Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this video
Asking around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line.
The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.
Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.
This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the
United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is
James White. Hey, good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line on a Thursday afternoon.
Mentioned on the blog, we'll be talking a little bit about an article, actually two talks given by Joseph Fielding McConkie.
And if that sounds odd to you, that's because he's the son of Bruce R. McConkie, undoubtedly the most outspoken of the apostles, at least in the late 20th century.
I said the entire 20th century, but we could, you know, be wrong about that.
But he certainly did make waves. And Joseph Fielding, normally when you hear
Joseph Fielding, you're expected to be finished by Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, who, of course, is related to Bruce R.
McConkie. And that's why Bruce R. McConkie's son then becomes Joseph Fielding McConkie.
Anyways, he is a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, just co -authored a book, a 1 ,200 -page work titled
Revelations of the Restoration. It was funny, I was looking around Deseret Book, and I keep an eye out.
I don't know why I consider this somewhat of a standard, but I think it's a good standard. I keep looking for the
Mormons to produce critical commentaries on New Testament books that are meaningful, especially the book of Romans.
I was looking around, and of course there still isn't anything. There's one book on Romans 1, which
I've had for a long time, and it is just horrible. And so that's what
I was looking around. And notice that there is a, looks like a new edition of the book by Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert Millett, which came out initially 20 years ago, in 1985,
Sustaining and Defending the Faith. And I am going to take a look at that new edition, see if it has changed anything from the old edition, because those of you who've read the blog know that we talk a little bit about the older edition.
It referred to those who believe in inerrancy as bibliolators and all the rest of that kind of stuff.
And so we're going to be looking at two talks that he gave, Joseph Fielding McConkie gave, at November 5th, so we're only looking at 12 days ago,
November 5th of this year, obviously, and he delivered them at a
Joseph Smith symposium held in Palmyra, New York, because we're coming up on the, you know, all the stuff about Joseph Smith this year, the date of his birth and 200 years and all the rest of that stuff.
And so that was that was the occasion of this particular talk, I'll be reading sections from it, because to me, it's fascinating, because I knew these folks are out there.
I haven't had as much contact up there ever since the King James only Wacoids invaded, as we used to have.
And, and I just know, you know, I've said over and over again, you know,
Mormonism just it can't morph into just another denomination, its history won't allow it, it would have to cease being
Mormonism, to stop saying that it's the one true church and to stop saying that it's priesthood is the only priesthood and to stop teaching what it teaches about God, it would have to cease to be
Mormonism. The idea of Mormonism becoming a liberal Protestant denomination, it just it just doesn't work.
And there has to be Mormons sitting there going, yeah, it doesn't. And I'm sick and tired of people trying to make it work.
Well, I think I think we found someone who is going to, what you're going to find interesting,
I think here, is you're going to see the reaction of a believing
Mormon to postmodernism. And to the creeping postmodernism, entering into his own, well, his own classes at Brigham Young University, for example.
That's what I found very, very interesting. There is a, let me let me just let me just read one section and we'll come back to this.
He says, when the dialogue between Christ and the woman from Canaan was read recently in a religion class at BYU, this is
BYU, all right, a number of the students were uneasy with the account of Christ's behavior.
A number of attempts were made to excuse or justify it. One student suggested that in calling the woman a dog,
Christ was really using a term of endearment. Such an explanation does not fit well in the context of the story.
Finally, a young lady gave expression to the thought that troubled many of her classmates with tears in her eyes.
She exclaimed, but Jesus was so unchristian. And at that point, you go, you know what?
I know exactly what he's talking about. Now, that's that happens not only in at BYU, unfortunately, that happens almost anywhere.
And so what you're going to hear are you're going to hear him saying a number of things where you have to go, yep, he is exactly right.
And then it's going to be followed immediately with absolute rank heresy. Because this is a believing
Mormon and what Mormonism teaches is heretical to its core. It's a polytheistic religion.
It's wrong as it can be. But as I said on the blog, at least, you know, like Walter Martin said,
I prefer my heretics straight up. And I can talk to someone like Joseph Fielding McConkie because he says he's right and God has spoken and we can get down to dealing with those claims.
It's this new kind of Mormon that's sort of wishy -washy, your feelings, my feelings, you know, postmodern, blah, they're not easy to talk to.
And I get the feeling that Joseph Fielding McConkie probably feels the same way. You know what?
So anyways, but before I get a chance to do that, already we have a phone call, which is rather unusual, but we'll go ahead and take it and talk with Tim real quick up in Oregon.
Hi, Tim. Hey, how are you? Doing good. Just a quick one. I don't want to sidestep the
Mormon stuff, but I have a question on Jehovah's Witnesses and the doctrine of salvation or justification.
Do they have one? They do. It's not something they talk a whole lot about.
In fact, if you were to take the December 15th issue of the Watchtower, where they have the index of the previous articles from the previous year, and go through that and look at it, you would discover that they talk about all sorts of other things a whole lot more than they do soteriology.
That's why I've said many times that soteriology is an excellent route of approach with Jehovah's Witnesses, because of the fact that they don't really spend a whole lot of time on it.
But back in the late 1980s, they were basically trying to, you see, you've got to realize, just like the
Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses are in transition right now. They are attempting, this time, not suddenly, but over time, to get rid of their 1914 teaching, which has been definitional of their, not only of their preaching ministry, but also of their view of salvation, because the fact that the memorial supper that they have, who can participate in that, what the new covenant is, the nature of the great crowd versus the anointed class, all that stuff, has been defined by the 1914 teaching ever since about the 1940s or so.
So to be getting rid of that, they're having to do it very slowly, and be very careful about how they do that, so as to lose as few people as they possibly can in the transition.
