthermore, this shows that contra the video, LDS theology holds, not to "either-or" (a false dilemma one finds so often within Evangelical theology [e.g., either the Bible or another authority; either faith or works; either spirit baptism or water baptism . . . ]), but "both-and"; the Father is both spirit and embodied.
Biblical scholars would also disagree with the common eisegesis of John 4:24. New Testament scholar, C.H. Dodd wrote:
Biblical scholars would also disagree with the common eisegesis of John 4:24. New Testament scholar, C.H. Dodd wrote:
It should be observed that to translate 'God is a spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning. 'A spirit' implies one of the class of πνευματα, and as we have seen, there is no trace in the Fourth Gospel of the vulgar conception of a multitude of πνευματα. (C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: 1958], 225 n. 1)
On the absurdities of understanding John 4:24 as teaching the ontological nature of God, Origen wrote:
Many writers have made various affirmations about God and His ουσια. Some have said that He is of a corporeal nature, fine and aether-like; some that he is of incorporeal nature; others that He is beyond ουσια in dignity and power. It is therefore worth our while to see whether we have in the Scriptures starting-points (αφορμας) for making any statement about the ουσια of God. Here [1 John i.2] it is said that πνευμα is, as it were, His ουσια. For he said, πνευμα ο θεος. In the Law He is said to be fire, for it is written, ο θεος ημων πυρ καταναλισκον (Deut. iv.24, Heb. xii. 29), and in John to be light, for he says, ο θεος πως εστι, και σκοτια εω αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια (1 John i.5). if we are to take these statements at their face value, without concerning ourselves with anything beyond the verbal expression, it is time for us to say that God is σωμα; but what absurdities would follow if we said so, few realise. (Origen, Commentary on John xiii.21-23, as cited by Dodd, ibid., 225-26).
This is mirrored by the comments of Raymond Brown in his magisterial 2-volume commentary on John's Gospel:
[This verse is] not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" ( 1 John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16). (The Gospel According to John (i-xii), vol. 29 of the Anchor Bible [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966], 167.)
Alan Kerr offered the following comments on John 4:24:
6.6.4 God Is SpiritCommentators generally agree that this statement is not a philosphical proposition but a message about God in his relation to people. Two similar sentences about God in 1 John bear a similar sense: God is light (1:5) and God is love (4:8). It is also generally agreed that ‘Spirit’ here captures the Old Testament nuances of רוח as the life-giving creative power of God. The decisive issue for John is summed up in the stated purpose of the Gospel: ‘These things are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you might have life through his name’ (20:31). The goal is life (ζωή), and it is God the Spirit who gives life (6:63). This life is traced back to being born of the πνεῦμα, the life-Giver (3:5). In some way this life is bound up with knowing—knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent (17:3)—that is, knowing the truth.Given this statement—πνεῦμα ὁ θεός—we must interpret ἐν πνεύματι in the light of it. It cannot refer to any spirit, but only to the Spirit that is God. While the primary emphasis of ἐν πνεύματι is on the life-giving and creative power of the worship, there is also a secondary significance intimated by 3:8 where πνεῦμα is the unconfined, uncontrolled and uncomprehended wind/Spirit that blows where it wills. The presence of God who is πνεῦμα is not to be confined to Jerusalem or Gerizim. The true worshipper should therefore not be confined by spatial limitations.
On the other hand, for John the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. This emerges most clearly in the pronouncement about the Johannine Paraclete, who extends and communicates the presence of Jesus while Jesus is away. So in Jn 14:18 Jesus can say, ‘I am coming to you,’ and refer directly to the Spirit Paraclete in the previous verses (14:16, 17). C.F.D. Moule succinctly comments on how Christology dominated pneumatology in early pneumatic experience, a comment that aptly sums up the entwinment of the Spirit and Jesus in John: ‘The Spirit is Christified; Christ is Spiritualized.’ So given Johannine pneumatology it would be in order to say that worshipping ‘in Spirit’ would be partially equivalent to worshipping ‘in Jesus’. (Alan Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John [New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002], 192-94)
That the Father is embodied can be seen in a host of texts; take, for instance, Gen 1:26 which speaks of humanity being created in the "image" and "likeness" of God. The long-standing Latter-day Saint interpretation finds solid scholarly support, including the following:
[T]he Hebrew word for ‘image’ is also employed by P of Seth’s likeness to Adam (Gen 5.3), following a repetition of Genesis 1’s statement that humanity was created in the likeness of God (Gen. 5.1), which further supports the notion that a physical likeness was included in P’s concept. It is also noteworthy that the prophet Ezekiel, who was a priest as well as prophet at a time not to long before P, and whose theology has clear parallels with P’s, similarly speaks of a resemblance between God and the appearance of man. As part of his call vision in Ezek. 1.26, he declares of God, ‘and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form’ (the word demut, ‘likeness’, is used, as in Gen. 1.26). Accordingly, there are those who see the image as simply a physical one. However, although the physical image may be primary, it is better to suppose that both a physical and spiritual likeness is envisaged, since the Hebrews saw humans as a psycho-physical totality.
