How Does Joseph Smith Fare Against the Biblical Tests for a False Prophet?
MissJo, “Joseph Smith Rendered in the Style of a Medieval Religious Icon”
by Fred W. Anson
The Bible has four (4) tests for determining if a claimed prophet really is one or not. They are as follows:
Deu 13:1-11
Seducing God’s people into following a god other than the one that they’ve known:
Deu 18:18-22
Giving predictions of the future in order to deceive God’s people into following another god that fail to come to pass:
Mat 7:15-20
Living a life that doesn’t produce good fruit:
1 John 4:1-3
Denying that God eternal was incarnated as Jesus Christ:
Let’s see how Joseph Smith fares against these biblical criteria, shall we?
TEST 1: Seducing God’s people into following a God other than the one that they’ve known
Deuteronomy 13:1-4 (KJV)
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
EVIDENCE AGAINST JOSEPH SMITH
Smith explicitly taught another God in the King Follett Discourse – he even bragged about doing so.
“I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to inquire after God; for I want you all to know Him, and to be familiar with Him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of Him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority.
I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.”
(“The King Follett Sermon”, Ensign, April 1971)
TEST 2: Giving predictions of the future that fail to come to pass
Deuteronomy 18:18-22 (KJV)
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
EVIDENCE AGAINST JOSEPH SMITH
Joseph Smith made several failed predictions for the future, but probably the most damning of Smith’s failed prophecies is the prophecy that the Centerpoint temple would be built in Missouri within Smith’s Generation:
“Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house . . .
Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed,”
(Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5, 31)
As Theologian and Christian Apologist, Matt Slick observes:
The Mormons were driven out of Jackson County in 1833. They were not gathered there in accordance with this prophecy dealing with building the temple.
The prophecy clearly states that the generation present when the prophecy was given would not pass away until the temple was built at the western boundaries of the state of Missouri which is in Independence.
This clearly failed.”
(Matt Slick, “Joseph Smith’s False Prophecies“, CARM website)
An aerial photograph of the Temple Lot in Independence, Missouri where Joseph Smith and the Saints failed to build a temple in the generation of 1832.
TEST 3: Living a life that doesn’t produce good fruit
Matthew 7:15-20 (KJV)
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
EVIDENCE AGAINST JOSEPH SMITH
So many to pick from here but I think that this one, from an official LdS Church source, shall suffice:
“Careful estimates put the number between 30 and 40 [polygamous wives of Joseph Smith]. See Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 2:272–73.”
“Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married.”
(LdS Church, “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo”; official church website, retrieved 2016-01-02)
And let’s be clear, he married them and he had sex with them:
Sexuality in Joseph Smith’s Plural Marriages
Joseph Smith’s first wife, Emma, allegedly told the wife of Apostle George A. Smith, Lucy, that Joseph Smith’s plural wives were “celestial” only, that he had no earthly marital relations with them. “They were only sealed for eternity they were not to live with him and have children.” Lucy later wrote that when she told this to her husband:
He related to me the circumstance of his calling on Joseph late one evening and he was just taking a wash and Joseph told him that one of his wives had just been confined and Emma was the Midwife and he had been assisting her. He [George A. Smith] told me [Lucy Smith] this to prove to me that the women were married for time [as well as for eternity], as Emma had told me that Joseph never taught any such thing.
Because Reorganized Latter Day Saints claimed that Joseph Smith was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Smith’s wives) affirmed repeatedly that he had physical sexual relations with them—despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American culture which ordinarily would have prevented any mention of sexuality.
For instance, Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith’s plural wives: “I know he had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names.” Melissa Lott Willes testified that she had been Smith’s wife “in very deed.” Emily Partridge Young said she “roomed” with Joseph the night following her marriage to him, and said that she had “carnal intercourse” with him.
Other early witnesses also affirmed this. Benjamin Johnson wrote “On the 15th of May … the Prophet again Came and at my hosue [house] ocupied the Same Room & Bed with my Sister that the month previous he had ocupied with the Daughter of the Later Bishop Partridge as his wife.” According to Joseph Bates Noble, Smith told him he had spent a night with Louisa Beaman.
