Archive for the ‘Book of Mormon’ Category

The 10 Myths Part 6: “Biblical Christians worship the cross and the Bible.”

Posted: November 6, 2022 in Book of Mormon, Canonicity, Christian History, Mormon Studies, Paul Nurnberg, The 10 Myths Mormons Believe About Christianity, The Book of Mormon, Worship
0
If using symbols and scripture is worshiping them
then Mormonism has a beam-in-eye problem

“The Crucifixion”, by Harry Anderson. This is one of two paintings that Mormon Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland referred to in his Fall 2022 General Conference address that, “…serve as backdrops for the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in their sacred weekly temple meetings each Thursday in Salt Lake City,” (see Jeffrey R. Holland, “Lifted Up upon the Cross”). So if symbolic reminders of Christ’s sacrifice like this aren’t a problem when Latter-day Saint leaders use them, then why is it a problem when others do too? (credit: LDS Church Media Library)

by Paul Nurnberg
Introduction
Mormonism is fueled by faith-promoting stories. No one said this better than Mormon Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, “We have in the Church an untapped, almost unknown, treasury of inspiring and faith-promoting stories. They are the best of their kind and there are thousands of them.” (“The How and Why of Faith-promoting Stories”, New Era magazine, July 1978). Unfortunately, some of them, as another Mormon Apostle said well, only provide “…a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories?” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Teacher Come from God”, Spring General Conference 1998). This series exposes the following ten “Twinkies”…

10 Myths That Mormonism Tells About Biblical Christianity

  1. Biblical Christianity apostatized.
  2. The Bible has been corrupted.
  3. Biblical Christians believe in cheap grace.
  4. biblical Christians believe Christ prayed to Himself.
  5. The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell just because they never had a chance to hear the gospel.
  6. Biblical Christians worship the cross and the Bible.
  7. Biblical Christians have no priesthood.
  8. Biblical Christian Pastors and Apologists practice Priestcraft – they’re only in it for the money.
  9. Biblical Christians hate Mormons.
  10. Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.

… and replaces them with nourishing truth. Let’s talk about the one that’s bolded, shall we?

Sixth LDS Church president Joseph F. Smith speaking at the pulpit of a funeral service in the Brigham City Tabernacle surrounded by cross symbols in the architecture and floral arrangement. Please note the highlighted floral cross that’s at the center of the proceedings. (credit: Utah State Historical Society Classified Photo Collection)

The Myth
“Biblical Christians worship the cross . . .”

In the mid-twentieth century, LDS leaders began suggesting that Biblical Christians worship the cross.1 Prior to that many Latter-day Saints embraced the cross as a symbol of their religion, similar to Protestants and Catholics. In 1957, LDS Prophet and Church President, David O. McKay, responded to a question about a Salt Lake City jewelry store advertising cross necklaces for girls, (see “Mormons and the Cross” by Michael De Groote). Following McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

This custom of adoring the cross seems to have grown out of the purported vision given to Constantine when it is stated that he saw a cross in the heavens and was told that by it he was to conquer. From that time the use of the cross as an object of reverence grew and, when the rebellion against the Catholic Church commenced, the adoration of the cross continued more or less among the Protestant churches.

To many, like the writer, such a custom is repugnant and contrary to the true worship of our Redeemer. Why should we bow down before a cross or use it as a symbol? Because our Savior died on the cross, the wearing of crosses is to most Latter-day Saints in very poor taste and inconsistent to our worship. [ . . . ] We may be definitely sure that if our Lord had been killed with a dagger or with a sword, it would have been very strange indeed if religious people of this day would have graced such a weapon by wearing it and adoring it because it was by such a means that our Lord was put to death.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, “Your Question: The Wearing of the Cross, Answered by Joseph Fielding Smith of the Council of the Twelve,” The Improvement Era, Volume 64, 1961 March (No. 3), bolding added for emphasis)

Latter-day Saints often paraphrase Smith’s statement as a question, “If a member of your family was shot with a gun would you wear it around your neck to remember them?” In 1975, Gordon B. Hinckley stated:

I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian brethren who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ.
(Gordon B. Hinckley, “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Gordon B. Hinckley”, “Chapter 8 We Look to Christ”)

Very recently, Jeffrey R. Holland attempted to explain why Latter-day Saints do not use the cross as a symbol of their faith:

As I attempt to explain why we generally do not use the iconography of the cross, I wish to make abundantly clear our deep respect and profound admiration for the faith-filled motives and devoted lives of those who do.

One reason we do not emphasize the cross as a symbol stems from our biblical roots. Because crucifixion was one of the Roman Empire’s most agonizing forms of execution, many early followers of Jesus chose not to highlight that brutal instrument of suffering. The meaning of Christ’s death was certainly central to their faith, but for some 300 years they typically sought to convey their gospel identity through other means.2

By the fourth and fifth centuries, a cross was being introduced as a symbol of generalized Christianity, but ours is not a “generalized Christianity.” Being neither Catholic nor Protestant, we are, rather, a restored church, the restored New Testament Church. Thus, our origins and our authority go back before the time of councils, creeds, and iconography.
(Jeffrey R Holland, “Lifted Up upon the Cross” October 2022 General Conference, bolding added for emphasis)

First, in his General Conference address, Elder Holland says, “…the absence of a symbol that was late coming into common use is yet another evidence that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of true Christian beginnings.” Then, he immediately appeals to the cross in the left panel as a symbol of the price that Christ paid for us as evidence of the superiority of his “restored” church stating, “These portrayals serve as constant reminders to us of the price that was paid and the victory that was won by Him whose servants we are,” (see Jeffrey R. Holland, “Lifted Up upon the Cross”, click on the above image to view this portion of his address in context)

“Biblical Christians worship the Bible . . .”
The Book of Mormon accuses those who reject it of having a closed-minded devotion to the Bible alone: “And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible” (see 2 Nephi 29:3).

The argument by Latter-day Saints that Biblical Christians engage in bibliolatry is often tied to three positions:

    1. Biblical authority
    2. Biblical inerrancy
    3. Biblical sufficiency3

Jeffrey R. Holland laid out the full argument that the bibliolatry charge sets up. Namely, that the Bible is insufficient to answer all of life’s questions. Enter stage left: LDS Scripture.4

The Bible is the word of God. It is always identified first in our canon, our “standard works.” Indeed, it was a divinely ordained encounter with the fifth verse of the first chapter of the book of James that led Joseph Smith to his vision of the Father and the Son, which gave birth to the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in our time. But even then, Joseph knew the Bible alone could not be the answer to all the religious questions he and others like him had. As he said in his own words, the ministers of his community were contending—sometimes angrily—over their doctrines. “Priest [was] contending against priest, and convert [was contending] against convert … in a strife of words and a contest about opinions,” he said. About the only thing these contending religions had in common was, ironically, a belief in the Bible, but, as Joseph wrote, “the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question [regarding which church was true] by an appeal to the Bible.” Clearly the Bible, so frequently described at that time as “common ground,” was nothing of the kind—unfortunately it was a battleground.
(Jeffrey R Holland, “My Words . . . Never Cease” April 2008 General Conference, bolding added for emphasis)

Photography of Amelia White Young, Brigham Young’s 51st wife, wearing a cross in 1895. (credit: Utah State Historical Society Classified Photo Collection)

Does the Use of Symbols Necessarily = Idolatry?
The main thrust of this LDS polemic is that use of the cross as a Christian symbol is too late to have been part of original Christianity, and is therefore a sign of apostasy. LDS leaders tie its use to the influence of the fourth-century Roman Emperor, Constantine, whom Latter-day Saints believe introduced pagan influences to the Church.

But is the use of the cross as a symbol by Christians in fact late? Much of the argument that the cross as iconography is late is based on archaeological data that shows that the earliest artistic depictions of the crucifixion itself were not made until around 400 years after Christ’s death. But literary data shows that prior to Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, Christians were already using the cross, among others things, as a symbol of their faith. Christian historian and theologian Everett Fergusson notes, “Writings from the early church show how central the cross was to Christian preaching and confession.”5

In his letters, the apostle Paul—the earliest New Testament author—referred eleven times to the cross of Christ as symbolic of the Christian faith. Why does Paul tie persecution of Jesus’ followers to the cross (see Galatians 5:11, 6:12 & 14)—or mention enemies of the cross—if association with the cross of Christ was not an early symbol of the Christian faith?6

Latter-day Saints use various symbols to represent aspects of their belief and practice: the beehive, CTR rings, sunstones, and moonstones—statues of Moroni adorn LDS temples. Are Latter-day Saints worshipping these symbols by their use? Clearly, no. So the claim that Biblical Christians worship the cross is a myth.

Does Having a Defined Canon of Scripture = Bibliolatry?
The charge of bibliolatry, or the worship of the Bible, is an attack against those who hold to biblical authority, inerrancy, and supremacy. Those Christians who hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura will hear this charge from Latter-day Saints. As believers in revealed religion, Latter-day Saints and Biblical Christians should share some common ground with regard to the authority of Scripture.

The authority and inerrancy of Scripture derive from its divine Author. R. C. Sproul summed it up nicely:

The authority of the Bible is based on its being the written Word of God, and because the Bible is the Word of God and the God of the Bible is truth and speaks truthfully, authority is linked to inerrancy. If the Bible is the Word of God, and if God is a God of truth, then the Bible must be inerrant [ . . . ].
(R.C. Sproul, “Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine” (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2005), p.121)

Why then do Latter-day Saints attack the authority and inerrancy of the Bible? It is odd!7 By doing so, they cut off the very argument for revealed religion that they adopt when arguing for the authority of Joseph Smith from the Book of Mormon by the oft-repeated axiom “If the Book of Mormon is true, then it follows that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s church.8

Does using a text as the basis for authority amount to worshiping that text?
Clearly not, lest the Latter-day Saints be guilty of the very charge they levy against Biblical Christians. This is another myth!

Maybe it is the fact that Biblical Christians affirm the inerrancy of the Bible that rightly brings the charge of bibliolatry. Latter-day Saints believe that an ancient prophet named Moroni wrote the title page of the Book of Mormon, and included this warning, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” (see Title Page to The Book of Mormon). The author attributes any faults in the Book of Mormon to the mistakes of men and also implies perfection in the things of God.

Christians who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible—the divine nature of Scripture—do so on the basis of God’s absolute perfection and ability to convey His Word perfectly. They do not deny the human nature of Scripture. Sproul stated the position well:

The process of inspiration did not make the biblical writers automatons, for their books reveal differences of vocabulary, style, and other matters of variation between one human author and another. But inspiration did overcome any tendency they may have had to error, with the result that the words they wrote were precisely what God, the divine Author, intended us to have.
(Ibid. R.C. Sproul, 135)

Is it idolatrous to trust wholeheartedly in the reliability of God’s Word?
Isn’t that the equivalent of saying that leaning on God’s own trustworthiness is wrong? Surely not! Yet, another myth.

But what about the supremacy of the Bible? Are Biblical Christians engaging in idolatry when they claim that the Bible is the sole source of God’s Word? Many texts claim to be revelations from God. The Quran of Islam and the Zend-Avesta of Zoroastrianism are two ancient examples. Indeed, the LDS Church is beset by many would-be successors to Joseph Smith’s role as producer of hidden, ancient, scriptural writings.

The Book of Mormon indicates that the plates from which Joseph Smith translated had a sealed portion, and looks forward to a time when that sealed portion would be translated (see 2 Nephi 27). Individuals have stepped forward making conflicting claims to having translated the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon or other additional records.9

The LDS Church has not added the Quran or the Zend-Avesta to its canon. Nor does it accept the writings of other “latter-day translators.” In fact, it has from its very beginning exercised discrimination relative to the authority claims of others claiming revelations within the broader Latter-day Saint Restoration Movement (see for example the incident of Hiram Page’s seer stone recounted in Doctrine and Covenants 28).

By rejecting other would-be additions to the LDS canon of Scripture, and holding that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are the only modern Scriptural sources of official LDS doctrine, are Latter-day Saints worshiping their canon? No. Clearly, the claim that Biblical Christians are idolaters for exercising discernment is a myth.

‘Why then do Latter-day Saints attack the authority and inerrancy of the Bible? It is odd! By doing so, they cut off the very argument for revealed religion that they adopt when arguing for the authority of Joseph Smith from the Book of Mormon by the oft-repeated axiom “If the Book of Mormon is true, then it follows that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s church.’ (Paul Nurnberg)

How It’s a Myth
Christians wear the cross as a symbol of their faith in their Lord, Jesus Christ, who hung and died upon it—suffering death for their sins. We worship “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (see 1 Corinthians 2:2 and Revelation 5:11-14). The authority that Biblical Christians ascribe to the Bible is based on the nature and perfection of God. It is not illegitimate to appeal to God’s nature as a presupposition of the reliability of His Word. Having established that, let’s look at some of the Biblical data that supports the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of God’s Word.

When the chief priests and elders confronted Jesus for teaching in the temple and challenged his authority, Jesus told the parables of the two sons and the tenants. When his accusers rightly perceived the action the master of the vineyard would take towards the wicked tenants, Jesus appealed to the authority of the Word of God (see Matthew 21:42).

In John 10, Jesus declared the unity of himself with his Father, claiming that he will give eternal life to his sheep and that no mere human can pluck them out of his hand. He makes his identification with Deity explicit when he states that his Father gave his sheep to him, and his Father is greater than all, and no mere human is able to pluck them out of the Father’s hand. The implication of these claims of Jesus was not lost on those who heard him. When he stated, “I and my Father are one,” they picked up stones to kill him. Their reasoning is conveyed clearly by Matthew, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself, God.”

Jesus then cited Psalm 82 as justification for identifying himself with God, and asked his accusers: “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (see John 10:23-39).

If Scripture is necessarily errant in places because God used human authors to produce it, then we could say that Scripture could be set aside or nullified. But here the Lord Jesus declared that Scripture cannot be set aside or nullified. Jesus reminded those prepared to stone him what Scripture said and reminded them that it cannot be a mistake. As Sproul noted in the above quote, the authority of Scripture is tied to its inerrancy.

In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Paul wrote to his ministry partner that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” By use of the Greek word theopneustos (lit. “breathed out by God”), Paul highlights the divine nature of Scripture. Paul provided Timothy with the implications of that important fact. Scripture is profitable for doctrine or teaching, for reproof (the Greek word used here implies that by which disputes may be resolved), correction (restoration to an upright state or improvement of life or character), and for instruction in righteousness.

When Biblical Christians affirm the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), they highlight God’s intended role for Scripture in the life and faith of the Church as the sole God-breathed source for doctrine, teaching, correction, and instruction. They affirm the authority of Scripture because its divine Author is perfect and speaks truthfully.

Why It Matters
Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “[ . . . ] the lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship” (“Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Gordon B. Hinckley”, “Chapter 8 We Look to Christ”.

Latter-day Saints are presented with a never-ending spiral staircase of attempts at obedience, sin, and repentance—followed by more attempts at full obedience. Rinse and Repeat. CTR rings remind them that their church teaches obedience as the means of salvation and exaltation. The hope is that they will eventually reach the top of the staircase and achieve exaltation (see Come Follow Me Insights – Staircase).

Don’t misunderstand what I wrote above. Obedience and sanctification are important to Biblical Christians. But obedience isn’t the means by which we are justified before God (see Romans 4:1-5) Those who believe in Him who justifies the ungodly are saved from the effects of sin and are justified by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. As Paul the Apostle wrote “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (see 1 Cor. 1:18). Paul wrote that letter and sent it to the church at Corinth well before Constantine was born. Revering the cross as the symbol of what Christ accomplished on behalf of believers is not idolatry!

The key takeaway I want my LDS readers to think about is this: In accusing Biblical Christians of idolatry for using the cross as a symbol of our faith and bibliolatry for accepting the Bible as the sole source of God’s revealed Word, the aim of LDS leaders is not to engender trust in their people in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross or trust in God’s Word in the Bible. Rather, it is a polemical device aimed at making space for LDS teaching. And LDS teaching about the cross and about the nature of Scripture is unbiblical. It leads people to place their trust in their own efforts to be obedient as the means by which they will be exalted. It leads people to question the reliability of God’s promise of salvation to those who believe on his Son (see John 6:28-29).

Summary and Conclusion
The polemic aim of these charges is to try to demonstrate that the LDS Church has a better claim to undefiled worship (no pagan influence) and a better (more complete) canon of Scriptures. These charges are myths that cut both ways. They are misrepresentations of the positions of Biblical Christians. Latter-day Saints should not perpetuate these myths if they wish others to treat their own positions with charity (see Matthew 7:12).

“An inconvenient truth is still truth” (Paul Nurnberg)

NOTES
1 The rejection of the cross by LDS leaders and the argument that its use is representative of apostasy followed a period of doctrinal development in which several influential LDS leaders, B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, and Joseph Fielding Smith, developed a distinctly LDS narrative of a “Great Apostasy” from the Christian faith, necessitating restoration. (see Eric R. Dursteler “Historical Periodization in the LDS Great Apostasy Narrative” in “Standing Apart: Mormon Historical Consciousness and the Concept of Apostasy”). It is interesting to note that this period of narrative building came directly after the LDS cessation of polygamy and during the period when the LDS leaders were working to build a new identity after ceasing what had been Mormonism’s most distinctive doctrine and practice from the 1840’s through the early 1900’s. LDS leaders needed to affirm how they stood apart from broader Christianity without polygamy. During the early decades of the twentieth century, the challenge posed to the authority of LDS Church leadership by an emerging LDS Fundamentalist movement over the cessation of the practice of polygamy necessitated a narrative of apostasy and restoration that was more heavily focused on priesthood authority. That development continues to influence LDS narrative and practice today.