The use of selem elsewhere in Genesis and of demut in Ezekiel certainly tells against the view of those scholars who see the divine image in humanity as purely functional in nature, referring to humanity’s domination over the natural world that is mentioned subsequently (Gen. 1.26, 28), an increasingly popular view in recent years. Although the two ideas are closely associated, it is much more likely that humanity’s rule over the world (Gen. 1.26-28) is actually a consequence of its being made in the image of God, not what the image itself meant. (John Day, From Creation to Babel Studies in Genesis 1-11 [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013], 13-14).
Such conclusions are also supported by vv.21-25:
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind (לְמִינֵהו): and God saw that it was good. And God blessed the, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind (לְמִינָהּ), cattle, and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind (לְמִינֵהו): and God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:21-25)
According to this pericope, each class of creation is described as having been created "after its kind (alt. species [מִין])." Subsequently, they were assigned a duty--to multiply and replenish the earth. Horses do not look like mice and fish do not look like cats. They were created after their own kind. This is important as plays an important exegetical role vis-a-vis the relationship between God and the physical nature of man in the verses that immediately follow this pericope:
And God said, Let us make man in our image (צֶלֶם), after our likeness (דְּמוּת): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image (צֶלֶם), in the image (צֶלֶם) of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:26-28)
As Presbyterian Old Testament scholar, Meredith Kline, wrote:
By setting the image-likeness formula in the context of sonship, Genesis 5:1-3 contradicts the suggestion that the image idea is a matter of representative status rather than of representational likeness or resemblance. For Seth was not Adam's representative, but as Adam's son he did resemble his father. The terminology "in his likeness" serves as the equivalent in human procreation of the phrase "after its kind" which is used for plant and animal reproduction and of course refers to resemblance. (Meredith G. Kline, “Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit” Westminister Theological Journal, 39 [1976/77]: note 34)
Kline, on this theme, also comments that "the traditional avoidance of the visible corporeal aspect of man in formulating the imago Dei doctrine (in deference to the noncorporeal, invisible nature of God) has not reckoned adequately with the fact of theophanic revelation and in particular has missed the theophanic referent of the image in the Genesis 1 context" and that "the theophanic Glory was present at the creation and was the specific divine model or referent in view in the creating of man in the image of God."
Interestingly, Kline (correctly) rejects the idea that Gen 1:26 is evidence of a plurality of persons within the "one God" (a later reading that desperately tries to read the Trinity back into the Old Testament). On Gen 1:26 in the same article, he wrote:
In Genesis 1:26 it is the plural form of the creative fiat that links the creation of man in the image of God to the Spirit-Glory of Genesis 1:2. The Glory-cloud curtains the heavenly enthronement of God in the midst of the judicial council of his celestial hosts. Here is the explanation of the “let us” and the “our image” in the Creator’s decree to make man. He was addressing himself to the angelic council of elders, taking them into his deliberative counsel.
This understanding of the first-person-plural fiat is supported by the fact that consistently where this usage occurs in divine speech it is in the context of the heavenly councilor at least of heavenly beings. Especially pertinent for Genesis 1:26 is the nearby instance in Genesis 3:22, a declaration concerned again with man’s image-likeness to God: “Man has become like one of us to know good and evil.” The cherubim mentioned in verse 24 were evidently being addressed. In the cases where God determines to descend and enter into judgment with a city like Babel or Sodom, and a plural form (like “Let us go down”) alternates with a singular, [30] the explanation of the plural is at hand in the angelic figures who accompany the Angel of the Lord on his judicial mission. [31] When, in Isaiah’s call experience, the Lord, enthroned in the Glory-cloud of his temple, asks, “Whom shall I send and who will go for us?” (Isa. 6:8), the plural is again readily accounted for by the seraphim attendants at the throne or (if the seraphim are to be distinguished from the heavenly elders, as are the winged creatures of the throne in Revelation 4) by the divine council, which in any case belongs to the scene. (A similar use of the first person plural is characteristic of address in the assembly of the gods as described in Canaanite texts of the Mosaic age.)