So the generation that was alive in 1914 is pretty much gone by now, and they said
Armageddon had to happen by then, and so now they're coming up with these other classes outside of the anointed class that are sort of taking over the roles of the anointed class, they can give themselves more time, etc.
etc. etc. And so they are in transition, and one of the elements of this transition is an idea that first got enunciated back in the late 1980s in the
Watchtower literature of being partially justified. You can be justified as a friend of God, like Abraham was justified as a friend of God, but not fully justified.
So you can be partially justified, but not a part of the New Covenant. And that's their big problem, is from their theological background, the
New Covenant is only with the anointed class. The vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, 99 .9999
% aren't in the New Covenant. The problem is, that is the very foundation of what justification is, and everything else in the
New Testament. So you had to come up with something, and so they came up with this idea of being partially justified.
And, of course, we immediately jumped on that and pointed out that's like saying someone's partially pregnant. You are, you're not.
It doesn't make any sense. And so that's pretty much where they are still stuck as far as that goes, that yes, by your faith toward God and your obedience to his revelation through his faithful and discreet slave, which is still the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, you are partially justified, but it's not in the way we understand it in the sense of a forensic declaration based upon the complete work of Christ in any way.
It's more of a James 2 type of a situation at that point. I see. So it's, okay.
That's what I was going to ask next was, you know, the basis they have, you know, what is the basis? Is it Christ's work plus something else?
You know, it's really weird. You will find almost always with Jehovah's Witnesses, especially with the ones going door to door, you find such a tremendous consistency in what they're going to say.
That's changing a little bit. And on this subject, you get the biggest variety of answers, because like I said, it's not one of their hot topic issues.
I mean, if you talk to them about Bible prophecy, they're all going to give you almost lockstep the exact same responses.
But since they don't spend as much time on this, you get all sorts of different responses. And I've talked with Jehovah's Witnesses who, for example, deny that God knows the future.
And in fact, you can demonstrate that that's pretty consistent. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is almost open theistic in its viewpoint.
God's knowledge of the future is predictive. It's not experiential or as a result of his decree, which is really interesting.
And then I have run into Jehovah's Witnesses who were rank Pelagians. They didn't know that, but they would be viewed that way.
And then I've found others who simply because they were reading their New World Translation enough, had a fairly high view of grace.
And since it wasn't something that was necessarily talked about all the time in the Kingdom Hall, they developed a rather interesting view of grace and not fully
Orthodox, certainly because they don't have a foundation, a finished work of Christ to really understand the fullness of it.
But still, they saw that, you know what, that stuff does appear in the Bible a lot. And so they developed that.
So at that point, you really have to ask the person to whom you're speaking sort of where they come down on that issue.
And you'll notice with a lot of them, a little bit of discomfort and maybe moving to get the subject off of that.
Because once they get past their particular verses about the 144 ,000 and the great crowds and stuff like that, they're very uncomfortable with that subject.
It's not one that they feel they can really make a whole lot of progress with at your front door, basically.
And so they want to move on from there. Right. Unfortunately, my mother -in -law has been studying with them for a little while, and it seems there's like an obsession with eschatology and stuff, and I'm like, well, you know, where's the beef?
Well, that is the substance, that is the substance of their message, the gospel and the idea of soteriology and salvation.
That is not the substance of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe at all. So yeah, that's what she's going to keep running into.
And I would be trying as much as I can in the communication with her to emphasize the centrality of the gospel and the demonstration of the fact that the gospel is what defines the
Christian church and so on and so forth. All righty? Okay, great. Thank you very much. Hey, thanks for calling. All right.
God bless. Bye -bye. All righty. Appreciate being able to help with folks like that and questions like that, and certainly pray that the
Lord will be merciful in that situation. Here's the topic, the title given to these talks,
The First Vision and Religious Tolerance, Joseph Fielding McConkie, November 5, 2005.
In Revelation, both ancient and modern, the Lord refers to his own words as being sharper than a two -edged sword. In modern vernacular, much that he said is politically incorrect.
It is judgmental, divisive, rigid, close -minded, and all too often just plain embarrassing.
In many of our instructional meetings, the teaching of ethics prevails over the teaching of doctrine simply to avoid giving offense or to avoid disagreement.
Everyone is pleased to speak of God's love. Rare are the mentions of his wrath or displeasure. If I hadn't told you he said that, you would have agreed with every word of it, and we can agree with every word of it.
That's exactly right. Here is a Mormon, and Mormonism, believe me, Mormonism is significantly more, in my opinion, susceptible to postmodern compromise because of the fact of their view of continuing
Revelation. They don't have a closed canon, and they've always rebelled against that, and McConkie will, in this talk, take shots at the concept of a completed
Revelation in the scriptures and will respond to that, but they are very much susceptible to that, but it did not grow out of any type of concept like that, and it is foreign to the teachings of at least the original apostles and all the way up to the past generation of Mormons to embrace any kind of a postmodern, wishy -washy, relativistic viewpoint of things, and so you're hearing it right there.
Rare are the mentions of his wrath or displeasure. Yep, that's, we agree. I have chosen to consider three touchier, sensitive texts that stay at the very heart of our theology.
I do so to honor Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the great martyrs of our faith. They did not seal their testimony with their blood in the jail at Carthage so that we might teach ethics.
They did not die in the hope that future generations of Latter -day Saints would go out and say to the world, look, we are just like you.
I hope you're hearing this. I find it fascinating. In death, John Taylor said, they sought to put a seal on the revelations found in the
Doctrine and Covenants of the Book of Mormon. They sought neither acceptance nor approval on the part of the historical Christian world.
Indeed, in all matters of faith, they sought to stand independent of it. As ironic as it may seem to some, it was in this course and in this course alone that they and those who sustained them expected to find peace.
I invite you to join me in consideration of three passages of scripture, each of which comes from the revelations of the
Restoration and each of which is frequently claimed by those not of our faith to be offensive to them.
Even within the church, there are some that are uncomfortable with these texts and feel a need to be apologetic for them.