2 This is assumed but not supported by Holland. In his General Conference address, “Lifted Up upon the Cross”, Holland recounted an anecdote in which a graduate school student asked him why Latter-day Saints do not adopt the cross as a symbol of their faith. In responding to the young person’s question, Holland recounts that he read to him passages from the Book of Mormon that touch on the cross. In his spoken remarks, Holland elicited laughter from the crowd in the Conference Center when he said, “I was about to quote the Apostle Paul when I noticed that my friend’s eyes were starting to glaze over.” That is the last time in his spoken address that Holland mentions the apostle Paul. Why? Holland goes on to argue that Latter-day Saints don’t use the cross as a symbol because it represents an admixture of pagan religion into pure Christianity, and argues:

“Being neither Catholic nor Protestant, we are, rather, a restored church, the restored New Testament Church. Thus, our origins and our authority go back before the time of councils, creeds, and iconography. In this sense, the absence of a symbol that was late coming into common use is yet another evidence that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of true Christian beginnings.”
(Jeffrey R. Holland, “Lifted Up upon the Cross”, Fall General Conference of the LDS Church) 

This argument is ludicrous for several reasons. First, Holland quoted the Book of Mormon to the graduate student and even stated his own belief that Nephi wrote about the cross 600 years before Jesus Christ lived. If the Book of Mormon really were an ancient record that would imply that there is pre-Christian literary evidence of the cross as symbolic of salvation. Citing the Book of Mormon as Holland did undercuts his own argument.

Second, in his spoken remarks, Holland ignores (except for his joke) the literary evidence provided by the letters of the apostle Paul that the cross was understood by the earliest Christian writer as symbolic of their faith in the work of Christ on the cross. Instead, Holland relegates that evidence to a footnote in the transcript of his talk. Why? Again, it doesn’t fit his agenda.

Finally, Holland is just wrong about the use of the cross as a symbol of Christian faith coming only after the time of “councils, creeds, and iconography.” But these facts don’t fit the polemic of painting the LDS Church as restored and pure Christianity and all other Christian sects and denominations as “apostate”. Inconvenient truth is still truth!

3 Although “bibliolatry” is not a term used by LDS leaders, it is one used often by online LDS apologists. The below quote from a Facebook discussion group is representative of Latter-day Saints who accuse Biblical Christians of bibliolatry:

“[Evangelicals] exalt the Bible to the level of bibliolatry: They derive their purported authority from it, they claim it is inerrant and complete, they claim it is the sole source of God’s word (Sola Scriptura). None of these claims is true.”
(Anonymized LDS Facebook user in the LDS and Biblical Christians Facebook group, link to source withheld to maintain anonymity of the commenter) 

4 In the quote cited, Holland argues that theological disagreements among Christians of Joseph Smith’s day are evidence of the need for a restoration and for new Scripture. Since Joseph Smith kicked it off, there have been at over 500 branches or denominations of the Latter Day Saint Restoration Movement (see Steven L. Shields, “Divergent Paths of the Restoration: An Encyclopedia of the Smith–Rigdon Movement” for an encyclopedic roster and descriptions of these groups) all of which disagree on key aspects of theology, such as the nature of God, locus of priesthood authority, line of succession, the scope, and authority of the Latter Day canon, and even on the nature of the restoration itself.

If one considers Holland’s argument for a brief moment, one realizes that the sword begins turning in on Holland himself. Is another restoration needed? There are some in the Latter Day Saint Restoration Movement who are calling for or claiming to lead just that, hence the constant, non-stop splintering and schisming that has led to over 500 new Latter-Day Saint denominations in just the first 192 years of the movement.

5 Everett Ferguson, “When did the cross supplant the ichthus (fish) as a symbol of the Christian faith?”, Christianity Today magazine, February 2009.

6 In addition to the apostolic era represented by Paul’s letters, other early Christian writings show widespread use of the cross as a Christian symbol. Ignatius (c. 50 AD to c. 98 – 140 AD) wrote in his Epistle to the Ephesians “Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal.” (Philip Schaff, ed. “The Church Fathers. The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection,” London, England: Catholic Way Publishing. 2014. Kindle Edition.).

In the already cited article, Everett Fergusson notes:

Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist writing in the 150s–160s, argued that God had providentially put the shape of the cross in everyday objects, such as the masts of ships, tools like the plough and the axe, and the standards of Roman legions. Christians would often pray standing up with their arms stretched out in the form of a cross. As early as the 200s, Christians were making the sign of the cross with their hands. The cross was so important that pagans charged Christians with worshipping the cross.
( Ibid, Ferguson, “When did the cross supplant the ichthus (fish) as a symbol of the Christian faith?”) 

Justin also saw the shape of the cross built into human anatomy formed by the forehead and the nose and related this to Lamentations 4:20 “The breath of our nostrils, the LORD’s anointed, was captured in their pits, of whom we said, ‘Under his shadow, we shall live among the nations.’”

The Epistle of Barnabas dated from internal evidence (16.3-4) after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 but before the Bar Kokhba revolt in AD 132 argues that baptism and the cross were prefigured in Psalm 1. Of the Psalmist, Barnabas states:

“Mark how He has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time: then He declares, I will recompense them.”
(Ibid, Schaff, ed. “The Church Fathers. The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection,”, bolding added for emphasis) 

Tertullian, writing To the Nations (Ad Nationes) in approximately AD 197 juxtaposes the symbols of Roman religion with the wearing of simple unadorned cross necklaces:

“Your victories you celebrate with religious ceremony as deities; and they are the more august in proportion to the joy they bring you. The frames on which you hang up your trophies must be crosses: these are, as it were, the very core of your pageants. Thus, in your victories, the religion of your camp makes even crosses objects of worship; your standards it adores, your standards are the sanction of its oaths; your standards it prefers before Jupiter himself. But all that parade of images, and that display of pure gold, are (as so many) necklaces of the crosses. In like manner also, in the banners and ensigns, which your soldiers guard with no less sacred care, you have the streamers (and) vestments of your crosses. You are ashamed, I suppose, to worship unadorned and simple crosses.”
(Ibid, Schaff, ed. “The Church Fathers. The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection”, bolding added for emphasis)

7 Both of the myths covered in this article are perpetuated by Latter-day Saints not because the positions of Biblical Christians are wrong or fallacious. Rather, the arguments are made to make room for LDS positions. The argument against inerrancy is not made because the argument from God’s nature as a speaker only of truth breaks down. Instead, Latter-day Saints argue against inerrancy because the teaching of the Book of Mormon about the Bible does not allow them to adopt the position. If a Latter-day Saint were to affirm the position of inerrancy, they would be contradicting what the Title Page of the Book of Mormon says about the nature of Scripture and inspiration.

8 See, for example, Thomas S. Monson, “You Can Know It Is True,”

9 Just to name a few: Christopher Nemelka has published The Sealed Portion – The Final Testament of Jesus Christ, and claims to have received the Urim and Thummim by which he translated the sealed plates; Mauricio Berger claims that on April 6, 2007, the angel Raphael led him to the summit of a hill and led him to pray, upon doing which, he was visited by the Angel Moroni who gave him the plates, the interpreters, and the sword of Laban—his published The Sealed Book of Mormon claims to be a translation from the Plates of Mormon; Matthew Gill claims that at the age of twelve, he was visited by the angel Moroni and told that he would one day complete a mission like that of Joseph Smith—many years later he claims that the angel Raphael delivered to him many revelations as well as The Chronicles of the Children of Araneck: A Further Testimony of Jesus Christ & A Record of the Early Inhabitants of the British Isles.

About the Author
Paul Nurnberg was born and raised in the Salt Lake Valley in Utah. He served a two-year proselytizing mission for the LDS Church in Hungary. After converting to Biblical Christianity, he studied at Cincinnati Christian University. He holds a M.Div. in Biblical Studies and a BBA from Thomas More University where he graduated summa cum laude. He is a member of Lakeside Christian Church in Kentucky, which belongs to the Independent Christian Churches / Churches of Christ, which has roots in the American Restoration Movement. He has enjoyed a long career in the health insurance industry, and since 2019 has produced the podcast, Outer Brightness: From Mormon to Jesus. He has been happily married to his best friend, Angela, for 22 years. They have five children and three dogs.

Why Cahokia and the Hopewell Mound Builders are NOT the Best Evidence For The Book of Mormon

Posted: January 16, 2022 in Book of Mormon, Fred Anson, Mormon Studies
0

An artist’s interpretation of what downtown Cahokia would have looked like in the late Sterling period after the palisade wall had been built around Monk’s Mound and the Grand Plaza. credit: National Geographic (click to zoom)

compiled by Fred W. Anson
A common body of evidence that’s often presented by some Mormon faithful as the best evidence for The Book of Mormon is the Hopewell Mound Builder culture in general and the mount builder complex of Cahokia in particular. A well-known case in point is Rock Waterman’s article in which he attempts to make that very case, starting his lengthy treatise like this:

“What struck me when I first arrived in Cahokia was the incredible stink.

I had been called to serve in the Missouri-Independence Mission, but my first area, Plattsmouth, Nebraska, was far from any of the historic church locations I had expected to to see when I got my call. Now, near the end of 1973, I had been transferred to my second location. I would spend my first winter as a missionary in smelly Cahokia, Illinois; as far from Far West or Independence or Adam-Ondi-Ahman as a guy could possibly get.

The small town of Cahokia was located next to East St. Louis on the Illinois side of the Mississippi river, famous for its slaughterhouses. The smell of bovine death and gore hovered in the air long after slaughtering had ceased for the day, floating up and mixing with the rancid smoke spewed from the smokestacks of the nearby Monsanto chemical plant, then slowly settling down over the hapless town of Cahokia to choke its residents while they slept. “It’s something you just get used to,” my new companion told me.

Had I known then what I know now, I would have been delighted to find myself in Cahokia instead of dreading it. As it turns out, I had landed smack dab in the middle of Book of Mormon Central and never even knew it.”
(Rock Waterman, “Best Evidence For The Book of Mormon”, Pure Mormonism website, November 1, 2011)

Mr. Waterman then goes on to point to a long list of secular and Mormon Apologist sources, especially Heartland Apologists like Rod Meldrum, to support the case that Cahokia and the Hopewell Culture as stunning historical and archaeological support for The Book of Mormon. There’s only one problem: It’s been already been soundly discredited by both those inside and outside of Mormonism. Consider, for example, well-known RLDS/CoC scholar “Uncle” Dale Broadhurst, who concluded thusly:

“The Mississippian Culture was NOT a “civilization.” Its members did not live in cities.

Cahokia was NOT Teotihuacan nor Pekin nor Rome — it was a ceremonial center surrounded by farmers’ huts and connected by waterways to other, smaller villages.

We should not think of its residents as engaging in city life, with artisans, shops, government workers, city planning, etc.

If you want to look at a culture on the verge of becoming a civilization, look at the Valley of Mexico at the time Cortez arrived.

No reputable paleo-anthropologist will resort to exotic, transoceanic dispersions to account for the technology, social structure, language, etc., of American Indians associated with the Adena, Hopewell, or Mississippian cultures.

Take a minute to address letters of inquiry to the topmost cultural anthropologists at Brigham Young University, asking them what aspects of the Mississippian Culture necessarily depended upon importation from elsewhere — in other words, what parts of their society could not have been “home-grown” from the ground up.

The answer you will get back is: maize agriculture.

That, and perhaps some external “hints” on how to make better pottery, or weave better baskets, or better shape native copper into ornaments.”
(Dale Broadhurst, Mormon Discussions, Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:39 pm; link now dead)

And then there’s this from secular Science Journalist, Charles Mann, in his award-winning book, “1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus”:

“The Hopewell apparently sought spiritual ecstasy by putting themselves into trances, perhaps aided by tobacco. In this enraptured state, the soul journeys to other worlds. As is usually the case, people with special abilities emerged to assist travelers through the portal to the numinous. Over time these shamans became gatekeepers, controlling access to the supernatural realm. They passed on their control and privileges to their children, creating a hereditary priesthood: counselors to kings, if not kings themselves. They acquired healing lore, mastered and invented ceremonies, learned the numerous divinities in the Hopewell pantheon. We know little of these gods today, because few of their images have endured to the present. Presumably shamans recounted their stories to attentive crowds; almost certainly, they explained when and where the gods wanted to build mounds. “There is a stunning vigor about the Ohio Hopewell …,” Silverberg wrote,

‘a flamboyance and fondness for excess that manifests itself not only in the intricate geometrical enclosures and the massive mounds, but in these gaudy displays of conspicuous consumption [in the tombs]. To envelop a corpse from head to feet in pearls, to weigh it down in many pounds of copper, to surround it with masterpieces of sculpture and pottery, and then to bury everything under tons of earth—this betokens a kind of cultural energy that numbs and awes those who follow after.’

Vibrant and elaborate, perhaps a little vulgar in its passion for display, Hopewell religion spread through most of the eastern United States in the first four centuries A.D. As with the expansion of Christianity, the new converts are unlikely to have understood the religion in the same way as its founders. Nonetheless, its impact was profound. In a mutated form, it may well have given impetus to the rise of Cahokia.”
(Charles C. Mann, “1491 (Second Edition): New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus” (Kindle Locations 5242-5255). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition)

In regard to The Book of Mormon, Mann explains elsewhere in the same book:

“Contact with Indians caused Europeans considerably more consternation. Columbus went to his grave convinced that he had landed on the shores of Asia, near India. The inhabitants of this previously unseen land were therefore Asians—hence the unfortunate name “Indians.” As his successors discovered that the Americas were not part of Asia, Indians became a dire anthropogonical problem.

According to Genesis, all human beings and animals perished in the Flood except those on Noah’s ark, which landed “upon the mountains of Ararat,” thought to be in eastern Turkey. How, then, was it possible for humans and animals to have crossed the immense Pacific? Did the existence of Indians negate the Bible, and Christianity with it?

Among the first to grapple directly with this question was the Jesuit educator José de Acosta, who spent a quarter century in New Spain. Any explanation of Indians’ origins, he wrote in 1590, “cannot contradict Holy Writ, which clearly teaches that all men descend from Adam.” Because Adam had lived in the Middle East, Acosta was “forced” to conclude “that the men of the Indies traveled there from Europe or Asia.” For this to be possible, the Americas and Asia “must join somewhere.”

If this is true, as indeed it appears to me to be, … we would have to say that they crossed not by sailing on the sea, but by walking on land. And they followed this way quite unthinkingly, changing places and lands little by little, with some of them settling in the lands already discovered and others seeking new ones.

Acosta’s hypothesis was in basic form widely accepted for centuries. For his successors, in fact, the main task was not to discover whether Indians’ ancestors had walked over from Eurasia, but which Europeans or Asians had done the walking. Enthusiasts proposed a dozen groups as the ancestral stock: Phoenicians, Basques, Chinese, Scythians, Romans, Africans, “Hindoos,” ancient Greeks, ancient Assyrians, ancient Egyptians, the inhabitants of Atlantis, even straying bands of Welsh. But the most widely accepted candidates were the Lost Tribes of Israel. Tribes of Israel.

The story of the Lost Tribes is revealed mainly in the Second Book of Kings of the Old Testament and the apocryphal Second (or Fourth, depending on the type of Bible) Book of Esdras. At that time, according to scripture, the Hebrew tribes had split into two adjacent confederations, the southern kingdom of Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem, and the northern kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Samaria. After the southern tribes took to behaving sinfully, divine retribution came in the form of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, who overran Israel and exiled its ten constituent tribes to Mesopotamia (today’s Syria and Iraq). Now repenting of their wickedness, the Bible explains, the tribes resolved to “go to a distant land never yet inhabited by man, and there at last to be obedient to their laws.” True to their word, they walked away and were never seen again.

Because the Book of Ezekiel prophesizes that in the final days God “will take the children of Israel from among the heathen … and bring them into their own land,” Christian scholars believed that the Israelites’ descendants—Ezekiel’s “children of Israel”—must still be living in some remote place, waiting to be taken back to their homeland. Identifying Indians as these “lost tribes” solved two puzzles at once: where the Israelites had gone, and the origins of Native Americans.

Acosta weighed the Indians-as-Jews theory but eventually dismissed it because Indians were not circumcised. Besides, he blithely explained, Jews were cowardly and greedy, and Indians were not. Others did not find his refutation convincing. The Lost Tribes theory was endorsed by authorities from Bartolomé de Las Casas to William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, and the famed minister Cotton Mather. (In a variant, the Book of Mormon argued that some Indians were descended from Israelites though not necessarily the Lost Tribes.) In 1650 James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh, calculated from Old Testament genealogical data that God created the universe on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. So august was Ussher’s reputation, wrote historian Andrew Dickson White, that “his dates were inserted in the margins of the authorized version of the English Bible, and were soon practically regarded as equally inspired with the sacred text itself.” According to Ussher’s chronology, the Lost Tribes left Israel in 721 B.C. Presumably they began walking to the Americas soon thereafter. Even allowing for a slow passage, the Israelites must have arrived by around 500 B.C. When Columbus landed, the Americas therefore had been settled for barely two thousand years.

The Lost Tribes theory held sway until the nineteenth century, when it was challenged by events. As Lund had in Brazil, British scientists discovered some strange-looking human skeletons jumbled up with the skeletons of extinct Pleistocene mammals. The find, quickly duplicated in France, caused a sensation. To supporters of Darwin’s recently published theory of evolution, the find proved that the ancestors of modern humans had lived during the Ice Ages, tens of thousands of years ago. Others attacked this conclusion, and the skeletons became one of the casus belli of the evolution wars. Indirectly, the discovery also stimulated argument about the settlement of the Americas. Evolutionists believed that the Eastern and Western Hemispheres had developed in concert. If early humans had inhabited Europe during the Ice Ages, they must also have lived in the Americas at the same time. Indians must therefore have arrived before 500 B.C. Ussher’s chronology and the Lost Tribes scenario were wrong.

