1 How Firm A Foundation! An Introduction To The Biblical Sciences The Bible bears a special position of importance to all Christians. It is a source of history, doctrine, wisdom, comfort, and truth; it is an ensign of morality to all nations; it is a standard against which individual beliefs and ethical systems can be measured. It also creates a bond between all Christians throughout the world who revere it as the Word of God. Yet reverence for the Bible has not led to doctrinal unity among Christian religions in nearly two thousand years. This simple fact attests to one uncontrovertible conclusion-without the assistance of the Holy Ghost, the words written on the pages of the Bible do not communicate a knowledge of the spiritual truths contained therein without some degree of misunder-standing. This situation results from the faults and frailties of Men, who, from the beginning, have been the major source of error in God’~eternal plan. Written revelations from God have been given to Man (John 17:8, 14), but delivering those revelations has inevitably exposed them to the very errors they were meant to correct. One source of such error is Man’s language. Since the Tower of Babel, Men have had problems transcribing God’s message. Another source of error is Man’s intellect, emotions and predilections. These present problems in receiving the message. Other errors arise when Men attempt to transmit the revelations of God to their fellows, or preserve that message for their posterity. Transcribing God’s Word generates errors not only because Men are not Xerox machines, but because Man’s tongue is imperfect. His language varies from country to country and even within each country. Idiom and context also affect the meaning of the message, and the mode of expression may have an impact as well. In some languages, the meanings of words vary depending on the pitch of the tone at which they are spoken.a Adding to the various problems of transcription are variations in the ability of Men to accept and comprehend written revelations. Errors arise because of the educational and intellectual level of the receiver. Men may even err in their understanding of God’s message because they do not wish to hear what He is trying to tell them. As if the problems of communicating with each other in their own lifetime were not enough, Men face the problems of transmitting God’s messages to, and translating them for, people living thousands of years later, and those who speak different languages and have different customs. All these factors contribute to the difficulty of understanding the truths taught in the Bible today. Despite these problems, Evangelical fundamentalists are wont to refer to the Bible as inerrant. That label describes the original communication from God, but does not disclose the kinds of errors that are unavoidable in human communication. It does not portray the exact character of the writings that have been transmitted to Men today, no matter how inspired. Any reluctance to call the Bible “inerrant” should not be criticized, as long as it is accompanied by a reverence for the textual integrity and original inspiration of that worthy Scripture. All Bible scholars acknowledge that the texts of the Bible, as they are now preserved, contain some error, however slight. Mormons are committed to the principle that despite such error, biblical texts contain the Word of God to the fullest extent that flawed human language can communicate God’s message over the ages to an imperfect humanity. The Eighth Article of Faith expresses The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ official view regarding the inerrancy of the Bible. It reads as follows: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; . This simple statement speaks worlds more about acceptance of the biblical texts than many realize. It acknowledges that the currently accepted texts, transmitted over the ages from the original autographa (the original pages written by the prophets and apostles, or their scribes), are sufficiently accurate that Men need only be concerned about the accuracy of their translation. It has always been the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to accept and staunchly defend the Bible. So strongly has that position been asserted from the beginning that a frustrated Joseph Smith, rebuking the Christian sects of his day, once gave the following written answers to the two questions most frequently asked of him by his detractors: First “Do you believe the Bible?” If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do. Second “Wherein do you differ from other sects?” In that we believe the Bible, and all other sects profess to believe their interpretations of the Bible, and their creeds.b The extent to which Mormons criticize the Bible has been grossly exag-gerated among Evangelicals. Some have the impression that Mormons do not use or rely on the Bible at all. Others falsely claim that “[Mormon apostles] have been teaching us that the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries and as a result, cannot be trusted,”c and that “the LDS Church is teaching that English Bibles lack correct translation.”d Those who level such criticisms at the Mormon Church and its leaders have little or no practical experience with LDS teaching. For example, at the direction of the very apostles maligned in the foregoing quotations, two years out of every four are spent in the study of the