I don't think he's using the term apologetic there in the classical sense. The first comes from the Lord's Preface to the
Book of Commandments, in which he refers to the church recently organized by Joseph Smith as the only true and living church upon the face of the earth,
Doctrine and Covenants, section 1, verse 30. The second is a part of the prophet's account of what we call the first vision, in which he asked the
Lord which church he should join. I was answered, the prophet said, that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the person to address me said that all their creeds were an abomination in sight, that those professors were all corrupt, that they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They teach for doctrines and commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.
Joseph Smith, History, 1, 19. The third text comes from the Book of Mormon, in which Nephi, speaking to those of our day, said there would be saved two churches only.
The one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil. Wherefore, whoso belongs not to the church of the
Lamb of God belongs to that great church, which is the mother of abominations, and she is the whore of all the earth, 1
Nephi 14 .10, subtitle Tolerance. Before addressing each of these texts,
I would like to make some brief observations about the principle of tolerance. You may be interested to note the word tolerance traces back to merry old
England, at a time when they were experimenting with drugs and poison. The idea was to see how much they could administer to a person without killing them.
Your level of tolerance was measured by the amount of poison you could endure before it killed you. When I was a young man, tolerance meant that we treated those with whom we disagreed with civility.
It did not mean that we were obligated to accept their point of view. To many of the young people in my classes today, it means that we are to be nonjudgmental, holding all men and all ideas to be equal, and that it is morally wrong to say something is morally wrong.
It is not an unusual thing to have students cover willful disobedience in the blanket of God's love and to advance the idea of a universal salvation that sounds dangerously like that advocated by Lucifer in the
Councils of Heaven, subtitle Being Christlike. People like to equate tolerance with Christlike behavior, which is in many ways a rather awkward fit.
My assumption is that you too have noticed that the appeal for Christlike behavior generally comes from people who have no meaningful understanding of how
Christ behaved and who would be greatly surprised to find out. When a dialogue between Christ and the woman from Canaan was read recently in a religion class at BYU, a number of the students ran easy with the account of Christ's behavior.
Finally, a young lady gave expression to the thought that troubled many of her classmates. With tears in her eyes, she exclaimed, but Jesus was so unchristian.
It was Isaiah who said that the Christ would come as a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense,
Isaiah 8, 14. The only way we can square the Jesus of the New Testament with the political correctness of our day, our modern version of tolerance, is to suppose that God is no longer offended by vulgarity, profanity, or immorality.
Is it bothering you to hear someone that we would identify as a cultist saying true things? You need to get over that problem and realize that people who are completely wrong can still see truths.
And we're seeing that in portions of this. We will see many falsehoods in our time, but that's why
I say this is somebody I can respect and I can talk to. And it's evidence that, as I said, there's got to be those
Mormons left in Mormonism going, what is happening to this church? And they're speaking out.
I expected they would, and they're probably speaking out more than I know, to be perfectly honest with you.
I continue. F .F. Bruce, in his book, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, reminds us that Christ made many enemies.
Bruce states, The Jesus whom we meet in the Gospels, far from being an inoffensive person, gave offense right and left.
Even his loyal followers found him at times thoroughly disconcerting. He upset all established notions of religious propriety.
He spoke of God in terms of intimacy, which sounded like blasphemy. He seemed to enjoy the most questionable company.
He set out with open eyes on a road which, in the view of sensible people, was bound to lead to disaster. As to how we as Latter -day
Saints view those not of our faith, and as to how we determine who in this world is
Christian and who is not, may I suggest that though many in the Christian world are anxious to draw a circle and exclude us, we choose to draw a very large and inclusive circle.
We will pray with any man who is willing to do so. Our bookstores do not contain anti -anybody literature.
We do not attack those of other faiths in our missionary lesson plan, nor do we do so in our church services or in any class sponsored by the church.
We do not give out warnings against those of other faiths, nor do we ever forbid our membership from listening to or talking to anyone they desire.
Now, obviously I need to stop at that point and make a comment. Maybe they've removed the books of Bob and Rosemary Brown from the bookshelves of their
LDS bookstores. Maybe those aren't there anymore. But as long as Joseph Smith's history is there, there will be and must be, and I think
McConkie admits later on, an element of exclusivism and an element of condemnation of the creeds of the
Christian faith. His own father made it very clear that the doctrines of Trinity was the whisperings of the devil.
So to say that that is the case, I think, is wrong. When it says we will pray with any man who is willing to do so, yes, but you won't let him into your temple, will you?
The fact of the matter is, when I've attended LDS church services, and I have not done so for a number of years now, but when
I did, the priesthood session was all about how the Bible had come from all sorts of different sources and was unreliable.
So I think there's something a tad bit disingenuous at this particular point in attempting to make this argument.
And obviously, the use of the term Christian here is being used in a very, shall we say, broad fashion, much broader than I would be comfortable with, but I continue on.
We seek to treat all that we meet on the path of life with dignity and respect and hardly join hands with all whose lives are found in the principles of love and kindness.
We esteem their religious rights as sacred as our own and are their allies and defense the same.
As to enemies, we did not choose them. They have chosen us. We have always had them and we always will.
Where we cannot befriend them, we choose to live above them. If any man or woman professes a belief in Christ, we say so much of the good.
They are at least on the road leading to gospel enlightenment. As my father noted, it is better to be a partial
Christian than a non -Christian. It is better to believe some of the doctrines of Christ rather than none at all. One truth paves the way for another, and we all need to advance in knowledge, understanding and quote, that is from one of Bruce Armaconti's books.
I, of course, could take some disagreement with that, but I will press on. This is a fairly lengthy article.
We take it as an article of faith that there are many yet on the earth among all sex parties and denominations who are blind by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie and wait to deceive and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it,
Doctrine and Covenants 123 .12. So it is that we have or yet will send missionaries to those of every nation, kindred, tongue and people.
Those missionaries will endure all manner of insult and hardship to present our message, which they will do with remarkable patience and in great love.