The nineteenth century was the heyday of amateur science. In the United States as in Europe, many of Darwin’s most ardent backers were successful tradespeople whose hobby was butterfly or beetle collecting. When these amateurs heard that the ancestors of Indians must have come to the Americas thousands of years ago, a surprising number of them decided to hunt for the evidence that would prove it.”
(Charles C. Mann, “1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus”, positions 331.0-334.2/1222 Kindle Edition)

Therefore, it should come as no surprise when modern amateur scientific voyeurs retread the same path trod by those after 1492 and prior to better, more complete evidence arising that discredits these now long-discredited American Lost Tribes theories. As the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

In short, and in conclusion, the only way to turn Cahokia and the Hopewell Culture into evidence for The Book of Mormon is to come to the conclusion first and then both cherry-pick the body of evidence for “hits” while ignoring the far more numerous “misses”. In other words, this is yet another one where Mormon Confirmation Bias reigns supreme over logic and reason. Cahokia and the Hopewell Mount Builders are not only not a bull’s eye for The Book of Mormon, but they’re also not even in the same pub where the dartboard resides.

An artist’s recreation of downtown Cahokia, with Monk’s Mound at its center. (click to zoom)

 Artwork courtesy of ArsTechnica

Moroni’s Broken Promise and God’s Undying Oath

Posted: August 15, 2021 in Book of Mormon, Confirmation Bias, Michael Flournoy, Mormon Studies, Necromancy, Testimony Bearing
1
Reconsidering Mormon Spiritual Conversion

Edward Henry Corbould, “Saul And The Witch Of Endor” (1860)

“For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.”
— Mark 13:22 (KJV)

 by Michael Flournoy
In a YouTube video entitled “The Scripture That Saved My Life From Human Traffickers”, Tim Ballard tells a story about going undercover to gain intel on human traffickers.

As he finished his mission, the traffickers decided to kill him and his fellow operatives in order to acquire their belongings. Tim went to his car and grabbed his worn-out Book of Mormon. In the midst of the chaos, he remembered Alma 58:11,

“Yea, and it came to pass that the Lord our God did visit us with assurances that he would deliver us; yea, insomuch that he did speak peace to our souls, and did grant unto us great faith, and did cause us that we should hope for our deliverance in him.”

 Tim Ballard got out of the car and was surprised to find the traffickers had left. In the video, he says, “There’s power in just holding the book.” Tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints claim they’ve gained a spiritual witness that The Book of Mormon is true. This testimony comes by utilizing “Moroni’s Promise” in Moroni 10:3-5,

“Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”

The Book of Mormon compels the reader to abandon logic, and instead balance their testimony of the restored gospel on the tightrope of subjective feeling. Faith-promoting experiences are a dime a dozen in Mormonism. Parents get uneasy feelings and discover their toddler’s mere steps from busy roadways. The men use the priesthood to heal the sick. Those who pay their last pennies on tithing get magical checks in the mail that cover their expenses. Under this mountain of spiritual evidence, one must conclude that Mormonism is true, right? Not so fast, hold your cureloms! It turns out even non-LDS folks experience these spiritual events.

I once worked with a lesbian named Kourtney who didn’t believe in God. Instead, she believed in the universe. One day she said she asked the universe for money and found 20 dollars on the side of the road. I chastised God inwardly. “Where’s my 20 dollars?” I asked. I was an obedient member of the true church. If anyone deserved 20 dollars, it was me. “Don’t you know she’s living in sin, God? Besides, she believes in the universe. You know this is going to reinforce her false beliefs, so why bless her?” My black and white viewpoint couldn’t make sense of the situation. God was supposed to reward the righteous and punish the wicked. My mistake, it turned out, was trying to force God inside a box. In Matthew 5:44-45 (KJV) Jesus says:

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

 The problem with this is it dismantles most of the experiences used to justify the LDS church. Luckily, there are still miracles. Certainly, the act of casting out demons and priesthood healing is evidence of the validity of the restored gospel, right? Wrong again. Deuteronomy 13:1-3 (KJV) says:

“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.”

This passage makes it clear that a sign or wonder can be employed by a false prophet. Pharaoh’s magicians were able to perform miracles. They made a stick turn into a snake and turned water into blood. If Moses hadn’t been there, it would have been easy to assume these magicians had God on their side.

Joseph Smith certainly could have produced a book that gave individuals a burning in the bosom, whether it was true or not. But what about the temple? What about all the stories about spirits appearing to family members and thanking them for doing their ordinances? That’s problematic as well.

In 1 Samuel 28, Saul asks a witch to conjure up the deceased Samuel so he can speak to him. The spirit of Samuel appears and foretells of Saul’s death. According to the LDS Church’s Bible Dictionary, under the heading Samuel we read:

“The account in 1 Sam. 28:5–20 of the prophet being brought back from the dead by the witch of Endor, at King Saul’s request, presents a problem. It is certain that a witch or other medium cannot by any means available to her bring up a prophet from the world of spirits. We may confidently be assured that if Samuel was present on that occasion, it was not due to conjuring of the witch. Either Samuel came in spite of and not because of the witch, or some other spirit came impersonating him.”

The fact that it can’t be definitely stated whether it was Samuel or another spirit is terrifying. This means evil spirits are so good at impersonating people, that it’s impossible to tell the difference. So when you see a spirit in the temple, how can you be certain it’s not a demon in disguise?

The Book of Mormon prophecies of itself in 2 Nephi 26:16:

“For those who shall be destroyed shall speak unto them out of the ground, and their speech shall be low out of the dust, and their voice shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit; for the Lord God will give unto him power, that he may whisper concerning them, even as it were out of the ground; and their speech shall whisper out of the dust.”

The fact that it expressly mentions familiar spirits in conjunction with the coming forth of The Book of Mormon should tell you all you need to know. This is as a well known early Mormon Apostle once infamously said:

“Willard Richards (1804–54), [a future LDS Church Apostle and] son of Joseph and Rhoda Howe Richards, became acquainted with the gospel in 1835 when he received a copy of the Book of Mormon near Boston, Massachusetts. “God or the devil has had a hand in that book,” he said, “for man never wrote it.”
(D. Michael Quinn, “They Served: The Richards Legacy in the Church,” Ensign, Jan. 1980, p.25)

Since a familiar spirit is a demon, that settles the dispute.

Let’s return to the story I shared at the beginning of the article. Even if God was sending inspiration to Tim Ballard through Alma 58:11, it’s still not a point for Mormonism. We need to stop mistaking the tree for the forest. The experience Tim shares about isn’t about a book, it’s about a principle. Alma 58:11 talks about assurance, and ironically, that’s the one thing Mormons don’t have. Latter-day Saints must obey God’s commandments. They must eradicate their sins. They must pay 10% of their incomes to the Church. They must endure to the end. This is nothing short of human trafficking on a spiritual level.

I invite all Latter-day Saints to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. His grace is free, and it endures forever on our behalf. Only Christ can speak peace to our souls – thanks to His vicarious atonement we can hope for deliverance in Him.

“Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil.”
— Hebrews 6:17-19 (KJV)

Latter-day Sinai

Posted: March 28, 2021 in Book of Mormon, Fred Anson, Joseph Smith, Marie Johnson, Michael Flournoy, Mormon Studies, Pam Hanvey
0
The Apostle Paul’s Law v. Grace Dichotomy

by Michael Flournoy, Fred W. Anson, and Pam Hanvey
If you’re a Latter-day Saint who has talked theology with Evangelicals, chances are you’ve walked away exasperated more than once. I’m willing to wager you’ve thought, “How can these people misrepresent my church so much? Do they understand my beliefs at all?” Perhaps, you think the most blatant example is when Evangelicals show scriptures that say the Law doesn’t save and then give that smug “gotcha” look. The problem should be obvious, but it isn’t.

You don’t follow the Law of Moses, you believe in the restored gospel. And you’ve said it enough times that Evangelicals should get it by now, right? But we all get stuck in battle debate mode and just have to win, don’t we? So it’s easy to keep pushing an argument in vain.  We all know how it goes, don’t we? 

As a result, we are going to express what Evangelicals have been trying to say all along, but typically don’t know how to because they aren’t bi-lingual and speak both Mormonese and Christianese as your intrepid reporters here do.  

First, both sides agree that Mormonism is a restoration. Yes, you heard that right, it is a restoration. However, Evangelicals see it as a restoration of the Old Testament Law of Moses, not New Testament Christianity. That is, to put it into Mormonese: It’s a restoration of the Lesser Law not the Higher Law as Mormonism claims. (Evangelicals, see BYU Professor Larry E. Dahl’s article, “The Higher Law”, Ensign, February 1991 for a good primer on the difference between the two from the Mormon perspective.) 

Study this out in your mind and see if it is right: When Paul wrote his letters he made a distinction between grace and Law. Since Mormonism claims to be a restoration of New Testament Christianity, not Old Testament Judaism, it stands to reason that it should fit soundly into one of Paul’s categories, right?  So let’s dig in and see why the above thesis is true. 

Similarities with the Law
How dare Evangelicals equate the LDS gospel with the Law of Moses, right? After all, Latter-day Saints don’t sacrifice animals, nor do they consider circumcision an essential covenant or ordinance of the gospel. Plus, the Word of Wisdom doesn’t require abstinence from consuming pork, shellfish, or other non-kosher food, does it?

So, why do Evangelicals equate the LDS gospel with the Law of Moses? Evangelicals are not merely looking at outward practices, but rather, they are going deeper; looking at the principal(s) behind the practices. Very early on in the Old Testament, this principle is established in the Law of Moses.  

I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God.
(Deuteronomy 11:27-28, KJV) 

The principle of blessings for obedience is also included in LDS scripture.  

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated – And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
(D&C 130:20-21) 

Comparing the two, the Law of Moses (Old Covenant) clearly delineates laws/commandments to be obeyed in specific situations by a specific group of people (Israelites); obedience or disobedience resulted in temporal blessings or curses for the nation of Israel. 

In Galatians 3:24, Paul explains that the Law of Moses, “was given to be a tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith”. Obedience to the Law has never been the means by which men enter into eternal life. Eternal Life has always been a blessing given by grace through faith.

In contrast, D&C 130 only presents a principle of blessings for obedience (no curses for disobedience). It then takes the principle of blessings for obedience and doubles down on it;  making obedience to laws a requirement for all of God’s blessings – up to and including Eternal Life.2 This leaves no room for eternal life to be granted by grace through faith (see definition below). As a result, many of the practices found in the Law of Moses continue to exist in Mormonism. 

After all, you still covenant to sacrifice all that the Lord blesses you with, don’t you? Doesn’t the LDS Church require a mandatory tithe – even though the tithe was a covenant-keeping ordinance of the lesser Law? Don’t you consider baptism an essential covenant akin to circumcision? And aren’t coffee, tea, and alcohol essentially non-kosher foods that cause one to break covenant if one consumes them? 

Further, don’t both the lesser Law and higher Laws require making and keeping covenants with God in a temple? Weren’t the unworthy Gentiles forbidden from even entering the temple foyer, let alone the washing and anointing area? Ditto for Jews who didn’t keep their covenants? Weren’t women forbidden from holding the Priesthood? Ditto for male children below a certain age?  Wasn’t there a special class of men who could hold the Priesthood out of all the men on earth? Weren’t there classes or castes of priests within the Priesthood rather than a single Royal Priesthood? 

And, aren’t both systems so overwhelmingly arduous, demanding, and ultimately impossible that they drive us to ultimate failure, condemn us and point us to our ever-present, all-surpassing need for a savior. In short, the Law and the LDS gospel serve to bring us to a knowledge of sin. Thus, both systems condemn us just as Paul said so well in his epistles: 

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become ||guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
(Romans 3:19-20, KJV) 

We know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted
(1 Timothy 1.8-11, KJV)

As one of our authors (writing under the pen name “Marie Johnson”) said well: 

The Old Covenant sacerdotal system, which came 430 years after God made his promises to Abraham (Genesis 12: 1-3) was never designed to give eternal life. Its purpose was to act as a tutor and a disciplinarian; teaching people about the depths of their sinfulness. As their custodian, it watched over them and kept them in check until the fullness of time came and they could be justified by faith in Jesus (Galatians 3:19-24). Just as the promise was not the reality, the sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant were only a foreshadow of the good things that were coming in Christ. (Hebrew 10:1-2)

Inaugurated with the shed blood of animals, the Mosaic covenant had a very distinct beginning. When Moses took the blood of calves and goats and sprinkled the book of the covenant and all the people, the Israelites were bound to abide by the Law of Moses (Exodus 24:8, Hebrews 9:19). They were required to continually perform sacrifices for the temporary covering of sins (Hebrews 10:11). If they intentionally defied the Mosaic Law, they would be cut off from Israel; that is, put to death (Numbers 15:30, Hebrews 10:28). No Hebrew was exempt from this obligation to the Law until, “the fullness of the time was come, [when] God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Galatians 4:4-5,KJV)
(Pam Hanvey (writing as “Marie Johnson”), “The Bible v. The Book of Mormon Gospel”, Beggar’s Bread website, April 17, 2016) 

The Jews under the Old Covenant had to make a sin sacrifice once a year because they kept sinning. The LDS sacrament is essentially the same thing. It is a repeated ordinance that renews the covenant. The New Covenant, as Paul emphasizes again, again, and again in his epistles, does not need to be renewed at all. In this, Paul merely affirms and validates what Christ, Himself said on the cross, “It is finished” (see John 19:30).

So to review:

      • Both systems have tithing. 
      • Both systems honor the Sabbath. 
      • Both systems uphold the ten commandments.
      • Both systems require making and keeping covenants. 
      • Both systems overwhelm us and condemn us. 
      • And both systems point us our need for a Savior.

Dissimilarities with Grace
The other problem is how dissimilar Mormonism is with grace as the Bible defines it. For example, Mormonism commits a classic “Fallacy by Definition” error by reframing the primary definition of grace as, “the help or strength given through the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ” (see “Grace” official LDS Church website) 

However, the words for grace in the Bible (“charis” in New Testament Greek and “chen” in the Old Testament) are generally defined as first and foremost, “the free and unmerited favour of God” (see “Divine grace” Wikipedia website). That is the definition of the word that not only the Christian world uses, but the world in general does. For example, consider this definition from Dictionary.com) which is about as generic a dictionary as they come: “favor or goodwill; a manifestation of favor, especially by a superior”.1

Can you see what just happened there, my Latter-day Saint friend? By simply defining the word correctly and giving it its true meaning, suddenly the atonement has shifted away from what I must do to gain God’s favor through law-keeping to simply receiving the favor that God has so freely already given me through faith and trust in the atonement of Christ. Suddenly, as two of the authors of this article explained in a previous article, we move from the Garden of Gethsemane to the Cross of Golgotha: 

Though the difference between Gethsemane and Golgotha might appear to be a trivial technicality, it underscores the vast differences between orthodox Biblical Christianity and Mormonism. By situating it at Golgotha, mainstream Christianity locates the atonement in the sacrifice of Christ; by situating it in Gethsemane, Mormons locate the atonement in the obedience of the believer.

It’s the difference between grace and works. On the one hand, there is the truly finished work that the believer looks to in faith; and on the other, there is the completed demonstration that the believer aspires to recreate (albeit metaphorically). In the latter, Christ might show the way, but he stops short of becoming the way, thus the believer is thrust back on his own efforts to secure the goal. As Adam Gopnik in the New Yorker noted, Mormonism is more about attainment than atonement, (Adam Gopnik, “I, Nephi: Mormonism and its Meanings”; The New Yorker, August 13, 2012). But such a focus denies the Christ-centered redemption narrative that’s at the very core of the gospel message and so rightly cherished by Christians the world over.
(Fred W. Anson & Michael Flournoy, “Behold the Man Upon the Cross”, Beggar’s Bread website, September 30, 2018) 

And this is a shift that’s reiterated again, again, and again in the Bible: 

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.
(Ephesians 2:8-9, KJV) 

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!
(Galatians 2:21, KJV)

You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
(Galatians 5:4, KJV) 

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
(Romans 11:5-6, KJV) 

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
(John 1:17, KJV) 

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
(Romans 6:14, KJV) 

For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
(Galatians 3:18, KJV)

In the aforementioned article, Pam Hanvey summed things up nicely when she said, 

Because Jesus redeemed those under the law, the Old Covenant became obsolete when the New Covenant was ratified in his blood. (Hebrews 8:13, 10:9-10). Jesus addressed this in the parable of the wineskins. New wine can’t be poured into old wineskins: The old skins will burst and both will be ruined. (Matthew 9:14-17). The two covenants can’t be mixed. [Yet] In spite of Paul and Jesus’ teaching, the Book of Mormon asserts that people who were under Old Covenant law could freely partake of the New Covenant and claim remission of sins through Jesus’ atonement…

Splattered throughout the pages of the Book of Mormon, this concocted gospel attempts to mix the Old and New Covenants, only to rip apart the fabric of the Old Covenant and trample underfoot the New Covenant.
(op cit, Hanvey) 

This is the focus of the entire book of Galatians, which may best be summarized by this passage: 

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified…

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
(Galatians 2:16,21, KJV) 

But Paul doesn’t stop there, he goes further to press home the fact that those trying to justify themselves by law-keeping are actually putting themselves under a curse: 

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
(Galatians 3:10-12, KJV) 

He even goes so far as to say that law-keeping is a yoke of bondage, rather than freedom, 

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
(Galatians 5:1 KJV) 

So my dear Latter-day Saint friend, if you feel like that pressures and demands of the conflated, mish-mash, of the false Mormon Gospel of intermingled Old Testament Law and New Covenant grace that your church teaches is enslaving and crushing you, Paul would simply say to you, “You’re right, it is!”  

And then I would imagine that he would simply look you in the eye, and ask this paraphrased version of his infamous Galatians 3:1 question,  

“O foolish Mormon, who hath bewitched you?”