When Angus Cannon, a Salt Lake City stake president, visited Joseph Smith III in 1905, the RLDS president asked rhetorically if these women were his father’s wives, then “how was it that there was no issue from them.” Cannon replied:
All I knew was that which Lucy Walker herself contends. They were so nervous and lived in such constant fear that they could not conceive. He made light of my reply. He said, “I am informed that Eliza Snow was a virgin at the time of her death.” I in turn said, “Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, ‘I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.’”
Cannon then mentioned that Sylvia Sessions Lyon, a plural wife of Smith, had had a child by him, Josephine Lyon Fisher. Josephine left an affidavit stating that her mother, Sylvia, when on her deathbed, told her that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. In addition, posterity (i.e., sexuality) was an important theological element in Smith’s Abrahamic-promise justification for polygamy.”
(Todd Compton, “In Sacred Loneliness”)
The Wives of Joseph Smith (click to view full image)
Test 4: Denying that God eternal was incarnated as Jesus Christ
Of the four tests, this test, in the case of Joseph Smith, is the most interesting because a case can be made for it either way. On one, hand if taken purely at face value, Joseph Smith really did affirm and confess that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”. In fact, the Book of Mormon hammers this point home over and over and over again.
However, on the other hand, when you consider the historical context of this passage the nuance that John was also saying that Jesus Christ was, is, and always will be God eternal who has come in the flesh some problems emerge.
The first stop in considering this nuance can easily be found in John’s other writings for example:
John 1 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
1 John 1 (KJV)
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
So it’s very clear that the Apostle John believed and affirmed that Jesus Christ was indeed God eternal, a spiritual being, who was now tabernacled in human flesh: Fully God and fully man. This is just as another Apostle, Paul, described:
Philippians 2 (KJV)
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
This is what the Apostles taught. What John was writing against in this passage was the encroaching heresy of the Gnostics, which the NIV, Essentials Study Bible explains was as follows:
• 1Jn 4:2 •
As Christianity spread across the Mediterranean, it came into contact with other religions. Greeks and Romans tried to absorb the faith into their own philosophies, just as some Jews had initially done. Intellectual centers of the Mediterranean raised questions about Jesus: Who was he? If he was God, how could he die? And a popular new cult called Gnosticism (from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis) gained ground in an attempt to explain these things. The cult thrived, especially among the intellectual elite.
Could God Have a Body?
Gnostics balked at the Christian concept of God becoming human. Because they believed a physical body was intrinsically evil, they denied that a pure God could take on a body. Some dealt with the problem by claiming that Jesus was never a real human being, but a phantom, a temporary appearance of God who only looked human. Others proposed that God had descended on Jesus at his baptism, but left him before his death.
The apostle John debated in person with Gnostics of his day, and he had Gnostic thinking in mind when he wrote this letter. The very first sentence expressly states that the author has seen, heard and touched Jesus— implying that he could not have been a phantom or pure spirit.
Throughout the letter, and especially in 1 John 4: 2–3, the author lambastes those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh.
(“NIV, Essentials Study Bible”, Kindle Locations 123283-123308, Zondervan. Kindle Edition)
So, again, the controversy in John’s day, wasn’t Christ’s divine nature as spirit – the Gnostics had no problem with that – the problem was His human nature as a material, corporeal Being. Again, the issue wasn’t, “Is Jesus Christ, a divine spirit?”, the issue was, “Is Jesus Christ, a material human being?” To the latter, the Gnostics, said, “No!” Hence John’s words.
Ary Scheffer, “The Temptation of Christ” (1854)
THE CASES BOTH FOR AND AGAINST JOSEPH SMITH
This is the exact opposite of the question of 19th Century higher criticism (and I might add today) which was, “Was the human Jesus a divine spirit – that is God?” The Higher Critics said, “No!” Joseph Smith’s answer was, “Well, yes, but not the way that you think, he was, in reality, an Exalted Man, just like Heavenly Father – and they both have human bodies just like yours and mine.”
This explains why Joseph Smith in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible changes the Apostle John’s words so they read like this:
John 1 (JST)
1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made which was made.