They are the peacemakers of whom Christ spoke in the Sermon on the Mount, and it is of them that Isaiah said, How beautiful upon the feet, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
The Ecumenical Movement, subtitle. As a young man, I was commissioned as an officer in the Army of the United States and assigned to serve as a chaplain.
My first duty was to report to an officer's training school at Fort Hamilton in New York. There, the chief of chaplains, a three -star general by the name of Charlie Brown, told us that our commission was to be the grassroots of the
Ecumenical Movement. There were 100 of us in that class, representing every major faith in our country.
We were instructed to work together. We were informed that it was a violation of military law for us to proselyte for our own faith.
Were I to attempt to teach Mormonism to someone who was not already a Latter -day Saint, would have been grounds for court martial.
Such is the cost of an Ecumenical Movement. I appreciate the observation of Elder Maxwell, who said,
There is today more ecumenism, but there is also more shared doubt. More and more people believe less and less, but they do believe it together.
The fewer the issues, the easier it is to get agreements. The fewer standards there are, the less there is for congregations to rebel against, since knowing is tied to doing, and doing to knowing, there is an awful cycle in all of this.
End quote. Got to agree with that one. No question on that one. By revelation, we as a people have been charged to stand independent of the world.
In a directive to priesthood leaders, President Packer stated, It is important to maintain a cordial and cooperative relationship with the leaders and members of other denominations.
Representatives of the Church should not join interfaith organizations that have as their focus ecumenical activities or joint worship services.
Interfaith relationships should center on moral values and on community betterment. End quote.
Subtitle, A Place for Boldness. Our story begins with the first vision, which in turn begins with Joseph Smith's desire to know which of all the churches are right and which he should join.
Orson Pratt echoed the prophet's telling of this story in a missionary track published in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1842.
He stated that matter thus, quote, He, Joseph Smith, saw that if he understood not the way, it would be impossible to walk in it except by chance.
And the thought of resting his hopes of eternal life upon chance or uncertainties was more than he could endure. If he went to the religious denominations to seek information, each one pointed to its particular tenant, saying, this is the way, walk ye in it.
While at the same time, the doctrines of each were in many respects in direct opposition to one another. It also occurred to his mind that God was the author of but one doctrine and therefore could acknowledge but one denomination as his church.
And that such denomination must be a people who believe and teach the one doctrine, whatever it may be, and build upon the same.
He then reflected upon the immense number of doctrines now in the world which had given rise to many hundreds of different denominations.
The great question to be decided in his mind was, if any one of those denominations be the church of Christ, which one is it?
Until he could become satisfied in relation to this question, he could not rest contented. To trust the decisions of fallible man and build his hopes upon the same without any certainty and knowledge of his own would not satisfy the anxious desires that pervaded his breast.
To decide without any positive and definitive evidence on which he could rely upon a subject involving the future welfare of his soul was revolting to his feelings.
The only alternative that seemed to be left to him was to read the scriptures and endeavor to follow their directions.
As you are aware, the Lord responded to Joseph Smith's question as to which church he should join, stating that he should join none of them for they were all wrong.
According to his own testimony, he was hated and persecuted for his persistence in telling this story. But he refused to desist in doing so for such a course, he said, would offend
God and bring him under condemnation. Joseph Smith, History 1, 19 and 25. At issue is whether the principle applies in the same manner to you and me.
In a hard lesson, Joseph Smith made the mistake of fearing man more than God and setting it not the counsels of God, as the
Lord put it, despising his word, which resulted in his having the gold plates taken from him. Doctrine and Covenants, section 3, verse 7.
Now, I only stopped long enough to direct you to Letters to a Mormon Elder and to the documentation of the fact that the entire story of the
First Vision is based upon historical fancy and that, in fact, Joseph Smith was not telling that story.
He came up with that story long after it allegedly took place. But that is another issue and isn't even the point of what this particular speaker is addressing.
So we will not extend our time upon that. Joseph Smith told the story at the peril of his life.
We tell it at the peril of social acceptance. Surely we can stand that tall. We are not insensitive to the fact that the declaration of the
One True Church doctrine can generate resistance and that it may be accompanied by observations to the effect that we are unchristian, narrow, and bigoted.
Should we not then make one accommodation and set this doctrine aside? Elder Packer asked rhetorically in a general conference address,
Would it not be better to have more accept what would be left of the gospel than the relatively few who are converted now?
Let me repeat that because I didn't do real well with putting that forward. Should we not then make one accommodation and set this doctrine, which would be the
One True Church doctrine, aside? Elder Packer asked that question rhetorically in a general conference address. Would it not be better to have more accept what would be left of the gospel than the relatively few who are converted now?
Our missionaries sift through thousands to find one convert. Our harvest may seem impressive, but we are but gleaners, as the scriptures have foretold.
We gather one of a city and two of a family, Jeremiah 3 .14. Some have recommended that we confine ourselves strictly to evidences of the gospel, happy family life and temperate living and so on.
Now, I just stopped in passing. I get the feeling that there is an admission there of something that I haven't heard a lot of admission of, and that is the fact that their numbers aren't that strong anymore.
You know, the big, huge, exploding religion thing, that's not Mormonism anymore. Mormonism's numbers are very soft and more natural growth than anything else.
And it sounds like there's an admission of that there. On the part of Joseph Fielding McConkie.
I continue on with his statements here. Could we not use the words better or best?
The word only really isn't the most appealing way to begin a discussion of the gospel. If we thought only in terms of diplomacy or popularity, surely we should change our course.
But we must hold tightly to it, even though some turn away. We know there are decent, respectable human people in many churches,
Christian and otherwise. In turn, sadly enough, there are so -called Latter -day Saints who, by comparison, are not as worthy, for they do not keep their covenants.
But it is not a matter of comparing individuals. We are not baptized collectively, nor will we be judged collectively.