NOTES
1 This isn’t to say that the LDS Church’s definition isn’t included in or a subset of the biblical definition grace, it is. However, it’s a secondary effect or by-product of “the free and unmerited favour of God”, nothing more. This is as Louis Berkhof explains so well in his Systematic Theology: 

The word “grace” is not always used in the same sense in Scripture, but has a variety of meanings. In the Old Testament we have the word chen (adj. chanun), from the root chanan. The noun may denote gracefulness or beauty, Prov. 22:11; 31:30, but most generally means favour or good-will. The Old Testament repeatedly speaks of finding favour in the eyes of God or of man. The favour so found carries with it the bestowal of favours or blessings. This means that grace is not an abstract quality, but is an active, working principle, manifesting itself in beneficent acts, Gen. 6:8; 19:19; 33:15; Ex. 33:12; 34:9; I Sam 1:18; 27:5; Esth. 2:7. The fundamental idea is, that the blessings graciously bestowed are freely given, and not in consideration of any claim or merit. The New Testament word charis, from chairein, “to rejoice,” denotes first of all a pleasant external appearance, “loveliness,” “agreeableness,” “acceptableness,” and has some such meaning in Luke 4:22; Col. 4:6. A more prominent meaning of the word, however, is favour or good-will, Luke 1:30; 2:40, 52; Acts 2:47; 7:46; 24:27; 25:9.
(Louis Berkhof, “Systematic Theology” (Grand Rapids, 1949), pp. 426-427)

So the problem isn’t so much that the LDS Church’s definition of grace is wrong as much as it’s both “cart before the horse” and incomplete. 

2 For our non-Mormon readers, Even though there are six (6) types of salvation in LDS soteriology, Mormons will still use the generic term “salvation” without specifying which of the six they’re referring to. Here is the list followed by the full explanation from an official, correlated LDS Church source. 

1) Salvation from Physical Death.
2) Salvation from Sin.
3) Being Born Again.
4) Salvation from Ignorance.
5) Salvation from the Second Death.
6) Eternal Life, or Exaltation.

And here, in its entirety is that source: 

Salvation
In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms “saved” and “salvation” have various meanings. As used in Romans 10:9-10, the words “saved” and “salvation” signify a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. Through this covenant relationship, followers of Christ are assured salvation from the eternal consequences of sin if they are obedient. “Salvation” and “saved” are also used in the scriptures in other contexts with several different meanings.

Additional Information
If someone were to ask if another person had been saved, the answer would depend on the sense in which the word is used. The answer might be “Yes” or perhaps it might be “Yes, but with conditions.” The following explanations outline six different meanings of the word salvation.

Salvation from Physical Death. All people eventually die. But through the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected—saved from physical death. Paul testified, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). In this sense, everyone is saved, regardless of choices made during this life. This is a free gift from the Savior to all human beings.

Salvation from Sin. To be cleansed from sin through the Savior’s Atonement, an individual must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (see Acts 2:37-38). Those who have been baptized and have received the Holy Ghost through the proper priesthood authority have been conditionally saved from sin. In this sense, salvation is conditional, depending on an individual’s continuing in faithfulness, or enduring to the end in keeping the commandments of God (see 2 Peter 2:20-22).

Individuals cannot be saved in their sins; they cannot receive unconditional salvation simply by declaring a belief in Christ with the understanding that they will inevitably commit sins throughout the rest of their lives (see Alma 11:36-37). However, through the grace of God, all can be saved from their sins (see 2 Nephi 25:23; Helaman 5:10-11) as they repent and follow Jesus Christ.

Being Born Again. The principle of spiritual rebirth appears frequently in the scriptures. The New Testament contains Jesus’s teaching that everyone must be “born again” and that those who are not “born of water and of the Spirit … cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). This teaching is affirmed in the Book of Mormon: “All mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters; and thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God” (Mosiah 27:25-26).

This rebirth occurs as individuals are baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. It comes as a result of a willingness “to enter into a covenant with our God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command us, all the remainder of our days” (Mosiah 5:5). Through this process, their “hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, [they] are born of him” (Mosiah 5:7). All who have truly repented, been baptized, have received the gift of the Holy Ghost, have made the covenant to take upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ, and have felt His influence in their lives, can say that they have been born again. That rebirth can be renewed each Sabbath when they partake of the sacrament.

Salvation from Ignorance. Many people live in a state of darkness, not knowing the light of the restored gospel. They are “only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it” (D&C 123:12). Those who have a knowledge of God the Father, Jesus Christ, the purpose of life, the plan of salvation, and their eternal potential are saved from this condition. They follow the Savior, who declared, “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12).

Salvation from the Second Death. The scriptures sometimes speak of salvation from the second death. The second death is the final spiritual death—being cut off from righteousness and denied a place in any kingdom of glory (see Alma 12:32; D&C 88:24). This second death will not come until the Final Judgment, and it will come to only a few (see D&C 76:31-37). Almost every person who has ever lived on the earth is assured salvation from the second death (see D&C 76:40-45).

Eternal Life, or Exaltation. In the scriptures, the words saved and salvation often refer to eternal life, or exaltation (see Abraham 2:11). Eternal life is to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and dwell with Them forever—to inherit a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom (see John 17:3; D&C 131:1-4; 132:21-24). This exaltation requires that men receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, and that all Church members make and keep sacred covenants in the temple, including the covenant of eternal marriage. If the word salvation is used in this sense, no one is saved in mortality. That glorious gift comes only after the Final Judgment.

See also Atonement of Jesus Christ; Baptism; Eternal Life; Grace; Kingdoms of Glory; Plan of Salvation
(“True to the Faith” (2004), LDS Church manual, pp. 150-53; retrieved 4/26/2017)

ALSO RECOMMENDED
“Plan of Salvation Overview”,  LDS Church Book of Mormon Teacher Resource Manual, (2004), pp. 7–10;

Destroying God’s Olive Vineyard for Fame and Prophet (Part 2)

Posted: March 14, 2021 in Book of Mormon, Fred Anson, Mormon Studies, Susan Grape
5
More Notes and Thoughts on The Book of Mormon’s Parable of the Olive Tree

An ancient olive grove in Israel. Some of the trees in this grove are over 1,000-years old.

compiled by Susan Grape, Fred W. Anson, and “Team TOYBOM”
For those unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, the Parable of the Olive Tree is an extended allegory recounted in Chapter 5 of the Book of Jacob, the third book of the Book of Mormon. Jacob states the allegory was one of the teachings of the alleged extra-Biblical, Old Testament era prophet, Zenos found in the brass plates, a lost record. The Brass Plates were a set of plates retrieved by Nephi at the direction of his father, Lehi. They contained Jewish records similar to the Old Testament, up to the time of Jeremiah. Latter Day Saints suggest that it is possible that Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (see chapter 11) is referencing a similar parable. (see Wikipedia, “Parable of the Olive Tree”; also see “List of Plates (Latter Day Saints)”, and “Zenos”). Click here to read the parable in its entirety.

An official, correlated Church manual explains the symbolism of the parable as follows:
Vineyard = The world;
Master of the vineyard = Jesus Christ;
Tame olive tree = The house of Israel, the Lord’s covenant people;
Wild olive tree = Gentiles (people not born into the house of Israel);
Branches = Groups of people;
Servants = Prophets and others called to serve;
Fruit = Lives or works of people;
(“Lesson 13: The Allegory of the Olive Trees”, Book of Mormon: Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual (1999), p. 56)

So that’s the backstory. Unfortunately, the parable has a number of issues and problems which we will discuss here in a running commentary type fashion for your consideration.

Other Thoughts and Notes:
An Olive Tree allegory would have had no direct significance to people living in the Americas in 541-421BC and approximately 60-years after the Book of Mormon people left the Middle East.
This is because olive trees aren’t native to the Americas and didn’t exist on the American continent until the 16th Century. From Wikipedia:

“Olives are not native to the Americas. Spanish colonists brought the olive to the New World, where its cultivation prospered in present-day Peru, Chile and Argentina. The first seedlings from Spain were planted in Lima by Antonio de Rivera in 1560. Olive tree cultivation quickly spread along the valleys of South America’s dry Pacific coast where the climate was similar to the Mediterranean. Spanish missionaries established the tree in the 18th century in California. It was first cultivated at Mission San Diego de Alcalá in 1769 or later around 1795. Orchards were started at other missions, but in 1838, an inspection found only two olive orchards in California. Cultivation for oil gradually became a highly successful commercial venture from the 1860s onward.“
(Wikipedia, “Olive”)

An ancient Olive Grove in Israel. This grove is estimated to be about 2,000-years old.

Further, 19th Century Americans not living on the North American continent in the Northeastern region of the United States – such as the Book of Mormon’s original, target audience – would be unable to see the flaws in the Parable of the Olive Tree since they can only be grown “landscaped in” (as is the case in Jacob 5) in Mediterranean climates.
From a botanical website on olive tree cultivation and olive oil production:

“Olive trees need a subtropical climate and do best with mild winters and long, warm, and dry summers. They are sensitive to hard freezing environments. They will grow in climate zones 10 and 11 (see map below). Some varieties are hardy enough for zone 9 or even 8. Temperatures below 22ºF (-5ºC) will kill small wood and branches. Freezing conditions lasting days or a hard freeze, below 15ºF (-10ºC), will kill or severely damage an olive tree. It is best to avoid planting olive trees in situations where there is a high risk of frost during bloom (late April to mid-May) or where freezing conditions are likely before harvest. Summer rainfall can cause fungal and bacterial infestations.”
(“Site Selection”, The Olive Oil Source website)

From Wikipedia:

“An estimated 865 million olive trees are in the world today (as of 2005), and the vast majority of these are found in Mediterranean countries, with traditionally marginal areas accounting for no more than 25% of olive-planted area and 10% of oil production.”
(Wikipedia, “Olive”)

Therefore, it’s hardly surprising that someone who was born and raised in the North American Northeast region of the United States (which generally has a Humid Continental Climate) wouldn’t have a good working knowledge of landscaped olive trees or groves since olive tree cultivation is only possible in pots in that climate zone:

“Olive trees thrive in the northeast where they can live outside in containers from spring through early fall, but then they must be moved inside. In winter, they cannot survive outside because of low temperatures in the northeast that range from 10 degrees Fahrenheit to minus 25 F. The northeastern region is in USDA Hardiness Zones 4 though 7; olive trees grow outdoors in climate zones 10 and 11. If you prefer, you can keep the trees indoors year-round. According to a New York Times gardening column, olive trees do well in big pots, so you’re in luck if you have the indoor space.”
(Nellene Teubner Plouffe, “Olive Trees in the Northeast”)

Unlike the other plant and tree parables in the Bible, the botany in Jacob is flawed, inaccurate, and error-filled.
For example, consider Christ’s allegory of the vine and Vinedresser in John 15. As one of this article’s compilers, Fred W. Anson, explained in his October 2019 Faith After Mormon Conference lecture, “From Human Doing to Human Being: Abiding In Jesus After Mormonism” this allegory is so botanically and scientifically correct and precise that a vineyarder could follow it’s instructions and get exactly what the passage claims and promises: Improved grapevine health and fruit production. Here’s what the passage says:

John 15 (KJV)
1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

By comparison, if an Olive Tree Arborist followed the instructions given in Jacob 5, it would kill the olive tree – it reeks of ignorance on the very subject that it’s using as an allegory. This fact raises the question of whether this passage in the Book of Mormon is inspired by God at all. After all, surely the Author and Creator of the universe would know how to care for the very olive trees that He designed and created, right?

An ancient olive tree in Spain that is about 2,000 years old.

There is no evidence that the Old Testament Prophet Zenos, who was being quoted from Laban’s Brass Plates as the source for this parable, ever existed.
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains:

“Zenos is one of four Israelite prophets of Old Testament times cited in the Book of Mormon whose writings appeared on the plates of brass but who are not mentioned in the Old Testament (see also Zenock; Neum; and Ezias). Zenos is quoted or mentioned by Nephi 1 (1 Ne. 19:10-17), Jacob (Jacob 5:1-77;6:1), Alma 2 (Alma 33:3-11, 13, 15), Amulek (Alma 34:7), Nephi 2 (Hel. 8:19-20), and Mormon (3 Ne. 10:14-17).

Although specific dates and details of Zenos’ life and ministry are not known, the Book of Mormon provides considerable information about him from his teachings and related facts. Evidently he lived sometime between 1600 and 600 B.C. because he was apparently a descendant of Joseph of Egypt and his writings were on the plates of brass taken from Jerusalem to the Americas by Nephi 1 about 600 B.C. He may also have been a progenitor of the Book of Mormon prophet Lehi (cf. 3 Ne. 10:16). Zenos spent time “in the wilderness” (Alma 33:4), but also preached “in the midst” of the “congregations” of God (Alma 33:9). Some of his enemies became reconciled to him through the power of God, but others were visited “with speedy destruction” (Alma 33:4, 10). Finally, he was slain because of his bold testimony of the coming of the “Son of God” (Hel. 8:13-19).”
(Daniel H. Ludlow, “Zenos”, The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, p. 1623)

The first problem here is that Zenos isn’t a Jewish name – it’s a Greek name that means, “gift of Zeus” (see Wikipedia, “Zeno (name)”; also see The Bump website, “Zeno – Baby Name”). In fact, the closest historical match for “Zenos” is Zeno of Elea who was referred to by Plato and Aristotle in their work. (see Wikipedia, “Zeno of Elea”)

The second problem is the magnitude, weight, and significance that Mormon leaders and the LdS Church have placed on the work of Zenos during the Old Testament period. Consider the words of influential Mormon Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie:

“I do not think I overstate the matter when I say that next to Isaiah himself-who is the prototype, pattern, and model for all the prophets-there was not a greater prophet in all Israel than Zenos.”
(Bruce R. McConkie,”The Doctrinal Restoration”, in “The Joseph Smith Translation, The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things”, ed My. Nyman and R. Millet. Provo, Utah, 1985, p.17)

So logically, if the prophet Zenos was as the Book of Mormon and the LdS Church claims, then it seems incredulous that there would be no record of him in the Bible, let alone that his body of work won’t have been recorded and as diligently preserved in the biblical canon as the other Old Testament prophets. The same is true of extra-biblical sources, such as well-known Jewish Historian, Josephus or the literature of the cultures and civilizations that surrounded Old Testament Israel.

Given all these problems and logical incongruities, as well as the fact that the Parable of the Olive Tree doesn’t seem to be the work of anyone actually familiar or acquainted with olive tree germination and care, it might be easy to conclude that Zenos is simply a fictional character that the 19th Century author of the Book of Mormon contrived and produced from his imagination and tried to pass off as legitimate using a classic historical revisionism tactic.

Finally, in Jacob 4:1, the alleged author of the book states that he cannot write much because of the difficulty of engraving on the plates.
Yet he writes this allegory that contains over 600 repetitive words (yes, we counted them), consisting of “Behold/beheld/looked/beholdest”, “It came to pass”, “the Lord of the vineyard, said to the servant of the vineyard,” and over a 1,000 if you add the last part of many verses that repeat the first part of the verse.

In the end, there are significant problems and concerns about the Parable of the Olive Tree in the Book of Mormon that simply can’t be ignored by the reader. Jacob chapter 5 creates far more problems than it solves. In fact, because the Zenos character in the Book of Mormon both here and elsewhere acts and speaks more like a 19th Century American Protestant than an ancient Old Testament Prophet. Therefore, it’s very reasonable to conclude that he was simply invented to give voice to Joseph Smith so he could push the Book of Mormon as his prophetic credential – as we know from the historical record that he did.

In other words, we are of the opinion that the Parable of the Olive, like the rest of the Book of Mormon, was written by Joseph Smith, to coin a phrase, for fame and prophet. And though we have come to different conclusions (he faith-promoting, we skeptical), this assertion is fully aligned with the body of historical evidence that Mormon Apologist, Daniel C. Peterson summarized so well regarding the role of the Book of Mormon in early Mormon culture when he said:

“Studies of Latter-day Saint sermons and curriculum from the earliest period of church history well into the 20th century demonstrate surprisingly little use of the Book of Mormon to establish doctrines or as a text from which to preach. Many Saints were converted by reading it, but, thereafter, they tended to overlook its specific content. Early members, mostly converts, knew the Bible well and used it extensively in their teaching and missionary efforts, but the Book of Mormon served mainly as a kind of talisman, its sheer existence pointing to Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling. Even Joseph Smith used the Bible far more than he used the Book of Mormon in his sermons.”
(Daniel C. Peterson, “Embracing the power of the Book of Mormon”, The Deseret News, published: Thursday, Jan. 5 2012 5:00 a.m. MST)

The infamous Berkeley Olive Grove 1913 in Berkeley, California. By Olive Grove standards, this is a young grove that’s only a little over a hundred years old.

About the Compilation Team
Susan Grape grew up in a non-church going family. When she became engaged, her fiancé (now husband) and she joined a Christian church. As she was learning about the Bible and Jesus, several friends, and relatives who were either Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientist shared their beliefs with her and challenged her to the point that she knew that their doctrine was different enough to question that someone (perhaps herself) had to be wrong. When Mormon missionaries and Jehovah’s Witnesses came to her home, it forced her to study the scriptures to see what the Bible actually taught. That very intense time of studying gave her the evidence for what Biblical truth is. It sparked the desire to reach out to these groups with the Biblical gospel and the Biblical Christ.

Mrs. Grape served as a board member for ten years with Berean Christian Ministries and she currently is in her eleventh year of serving on the board of Christian Research & Counsel. Her husband Brad also is on the board. The Grape’s adult children are professing Christians, and their grandchildren are also being raised in the faith.

Fred W. Anson is the founder and publishing editor of the Beggar’s Bread website, which features a rich potpourri of articles on Christianity with a recurring emphasis on Mormon studies. Fred is also the administrator of several Internet discussion groups and communities, including several Mormon-centric groups, including two Facebook Support Groups for Ex-Mormons (Ex-Mormon Christians, and Ex-Mormon Christians Manhood Quorum).

“Team TOYBOM”
In late 2019 a new group was created on Facebook with the express purpose of encouraging Non-Mormons to read through the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover. It’s called “The One Year BOM: Non-Mormons Reading Through the Book of Mormon in a Year (aka ‘TOYBOM’)” and its mission and goal was to get Non-Mormons reading the Book of Mormon in a year as a group so they could openly and honestly discuss and deconstruct it without any Mormon interference, umbrage, or offense.

