November 17, 2005

Webcasting 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. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight, seven. Seven seven five three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Joseph Fielding McConkie and Mormonism’s Response to Postmodernism

And 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.

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. Brigham Young University. Just co-authored a book 1200 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 and.

And I especially the book of Romans and I was looking around and of course there still isn't anything there is one book on Romans 1 which I've had for a long time and it is just horrible and So that that's what I was looking around and Noticed 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 talked a little bit about the older edition it referred to those who believe in inerrancy as Bibliologists and all the rest that kind of stuff and so we're gonna be looking at two talks that he gave Joseph Fielding McConkie gave at November 5th, so we're only 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 that stuff and.

So that was that was the occasion of this particular talk. I'll be reading sections from it because it 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 Waco aids invaded as we used to have 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 prize 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 post-modernism and To the creeping post-modernism. 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, then 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. 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 un-christian.

And at that point You go you know what I know exactly what he's talking about that 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 gonna hear him saying a number of things where you have to go yep.

He is exactly right, and then it's gonna be followed immediately with absolute rank heresy. Because this is a believing Mormon. What Mormonism teaches is heretical to its core the polytheistic religion?

It's it's wrong as it can be but as I said on the blog at least you know like 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. Don't want to slide stuff the Mormon stuff, but I have a question on Jehovah's Witnesses and the Doctrine of Salvation. Mm-hmm. 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 and go through that and.

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 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 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 of their preaching ministry, but also of their view of salvation because the fact that the the the memorial supper that they have who can participate in that what the new covenant is the.

The nature of the 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 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 was justified as a friend of God. But not fully justified so you can you can be partially justified but not a part of the New Covenant and it's that's their big Problem is from their theological background.

The New Covenant is only with the anointed class the the vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses nine nine point nine nine nine nine percent 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 point out that's like saying someone's partially pregnant.

It doesn't know 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 by. By your faith toward God and your obedience to his revelation through his faithful and discreet slave.

Which is still the watchtower Bible track Society. You are partially justified but it's not in the way we understand it in the sense of a a Forensic declaration based upon the complete work of Christ in any way.

It's it's more of a James to type of a situation at that point. I think so.

It's okay. That's what I was gonna ask. Next was, you know, the basis they have, you know. What is the basis of the clock. Something else? You know, it's really 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 gonna 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 gonna 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 or as a result of his decree, which is really interesting. But and then you I have run in Jehovah's Witnesses who were ranked Pelagians.

They didn't know that but they would be viewed that way and then I 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 and a finished work of Christ to really understand the fullness of it, but still They saw that you know what that that stuff does appear in the Bible a lot.

And so they develop 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 there Their particular verses about the hundred forty four thousand and the great crowds like that.

They're very uncomfortable with that subject. It's it's not one that they feel they can really make a whole lot of progress with at your front door Basically and say they want to move on from there.

Right my. Unfortunately, my mother-in-law's been studying with them for a little while and seems like there's like an obsession with. With eschatology and stuff. I'm like, well, you know, where's the 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 and I would 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 is what defines the the Christian Church and so on so forth.

All righty. Hey, thanks for calling. All right. All righty. Appreciate being able to help with folks like that and the questions like that and certainly pray that Lord will be merciful in that situation.

The First Vision, the Only True Church, and Religious Tolerance

Here's the The topic the title given to these talks the first vision and religious tolerance. Joseph Fielding McConkie November 5th 2005. In revelation both ancient 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 Closed-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. Where are the mentions of his wrath or displeasure if I hadn't told you who said that? You would have agreed with every word of it and we can't 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 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 that but it was not 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 you know, the past generation of Mormons to Embrace any kind of a post-modern 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. They had the very heart of our theology I do so to honor Joseph and Hiram 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 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 the Doctrine and Covenants 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 considering in consideration of three passages of Scripture. Each of which comes from the revelations the restoration of 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 prophets 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 who addressed 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 the commandments of men having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof Joseph Smith history 119. The third text comes from Book of Mormon in which Nephi speaking of to those of our day said there would be Saved two churches only the one is the church the Lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil.

Wherefore whoso belong is not the church the Lamb of God belongs to that great church Which is the mother abominations, and she is the whore of all the earth first Nephi 1410 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 can 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 non-judgmental Holding all men and all d 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 the woman from Canaan was read recently in a rigid religion class at BYU 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.

It was Isaiah who said that the Christ would come as a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense. Isaiah 814 the only way we can square the Jesus in 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 that I can talk to and It's evidence that as I said there's got to be those Mormons left to 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 him. I continue. FF 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 the disaster and quote 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 other Those of other faiths nor do we ever forbid our membership from listening to her talking to anyone they desire now. Obviously I need to stop at that point to make a comment.

Maybe they've removed the books of Bob and Rosemary Brown From the bookshelves of their their LDS bookstores. Maybe those aren't there anymore, but as long as Joseph Smith 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 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 this argument and Obviously the use of 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 all whose lives are found on the principles of love and kindness we in steam 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 leave 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 Armour Conkey'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. Covenants 1 23 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 the mount and as of them that Isaiah said how beautiful upon the feet.

The ecumenical movement subtitle. As a young man I was commissioned as an officer in the Army 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.

They're 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. Right to attempt to teach Mormonism to someone who is 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 than 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 and Quote gotta 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 and quote subtitle a place for boldness.

Our story begins the first vision which in turn begins with Joseph Smith's desire to know which of all the churches were right in which He should join. Orson Pratt echoed the prophets 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 and accept 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 point to its particular tenets saying this is the way walking in it while at the same time the Doctrines of each were in many respects indirect 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. Joseph Smith Questioned 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 119 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 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 right speaker is addressing. So we will not Extend our time upon that just as I'm going to told the story at the peril of his life.

We tell it 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 on Christian 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 to have more except? 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 dress.

Would it not be better to have more except 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 see impress 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 can find 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 isn't that that's not Mormonism anymore. Mormonism's numbers are very soft and more natural growth than anything else and Sounds like there's an admission of that there on the part of Joseph Fielding McConkie.

I Continue on with his 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. Otherwise in turn sadly enough There are so-called Latter-day Saints who by comparison and 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 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 very appealing. It really is not reasonable. Suppose schools were operated on that philosophy with each discipline a separate path leading the same diploma. No matter whether you study or not pass the test or not all will 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 the same results. Can we drop a weight from a higher 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 claims 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 postmodernist in his own camp Who are obviously and very clearly?

Seeking to find some way of Making the exclusivity of the Mormon proclamation. Well less exclusivistic. That doesn't work very well. That's his argument. I think he's right. Continue it may be argued that we do not have the truth.

That we do not possess the plan of salvation the authority 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 giving birth 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 are actually the same person. Based upon the King James Version translation of the Old Testament New Testament.