Good conduct without the ordinance of the gospel will neither redeem nor exalt mankind. Covenants and the ordinances are essential.
We are required to teach the doctrines, even the unpopular ones. Now listen, this is in italics in the original.
Yield on this doctrine, and you cannot justify the restoration. The doctrine is true.
It is logical. The opposite is not. I find it so interesting that those who condemn us reject the parallel path philosophy themselves when it comes to non -Christian religions.
For if they do not, they have no reason to accept the Lord as our Redeemer or regard the Atonement as essential.
While the converging path idea is very appealing, it really is not reasonable. Suppose schools were operated on that philosophy.
With each discipline a separate path leading to the same diploma. No matter whether you study or not, pass the test or not, all would be given the same diploma, the one of their choice.
Without qualifying, one could choose the diploma of an attorney, an engineer, a medical doctor. Surely you would not submit yourself to surgery under the hands of a graduate of that kind of school.
But it does not work that way. It cannot work that way, not in education, not in spiritual matters. There are essential ordinances, just as there are required courses.
There are prescribed standards of worthiness. If we resist them, avoid them, or fail them, we will not enter in with those who complete the course.
Do you realize, again in italics here, that the notion that all churches are equal presupposes that the true
Church of Jesus Christ actually does not exist anywhere? That whole line is in italics, and I have to agree.
If there is nothing that can define the true Church of Christ, then it doesn't exist. Given that salvation cannot be found in both truth and error, let us ask a few simple questions.
Is there a law in the universe that governs all things? Do we have to obey the law to obtain the desired results in all fields of activity?
In the field of mathematics, is it possible for ten people to add the same column of figures and come up with ten different answers and all of them be correct?
Can a group of chemists set out to make a given substance, all using different materials or using materials in different proportions, and still arrive at the same results?
Can we drop a weight from a high tower expecting a different result each time we drop it? Knowing that laws govern all that we do in this temporal world, can we not suppose that laws in like manner govern all that happens in the eternal world?
Can there be existence of any kind if there are no laws? And if such laws exist, can we suppose that we may lay claim to the blessings of heaven while we disregard the laws of heaven?
If such laws declare that no unclean thing can enter the presence of God, can we justifiably suppose that we can enjoy his presence in a state of filthiness or rebellion?
Now, of course, how we understand these things, what he is meaning by how we obtain this forgiveness, we've documented many times very, very, very different.
All he's really addressing here, however, is the postmodernists in his own camp who are obviously and very clearly seeking to find some way of making the exclusivicity of the
Mormon proclamation, well, less exclusivistic. That doesn't work very well. That's his argument.
I think he's right. I continue. It may be argued that we do not have the truth, that we do not possess the plan of salvation, the authority of the priesthood.
But to argue that such a plan of the necessary priesthood does not exist anywhere is to argue against the existence of God. It is an argument of despair given birth in a dark corner of hell.
It is to say that there are no laws by which we might obtain the blessings of heaven is to concede that there is no sure path that we can follow in an attempt to obtain the treasures of heaven.
It is to liken the plan of salvation to a lottery. Can you imagine telling Joseph Smith that he is not a Christian when he is the first man in 1600 years to whom
Christ personally appeared? Don't you think you might feel just a little silly telling Joseph Smith the canon of scripture is complete when you learn that Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Elijah, John the
Baptist, Peter, James and John, among others, all personally appeared to him and gave him instruction in addition to that which had been recorded in holy writ.
Of course, I would also point out rather ironically and humorously that he believed that Elisha and Elias both appeared to him and he didn't realize those were actually the same person based upon the
King James Version translation of the Old Testament and New Testament. So anyways, so much for the prophethood of Joseph Smith.
But again, that is an issue that is not being directly addressed here. All are not equal, subtitle.
Would the people who claim all churches save ours to be true be willing when sick to take any randomly selected combination of drugs to cure what ails them or administer the same to their children?
Would they substitute sand for flour when baking bread, arguing that as long as they were sincere, it could not possibly make any difference?
Would they fill their gas tank with water, arguing that it too was a true liquid and was also a creation of God and that God loved all liquids the same?
Let us consider why the one true church doctrine is so offensive to some. And let me stop here and just mention, just a couple hours ago in Channel, someone was mentioning how
Calvinists are always told about how unloving and unkind they are. And part of the reason for that is sometimes
Calvinists can be unkind and unloving. But even when just raising theological issues, you will hear that.
The idea that there is a revelation in Scripture that is true over against revelations that's wrong, it's offensive to many.
And that's what's being addressed here. Let us consider why the one true church doctrine is so offensive to some. If we start with the premise as the traditional
Christian world does, and here's where we have gross misrepresentation, and this is certainly beneath Dr.
McConkie. He says that if we start with the premise as the traditional Christian world does, that God is incomprehensible, that no one can know anything about him with certainty, then you can be tolerant with all manner of views about God, irrespective of how ridiculous they may be.
Now, of course, that is gross misrepresentation. Not that we believe in any way, shape, or form, and he should know better, but anyway.
The only view that you could not tolerate would be one of certainty. That is, someone coming along and saying the plan of salvation isn't a matter of uncertainty or speculation.
God can be known, he does speak, and there is a sure path that he has marked out for us to follow, which, of course, is what we believe he has spoken, especially in his son and in his word.
To declare such a doctrine makes you the skunk at the picnic. If you are right, everyone must repent, everyone must conform their thinking, their faith, and their lives to accord with the will of God.
Be assured that anyone not interested in so conforming must, of necessity, act offended to the very idea of the existence of such a plan.
When we say that we are the only true and living church in the face of the earth, we are simply saying that we have been entrusted with the knowledge of those laws or truths by which salvation comes.
We make no pretense to being better than anyone else, as those laws make us better, and that, again, is what we seek to share.
No missionary has ever told anyone that in order to join the church, there were particular truths they would have to surrender in order to be baptized.