Thus no Mormons (members of any Latter Day Saint denomination or splinter group) were allowed in the group so that the group could speak freely and deconstruct the Book the Mormon honestly and openly without having to deal with the typical Latter Day Saint agendas, dogmas, thin-skinned offense, spin-doctoring, and confirmation bias driven apologetics that typically swirl around the Book of Mormon in public whenever Latter Day Saints are present. The goal was to quietly, objectively, civilly and dispassionately consider the Book of Mormon devoid of any of such partisan Latter Day Saint encumbrances.

An ancient Greek Olive Tree that’s at least 2,000 years old, possibly as old as 3,000 years.

Link to Part One

Destroying God’s Olive Vineyard for Fame and Prophet (Part 1)

Posted: February 28, 2021 in Book of Mormon, Fred Anson, Mormon Studies, Susan Grape
5
Notes and Thoughts on The Book of Mormon’s Parable of the Olive Tree

An ancient olive grove in Israel. Some of the trees in this grove are over 1,000-years old.

compiled by Susan Grape, Fred W. Anson, and “Team TOYBOM”
For those unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, the Parable of the Olive Tree is an extended allegory recounted in Chapter 5 of the Book of Jacob, the third book of the Book of Mormon. Jacob states the allegory was one of the teachings of the alleged extra-Biblical, Old Testament era prophet, Zenos found in the brass plates, a lost record. The Brass Plates were a set of plates retrieved by Nephi at the direction of his father, Lehi. They contained Jewish records similar to the Old Testament, up to the time of Jeremiah. Latter Day Saints suggest that it is possible that Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (see chapter 11) is referencing a similar parable. (see Wikipedia, “Parable of the Olive Tree”; also see “List of Plates (Latter Day Saints)”, and “Zenos”). Click here to read the parable in its entirety.

An official, correlated Church manual explains the symbolism of the parable as follows:
Vineyard = The world;
Master of the vineyard = Jesus Christ;
Tame olive tree = The house of Israel, the Lord’s covenant people;
Wild olive tree = Gentiles (people not born into the house of Israel);
Branches = Groups of people;
Servants = Prophets and others called to serve;
Fruit = Lives or works of people;
(“Lesson 13: The Allegory of the Olive Trees”, Book of Mormon: Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual (1999), p. 56)

So that’s the backstory. Unfortunately, the parable has a number of issues and problems which we will discuss here in a running commentary type fashion for your consideration.

Verse 3a: An olive tree is planted in a vineyard.

Jacob 5
3a For behold, thus saith the Lord, I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard…”

Commentary: Olive trees are not planted in vineyards because grapevines will choke out young trees. (see The New manners and Customs of Bible Times, p. 43, 1987, Moody Press).

The soil requirements for olive trees and grapevines are very different. Olive trees (or groves) grow best in rocky soil like “chalky marl, with flint, and just mould enough to cover the roots. (see “Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p.224). On the other hand, “Vines (vineyards) like open, loose, soil, so their roots can grow down to the rocks to reach the moisture.” (see Ralph Gower, “The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times”, p. 43). Thus, it makes no sense to plant an olive tree in a vineyard – or for that matter, a grapevine in an olive grove. As one Bible commentator notes, this is something that we see reflected in the text of the bible itself, “Olive groves were placed alongside of vineyards not inside of them, cf. I Sam. 8:14.” (ibid, p. 113)

Verses 3b-6: Zenos’ tree fits the description of a very old olive tree, the heart was decaying, and the main top was beginning to perish:

Jacob 5
3b …and it grew, and waxed old, and began to decay.

4 And it came to pass that the master of the vineyard went forth, and he saw that his olive tree began to decay; and he said: I will prune it, and dig about it, and nourish it, that perhaps it may shoot forth young and tender branches, and it perish not.

5 And it came to pass that he pruned it, and digged about it, and nourished it according to his word.

6 And it came to pass that after many days it began to put forth somewhat a little, young and tender branches; but behold, the main top thereof began to perish.

Commentary: Olive trees are very slow-growing, take years to mature, and then take even longer to decay and die. In fact, there are olive trees – even entire olive groves – in the Mediterranean that are thousands of years old. So to claim that this olive tree grew to full maturity and began to die within the lifetime of the master of the vineyard is simply hard to believe. From the Hunker website:

“In proper growing conditions, olive trees can live a long time—recently on Crete, scientists have been documenting that some olive trees there are as much 1,000 years old. Olive trees in the Garden of Gethsemane, on the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem, may be older than that, though it’s doubtful that they date from the time of Christ.

Growth Pattern. One drawback of olive trees, however, is that they grow to full maturity quite slowly. During the first few years of its life, an olive tree will grow rather quickly, but growth slows thereafter. If your main interest in growing olives is to harvest the fruit, you can speed the growth somewhat by carefully pruning the tree during its first five years, to create a strong, straight central trunk. People who are more interested in the ornamental value of the olive tree may prefer to let the tree grow naturally, so that it will achieve the gnarly, wizened profile so characteristic of the trees growing in Greece and the Middle East.”
(Cathryn Chaney, “How Long Does It Take for an Olive Tree to Produce Fruit?”, July 17, 2017)

Ancient Olive Trees in Lebanon that are at least 2,000 years old but still fruit-bearing. Notice how the core is completely missing from the trunk but the tree is still healthy and thriving.

Further, the decay of an old olive tree isn’t immediately apparent. It can take years to be visible and all the while, the tree will be fruit-bearing and look just fine from outside. So the statement that “the main top thereof began to perish”, which implies that the decay was outside/inside rather than inside/out is flat out wrong.

“The body of the tree dies at the heart.”
(op cit, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p.224)

“The olive tree…often lives to a very, very, great age, and bears fruit till the last, even when the trunk is nothing but a shell.”
(Barbara M. Bowen, “Strange Scriptures That Perplex the Western Mind”, p. 97)

“The old roots, often throw up new stems…The new shoots were grafted into stock.”
(op cit, “The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times”, p. 113)

Verses 6-11: The Lord of the vineyard makes three mistakes trying to save his tree: a) If this description is accurate then the tree was already irrecoverable, it was already a dead loss; b) Grafting from healthy stock – be it domesticated or wild – will do nothing to resuscitate a dying tree, and; c) Digging around the roots is the best way to damage or destroy a tree – any tree, healthy or ailing.

Jacob 5
6 And it came to pass that after many days it began to put forth somewhat a little, young and tender branches; but behold, the main top thereof began to perish.

7 And it came to pass that the master of the vineyard saw it, and he said unto his servant: It grieveth me that I should lose this tree; wherefore, go and pluck the branches from a wild olive tree, and bring them hither unto me; and we will pluck off those main branches which are beginning to wither away, and we will cast them into the fire that they may be burned.

8 And behold, saith the Lord of the vineyard, I take away many of these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will; and it mattereth not that if it so be that the root of this tree will perish, I may preserve the fruit thereof unto myself; wherefore, I will take these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will.

9 Take thou the branches of the wild olive tree, and graft them in, in the stead thereof; and these which I have plucked off I will cast into the fire and burn them, that they may not cumber the ground of my vineyard.

10 And it came to pass that the servant of the Lord of the vineyard did according to the word of the Lord of the vineyard, and grafted in the branches of the wild olive tree.

11 And the Lord of the vineyard caused that it should be digged about, and pruned, and nourished, saying unto his servant: It grieveth me that I should lose this tree; wherefore, that perhaps I might preserve the roots thereof that they perish not, that I might preserve them unto myself, I have done this thing.

Commentary: First, the inside of an old olive tree – that is the core or heart – can be completely gone, and it can still produce fruit as long as the cambium and sap layers are nourishing the branches. If those layers begin to die, so will the branches, and the tree is beyond saving. If the top branches of the Lord of the vineyard’s tree were perishing, then the cambium and sap were also dying. Therefore, It would have made no difference if wild olive branches were grafted onto his tree. (see Funk & Wagnall’s Encyclopedia, Vol. 26, pp. 25-26)

Finally, he dug around the roots not knowing that the young, healthy shoots that are for the tree’s future health and olive output are easily destroyed:

“The fruit is ready for picking…and the branches are beaten to shake the olives onto the cloth…The beating of the branches almost certainly destroyed the tender young shoots, so that there was a poor crop the following year…”
(op cit, New Manners and Customs of Bible Times, p.113)

How much more destruction would there be if someone dug around the roots? For a start, digging around healthy roots can cause disease. Digging around diseased roots will destroy the plant. Therefore, trying to revive a dying plant by digging around the roots is rarely, if ever, a good idea. As an Arborist explains:

“Digging through and cutting tree roots isn’t something to take lightly. Cutting critical roots can interrupt the tree’s water and nutrient uptake, leave permanent damage to the tree’s structure and stability, or, in the worst case, cause the tree to die…

It’s not a good idea to cut the roots of already damaged trees. Also, roots that are more than two inches wide or close to the trunk should not be pruned, cut or dug through because they help anchor the tree.”
(“Is It Safe to Dig Through Tree Roots?” Davey Tree website)

An ancient Greek Olive Grove. Notice the health of the branches despite the hollow trunk cores.

Verses 7-11: Grafting wild branches to save the roots.

Jacob 5
7 And it came to pass that the master of the vineyard saw it, and he said unto his servant: It grieveth me that I should lose this tree; wherefore, go and pluck the branches from a wild olive tree, and bring them hither unto me; and we will pluck off those main branches which are beginning to wither away, and we will cast them into the fire that they may be burned.

8 And behold, saith the Lord of the vineyard, I take away many of these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will; and it mattereth not that if it so be that the root of this tree will perish, I may preserve the fruit thereof unto myself; wherefore, I will take these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will.

9 Take thou the branches of the wild olive tree, and graft them in, in the stead thereof; and these which I have plucked off I will cast into the fire and burn them, that they may not cumber the ground of my vineyard.

10 And it came to pass that the servant of the Lord of the vineyard did according to the word of the Lord of the vineyard, and grafted in the branches of the wild olive tree.

11 And the Lord of the vineyard caused that it should be digged about, and pruned, and nourished, saying unto his servant: It grieveth me that I should lose this tree; wherefore, that perhaps I might preserve the roots thereof that they perish not, that I might preserve them unto myself, I have done this thing.

Commentary: Yet again, branch grafts (wild or tame) do not save a tree as the Lord of the vineyard thought. They only revitalize the produce of a healthy tree.

“Grafting is frequently used to combine advantageous characteristics of scion and stock. For example, branches of buds of trees known to produce good fruit are grafted to stronger trees that produce fruit of indifferent quality.” (Funk & Wagnalls New Enc., Vol.12, p. 90; italics added for emphasis)

There is an expert level form of grafting called, “bridge grafting” that can be performed on the trunk of older trees, but it’s not what’s being described in the text here- and it’s rarely done to stone fruit trees, like olive trees, due to the low rate of success. As this excerpt from the Michigan State University Extension website explains:

“Older trees need more involved “surgical” procedure known as – bridge grafting. As hopeful and good as this procedure is, it is not the answer for all trees. Stone fruits (cherry, peach, plum etc.) are very seldom successfully grafted. The other undesirable effect is in creating the opportunity for many disease (i.e. bacterial canker) and insect invasion (borer complex). Pome fruits (apples and pears) are in much better position. Both, young and old trees are easily grafted without too much trouble. For older trees, bridge grafting is an easy operation with high success rate.”
(Mirjana Bulatovic-Danilovich, “Bridge grafting as a life-saving procedure for trees”, Michigan State University Extension website, May 3, 2011, italics added for emphasis)

Verses 31-33: The Lord of the vineyard was gone so long that he did not know how all sorts of bad fruit (according to their “number”) got on the tree. Domestic trees need regular and on-going tending to.

Jacob 5
31 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard did taste of the fruit, every sort according to its number. And the Lord of the vineyard said: Behold, this long time have we nourished this tree, and I have laid up unto myself against the season much fruit.

32 But behold, this time it hath brought forth much fruit, and there is none of it which is good. And behold, there are all kinds of bad fruit; and it profiteth me nothing, notwithstanding all our labor; and now it grieveth me that I should lose this tree.

33 And the Lord of the vineyard said unto the servant: What shall we do unto the tree, that I may preserve again good fruit thereof unto mine own self?

Commentary: After a domestic tree is planted, the planter’s work has just begun – this is even more the case after a domestic forest (aka “grove” or “plantation”) has been planted. If a domesticated tree or forest decays or perishes, there’s really no secret what the cause was: Human neglect. As the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations explains:

“Maintenance of forest plantations includes protecting the plants from detrimental climatic conditions, fire, insects and fungi, and animals. Maintenance may include measures that are silvicultural (such as well-timed and careful removal of damaged trees and shrubs), chemical (with insecticides or fungicides), biological (with parasites), or mechanical (removing or destroying pests, erecting fences, etc.). Because trespass by man can threaten the success of a planting programme, planning should also include methods of dealing with this potential problem.”
(“Maintenance of the plantation”, FAO website)

Verse 65: Lord of the vineyard had the bitter fruit cut off because that is the bad fruit.

Jacob 5
65 And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard.”

Commentary: There are no sweet olives, they are all bitter. To claim that the fruit is “bad” because it’s bitter, therefore, makes no sense. From the World Book Encyclopedia:

“Fresh olives contain oleuropein, a bitter substance that makes them unpleasant to eat before processing…“Olives processed for eating…by the Spanish process…are placed in lye solution. The lye removes most of the bitter taste…The American process…ripens immature…olives artificially. The fruit is alternately submerged in lye and exposed to the air until no bitterness remains…The Greek process…olives undergo a slow fermentation in brine. During fermentation, the fruit’s bitterness decreases until the brine masks it.”
(The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 14 “Olives”)

One of the world’s oldest olive trees in Italy. It is estimated to be at least 4,000-years old.

Verses 65-66: The roots are too strong for the graft.

Jacob 5
65 And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard.

66 For it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard; wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according as the good shall grow, that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad, and the bad be hewn down and cast into the fire, that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard; and thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard.

Commentary: The roots keep the tree alive and osmosis and photosynthesis, along with the cambium and sap layers is what provides strength to the branches and fruit; therefore it is impossible for a root to be too strong for the branches. (Funk & Wagnall’s New Encyclopedia, 1983, Vol. 26, pp. 25-26; also see, op cit, The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol.14 “osmosis”; and Vol. 15, “photosynthesis”)

Verses 69-76: Bad fruit is turned into good fruit.

Jacob 5
69 And the bad shall be cast away, yea, even out of all the land of my vineyard; for behold, only this once will I prune my vineyard.

70 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard sent his servant; and the servant went and did as the Lord had commanded him, and brought other servants; and they were few.

71 And the Lord of the vineyard said unto them: Go to, and labor in the vineyard, with your might. For behold, this is the last time that I shall nourish my vineyard; for the end is nigh at hand, and the season speedily cometh; and if ye labor with your might with me ye shall have joy in the fruit which I shall lay up unto myself against the time which will soon come.

72 And it came to pass that the servants did go and labor with their mights; and the Lord of the vineyard labored also with them; and they did obey the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard in all things.

73 And there began to be the natural fruit again in the vineyard; and the natural branches began to grow and thrive exceedingly; and the wild branches began to be plucked off and to be cast away; and they did keep the root and the top thereof equal, according to the strength thereof.

74 And thus they labored, with all diligence, according to the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard, even until the bad had been cast away out of the vineyard, and the Lord had preserved unto himself that the trees had become again the natural fruit; and they became like unto one body; and the fruits were equal; and the Lord of the vineyard had preserved unto himself the natural fruit, which was most precious unto him from the beginning.

75 And it came to pass that when the Lord of the vineyard saw that his fruit was good, and that his vineyard was no more corrupt, he called up his servants, and said unto them: Behold, for this last time have we nourished my vineyard; and thou beholdest that I have done according to my will; and I have preserved the natural fruit, that it is good, even like as it was in the beginning. And blessed art thou; for because ye have been diligent in laboring with me in my vineyard, and have kept my commandments, and have brought unto me again the natural fruit, that my vineyard is no more corrupted, and the bad is cast away, behold ye shall have joy with me because of the fruit of my vineyard.

76 For behold, for a long time will I lay up of the fruit of my vineyard unto mine own self against the season, which speedily cometh; and for the last time have I nourished my vineyard, and pruned it, and dug about it, and dunged it; wherefore I will lay up unto mine own self of the fruit, for a long time, according to that which I have spoken.

Commentary: Turning bad fruit into good fruit is simply not possible, Christ Himself explained why:

“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 corrupt 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”
(Matthew 7; 15-19 KJV)

 

About the Compilation Team
Susan Grape grew up in a non-church going family. When she became engaged, her fiancé (now husband) and she joined a Christian church. As she was learning about the Bible and Jesus, several friends, and relatives who were either Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientist shared their beliefs with her and challenged her to the point that she knew that their doctrine was different enough to question that someone (perhaps herself) had to be wrong. When Mormon missionaries and Jehovah’s Witnesses came to her home, it forced her to study the scriptures to see what the Bible actually taught. That very intense time of studying gave her the evidence for what Biblical truth is. It sparked the desire to reach out to these groups with the Biblical gospel and the Biblical Christ.

Mrs. Grape served as a board member for ten years with Berean Christian Ministries and she currently is in her eleventh year of serving on the board of Christian Research & Counsel. Her husband Brad also is on the board. The Grape’s adult children are professing Christians, and their grandchildren are also being raised in the faith.

Fred W. Anson is the founder and publishing editor of the Beggar’s Bread website, which features a rich potpourri of articles on Christianity with a recurring emphasis on Mormon studies. Fred is also the administrator of several Internet discussion groups and communities, including several Mormon-centric groups, including two Facebook Support Groups for Ex-Mormons (Ex-Mormon Christians, and Ex-Mormon Christians Manhood Quorum).