4 In him was the gospel, and the gospel was the life, and the life was the light of men;
5 And the light shineth in the world, and the world perceiveth it not.
Can you see what Joseph Smith did there? He changed Jesus Christ from God Eternal to just a man who brought the gospel. All of a sudden “the Word” is no longer, God Eternal incarnated in Jesus Christ, but rather “the word” – the gospel that the man Jesus Christ taught.
The Christ of Joseph Smith’s diminished, subordinated, nature is reiterated and revealed in the Books of Abraham and Mose where he is revealed to be just another pre-existent son of God and the brother of Satan:
Abraham 3
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast before thou wast born.
24 And there stood among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and will make an earth whereon these may ;
25 And we will them herewith, to see if they will all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who their first shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second shall have added upon their heads for ever and ever.
27 And the said: Whom shall I ? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will the first.
28 And the was angry, and kept not his first ; and, at that day, many followed after him.
Moses 4
1 And I, the , spake unto Moses, saying: That , whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the , and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely will do it; wherefore me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved , which was my Beloved and from the beginning, said unto me—, thy done, and the be thine forever.
3 Wherefore, because that against me, and sought to destroy the of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be ;
4 And he became , yea, even the , the father of all , to and to blind men, and to lead them at his will, even as many as would not unto my voice.
Thus when you look at the 1 John 4:1-3 test, did Joseph “confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”, well technically, yes. However, practically, no, since he did not confess that that that Jesus Christ who came in the flesh was, is, and ever shall be, God incarnate, he didn’t. A case can be made either way depending on whether the historical context is considered (which Mormons tend not to do) or ignored (which Mormons tend to do).
All this is why of the four biblical tests for a False Prophet, this last one is the “go-to” proof text for Latter-day Saints who want biblical support for Joseph Smith’s prophetic credentials. With the first three, there isn’t much “wiggle room” but with this last one, there is, so that’s the one that they tend to fixate on.
CONCLUSION
Joseph Smith is unquestionably a False Prophet according to the Biblical Criteria. Remember, you only have to fail one of these four tests to qualify as a False Prophet. Joseph Smith clearly fails three of the four, and a good case can be made that he failed the fourth one. Feelings aside, the evidence is clear: Joseph Smith, according to the Bible, is a False Prophet.
What Have Mormon Leaders Said About The Trinity?
Posted: July 3, 2022 in Fred Anson, Mormon Studies, The Trinity
compiled by Eric Johnson
Joseph Smith
“Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God —he would be a giant or a monster”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372).
First Presidency
“In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost–in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages”
(Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p. 312).
Mormon Apostles
“The Bible, if read fully and intelligently, teaches that the Holy Trinity is composed of individual Gods”
(John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 58).
“If Christians are people (and this is the standard definition of the clergy of the day) who believe in the holy trinity as defined and set forth in the Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostles creeds, meaning that God is a three-in-one nothingness, a spirit essence filling immensity, an incorporeal and uncreated being incapable of definition or mortal comprehension — then Mormons, by a clergy chosen definition, are ruled out of the fold of Christ”
(Bruce R.McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 2:113).
“May I divorce myself for the moment from the mainstream of present-day evangelical Christianity, swim upstream as it were, and give forth some rather plain and pointed expressions on this supposedly marvelous means of being saved with very slight effort. But before zeroing in on this religious mania that has now taken possession of millions of devout but deluded people, and as a means of keeping all things in perspective, let me first identify the original heresy that did more than anything else to destroy primitive Christianity. This first and chief heresy of a now fallen and decadent Christianity — and truly it is the father of all heresies — swept through all of the congregations of true believers in the early centuries of the Christian Era; it pertained then and pertains now to the nature and kind of being that God is. It was the doctrine, adapted from Gnosticism, that changed Christianity from the religion in which men worshipped a personal God, in whose image man is made, into the religion in which men worshipped a spirit essence called the Trinity. This new God, no longer a personal Father, no longer a personage of tabernacle, became an incomprehensible three-in-one spirit essence that filled the immensity of space. The adoption of this false doctrine about God effectively destroyed true worship among men and ushered in the age of universal apostasy”
(Bruce R. McConkie, “What Think Ye of Salvation By Grace?” BYU Devotional Address given January 10, 1984; Transcribed from original speech. See also Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, pp. 69-70).