Old and New Testaments at weekly Sunday School classes attended by all adult Mormons. LDS leaders constantly teach from the Bible, about the Bible, and that every Mormon should study the Bible. Nor are Mormons more suspicious of errors in translation than are Evangelicals. Mormons have very few problems with biblical translation, and certainly none that are not shared by most Bible scholars. Evangelicals are just as familiar with the problems in the English translation of the Bible as are Mormons, and if anything, are more concerned about errors that may have arisen due to transcription and transmission of the original texts. Of course, Mormons are not without some concern about the texts of the Bible. In 1830, Joseph Smith undertook to obtain from the Lord, by direct revelation, an accurate English translation of the original auto grapha of the Bible.e This work is referred to as the Joseph Smith Translation (JST). But the Church has not chosen to replace the King James Version (MV) with the JST. Rather, the Church’s official publication of the MV is footnoted with occasional excerpts from it. This reflects a general satisfaction with the text upon which the MV is based. In light of their own concerns, Evangelical criticism of Mormon teachings about errors in the Bible is nothing less than hypocrisy. The entire subject of biblical analysis known as textual criticism, recognized and accepted by Evangelicals, attests to the disingenuous nature of their allegations against Mormonism. The following introduction to textual criticism is provided both for background and to put this type of criticism into proper focus. An Introduction To Textual Criticism Textual criticism is the field of biblical study that deals with the morass lying between the original autographa of the Old and New Testaments and the existing texts available today. It is a sad fact that Bible scholars have no original manuscripts of any of the books of the Bible. The most ancient manuscripts they now have derive from the originals through an unknown number of intermediate copies. (In light of this fact, the Evangelical complaint that Mormons do not have the original plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated also smacks of hypocrisy.) The goal of textual critics is to derive a text as close as possible to the original autographa by using all available copies, fragments of copies, ancient versions and translations, quotations by other early writers, and by examining the in-ternal evidence of the accuracy of those sources.~ Fortunately, in the case of the Bible, a very large number of copies (referred to by scholars as for manuscript, “mss.” being the plural) are available today from a variety of locales. The number of mss. of the Old Testament is a lesser concern to scholars than is the number of mss. of the New Testament. The Masoretes, a guild of specially trained Jewish scholars, maintained the text of the Old Testament through the ages with such painstaking care that the mss. currently in existence show very little divergence of text, even when compared with the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls of a much earlier origin. However, even in the most well preserved texts from ancient times, there are slight variations and deviations. In addition, translators have added words to provide clarity and improve the syntax of their translation. (In English translations, these words are printed in italics. This format is followed here, so that, unless otherwise indicated by the words “emphasis added,” italics are used in all biblical quotations to identify words that do not appear in the original Greek or Hebrew texts.) Despite textual variations between the various ancient texts, there are few instances where a difference in the text changes the meaning of the passage. For example, one can compare the text of Isaiah contained in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 12-24), which dates from before the Babylonian captivity (approx. 600 B.C.), to the texts of Isaiah 2-14 in the KJV and the same passages in the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Numerous textual variations can be found, but the meanings of relatively few passages are affected. This can be demonstrated using a commonly criticized excerpt from the Book of Mormon text of Isaiah. The specific passage is Isaiah 4:5-6 (KJV and NASB), which appears in the Book of Mormon as 2 Nephi 14:5-6. The three versions read as follows: King James Version And the Lord will cre-ate upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assem-blies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a DEFENCE. And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain. Book of Mormon And the Lord will cre-ate upon every dwell-ing-place of mount Zion, and upon her as-semblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory [of Zionl shall be a DEFENCE. And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and a covert from storm and from rain. New American Standard then the Lord will cre-ate over the whole area of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, even smoke, and the brightness of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory will be a CANOPY. And there will be a shelter to give shade from the heat by day, and refuge and protec-tion from the storm and the rain. The words capitalized in each version supposedly represent “irreconcila-ble errors which deny any possibility that the Book of Mormon was inspired of God.”