To the contrary, missionaries tell those they are teaching that anything they have that is virtuous, praiseworthy, or of good report to hold to as tenaciously as they can, to bring it with them, and we will add to it, but never take from it.
Now, of course, I would stop immediately and go, excuse me, how about monotheism?
The Trinity? Obviously, I have to read that a little bit differently.
By contrast, I have talked to a good number of missionaries from other faiths who sought to put a torch to the house of my understanding as a
Latter -day Saint. Having burned it to the ground, they have precious little to offer in its stead.
Now, let me stop right there and point out that I think probably on old tapes, we could go back to the early 1980s and document that I have said over and over and over,
I would rather have five people with me in Salt Lake City who know the Bible and know their faith and can give a defense of it than 50 people who can rip and shred
Joseph Smith but give nothing in its place. Give them nothing positive to take away, to give them for the faith you have taken away, the things you've destroyed.
And I found it interesting in reading this, having burned it to the ground, they have precious little to offer in its stead.
I wonder. Anyway, to join this church, he's talking about the LDS church, is to gain truth.
To leave it is to lose truth. There are no exceptions. Indeed, there is not a truth in all the eternities that we cannot enjoy in its fullness as Latter -day
Saints. One of those truths is that every soul born in this world comes to the light of Christ and the promise that they follow that light, it will lead them to God and the covenant of salvation.
Doctrine and Covenants 88, 45 through 48. God with whom no good thing goes unnoticed,
God whose right is to judge both men and organizations, found it necessary to call upon Joseph Smith Jr. to organize his church anew on the earth.
He did not do so because there was no redeeming value to be found in the Christian world. Quite to the contrary, he did it because there was sufficient goodness to justify re -establishing the church.
We do not need to trip over the matter of God's love or the goodness of people throughout the world. It was because of that love and because of the goodness of many that he restored his church and invited the historical
Christian world to be the first to join it. Thus, nothing in our message exceeds in importance the announcement that there is a sure path, a one true and living church.
There is no more positive message that we can take to the world. Let us not cause a spiritual eclipse by getting in the way of that message.
That's the first of the messages. Now, his second part, called Two Churches Only, subtitled
Creeds and Abomination. He says, while I preside over the mission in Scotland, one of the prominent ministers in the city of Edinburgh came to my office seeking answers to questions about Mormonism.
He said, I have some tough questions to ask and I cannot get straight answers from your missionaries. I promised him straight answers and spent a couple of hours responding to his questions.
I then said, now it is my turn. I have some tough questions to ask you. Now, this next point, to be perfectly honest with you,
I find absolutely, positively ridiculous and absolutely absurd and would love to talk to this alleged person who said this, but he says,
I asked how he justified the Christian creeds. He buried his head in his hands and was silent for a matter of minutes.
Then he raised his head and said, our creeds are responsible for the dark ages. And I just go, yeah, right.
Excuse me, what on earth was that supposed to be about? Then he goes on and tells this rather silly story about talking to this man.
I don't know if he was converted or what. Anyways, I share this story because I think it is important in responding to the matter of how we handle hard questions.
There is strength and power to be found in standing on our own ground that cannot be had in any other way. Now, this is interesting.
Remember, there's a lot of people in the LDS hierarchy that are trying to make Mormonism look like all the rest of us.
Listen to what's said here. Are not the creeds spoken of in the first vision simply a refill of the same prescription that killed the church in the meridian of time?
If you're not familiar with Mormonism, you need to realize they believe the church ceased to exist, that the promises of Christ were not fulfilled in point of fact.
Consider this text in a great revelation on the priesthood. After they have fallen asleep, meaning the apostles, the great persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even
Babylon that maketh all nations to drink of her cup in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign.
Behold, he soweth the tares that is the philosophies of men. Wherefore, the tares choke the wheat and drive the church in the wilderness.
Doctrine Covenants 86 .3 My experience suggests that the weaving of the philosophies of men with scripture is as dangerous individually as it is collectively.
It is an illegitimate union, the seed of which is not born into the covenant and the fruits produced, thereby do not engender the faith known to our forefathers.
In the words of the savior, every plant which my heavenly father hath not planted shall be rooted up. Matthew 15 .13
Subtitle, Save two churches only. If we are convinced about, if we are concerned, excuse me, if we are concerned about not offending the world, the first thing we ought to do is reject the
Book of Mormon. Can you imagine a book telling someone who believed in infant baptism that they are in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity, that they have neither faith, hope, nor charity, and that they ought to be cast down to hell for the very thought?
Mormon 8 .14 Can you imagine a text that is so direct in describing a particular church during a particular part of Earth's history as the church of the devil, that it is virtually an unforgivable sin among Latter -day
Saints to admit the truth of what is being said? 1 Nephi 13 .1 -9 And notice what he says there.
He admits that it is virtually an unforgivable sin among Latter -day Saints to admit the truth of what is being said in 1
Nephi 13 .1 -9. That to me, I find just really, really interesting.
The Book of Mormon is uncompromising. We're breaking the laws of God are concerned. It teaches that the effects of sin are eternal.
The laws of God are absolute. Its prophets testify that Christ's atonement extends the hope of salvation to you and me by answering the ends of the law.
Christ atoned to preserve the truth. To deny those truths is to deny Christ in the atonement. The Antichrist in the
Book of Mormon all struck out against the law and in doing so denied the need for the atonement. If the truths of salvation were not absolute, there would have been no atonement.
There would be no right, no wrong, no broken law, no law to be amended. There would have been no
Christ, no plan of salvation, for that matter, no God. Can it be any surprise that a book teaching such principles would, in describing the events following the restoration of the gospel, contain a statement of the effect that there are saved two churches only, the one being the church of the
Lamb of God and the other being the church of the devil, and that everyone belongs to one or the other? Let me suggest what is taking place here.