“In common with the rest of Christianity, we believe in a Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. However, we testify that these three members of the Godhead are three separate and distinct beings. We also testify that God the Father is not just a spirit but is a glorified person with a tangible body, as is his resurrected Son, Jesus Christ”
(Dallin Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Ensign (Conference Edition, May 1995, p. 84).
“We maintain that the concepts identified by such nonscriptural terms as ‘the incomprehensible mystery of God’ and ‘the mystery of the Holy Trinity’ are attributable to the ideas of Greek philosophy. These philosophical concepts transformed Christianity in the first few centuries following the deaths of the Apostles”
(Dallin Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Ensign (Conference Edition), May 1995, p. 84).
“Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is ‘We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.’ We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true”
(Jeffrey R. Holland, “The One True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 2007, p. 40).
“Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that ‘the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].’ So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post-New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 2007, p. 40).
Mormon Seventies
“The ancient prophets knew that the Godhead consisted of three separate and distinct personages, each of whom had a definite work to perform, and yet they all worked in perfect unity as one. The three Gods constituted the Holy Trinity”
(Milton R. Hunter, Pearl of Great Price Commentary, p. 52).
Other Sources
“THE TRINITY CREATION. They believe in the trinity creation. The trinity was voted on in the Council of Nicene hundreds of years after Christ’s death. A bunch of church leaders and government officials got together and voted on ‘who God was?’, and it wasn’t even a unanimous vote. There were about four different versions of God that they voted on. The version that is used by Catholics and Protestants today only won by about a 40 percent margin. Their view of God, as you may know, is that He is like a formless mass of spirit that fills the whole universe and when He comes to earth, part of it breaks off and forms itself into Jesus”
(Scott Marshall, Tracting and Member Missionary Work, p. 73).
“If an acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity makes one a Christian, then of course Latter-day Saints are not Christians, for they believe the doctrine of the Trinity as expressed in modern Protestant and Catholic theology is the product of the reconciliation of Christian theology with Greek philosophy”
(BYU Professor Emeritus Robert L. Millet, A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints, p. 171).
“Mormonism is simultaneously monotheistic, tri-theistic, and polytheistic. There is but one God, yet there is a Godhead of three, and beyond them, ‘gods many, and lords many’ (1 Cor.8:5)”
(BYU Professor Rodney Turner, “The Doctrine of the Firstborn and Only Begotten,” The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations From God, H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate, eds., p. 102).
(source for this article = https://www.mrm.org/trinity-in-their-own-words)
Appendix: Hacking Through the Jungle of Mormon Trinity Obfuscation
by Fred W. Anson
A common Mormon tactic in Mormon argumentation regarding the Trinity is either what we see in this Hugh B. Brown’s quote from Eric Johnson’s above compilation…
“In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost–in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages”
(Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p. 312).
… or, this one from BYU Professor Rodney Turner:
“Mormonism is simultaneously monotheistic, tri-theistic, and polytheistic. There is but one God, yet there is a Godhead of three, and beyond them, ‘gods many, and lords many’ (1 Cor.8:5)”
(BYU Professor Rodney Turner, “The Doctrine of the Firstborn and Only Begotten,” The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations From God, H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate, eds., p. 102).
In both cases, an obfuscating Semantic Fallacy is used whereby the Mormon source changes the definition of the term “Trinity” so that it no longer fits the existing, common, generally accepted definition, which is:
“There are three persons within the Godhead. These persons are understood in theology as distinct characters. The differences among the three, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are real differences but not essential differences. In other words, there is only one essence to the Godhead, not three. In our experience as human beings, each person we meet is a separate being. One person means one being, and vice versa. But in the Godhead, there is one being with three persons.”
(R.C. Sproul, “Who is the Holy Spirit?” (Crucial Questions Series Book 13) (pp. 5-6). Reformation Trust Publishing. Kindle Edition).
Again, and even more directly, succinctly, and a bit more expansively:
“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
(James R. White, “The Forgotten Trinity” (p. 26). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition).
That one being, three persons may seem like theological hairsplitting but it’s vital, as Mr. Sproul goes on to explain:
“We must maintain this distinction lest we slip into a form of polytheism, seeing the three persons of the Godhead as three beings who are three separate gods.”