The mortality of the Father being lampooned
It is true that Joseph Smith taught that the Father experienced a mortality similar to that of Jesus. However, the Evangelical theology of "Saved XMormon" can be lampooned vis-a-vis their Christology. After all, they believe that the son person of the Trinity came down to a planet (this earth), was fully man (a la the Hypostatic Union), and, as we learn in a host of texts, such as Phil 2:5-11, was exalted by his Father and his God (cf. Heb 1:8-9; John 20:17) after his ascension into heaven. Furthermore, that Christ was truly a man can be seen in Heb 2:16-17:
For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in evey way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. (NIV)
Interestingly, Heb 2:17 is a text that is inconsistent with most Evangelical views on the atonement; for an article that touches upon Hebrews and the atonement, see Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement
The LDS belief in a plurality of Gods
That the Bible affirms the ontological existence of (true) gods is affirmed in many places. Note, for instance, 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.
Another potent example would be Gen 20:13.Firstly, a short Hebrew lesson. The term אֱלֹהִים is irregular in that, while its form is plural, it can denote either a singular or plural Elohim (“G/god[s]”—not “human judges”) depending on the verb it is coupled with. For instance, in Gen 1:1, it is coupled with a verb in the second person singular, so Elohim is singular; however, there are many instances where it is coupled with a verb in the plural, denoting plural “G/gods” (e.g., Psa 82:6).
In Gen 20:13, the Hebrew reads (followed by my transliteration and translation of the text in red):
וַיְהִ֞י כַּאֲשֶׁ֧ר הִתְע֣וּ אֹתִ֗י אֱלֹהִים֘ מִבֵּ֣ית אָבִי֒ וָאֹמַ֣ר לָ֔הּ זֶ֣ה חַסְדֵּ֔ךְ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּעֲשִׂ֖י עִמָּדִ֑י אֶ֤ל כָּל־הַמָּקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָב֣וֹא שָׁ֔מָּה אִמְרִי־לִ֖י אָחִ֥י הֽוּא׃
Wyhy k'sr ht'w 'ty 'lhym mbbyt 'by ...
And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house...
Another way to render the pertinent phrase would be, "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house . . ."
Not only is this consistent with LDS theology, but also supports the creation story in the Book of Abraham. If it had been the singular 'God', it would have been ht'h 'lhym rather than the plural ht'w 'lhym, consistent with the creation account of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 4:1ff) and LDS theology, though it blows strict forms of monotheism (whether Unitarian or creedal Trinitarian) out of the water. If one want to see the exegetical gymnastics Trinitarians have to engage in to play-down the theological importance of this verse, see this post discussing the NET’s comment on Gen 20:13.
Human Deification ("eternal progression")
The Bible explicitly teaches that faithful Christians will inherit all that Christ received from the Father, including being partakers of the same glory He has received.
Note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
In 3:21, believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one. Sitting in it does not indicate, contra Robert M. Bowman, Richard Bauckham, et al, ontological identification with God (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).
As for Rev 3:9, believers are promised that they will be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, in all other instances where it is used in the book of Revelation it denotes religious worship (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9 (cf. my discussion on whether Jesus receives λατρευω in the New Testament).
To add to the discussion, here is the exegesis provided by New Testament scholar, Jürgen Roloff, on these important verses:
[3:9] With the same words that are in 2:9, the claim of the Jews to be the assembly (synagōgē) of God and the people of God's is rejected as false. Because they rejected Jesus as bringer of God's salvation, in truth they subordinated themselves to the dominion of God's adversary. Israel's heritage and claim are completely transferred to the Christian community. To it, therefore, also belongs the promise, originally made to Israel, that at the end time of the Gentiles will enter the city of God and subjugate themselves to the people of God (Isa. 60:14 and elsewhere). Indeed, among those who then come will be the unbelieving Jews, who will realize that Jesus loved them and that means he chose them; (cf. Isa. 42:1) and made them into the people of God. When mention is made of "bowing down" before the feet of the church, this assumes full participation of the church in the kingdom of Christ and sitting with him on his throne (v. 21) . . . [3:21] The final word about overcoming in the series of letters has particular importance. It summarizes in conclusion the central promise of salvation, which is the promises heretofore was sounded several times with variations and modifications, by using another Synoptic expression of Jesus (Luke 22:30b; Matt 19:28 [Q?]: to those who overcome is promised here participation in Jesus' heavenly kingdom. Thus, just as Jesus sits on his throne (cf. 5:6) beside God as equal ruler on the basis of his having overcome and thereby shares his dominion, so also will those who have overcome for his sake receive a place in his messianic rule (cf. 20:6) with unlimited communion, and even equality, with him. (Jürgen Roloff, Revelation [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 61, 65-66)
This is yet another area where Latter-day Saint theology and practice is more commensurate with “biblical Christianity” and not the theologies of our Evangelical opponents.
For more, see Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of Gods and Gods (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008), 359-426 for the overwhelming evidence of "robust deification" (where we become the same kind of being as God) from the Bible, as well as a scholarly presentation of LDS theology on this point (neither of which you will get from "Saved XMormon" and others).