In his instruction to Nephi, the angel of the Lord chooses the most emphatic language at his command to teach what is the most fundamental principle of the
Christian faith. We are all subject to the fall of Adam and thus citizens of the kingdom of the devil. It is the fall that demands that we be born again and we put off the natural man and become saints of the atonement of Christ.
The fall lays claim to all that have been born. Christ lays claim to those who have been born again. It is only by putting off the natural man that we become saints or the covenant people of the
Lord. Only then can we be numbered among the church of the Lamb. The issue is one of citizenship, not of judgment. No one will be judged until they have had the opportunity to accept or reject the true and living
Christ of whom the Book of Mormon is a witness or so we have been told. You can say that you want, you can say what you want by way of criticism about the
Book of Mormon. Give it whatever grade you think it deserves but what you cannot say is that it lacks for plainness so that you cannot quite figure out where it stands relative to Christ and his gospel.
On such matters, it is plain, clear and bold. Its writers had no intention of being misunderstood. It is the theological
Everest. You can try to cover it with flowers but you're not going to be able to hide it. Simply stated, it is a public relations nightmare.
I love it because believe me, given how bad the Book of Mormon is in comparison, the
Bible is a whole lot more of a public relations nightmare and significantly clearer and significantly more offensive on that level.
As to why the Lord made it this way, we may not know. But this much we do know, it is philosophically impossible to reject truth without accepting error, to shut out the light without being immersed in darkness, to reject true teachers without cleaving to false ones, to reject the true
Christ and his prophets without giving allegiance to those who follow another master. We cannot march with both
Israelites and the Philistines. Light and darkness will never meet. Christ and Satan will never shake hands.
As to Christ and his gospel, there can be no middle ground and there is no neutrality. You stand with the prophets or against them.
The Book of Mormon was ordained in the councils of heaven to gather latter -day Israel and return them to Christ.
Thus, there must a necessity be direction that leaves no question as to where the great caravan of Israel is headed. Faith and restoration comes with a cost.
And as John Taylor said, that cost included the best blood of the 19th century to bring it forth to the salvation of a ruined world.
As the doctrine and spirit of the Book of Mormon is unyielding, so must the spirit of those who accept it be unyielding.
Subtitle, Common Ground. As a mission president, I discovered that the way we present our message has a good deal to do with who accepts it and how deeply their roots are anchored in the soil of the gospel.
Now, listen to this. This is fascinating to me. Again, if you don't know Mormonism, some of these things may be going past you.
And it's been a while since we've spent a lot of time talking about Mormonism. You got to realize I spent, you know, the first 18 years of formal ministry going up to Salt Lake City twice a year.
And out to Mesa once a year, spending a lot of time talking to Mormons. And there are fundamental foundational differences.
But I'm going to tell you something. The best conversations we ever had during that period of time were with people who actually believed
Mormonism was true. And they actually believed it was so true, they're willing to try to prove it.
They're willing to actually examine things. It's the postmodernist wishy -washy Mormon that you almost have no hope for.
And obviously, Joseph Fielding McConkie got his dad, his daddy's backbone. And it's fascinating to hear what he's saying here.
On this matter, some things are obvious. For instance, and this next point is really, really important.
You got to tune in here. If you've sort of gotten sort of wandered off, listen, listen. On this matter, some things are obvious.
For instance, it would be no great surprise to you that shallow missionaries get shallow converts.
In like manner, I do not think you'd be surprised, but the more direct we are, the more successful we are. There is no reason that missionaries cannot ask everyone they meet if they would like to be baptized.
What came as a surprise to me, however, was that nothing chased the dark spirit of contention away as effectively as the declaration of those very texts that seemed the most contentious.
Let me share our experience. Listen to what he says here. During a round of zone conferences, I challenged the missionaries to proselyte for one month without taking their
Bibles with them. This meant that they had to do all their teaching from the
Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. I told them that any principle they could not teach from those sources, they had no business teaching because it was not a part of the message that the
Lord had commissioned us to take the ends of the earth. Now, that's a fascinating statement. It seemed a reasonable assumption to us that if the gospel had indeed been restored and we in reality represented a new gospel dispensation, then we could teach the message as the
Lord had given it to us. Now, listen to what he says here. Between then and our next round of zone conferences, the reports flooded in.
The missionaries spoke of a stronger, even an overwhelming spirit in their cottage meetings. It was obvious the
Holy Ghost liked being a part of what they were doing. What was noticeable to the mission president was the increased confidence that they took with them into the teaching situation when they knew they're standing on their own ground.
Think about this for a moment. They won't use the Bible here. They're staying on their own ground.
That's telling you something about Mormonism. It's also telling you something about why Mormonism's numbers are failing because when
Mormonism ceases to be Mormonism, it no longer has the appeal that it once had. This has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit of God, of course.
This has to do with the fact that religions that stick to their guns are more appealing to people than those that compromise, quite simply.
The natural result of this was that somehow they started to find more people to teach than they ever had before.
These things I expected, but what I did not expect was the report that the spirit of contention, that is, people actually responding to Mormonism from the
Bible's viewpoint, common to many of their efforts to teach, was now gone. After our one -month experiment, our missionaries refused to return to their old methods.
Their faith was centered in the revelations of the Restoration. They liked the spirit of the whole thing, which means they didn't like the spirit of the
Bible. Can you see what was happening? They conceded the fact they did not necessarily know any more about the
Bible than those they taught. There was no reason for argument over the meaning of Bible passages, which was not their message.
That's for sure it isn't. Their message was that God had spoken through a living prophet, and they stuck to that message.
When those they were teaching understood this, they asked questions about what God had told the prophet about this, that, or the other thing, and with every question came the opportunity to open the revelations of the
Restoration and let the light they contained shine. That light carries with it its own spirit, that's for sure, small s.
You can accept it or you can reject it, but you cannot argue with it. Well, if it's not the spirit of truth, then I guess you couldn't.