“Team TOYBOM”
In late 2019 a new group was created on Facebook with the express purpose of encouraging Non-Mormons to read through the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover. It’s called “The One Year BOM: Non-Mormons Reading Through the Book of Mormon in a Year (aka ‘TOYBOM’)” and its mission and goal was to get Non-Mormons reading the Book of Mormon in a year as a group so they could openly and honestly discuss and deconstruct it without any Mormon interference, umbrage, or offense.

Thus no Mormons (members of any Latter Day Saint denomination or splinter group) were allowed in the group so that the group could speak freely and deconstruct the Book the Mormon honestly and openly without having to deal with the typical Latter Day Saint agendas, dogmas, thin-skinned offense, spin-doctoring, and confirmation bias driven apologetics that typically swirl around the Book of Mormon in public whenever Latter Day Saints are present. The goal was to quietly, objectively, civilly and dispassionately consider the Book of Mormon devoid of any of such partisan Latter Day Saint encumbrances.

An ancient Greek Olive Tree that’s at least 2,000 years old, possibly as old as 3,000 years.

Link to Part Two

A Tale of Two Addresses (and Centuries)

Posted: February 14, 2021 in Book of Mormon, Fred Anson, Mormon Studies
0

An artist’s rendering of King Benjamin addressing the Nephite people from the Book of Mormon about 124 B.C.

Parallels between King Benjamin (The Book of Mormon)
and Bishop M’Kendree (19th Century Methodist Leader)

compiled by Fred W. Anson
The similarities between King Benjamin’s (circa 124 B.C.) address that’s recorded in Mosiah 2-5 of the Book of Mormon and Methodist Leader Bishop M’Kendree’s address in Palmyra, New York, on June 7, 1826, which is recorded in American historical archives are remarkable.

As the late Mormon Historian Grant Palmer explains:
“We have not taken Joseph Smith seriously enough when he stated that he had an “intimate acquaintance” with evangelical religion and that he was “somewhat partial” to the Methodists. Protestant concepts appear to abound in his discourses and experiences. For example, a Methodist camp meeting was held one mile from Palmyra, New York, on 7 June 1826— a pivotal time in Joseph Smith’s life. Preparations for a camp meeting included leasing and consecrating the ground. Thus the “ground within the circle of the tents is considered sacred to the worship of God, and is our chapel.” The Methodists referred to these “consecrated grounds” as their “house of God” or temple. The Palmyra camp meeting reportedly attracted over 10,000 people. Families came from all parts of the 100-mile conference district and pitched their tents facing the raised “stand” where the preachers were seated, including one named Benjamin G. Paddock (fig. 20). This large crowd heard the “valedictory” or farewell speech of their beloved “Bishop M’Kendree [who] made his appearance among us for the last time.” He was the Methodist leader who “had presided” over the area for many years. The people had such reverence for this “sainted” man “that all were melted, and … awed in his presence.” In his emaciated and “feeble” condition, he spoke of his love for the people and then delivered a powerful message that covered “the whole process of personal salvation.” Tremendous unity prevailed among the crowd, and “nearly every unconverted person on the ground” committed oneself to Christ. At the close of the meeting, the blessings and newly appointed “Stations of the Preachers” were made for the Ontario district.

This is reminiscent of King Benjamin’s speech to the Zarahemlans in the Book of Mormon, whose chronicler describes the setting:

‘The people gathered themselves together throughout all the land, that they might go up to the temple to hear the [last] words which [their beloved] king Benjamin should speak unto them … [T] hey pitched their tents round about, every man according to his family … every man having his tent with the door thereof towards the temple … the multitude being so great that king Benjamin … caused a tower to be erected … [And he said from the platform,] I am about to go down to my grave … I can no longer be your teacher … For even at this time my whole frame doth tremble exceedingly while attempting to speak unto you’ (Mosiah 2: 1, 5-7, 28-30).

The venerated King Benjamin, like Bishop M’Kendree, expresses his love for his people and gives a powerful farewell discourse on personal salvation. The response and unity are such “that there was not one soul, except it were little children, but who had entered into the covenant and had taken upon them the name of Christ.” At meeting’s end, Mosiah, Benjamin’s son, “appointed priests to teach the people” (Mosiah 6: 2-3). In Alma 17: 18, Methodist phrasing is used: “Now Ammon being the chief among them, [blessed and appointed the sons of Mosiah] … to their several stations.” Alma 17-26 then gives a detailed recital of the sons’ preaching with the following summary: “And they had been teaching the word of God for the space of fourteen years among the Lamanites, having had much success in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, by the power of their words many were brought before the altar of God, to call on his name and confess their sins before him” (17: 4).

In evangelical meetings it was common for those who were moved by the preaching to break out in tears and fall to the ground. This was considered to be a state of “conviction.” When a preacher looked up and saw those in the audience under “conviction” or “awakened to their awful state,” he would invite them up to a bench in front of the pulpit, called the “altar” of God (fig. 21). There the penitents would pray and confess their sins, “crying aloud for mercy,” seeking forgiveness from God.”
(Grant Palmer, “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”, Kindle Locations 2123-2156)

A Methodist camp meeting in 1819 (hand colored)

And for your reference here’s an extended excerpt from the account from Rev. Benjamin G. Paddock’s memoirs that Mr. Palmer cites from above:
THE Genesee Conference for 1826 was held at Palmyra, Wayne County, N. Y., commencing on the 7th of June, Bishop Hedding presiding. On several accounts it was a rather remarkable session. The venerable Bishop M’Kendree then visited us for the last time. He was too feeble to preside, and occupied the chair only once or twice, and then only for a few minutes at a time. Still, however, at the urgent request of Bishop Hedding and leading members of the Conference, he signed the Journals at the close of the session as one of its presiding officers. Brethren were anxious to secure at least his signature as a memorial of his visit. He had been familiar with the entire history of the Conference, and stated with tearful emotion that he still had great affection for its members, and that to take his final leave of them, so far, at least, as earth was concerned, was the special object of his visit. His whole bearing was at once so lovely, so dignified, and so impressive, that all were melted, and, in a pleasant sense, awed in his presence. Dr. Nathan Bangs was his traveling companion, having come on with him from New York, and watched over him with the greatest tenderness and care. Their respectful, nay, even deferential, treatment of each other was a most lovely sight. The Bishop always spoke of his companion as “the Doctor,” and addressed him as if he were a man of superior rank ; while the doctor’s reciprocal bearing was still more reverential and promptly obedient. But then neither bishops nor doctors of divinity were quite as numerous at that early day as they now are ; and for this reason, perhaps, as well as others, they were possibly both more noticed and more revered.

I have ever regarded it as one of the most memorable privileges of my early ministry that I was allowed to journey with these now sainted men from Palmyra to Utica,«at which latter place I had just been stationed for the second year. The Conference adjourned on Wednesday, and Dr. Bangs agreed to preach for me on the following Sabbath. Finding the captain of a canal boat, who said he would see us into Utica by Saturday afternoon or evening, we concluded to take passage with him. That was before the day of canal packets, so that a small cabin and slow progress were necessarily incidental to our homeward journey. The stage-coach would have given us a speedier transit, but would have been far less friendly to the good Bishop’s age and feebleness. It will be readily admitted, that the difference between such a conveyance and Pullman’s railroad palace-car is considerable. But forty-six years since even the cabin of a freight-boat was quite a .luxury ; while now to put a bishop into such a place would seem much like sending him “to prison and to death.” Our momentum was much less than had been promised, so that we were very late in reaching Utica. But, with such company, the considerable number of junior preachers on board could hardly complain that time hung heavy on their hands. Brief lectures from the Bishop and Dr. Bangs, with spiritual songs and prayers by the younger brotherhood, made our mimic cabin a little Bethel. The school was a rare one ; and, homesick as the students were, they could hardly have complained had the journey been still more protracted.

But to return to the Conference. On another account the session was remarkable. A great camp-meeting was held in connection with it. The ground was only about a mile from the village, so that members of the Conference not immediately and specially employed could take part in its services. At that early day, and previously, meetings of the kind were not unfrequently held in the neighborhood of our Annual Conferences ; but the present one was exceptionally large. There were more than one hundred tents on the ground, and these were occupied by our people from almost all parts of the country, many of them coming from a distance of one hundred miles or more. The. spirit of the meeting was admirable. Conversions were numerous and powerful ; while ministers and people seemed to vie with each other in their efforts to promote the work of God. But the Sabbath was the great day of the feast. Beginning in the morning at eight o’clock, five sermons were preached before the services closed in the evening. Bishop Heddig and Dr. Bangs took the two appointments nearest the meridian of the day, and preached with even more than their ordinary freedom and power. At about five in the afternoon the stand was assigned to the Rev. Glezen Fillmore, then in the vigor of mature manhood, now — for he still lives, a blessing to the Church and the world — trembling on the extreme verge of time. The sermon was in his best style — more carefully prepared and more effectively delivered than were his discourses generally. The latter part of it contemplated the whole process of personal salvation, from its incipiency to its consummation in the world of light. Having traced the track of the believer, all along from the dawn of spiritual life till he had entered the land of Beulah, and was about to plume himself for his flight to the celestial city, the speaker paused as if struggling with irrepressible emotion, and, looking upward, exclaimed, ” O God, hold thy servant together while for a moment he looks through the gates ajar into the New Jerusalem ! ” To describe the effect would be quite impossible. A tide of emotion swept over the congregation that seemed to carry all before it.

I was seated near Bishop Hedding, who, from fatigue, was reclining upon a bed under and a little in the rear of the stand. It had been noticed before that he was much affected by the sermon ; but when the sentence given above was uttered, the- tears almost literally spurted from his eyes, and his noble form shook as if under the resistless control of a galvanic battery. The Rev. Goodwin Stoddard exhorted, and invited seekers within the circle of prayer in front of the stand. Hundreds came forward ; some said nearly every unconverted person on the ground. In the spring of 1828, when I was pastor in Rochester, delegates from New England, on their way to the General Conference in Pittsburgh, called and spent the Sabbath with me. Almost ,the first thing they said after we met was, ” Where is that brother that wanted God to hold him together while he looked into heaven a moment?” It seems that the good Bishop had reported the sermon in more circles than one, for others from the east made a similar inquiry. But though a volume might be written about that Conference, it seems proper now simply to add, that, at the close of it, B. G. Paddock and Hiram May were appointed to the Potsdam Circuit, in St. Lawrence County. The charge was a very large one, including not only the town that gave name to it, but Stockholm, Parishville, Pierrepont, Canton, Russell, Edwards, Fowler, Rossie, Gouverneur, “and De Kalb. The territory was so ample, and my brother’s health so much broken, that it was thought best to divide the work between the two preachers. Accordingly, having the consent of all concerned, he took Potsdam and the four townships lying nearest to it ; and the rest of the circuit, embracing six townships, was placed under the care of his excellent colleague. Let the reader imagine the state of things as it existed in that section of country fifty years since, and he will readily conclude that there was plenty of work for two men. My brother had traveled over most of the same territory some twelve or thirteen years previously, so that he entered upon his work with some special advantages. The cordiality with which he was received was a source of much comfort to him, and really seemed to lighten his toil. The Rev. Hiram May, in a letter to me dated October, 1872, says, “Your brother was not only a dear, good colleague, but was very popular among the people.”

Both divisions of the circuit were greatly prospered. – It was, indeed, a year of jubilee. Revivals swept over the entire field, bearing down all opposition. Such a season of holy triumph had never before been witnessed in the northern wing of the State. Not far from five hundred communicants were admitted to the Church ; so that it was found at the end of the year that the membership had increased from three hundred and eighty-nine to eight hundred and nine, and this notwithstanding a considerable number had removed or withdrawn,” or had been excluded, dropped, or set aside. The circuit remained intact, however, save only in so far as finances and pastoral care were concerned. Hence, at quarterly meetings, all came together ; thus giving the greatest imaginable interest to those occasions. Speaking of them in the letter before referred to, brother May says, ” 0 they were blessed meetings ! God gave efficiency to his word, and great’was the preachers’ crowd.” * Those, and those only, who have attended these great country quarterly meetings can have any adequate conception of the spirit that animated them, or the good that followed them. They were, indeed, especially in olden times, a power in the Church.

I think it proper to say a word further respecting the venerable man from whose letter quotations have just been made. The writer first became acquainted with him in 1817. He had then just commenced the Christian life, was a lovely young man, full of zeal to do good, possessed ,a remarkably fine tenor voice, and, every way, promised much usefulness to the Church and the world. Five years thereafter he was received on trial in the Genesee Conference, and for forty years has performed effective service as a member of that body. He has always aimed at the salvation of souls, and has everywhere been recognized as a good revivalist. Though he is now on the superannuated list, he seems still to burn with zeal both to be and to do good. The closing part of his letter is so characteristic and so excellent, that the transcription of it will, doubtless, both please and profit the reader. Referring to my brother, he says: “We labored together in love, and parted in peace, and now, while ‘ he sleeps his last sleep,’ having ‘fought his last battle,’ I, a poor creature, as I always have been, am still living, and trying, as when you first knew me, to ‘ sound the alarm in God’s holy mountain,’ to ‘ blow the trumpet in Tekoa,’ and* especially to pray, as did David, ‘ Now also, when I am old and gray-headed, O God, forsake me not ; until I have showed thy strength unto this generation, and thy power to every one that is to come.’ ”
(Benjamn G. Paddock, “Memoir of of Rev. Benjamin G. Paddock”, pp.177-184)

So here’s the question for our Mormon friends: Can you explain the remarkable similarities between King Benjamin’s circa 124 B.C. address that’s recorded in Mosiah 2-5 of The Book of Mormon and Methodist Leader Bishop M’Kendree’s address in Palmyra, New York, on June 7, 1826, that’s preserved for us in the American historical archives?

A summary comparison of the two addresses.

The Abominable Creed of The Book of Mormon

Posted: January 31, 2021 in Book of Mormon, Bryan Stout, Christian History, Creeds, Mormon Studies
0

A stained glass window in the Salt Lake 2nd Ward depicting the First Vision. The First Vision is where God, according to Joseph Smith, said that all if the existing Christian Creeds, were an abomination in his sight (see Joseph History 1:19). This would have included the Apostle’s Creed which is discussed in the following article.

The following article was written in 2007 and is so significant and relevant to Mormon Studies that it’s surely deserving of the greater and broader audience that follows Beggar’s Bread. I think that after you’ve read it that you’ll agree.  –Editor

by Bryan Stout
There is an interesting exchange going on at Beliefnet.com about the age-old question “Are Mormons Christian?”, between Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Orson Scott Card, LDS writer. While I have some thoughts I’d like to share about the main issue, here I want to point out a perhaps surprising convergence between two things, one of which is rejected by each side, namely the Book of Mormon, and one of the ancient Christian creeds.

The LDS objection to ancient creeds is probably better stated as an objection to conciliar creeds, that is the creeds defined by the Ecumenical Councils, where bishops from throughout the ancient church met together to resolve doctrinal debates. We do reject the decisions made at those councils, and we reject the whole process as a fundamentally flawed substitute for prophetic revelation.

But there was another type of creed, the baptismal creed. These creeds were used as concise summaries of beliefs (similar to our Articles of Faith), as an outline of concepts to teach potential converts (similar to the missionary lessons), and as a quiz of important beliefs before baptism (similar to the baptismal interview questions). The most famous of these is the Apostles’ Creed, which reached a stable wording by the 8th century but has roots reaching back to the 2nd. Here is one of several translations of the creed; I have numbered its traditional 12 articles for reference:

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting. Amen.

If you showed this to the average Mormon-on-the-street, I reckon they would say they believe in all but a couple of these claims. If you go on to point out that “descended into hell” means “descended into the grave, ie. the world of dead spirits”, that “catholic Church” means “universal church”, and that “the communion of saints” means “the fellowship of believers”, they would say they believe the entire thing. We Latter-day Saints believe every claim in the Apostles’ Creed, because they are both taught in the Bible, and reaffirmed in latter-day scripture. Indeed, they are almost contained in our scriptures, since the doctrinal summary in D&C 20:17-36 echoes most of the themes of the Apostles’s Creed, and vv. 22-24 are a close paraphrase of AC 4-6.

Finding Book of Mormon passages that teach each of these basic Christian concepts is an easy exercise, so much so that the problem is choosing which ones to use. Here are the selections I made:

AC 1 –
“Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth” (Mosiah 4:9)

AC 2 –
“I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth.” (Alma 5:48)

“There shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.” (Mosiah 3:17)

AC 3 –
“And behold, he shall be born of Mary … she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.” (Alma 7:41)

AC 4 & 5 –
“And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people … the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance” (Alma 7:12-13)

“And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.” (1 Nephi 11:33)

“Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings” (2 Nephi 25:13)

AC 6 –
“Christ hath ascended into heaven, and hath sat down on the right hand of God, to claim of the Father his rights of mercy which he hath upon the children of men” (Moroni 7:7)

AC 7 –
“And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross … that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil” (3 Ne 27:14)

AC 8 –
“I, Nephi, was desirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him” (1 Nephi 10:17)

Joseph Smith’s First Vision, depicted in the Museum of Church History and Art in Salt Lake City
(LDS Media Library)

AC 9 –
“Notwithstanding there being many churches they were all one church, yea, even the church of God; for there was nothing preached in all the churches except it were repentance and faith in God.” (Mosiah 25:22)

“And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls. And they did meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus.” (Moroni 6:5-6)

AC 10 –
“They all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified … After they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ” (Mosiah 4:2-3)

AC 11 –
“The death of Christ shall loose the bands of this temporal death, … the spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form … this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; … now, behold, I have spoken unto you … concerning the resurrection of the mortal body.” (Alma 11:42-45)

AC 12 –
“Ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise.” (Moroni 7:41)

“Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life … Amen.” (Mosiah 5:15)

To be sure, there are important doctrinal differences not covered in the Apostles’ Creed. Mormon doctrine about the nature of God and Man is radically different from that of most Christian groups. We believe that God exists in space and time, and that every person is literally God’s spirit child, having the potential of becoming like him — “gods, even the sons of God”. Therefore, Dr. Mohler is quite right in pointing out that we have different answers to the biggest questions debated in the Ecumenical Councils regarding the divinity of Christ: 1) How can God be both One and Three at the same time? 2) How can Christ be both divine and human at the same time?