(Op. Cit., Sproul).
Can you see how Mormon Leaders simply ignore the “one being” part of the definition in order to create a Law of Contradictions Fallacy like the one that Rodney Turner has engaged in? Stated plainly, one simply cannot be simultaneously monotheistic, tri-theistic, and polytheistic, can they? This claim is self-defeating and irrational, isn’t it?
Thankfully, the current LdS Church has attempted to damage control these past missteps by issuing this clearer statement on their official and correlated website:
“…where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being… The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22).
(“Godhead”; retrieved December 15, 2016).
And while that’s a good thing, they immediately attempt to engage in the same old-school muddying of the water with this “gem”:
“Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father’s divine plan of salvation.”
(Ibid)
A Screenshot of the Gospel Topic “Godhead” article on the official LdS Church website as of the date of this article.
Unfortunately, that closing, “Oh by the way… one in purpose and doctrine!” obfuscation has emboldened some Latter-day Saints to claim, “See we’re monotheists!” which relative to the actual definition of the Trinity is analogous to saying, “See the Los Angeles Rams are united in their purpose and game plan doctrine, therefore they are one football player!” Friends, eleven (11) distinct persons with distinct roles playing in Sofi Stadium are still also eleven (11) distinct beings, not just one, aren’t they? That means that there are, therefore, eleven (11) football players on the fields, not just one (1), correct? It’s as I said in an article on this very issue:
“Many Mormons claim incorrectly that the Mormon Godhead is Three Persons and Three Beings which equals One God.
That is three Beings and three Persons = One God. Monotheism.
Again, this is simply NOT possible. It is a logical contradiction because it is both internally contradictory and self-contradictory given the definition and nature of “being” and/or “person”.”
(Fred W. Anson, “Trinitarian Godhead v. Mormon Godhead Logic Exercise”).
Of course, the double bind that the LdS Church has put itself in here is due to its uber-dogmatism that God is an exalted man whose ontology is corporeal rather than spiritual despite the Bible’s repeated insistence that God is not only not an exalted man but is ontologically a spirit, not a corporeal being as we humans are. Please compare and contrast the following unique LdS scripture…
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”
(D&C 130:22).
… to God’s revelation of Himself in the Bible:
“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent…”
(Numbers 23:19a KJV)
“I am God, and not a man — the Holy One among you.”
(Hosea 11:9 NIV)
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
(John 4:24 KJV)
“You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully.”
(Deuteronomy 4:15 KJV)
Further, the Bible is clear that changing the spiritual, invisible God into the physical image of a man is a sign of a foolish and darkened heart in addition to being a knowing denial of the only true and living God the Creator, isn’t it?
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God INTO AN IMAGE MADE LIKE TO CORRUPTIBLE MAN…”
(Romans 1:21-23b KJV caps added for emphasis)
In addition, they will point to Jesus Christ and say, “Oh yeah, well what about Jesus Christ, are you going to tell us that He isn’t an exalted man? And the simple answer is, ‘Why yes, Christ’s human nature most certainly is! However, Christ’s divine nature never has been a man, it is spirit just as the Bible says. Thus, Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man just as the Apostle Paul said:
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
(Philippians 2:5-8 KJV)’
Thus, the quick and easy response to this particular Latter-day Saint argument is simple: Simply ask them to show you from the Bible where it says the same of Heavenly Father. That is, where does it say that He ever condescended from His divinity, made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men? I can save you some time, it doesn’t. Anywhere.
So can you now see the gas lighting obfuscation that the LdS Church and its Apologists engage in here? They start with the conclusion that God, “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” and then try bending the facts to fit it (hoping that no one will scrutinize, let alone notice it, of course) rather than simply letting the evidence lead them to the conclusion. That, my friends, is Mormon Apologetics in a nutshell.
But stated plainly, as soon as you brush away the Mormon Apologetic smokes and mirrors, current Brighamite Latter-day Saint theology is neither Trinitarian nor monotheistic, no matter how much, “See we’re monotheists, just like you, just in a different kind of way!” sleight of hand and pontificating that they may do. Logically, and rationally, it is simply not possible, is it?
You have the word of Mormon Leaders on it.
Beggar's Bread 