Listing of commandments one must live by
The video then presents a series of commandments that Latter-day Saints are to practice, trying to give the impression that LDS soteriology is legalistic/Pelagian (which is it not) and/or that modern Mormons are like the Jews (esp. the Pharisees) of Jesus' day. However, again, the same type of "argument" could be used against the creator of the video and their Evangelical Protestantism; unless "Saved XMormon" is an antinomian (one who holds to "no-Lordship Salvation"), they also believe that a true Christian will produce good works as a necessary sign of their possessing "true/saving faith," and one could list them (e.g., not murdering; not committing adultery; attending a faithful Church; avoiding vulgar language; avoiding inappropriate forms of entertainment, etc.) I would not use such a tactic against Evangelicalism as I have intellectual integrity; it is a pity that the creator obviously lacks such.
For a more accurate discussion of LDS soteriology, see, for example, Answering Cecil Andrews on Salvation.
Sacred/Priestly Clothing and the New Name in the Temple
The concept of a believer receiving a new name is biblical, and the new name one receives at the temple is symbolic/preparatory of such:
As for the temple garment/priestly clothing, the creator is obviously ignorant of the Bible. Such is a biblical concept. For those who are interested in learning more, see, for example:
John A. Tvedtnes, Priestly Clothing in Bible Times
Stephen D. Ricks, The Garment of Adam in Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Tradition
Conclusion
While much more could be said, the above points should be enough to convince any intellectually honest individual that the video by "Saved XMormon" is nothing short of yellow journalism and lacking in any intellectual integrity--the distortions of LDS theology, its scriptures, and history reveals that the producer of the video is either grossly ignorant and/or deceptive in their presentation and understanding of all things "Mormon." Furthermore, the video is hardly a trustworthy source to learn more about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For that, one should look elsewhere on youtube.
Support this blog:
Paypal
Gofundme
For more, see Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of Gods and Gods (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008), 359-426 for the overwhelming evidence of "robust deification" (where we become the same kind of being as God) from the Bible, as well as a scholarly presentation of LDS theology on this point (neither of which you will get from "Saved XMormon" and others).
Listing of commandments one must live by
The video then presents a series of commandments that Latter-day Saints are to practice, trying to give the impression that LDS soteriology is legalistic/Pelagian (which is it not) and/or that modern Mormons are like the Jews (esp. the Pharisees) of Jesus' day. However, again, the same type of "argument" could be used against the creator of the video and their Evangelical Protestantism; unless "Saved XMormon" is an antinomian (one who holds to "no-Lordship Salvation"), they also believe that a true Christian will produce good works as a necessary sign of their possessing "true/saving faith," and one could list them (e.g., not murdering; not committing adultery; attending a faithful Church; avoiding vulgar language; avoiding inappropriate forms of entertainment, etc.) I would not use such a tactic against Evangelicalism as I have intellectual integrity; it is a pity that the creator obviously lacks such.
For instance, in an Evangelical tract I recently received, “Essentials for Christian Living” published by Grace & Truth (Danville, Illinois), there is a section entitled, “What you Should Do”:
The list tells Christians to:
Openly confess Christ before men
Be baptised
Surrender your life to God
Read the Bible daily
Pray, praise, and worship
Gather with other Christians
Give to the Lord
Witness to others
Do good works
Confess sins immediately
Looks for the Lord's coming
For a more accurate discussion of LDS soteriology, see, for example, Answering Cecil Andrews on Salvation.
Sacred/Priestly Clothing and the New Name in the Temple
The concept of a believer receiving a new name is biblical, and the new name one receives at the temple is symbolic/preparatory of such:
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. (Rev 2:17)
He that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of God, and he shall go no more out and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. (Rev 3:12)
As for the temple garment/priestly clothing, the creator is obviously ignorant of the Bible. Such is a biblical concept. For those who are interested in learning more, see, for example:
John A. Tvedtnes, Priestly Clothing in Bible Times
Stephen D. Ricks, The Garment of Adam in Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Tradition
For a fuller discussion of the temple, including refutations of many of the common criticisms against LDS temple theology, see, for example:
Matthew B. Brown, The Israelite Temple and the Early Christians
Conclusion
While much more could be said, the above points should be enough to convince any intellectually honest individual that the video by "Saved XMormon" is nothing short of yellow journalism and lacking in any intellectual integrity--the distortions of LDS theology, its scriptures, and history reveals that the producer of the video is either grossly ignorant and/or deceptive in their presentation and understanding of all things "Mormon." Furthermore, the video is hardly a trustworthy source to learn more about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For that, one should look elsewhere on youtube.
Support this blog:
Paypal