Those were important questions. Nevertheless, I believe that much more important were the issues that the ancient bishops did not have to debate, because they were mostly in agreement about them. There is a God who created the world, and who will hold us accountable for how we live our lives. There is a savior, Jesus Christ, who literally atoned for our sins, who taught the principles for living the abundant life in mortality and achieving eternal life hereafter. There is a Spirit who can lead us to truth and sanctify our souls. If we follow that Spirit, trust our lives to Christ and keep the commandments of God, we will be led to stand at his right hand at the judgment day. Doing this is the most significant meaning of term “Christian”.

About The Author
I received a BS in Math at Brigham Young University in 1981, and went to grad school in Computer Science at the University of Illinois. I did all the coursework for a PhD, but left without doing a dissertation, to do applied Artificial Intelligence research for Martin Marietta near Denver, followed by computer game development for MicroProse. I was part of a big down-sizing in 1993, but instead of moving on I continued courting, and married, my wife Meg. After a couple of years of figuring out that two jobs weren’t worth it, we decided I’d be the stay-at-home parent while Meg continued working as an engineer for the Navy (she’s now a program manager). I keep in touch with my interests in both AI and games, frequently participating at the annual Game Developer Conference on various game AI topics. Other secular interests include science fiction and fantasy, dance (I toured several times with the BYU Ballroom Dance Co.), and astronomy. Now that our oldest daughter (my stepdaughter) is in college, and the other two going on to 4th and 5th grades, I will be trying once again to figure what to be when I grow up. — Bryan Stout

Palmyra New York Temple First Vision Stained Glass Window.

Originally published as, “Guest Post: The Apostles’ Creed and the Book of Mormon” on the “Times and Seasons” website by Julie M. Smith on July 11, 2007. In accordance with their reblogging policy, the article content has been republished in its original form. The title was changed to it more intriguing, and provocatively interesting to potential readers, as well as to tie this article into the other “Abominable Creed” articles in this series.

Also of interest: The Abominable Creed of Doctrine and Covenants

Why Non-Mormons Should Read The Book of Mormon

Posted: January 3, 2021 in Book of Mormon, Fred Anson, Mormon Studies
Tags:
0

compiled by Fred W. Anson and “Team TOYBOM”
In late 2019 a new group was created on Facebook* with the express purpose of encouraging Non-Mormons to read through the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover. It’s called “The One Year BOM: Non-Mormons Reading Through the Book of Mormon in a Year (aka ‘TOYBOM’)” and its mission and goal is to get Non-Mormons reading the Book of Mormon in a year as a group so they can openly and honestly discuss it without any Mormon interference, umbrage, or offense. 

Thus no Mormons (members of any Latter Day Saint denomination or splinter group) were allowed in the group so that the group can speak freely, evaluate, analyze and deconstruct the Book the Mormon honestly and openly without having to deal with the typical Latter Day Saint agendas, dogmas, thin-skinned offense, spin-doctoring, and confirmation bias-driven apologetics that typically swirl around the Book of Mormon whenever True Believing Mormons are present.  The goal was to quietly, objectively, civilly, and dispassionately consider the Book of Mormon devoid of any of such partisan Latter Day Saint encumbrances.  The results were both surprising and expected, but that’s all I’ll say about that for now.

About a month into the first year of reading I could see a lot of value in non-Mormons reading the Book of Mormon based both on my own direct experience as well as the comments that the group was making as we went along. So I group sourced the article that you’re about to read. I suspect that you’ll find it just as interesting as I did. — Fred W. Anson

Why Non-Mormons Should Read The Book of Mormon

1. To Experience the Book of Mormon directly for yourself without outside Mormon influence or pressure. Need I say more about this? I don’t think so. We’re talking about the pure Book of Mormon, devoid of Mormon or Mormon Missionary HeartSell (which we’ll talk about later) and other emotional grooming tactics here. Anyone who’s met or talked with the Missionaries or a Mormon friend in regard to the Book of Mormon will know exactly what I’m talking about here.

2. To gain the ability to engage in honest, candid, even blunt analysis and discussion of the Book of Mormon.  Reading the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover gives you the right to do this. If you haven’t read it, you’re just criticizing what you don’t know and have never directly experienced. That is, you’re speaking out of ignorance. Christians very rightly get upset with Atheists who criticize the Bible but who have never actually read it – if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander. We can’t, on one hand, criticize critics of the Bible who are ignorant of it, and then hypocritically engage in exactly the same behavior, can we? Just read the book and you earn the right. It’s that simple.

3. To have fun (Yes, fun!) Experiencing this dreadfully boring, ridiculously absurd book requires a good sense of humor. If you don’t have one before you start reading it, you will by the time you’re done. The candid, blunt, even brutal discussion of the narrative of the Book of Mormon in the TOYBOM group was (and is) in a word, hilarious.

Psychologists tell us that humor is a coping mechanism and suffice to say, good coping mechanisms are required to read from 1 Nephi 1:1 to Moroni 10:34 in a year. The humor and camaraderie in the group was the only thing that kept many of us going in those moments (and trust me there were many of them, it was a constant topic of discussion) when it would have been a lot easier to throw in the towel and move on with our lives.

So do you want a good sense of humor? Want a better, richer, sense of humor? Read the Book of Mormon. Better yet, read it in a group with a bunch of non-Mormons.

4. To get support, encouragement, and make new friends while struggling, scraping, and scrapping to make it to the back cover.  That is if you read it with other Non-Mormons rather than just on your own, of course! Candidly, even most True Believing Mormons don’t get past 1 Nephi in the Book of Mormon (for reasons that we often discuss in the group but I’ll spare you here). The Book of Mormon is an easy book to get frustrated with, get fed up with and quit on. If you read it with another person or two you can – actually must – encourage each other to stick with it despite all that, if you have any hope of “enduring to the end”.

5. To, at the very minimum, gain a basic knowledge of the Book of Mormon, thanks to having actually have read it. No, you won’t be an expert after a one-time read through, but you’ll at least be able to talk to it with some degree of direct experience with the text. I know this one almost goes without saying, but it’s still important to reemphasize it by saying it right out loud.

6. To gain an understanding of the Biblical doctrines that disprove both the Book of Mormon and Mormonism. Stated plainly, the Mormon dogma that the Book of Mormon doesn’t contradict the Bible is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. If you have even a basic, working knowledge of the Bible these contradictions pop out at you all the time as you’re reading the Book of Mormon. They are an asset to know and to keep on hand for future discussions with Mormons. Doubt me? Just read the book and you’ll see it for yourself.

A montage of the Isaiah passages that the LdS Church officially acknowledges are plagiarized from the biblical book of Isaiah via the chapter headers of the affected portions of the book of 2 Nephi. (click to zoom)

7. To discover first hand how much of the Book of Mormon has been plagiarized from the Bible. It’s so far and wide in the Book of Mormon that without reading it, it’s impossible to understand just how much the Book of Mormon, directly and indirectly, plagiarizes from the King James Version of the Bible. Entire chapters of Isaiah are directly plagiarized; Matthew’s version of the Sermon on the Mount is plagiarized; ditto for other portions of Matthew. It is glaring: So glaring, in fact, the LdS Church even notes it (without calling it plagiarism) in their header summary of some chapters. For example, consider this summary header for 1 Nephi 20:

“The Lord reveals His purposes to Israel—Israel has been chosen in the furnace of affliction and is to go forth from Babylon—Compare Isaiah 48. About 588–570 B.C.”

Or this for 1 Nephi 21:

“The Messiah will be a light to the Gentiles and will free the prisoners—Israel will be gathered with power in the last days—Kings will be their nursing fathers—Compare Isaiah 49. About 588–570 B.C.”

And we realize that it may sound odd to say that the Bible disproves the Book of Mormon when so much of it is actually in the Book of Mormon, but it does. After all, ripping something out of context and then contorting it into something completely else isn’t unknown or unheard of in this world, is it? If you want to see how the Book of Mormon does it, you’ll have to see it for yourself. It’s actually pretty interesting at times and hilarious at other times.

8. To become familiar with the content of the Book of Mormon so you can ask Mormons sincere questions about it that are meant to help you understand their viewpoint. Since this isn’t an attack on them or their religion, it also builds trusting relationships with Mormons. How’s that for a cherry on top? After all, you have shown them the respect and honor of reading their holy writ, right? Even when it was tough and trying, right? That has to count for something, doesn’t it?

9. To discover things that can be used in debate settings. Such as the places where the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible (as mentioned above), modern Mormonism, the Book of Mormon itself (the internal contradictions are really something to behold!), or just simply don’t make any sense (Shiz, anyone? Jaredite Barges anyone?). It can be fun watching Mormons squirm as they have to give an account for their own scripture once you’re empowered like this.

On the second point, most people who haven’t actually read the Book of Mormon typically don’t understand that the Book of Mormon doesn’t teach modern Mormonism. Rather, the Book of Mormon teaches 19th Century American Restorationism in a way that’s generally aligned with historic mainstream Protestant Christian orthodoxy. For example:

  • The Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus is Eternal God. And as such, Christ was neither created nor procreated.
  • The Book of Mormon says that God is eternal and unchanging.
  • The Book of Mormon states that God is a Spirit.
  • The Book of Mormon states plainly that there is only one God.
  • The Book of Mormon states plainly that the One God consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – that is, the Book of Mormon teaches the doctrine of the Trinity (albeit with a strong modalistic skew).
  • The Book of Mormon states that God created via nothing but His word – that is, “ex-nihilo” (out of nothing).
  • The Book of Mormon condemns Polygamy.
  • The Book of Mormon states that there is only heaven and hell.
  • The Book of Mormon denounces universalism as a “false doctrine”.
  • The Book of Mormon repeatedly condemns the type of secret oaths and combinations that are found in the current Latter-day Saint Temple Endowment ceremony in the strongest terms.
  • The Book of Mormon denies that there is a second chance to repent and receive the gospel in the next life.
  • The Book of Mormon states that baptism isn’t an absolute requirement for salvation.
  • The Book of Mormon states that man was created by the power of God’s word not procreated by spirit parents.
  • The Book of Mormon makes a clear distinction between men and angels.
  • The Book of Mormon states clearly that Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the world on the cross.
  • The Book of Mormon discredits key points of the First Vision.

So if you strip away the baggage of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon origin story you’re left with a piece of Christian literature that’s more akin to a really bad version of “Pilgrim’s Progress” or “The Screwtape Letters” than “Dianetics”. Again, doubt me? Read it.

10. To Demystify the Book of Mormon. Because Mormons hype the Book of Mormon and its alleged power I would guess to the average non-Mormon they’re under the impression that it offers some kind of amazingly potent and life-changing transcendent experience if you will just pick it up and read its amazing, astounding transformative words. Many Mormons are under the utter delusion that one only need to read the Book of Mormon to be utterly and completely persuaded that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon, Latter Day Saint Restorationism (not to mention their Mormon Denomination’s expression of the Restoration) must be true.

I have even had non-Mormon Evangelical Christians tell me that they would never read it out of fear of being deceived by powerful demonic forces leaping forth from its pages and latching onto their face like something from an Alien movie – yes, I’m exaggerating that for effect, but it’s not too far off!

Well, as a group of people who have now actually read it we can now tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. The Book of Mormon is so poorly written, plodding, dull, and downright boring that its only real potency is in its ability to put the reader to sleep. The group agreed on this unanimously! Probably no one explained this better than Mark Twain when speaking of the book he wrote:

All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the “elect” have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so “slow,” so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle—keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason…

The Mormon Bible is rather stupid and tiresome to read, but there is nothing vicious in its teachings. Its code of morals is unobjectionable—it is “smouched” from the New Testament and no credit given.”
(Mark Twain, “Roughing It”, Chapter 16)

Trust us, friend, you have nothing to fear from the Book of Mormon – except the possible exception of being bored to death by it. If you doubt me, just pick it up and read it, it’s about as threatening as having to sit through a really, really bad religious play that was written, produced, and performed by a bunch of Junior High Sunday School students whose favorite filler line is, “it came to pass.”

11. To expose Mormon HeartSell and other forms of Mormon emotional manipulation so that you’re inoculated against them. So after the last point, you’re probably wondering, “Then how and why does anyone fall for this ridiculous book?” The answer to that is the power of emotional manipulation, such as the LdS Church’s trademarked (no joke, it really is a trademarked product that they sell through Church-owned subsidiary, Bonneville Communications) “HeartSell” system of persuasion. Here’s how the Bonneville Communications website described HeartSell back in 2015 before it got exposed and they went underground with it:

The now-defunct Bonneville Communications webpage that contained the above verbiage. (click to zoom)

At Bonneville Communications, our ability to touch the hearts and minds of audiences makes us an essential resource for organizations with vital messages.

For more than 30 years, our creative professionals have designed public service and direct response messages for national nonprofit organizations such as the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Boy Scouts of America, National Hospice Foundation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and The Salvation Army.

Our unique strength is the ability to touch the hearts and minds of our audiences, evoking first feeling, then thought and, finally, action. We call this uniquely powerful brand of creative “HeartSell”® – strategic emotional advertising that stimulates response.”
(“AFFECTING CHANGE BY REACHING THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF OUR AUDIENCES”, Bonneville International website, 2016-02-19)

One critic of the LdS Church explained how HeartSell works using the Missionary curriculum of that particular time as a case study:

In the Mormon Missionary handbook in the mid 1980’s, “The Uniform System for Teaching Families,” instructions were given to the missionary on how to “bring the people you teach to a knowledge and conviction of the truth” effectively. (Page A-l) “Keep in mind how you want the family to FEEL… help them FEEL GOOD ABOUT THE GOSPEL.” (Page A-l, No. 4)

Further instructions encouraging this FEELING were given:

“As the Spirit confirms to you that those you are teaching are receiving a witness of the Spirit, pause in the discussion and say, ‘Mr. and Mrs. Brown, what you are FEELING right now is the Spirit of the Lord testifying to you that we are teaching you the truth. You are beginning to receive YOUR OWN TESTIMONY of the truthfulness of this message.” (Page A-3, No. 4)

NO LESS THAN 84 DIFFERENT TIMES in the series of missionary lessons given to “Mr. Brown,” the missionaries were instructed to “TESTIFY” of the truthfulness of their message. Over and over and over again, they reinforced virtually every point they make of a personal assurance that it is true–that the Book of Mormon is true, that God did speak to Joseph Smith, that the true church was restored, etc., etc.

Although modern missionary handbooks [editor’s note “The Uniform System for Teaching Families” was replaced by “Preach My Gospel” in 2005] have removed these embarrassing statements, they are still encouraged to “bear witness” to the truthfulness of their message as they feel the spirits prompting.”
(Jerry Benson, “The Mormon Testimony: ‘I Testify to You…’“ (caps in original))

Reading this incredibly dull and boring work of badly written 19th Century religious fiction without the burden of Mormon emotional grooming and manipulation will immunize you against these tactics.

12. To gain the “Street Cred” of actually having read the Book of Mormon from cover-to-cover. If you haven’t read it, in Mormon eyes, you simply don’t have Street Cred.

Screenshot of a poll posted in a Mormon Debate group on Facebook on January 6th, 2020. The name has been withheld here, but if you click on the image you can view the poll in its original context on Facebook.

Period.
No, if’s.
No, and’s.
No, but’s.
Over and done!

Consider the screenshot of a Facebook poll by a True Believing Mormon (TBM) in one of the debate groups that I’ve included here. Trust me, this survey was a litmus test that was driven by an agenda. And that agenda is this, “Any Non-Mormon here in this group that hasn’t read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover is ignorant, unenlightened, probably bigoted, prejudiced, and most certainly biased and can, therefore, be ignored.”

No, it’s not logical. No, it’s not rational, and it is fallacious but it is also an escape hatch. And there’s nothing Mormons love more than an escape hatch, is there? So how do you close this one? Easy, just read the Book of Mormon from cover-to-cover to eliminate it. This is the #1 reason group to read the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover. And it’s what kept us all going until we were to the back cover. In fact, over the course of the year, we all had stories about how the fact that we were in this group and committed to reading the Book of Mormon from cover-to-cover had given us an added level of credibility in the eyes of our Mormon friends and family.

Summary and conclusion: I saved the best reason for last in that list on purpose: Gaining Street Cred with Mormons is by far the most important reason why an outsider to Mormonism – any outsider to Mormonism – should read the Book of Mormon. Mormons are very rightly skeptical about and suspicious of outsiders who refuse to read this book given the weight and value that they place on it. Just consider these words from an official, correlated LdS Church manual in this regard:

The Prophet Joseph Smith (1805–44) stated, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book” (History of the Church, 4:461; Book of Mormon introduction).

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote that the Book of Mormon “should be considered the most remarkable and important religious text to be revealed since the writings of the New Testament were compiled nearly two millennia ago. Indeed, in its role of restoring plain and precious biblical truths that had been lost, while adding scores of new truths about Jesus Christ and preparing the way for the complete restoration of his gospel and the triumphant day of his millennial return, the Book of Mormon may be considered the most remarkable and important religious text ever given to the world” (Christ and the New Covenant [1997], 9–10).
(Lds Church, “Book of Mormon Student Manual (Religion 121–122)”, Chapter 1: The Keystone of Our Religion)

So given all that, I can think of no better way to process and respond to this most hyped of all Latter Day Saint scripture – and the book that has always represented Joseph Smith’s prophetic credential than to read it for yourself. And if you find that you need a helping hand to get through it, Team TOYBOM stands ready to help. Join us, click here to put in an Add Request. And trust me, if you do, you will learn a lot and have a lot of fun getting through what is surely one of the worse pieces of English literature ever published.