Can you imagine arguing with Moses about whether the Lord had given him the Ten Commandments or not? Well, not exactly a parallel here, but it's fascinating to me what's being said here in regards to the scriptural revelation and the fact they're trying to avoid anyone basically holding their feet to the fire to the alleged consistency that Mormonism has the
Bible. Surely someone must have said, well, let me run out of time here. Let me move on here just a little bit.
The Restoration began with Joseph Smith on his knees in a sacred grove, and that is where the testimony of every Latter -day Saint must begin, on their knees in a sacred moment, asking of God.
Everything that we believe as Latter -day Saints rests in the reality of what God said that spring morning to Joseph Smith, and the great irony of it all is that the harder the saying, the more offensive it seems to the world, the more peace it brings.
It is the very light that chases away the darkness of contention with all that are honest in heart. Well, there you're going to your subjectivism there, and that's why
Mormonism is collapsing to this, even though folks like McConkie are trying to fight it.
Subtitle, No Middle Ground. Perhaps, and I quote this in the blog. Listen to what's said here. Perhaps we need to rethink the idea of seeking common ground with those we desire to teach.
Every likeness we identify leaves them with one less reason to join the church. When we cease to be different, we cease to be.
Isn't that interesting? Could you imagine a vacuum salesman telling someone, this vacuum is just like the one you already have, but if you buy it, your parents will disown you and everyone in the neighborhood will hate you.
How many vacuums would you expect this salesman to sell? And then he tells a story about a guy who didn't join because the fact that it's that he said they were trying to be like the
Catholic church and there was no reason to be like the Catholic church. Conclusion, as a mission president, I was grateful for the three texts we have considered this morning.
I needed something, not from me, but from the Lord that justified the faith and sacrifice that I knew membership in the church would require.
That such texts will give offense to some is true. Truth, however, is more important than harmony. Were that not the case, there would have been no war in heaven, no gospel of Jesus Christ, no reason for the
Father and the Son to appear to Joseph Smith in the sacred grove. If we're to be Christ -like people, we must value truth above life itself.
Now, again, that's why I say this is the kind of guy you can talk to. This is the kind of person that you can take to dealing with the first vision and dealing with the biblical teaching about who
God is and so on and so forth. True it is that there are those who think it quite unchristian of Latter -day
Saints to suggest they cannot be saved in their errant doctrines. It is the same people who hold the gates of heaven open to all who profess
Christ, except us. Now, I don't know who these people are. It certainly ain't us. If you're going to talk about folks like us, at least try to represent it.
Real quickly here, the plain fact of the matter is you cannot build strong testimonies out of weak doctrine, as there is no courage without a struggle, so there can be no spiritual strength without challenge.
We have claim to neither peace nor safety, save we build on a strong foundation. I've linked to these.
I suggest you take a look at it, especially if you're interested in it. It is fascinating to me that there is this struggle going on within Mormonism, and it's going to continue going on.
We'll have more to say about that. I do want to really, really quickly grab Miles in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Miles, real quickly, what's up?
Dr. White, it's a pleasure to talk to you. Real quick, I had a Bible study with a pastor in a leaders meeting, and we opened up Romans 8 .1,
and noticed that there seems to be a little more to this verse in the
New King James than there is in the New American Standard, and I just want to get your thoughts on that one.
That's because you have a textual variant in the text here, where you have in the
Textus Receptus and in the Byzantine Greek text that underlie the
TR, and hence both the King James and the New King James. New King James is based upon the very same
Greek text the King James is based upon. It's not based upon the majority text. It's based upon this thing called the
Textus Receptus, and in that, what I would believe, and I think the vast majority of scholarship would say is a later text, you have an added line that actually comes from verse 4, and that is for those who walk not according to flesh, but according to spirit, is found in those manuscripts in Romans 8 .1
as well. And the majority text contains those words. They are not found in the original
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Codex Bézé, FG, a number of others, Ambrosiaster.
There's a number of other early Bible translations and the languages likewise do not have those specific words.
So that's what you're looking at there is not a translational difference. What you're looking at there is a difference in the underlying text, and hence any of the translations based upon the
TR will have that longer reading in Romans 8 .1. So did
I hear you correctly say that's not in the majority text? The majority text does have it.
Yes, it does. It does have it. Okay. I use the NASB usually, and so I heard him read that verse like,
I don't remember it that way. I didn't address that in the King James only controversy, but yeah, that is simply one of those places where you have an expansion in the
Texas Receptus Byzantine text type and it comes word for word straight out of verse four, which is there in chapter eight.
And it's a textual call. I mean, I would hope, does the
NASB, I'm going to let me look here real quick. I have the NASB with me right now. Looking at the,
I've got the electronic version in front of me. I don't see a note. Oh, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Yeah, I don't see a note saying that some manuscripts have this.
The New King James, however, I'd be a little surprised if the New King James didn't have some notes at that point, because it normally tries to explain that at this particular point in time.
I'm scrolling down here. At least the electronic version does not, but most of the New King James would probably have a note where there's a major variance between the
TR and the text numerical standard, NIV, ESV, all the other modern translations.
Because if you add that in there, it kind of almost changes the meaning of the verse. It definitely introduces a number of exegetical issues that are not there when you go with the modern text.
Any of your critical commentaries will make note of that. So if you look at Murray, if you look at Mu and others, there'll be commentary on what the actual exegetical difference is as you translate that passage, whether you use the
TR or the modern text. OK? Thank you for your time. All right. Thank you. God bless. Thank you, Colin. Thank you for listening today.
We talked pretty fast today. But hey, that's sort of how things go. We'll be back, Lord willing, on Tuesday morning.
I've got a big bike ride between now and then. But hey, I hope I make it through that and be back with you Tuesday morning.
God bless. Phoenix, Arizona, 85069.
You can also find us on the World Wide Web at AOMIN .org. That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates and tracks.