So in the end I couldn’t agree more with Mormon Apostle, soon to be LdS Church President, Ezra Taft Benson when he said:

“We do not have to prove the Book of Mormon is true. The book is its own proof. All we need to do is read it and declare it! The Book of Mormon is not on trial-the people of the world, including the members of the Church, are on trial as to what they will do with this second witness for Christ”
(Ezra Taft Benson, “The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson”, p. 63. See also “Ensign”, November 1984, p.8)

Indeed, all you have to do is read it to know that, “these things are not true.” (Mormon 10:4)

The landing page for “The One Year BOM: Non-Mormons Reading Through the Book of Mormon in a Year” (aka “TOYBOM”) Facebook group. Click on the image to visit this group and put in an Add Request to join if you’re interested. If you prefer MeWe, the link is https://mewe.com/join/toybom

* A MeWe edition was also added later. It can be accessed here: https://mewe.com/join/toybom

The Book of Mormon: A Testament of Another Jesus Christ

Posted: December 6, 2020 in Book of Mormon, Christ, Jesus Christ, Mormon Studies, Susan Grape
0
Why the Book of Mormon Jesus isn’t the Christ of the Bible

by Susan Grape
There are three reasons why the Jesus in the Book of Mormon is not the Christ of the Bible:

  1. The biblical history of the tribes of Israel, and the claims of the LDS1 position
  2. Jesus descending out of heaven to the Americas after his Ascension
  3. The character of the Jesus in the Bible vs. the Jesus in 3 Nephi


1. The biblical history of the tribes of Israel, and the claims of the LDS position
Israel’s history after Solomon’s reign
As a consequence of Solomon’s idolatry in his later years, the nation split apart. The northern kingdom, “Israel,” was torn from the rule of Solomon’s descendants and consisted of ten tribes. The southern kingdom, “Judah,” was left for his line to rule and consisted of two tribes. (1 Kings 11:26-39)

The northern kingdom would have had God’s blessing if their king and the ten tribes remained faithful, but Jeroboam did the opposite of faithfulness by immediately erecting a pagan altar with pagan priests to attend it (1 Kings 12:25-33). Within four centuries Israel and Judah became so idolatrous, that Israel was exiled in 722BC by the Assyrian Empire, and Judah was exiled by the Babylonian Empire around 588BC. The purpose of Judah’s exile was to purge idolatry and preserve the righteous by removing them from Jerusalem to avoid the destruction of the conquering nation. (Jeremiah 24)

Both nations were exiled within the boundaries of Babylon. Ezekiel prophesied among them (Ezekiel 4:1-7) concerning God’s promise of restoring Israel after Judah’s 70-year captivity. He proclaimed the twelve tribes would rise up together, united (Ezek. 37:1-14) and return to the mountains of Israel (Ezek. 36) as one nation, under one king (Ezek. 37:15-24).2

Ezra however, recorded that only 52,000 men returned from three tribes, so where were the others? Many supposed the missing tribes were absorbed into the cultures they were exiled in; that is until the indigenous peoples in the Americas were discovered. A new theory developed that assumed Native Americans were descendants of the tribes of Israel.

This theory began to fade away as the sciences of linguistics, migration, and genetics gave concrete evidence that Native Americans were not of Israelite origin. Sometimes the sciences aren’t trusted because they aren’t divine revelation; however, the Bible is, and it divinely reveals what befell the tribes.

What happened to the tribes after Solomon’s reign?
Usually, populations increase as time goes by; but this did not happen with Israel or Judah:

  • Wars were the biggest reason for the population reduction of Israel. (2 Chron. 13:13-17)
  • The northern kingdom lost people, even entire tribes to Judah until they only had 10,000 soldiers left when Assyria invaded them. (2 Chron. 11:13-15, cf. 16-17, 12:7; 15:9-15; 17:14-19; 1 Kings 12:24; 2 Kings 13:7)
  • Even though those who joined Judah caused Judah’s population to increase, by the time of Babylon’s last invasion, several devastating wars had reduced its numbers by the hundreds of thousands. (2 Kings 24:3-4; 10-15; 2 Chron. 24:23-24 with 25:5; 2 Chron. 28:5-6; Joel)

After the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, scattered tribes did not become geographically lost

    • Some were never deported. (Jer. 39:10; 40:7; 2 Kings 25:22; 2 Chron. 30:1-6, 10-11, 18; 31:1 1 Chron. 4:41-43
    • Two-thirds of those in Jerusalem died during Babylon’s second deportation. They died at other times as well: Israel, 2 Kings 13:7; and Judah, Ezekiel 5:11-12; 6:8-10.
    • Some, not listed in Ezra, returned at different times than Ezra’s, Zerubbabel’s, and Nehemiah’s groups did. (1 Chron. 9:1-3)
    • The Book of Esther records where the locations of the exiles were; and, where they remained. (Esther 1:1, 3:6-15; 8:7-14; 9:16-32)3
    • From Esther’s era until the New Testament period, the Bible reveals that they continued to migrate/flee all around the Mediterranean. Acts 2:5-12; 13:5-6, 14-15; 14:1; 16:1-, 14; 17:1-2, 10, 16-17; 21:2; James 1:1.


How the lost tribe theory in the Book of Mormon claims a relationship to the tribes of Israel
The Book of Mormon’s narrative begins around 600 BC., with the story of Lehi, and his remnant that left Jerusalem after Babylon’s first exile. It is one thing for a small group of Jews to become isolated in a remote area. It is quite another story when the claim is that God commanded a person to leave Jerusalem and go to a new “land of promise.” This parting from Biblical principle and history begins in 1 Nephi 1:4:

“For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days)…”

Lehi (and family) were living in Jerusalem when Zedekiah was king! Lehi was righteous, rich and had trained skills (1 Nephi 1:1, 15; 2:4; 1 1:2-3, 1:16-17) His relative Laban was so wealthy, he owned a guarded treasury house, was a man of valor and an officer (1 Nephi 4:20; 3:31-4:1, 8-9) Nephi was highly skilled (2 Nephi 5:15-17)

But, the residents of Jerusalem during the early reign of Zedekiah were poor, unskilled, and unrighteous! Why? During the previous king’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar deported all the noble, all military officers, all who were strong for war, and all craftsmen and smiths—10,000, with their families to Babylon, leaving only the “unrighteous” poor behind (2 Kings 24:8-18; Jer. 29:6).

Nebuchadnezzar placed Zedekiah on the throne after this deportation.

The people that the Book of Mormon claims were at Jerusalem were there at the wrong time. They fail authenticity.

In this “land of promise” – that is, the Americas, starting around 588 BC (1 Nephi 2:11-20) – Lehi’s descendants grew and split into two nations and were ruled by their own kings. By 400 AD, one nation was wiped out of existence, and the other utterly lost its faith, language, and identity.

They likewise fail authenticity, for this defies God’s promise of preservation; and, restoration His reuniting the twelve tribes as one nation under one king on the mountains of Israel4 (Ezekiel; 36, note: vv. 8-11, 24, 33; 37:1-24; Jeremiah 29:10-14; Isaiah 10:20-22, 51:11; Daniel 9, note: vv. 2, 24-25). Those who remained in foreign lands never formed another nation because they were ethnically and spiritually linked to that one nation, and journeyed there if possible to attend the high festivals. (Acts 2:5-12)

This map of the Persian Empire shows that the tribes were never really lost. Some isolated pockets of Jews such as the modern expatriate communities in India and Africa have been confirmed as Jews. Their locations are exactly where the Book of Esther says their ancestors were deported to during the exile (see Esther 1:1; 3:6-15; 8:7-14; 9:16-32). (click on image to read the Wikipedia article about these recently found lost tribes)


What about the “other sheep?” (John 10:16)
Latter-day Saints claim that Jesus had to preach to these alleged tribes so they could audibly hear his voice in order to become one with those in Jerusalem:

“Other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice…” (John 10:16)
”… And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand…and they all shall have one shepherd.” (Ezekiel 37:16,24)
“… But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd…” (3 Nephi 16:3)

John 10:16 does not correlate to 3 Nephi 16:3 because it is based on Isaiah 56:1-115 not the Ezekiel passage. It’s about the blind man Jesus healed that the false shepherds, the Pharisees threw out of the synagogue; and, their failure to tend the sheep (John 9:35-10:18). Jesus, therefore, was not privately instructing His disciples how “lost” Israelites must literally hear His voice! Instead, He was rebuking the Pharisees for hindering the Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah; and the Gentiles because they turned the Court of the Gentiles into a marketplace (John 2:13-16; Matthew 21:12-13; Luke 19:45-46, cf. Isaiah 56:7). In verse 16, Jesus referenced Isaiah 56:8 to the Pharisees: “The Lord God which gathereth the out casts of Israel saith, ‘Yet will I gather others to him, besides those that are gathered to him’.”

Due to their rejection of Him and bad shepherding, Jesus was rejecting their leadership. He would now be the True Shepherd and unite the “others”—believing Gentiles (John 2:12-16, 3:16) with the “out casts of Israel”—those thrown out of the synagogue. All the “sheep” in both folds (Acts 2:5-12; Acts chap. 10) would now be one fold. (Eph. 2:11-19)

2. Jesus descending out of heaven to the Americas after his Ascension6
3 Nephi 11:8-12 states that Jesus Christ bodily descended “out of heaven” “after his ascension” in the same way Acts 1:9-11 describes. Then, he did such works as preaching repentance, the gospel, teaching, instituting baptism, and calling twelve disciples. (3 Nephi. 8-28)

Jesus taught, however, that it was “expedient” that He must “go away” so the Holy Spirit would come and “guide them into all truth.” (John 16:7-14; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:3). So after Jesus ascended, the Spirit is the one who teaches truth and glorifies Christ through:

  • Christians preaching the gospel to ALL nations through planned missionary journeys, daily witnessing, and also unplanned ways like persecution and “accidents” like Paul’s shipwreck. (Matt. 10:6-7; Matt. 28:19-20)
  • Spirit-led visions and miracles. Paul had a vision, then went to Ananias and was converted (Acts 9:3-7; 22:4-16; 26:9-18). Paul was forbidden to go to Mysia, but was beckoned in a vision by a Macedonian to preach in Macedonia (Acts 16:6-10). Phillip was told by an angel to head south. After witnessing to an Ethiopian, he was miraculously taken away by the Holy Spirit to another city to preach there (Acts 8:26-40).

The redeeming work of the Son for all of Israel (and Gentiles) took place on the cross. Since His Ascension, Jesus has “sat down” (signifying His earthly work is complete) on the throne, and the Holy Spirit now reveals who Christ is.


Verses used to support the claim that Jesus left heaven after His Ascension (like 3 Nephi describes) are not proof texts for that belief
First, 1 Corinthians 15:4-7 (KJV) reads as follows:

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Jesus did not have to descend out of heaven to show His self to the 500 because they (excluding Paul) saw Him before He ascended during the forty days He was still on earth.

Next, Revelation 1:10-18, which reads as follows:

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

John saw Jesus; however, Jesus did not bodily descend out of heaven. Instead, John was “in the Spirit” and saw Jesus in an apocalyptic-style vision.

An Eastern Orthodox fresco of Paul’s Conversion on the Road to Damascus. Artist and location unknown.

Next, there’s Christ’s Post-Ascension appearance to Paul (see Acts 9:3-7; 22:6-9; and 26:12-14). Jesus appeared to Paul after His Ascension. All three accounts of Paul’s vision explicitly document what he saw:

“…suddenly there shined round about him a light from HEAVEN…heard a voice” (see Acts 9:3&4)
“…suddenly there shone from HEAVEN a great light round about…heard a voice” (see Acts 22:6&7)
“…a light from HEAVEN…heard a voice” (see Acts 26:13&14)

And Acts 9:7 adds that the men with Paul also heard the voice, but saw “no man”.

3 Nephi 11:8-12 claims:

“… as they cast their eyes up again towards heaven, behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him and they durst not open their mouths… it had been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto them AFTER his ascension into heaven.” Then, they touched his wounds. (vv. 14-15)

This was not a vision; it was a narrative; and, it matches the description of how Christ will bodily descend out of heaven at the Second Coming in Acts 1:9-11. This is especially so because just before his descent, he avenged the blood of the saints. (3 Nephi 9:5-11).

Then there’s the word “appear/appearance” in Paul’s accounts

In the first two accounts of his vision, Paul was called to be an apostle to the Gentiles—through Ananias. In Acts 26:12-19 Paul shortens his testimony by stating that Jesus said, “I have appeared unto thee for this purpose to make thee a witness…” (v. 16), making it sound like Jesus physically appeared and preached to him. First, verses thirteen and fourteen verify that Jesus appeared as “…a light from heaven…heard a voice”. Second, the other two accounts explain that that message was given to Paul through Ananias.

Finally, there is Acts 23:11 (KJV) which says: “And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.”

This was more than likely a manifestation. Unlike the Mormon Jesus, the Biblical Jesus is omnipresent; and can manifest himself somewhere while His resurrected body is in heaven.  More important, this encounter lasted a few seconds to simply assure Paul; unlike the narrative in 3 Nephi, where Jesus continued his work and was there for several days.

These “appearances” of Jesus after His Ascension in the Bible were not ones of Him bodily descending, so they do not conflict with Jesus remaining in heaven “till his enemies are made his footstool” (Ps. 110:1-31 Cor. 15:25-26). The story in 3 Nephi is in opposition to this.


3. The character of the Jesus in the Bible vs. the Jesus in 3 Nephi of the Book of Mormon
The Biblical Jesus who is “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14-17) is now our advocate with the Father. So, unlike the Old Testament’s era of justice and retribution, (i.e. the Flood); or, the final judgment at the Second Coming, we are now in a period of grace. This New Testament Era centers on Jesus who came to “give us life more abundantly,” therefore, mercy is prevalent until He returns. The character of the Book of Mormon Jesus is different. In 3 Nephi, before he left heaven (right after His ultimate act of grace and love—His death on the cross), the Book of Mormon Jesus is pouring out wrath in the Americas comparable to the Apocalypse:

The Book of Mormon Jesus

    1. Killed those who murdered the prophets and saints to avenge them. (3 Nephi 9:5-11)
    2. Killed multitudes for doubt (3 Ne. 8:3-4) and wickedness by burning, drowning, and burying them and their cities. (3 Nephi 9:3-11)
    3. Killed multitudes around the time of his death. (3 Nephi 9-12)
    4. After he died, many were buried in the earth. (3 Nephi 9:5-8)
    5. When the earth stopped shaking (3 Nephi 10:9) he summarized his killing and destruction to the grieving, remorseful survivors, and then told them to repent so he could heal them. (3 Nephi 9:13)
    6. Wept over them after he killed them (3 Nephi 10:4-6)

The New Testament Jesus

    1. Reserves vindication for the martyred saints until His Second Coming. (Revelation 6:9-11; 19:1-8)
    2. Called the wicked who scorned the prophets, rejected Him to His face, and successfully plotted to kill Him, “hypocrites”, and held their generation responsible for the deaths of the saints. (Matthew 23:34-36)
    3. While dying on the cross, He forgave those who physically crucified Him. (Luke 23:33-35)
    4. When He died, the earth shook and many rose from the dead. (Matthew 27:50-53)
    5. Did not kill and destroy to bring about repentance. In fact, His disciples asked Him to destroy some who rejected Him, and Jesus told them: “the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Luke 9:51-56)
    6. Wept over them after pronouncing judgment and allowed them to live. (Luke 19:41-44, Matthew 23:37)

Clearly, the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is another Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible. Mormon leaders were quite right when they said:

“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages’”
(Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th President of the LdS Church, “Crown of Gospel is Upon Our Heads”, Church News, June 20, 1998, p. 7)

“As a church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say”
(Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th President of the LdS Church, “We look to Christ,” Ensign (Conference Edition), May 2002, p. 90)

“It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”
(Bernard P. Brockbank, LdS Seventy, “The Living Christ”,  Ensign (Conference Edition), May 1977, p.26)

The nutshell version of the last section of this article.

NOTES
1 Latter-day Saints (LDS); aka, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon Church.
2 The two sticks in Ezek. 37:15-22 are not the Book of Mormon (the stick of Joseph), and the Bible (the stick of Judah) becoming one as the LDS Church claims. Verses 18-22 explain what they are: the two divided nations! “…Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these? God will make the two sticks “one stick,” and that one stick is “one nation, [not books/scrolls] in the land on the mountains of Israel and one king shall be king to them all and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.”
3 Non-Biblical reference: The Works of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Books X-XV.
4 The idea of a second promised land has been a foreign notion to Jews (and Christians) throughout history. All of the Old Testament prophets were in divine agreement that Israel’s only inheritance forever was the land of Canaan; and, that they would return to that same land promised to Abraham as one restored nation.
5 Isaiah 56:1-11 (KJV) reads as follows:

Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
The Lord God, which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.
All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest.
His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.
Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.

6 S. Kent Brown, “When Did Jesus Visit the Americas?” in From Jerusalem to Zarahemla: Literary and Historical Studies of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1998), 146–156.

About the Author
Susan Grape grew up in a non-churchgoing family. When she became engaged, her fiancé (now husband) and she joined a Christian church. As she was learning about the Bible and Jesus, several friends, and relatives who were either Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientist shared their beliefs with her and challenged her to the point that she knew that their doctrine was different enough to question that someone (perhaps herself) had to be wrong. When Mormon missionaries and Jehovah’s Witnesses came to her home, it forced her to study the scriptures to see what the Bible actually taught. That very intense time of studying gave her the evidence for what Biblical truth is. It sparked the desire to reach out to these groups with the Biblical gospel and the Biblical Christ.

Mrs. Grape served as a board member for ten years with Berean Christian Ministries and she currently is in her eleventh year of serving on the board of Christian Research & Counsel. Her husband Brad also is on the board. The Grape’s adult children are professing Christians, and their grandchildren are also being raised in the faith.

Older Entries