~ The word, “DEFENCE” (now commonly spelled “defense”), is believed by Bible scholars to have been translated incorrectly in the KJV. “CANOPY” (or “covering”), found in the NASB, is closer to the literal trans-lation of the Hebrew. However, the word “defence” is used in the Book of Mormon. Book of Mormon detractors ask why the incorrect translation from the KJV appears in the Book of Mormon if it is earlier in origin and was translated by the power of God. The answer to this criticism requires an introduction to the concept of thought-for-thought, as opposed to word-for-word (or “literal”), translations. Reading each verse in context, it is obvious that the KJV and the Book of Mormon version have the same meaning as the NASB. Even if the word “can-opy” is a better word-for-word translation, the word “defence” conveys the protective nature of the covering that the Lord promised Israel, and thus imparts the meaning of the passage more clearly. It is an excellent thought-for-thought translation. Such translations are difficult because they attempt to translate God’s thoughtS apart from His actual words (see Isa. 55:8-9). Still, where they are accurate, they can be preferable. The thought~fOr4hoUght translation that appears in the KJV was obviously retained in the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith was inspired to give the best translation possible. In this instance, the best translation is the thought~for~thOUght one given by the King James translators. Note, however, that the words “of Zion,” bracketed in the Book of Mormon text, do not appear in the KJV or the NASB. These words give greater clarity to the passage, without changing its meaning. This and many pther slight variations demonstrate that the Book of Mormon was not copied nor contrived, but was translated (by a person familiar with KJV language) from a text of ancient origin, as professed in the Book of Mormon. Problems with divergence between texts in New Testament mss. are considerably more extreme and abundant than those in the Old Testament. There is no authoritative revision of the New Testament comparable to the Masoretic Text. In addition to the problems of divergence between mss., there are many spurious compositions that were passed around in the early Church under the names of the Apostles, making it difficult to determine -~ the inspired canon.h As a result, the best authorities estimate that the extent of certainty regarding the original auto grapha is substantially less for the New Testament than for the Old. However, about seven-eighths of the words in the original autographa are known for certain, and of the questions that affect the remaining one- eighth, most relate only to order and form, so that “serious doubt does not appear to touch more than one-sixtieth [l/6OthIJart of the whole text.”’ While this is reassuring, the reader should know that there are approximately 150,000 variant readings among the Greek texts of the New Testament .i The techniques of early textual critics are illustrated in the writings of Origen (182-251 A.D.), an Alexandrian scholar whose commentS on Matthew 19:17-21 (the reply of Christ to the rich young man) demonstrate the approach of that school. Origen reasoned that Jesus could not have concluded his list of commandments with the all-inclusive requiremeflt~ “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” because the rich young man had replied, “All these things have I kept from my youth up.” Jesus evidently accepted this statement as true, but if the rich young man had loved his neighbor as himself from his youth up, he would certainly have been perfect. But Christ answered him “If thou wilt be perfect,...” implying that he was not yet perfect. Hence, Origen concluded that the commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” was not spoken by Christ on this occasion and deleted it from his copy of Matthew’s text. Fortunately, this kind of thinking was reflected primarily in only one group of mss., the Western texts, popular in Rome. The texts ultimately accepted by the Protestant Reformation were derived primarily from the Byzantine group, which were much better preserved (see Appendix A). The final version was called the Textus Receptus (the Received Text) and was edited by Erasmus. The Textus Receptus was the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament (15 16). Asecond edition, also edited by Erasmus, formed the basis for Luther’s German version, hailed by Joseph Smith as the most accurate translation available in his day.k The fifth edition, by Beza (1598), is the one on which the KJV is based. All the editions agree so closely that they are sometimes referred to collectively as the Reformation Text. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is based upon a slightly different text that employs two much older mss. of the Alexandrian group (see Appendix A) which were discovered in the nineteenth century. All the texts of the Greek New Testament were arrived at using principles of textual criticism that are applied to other ancient documents, with some variations appropriate to inspired scripture. The process of textual criticism is essentially twofold. First, the text as it existed in the original mss. is pieced together as far as possible from the external evidence (the available copies). Next, the contents of the text is examined with reference to composition, authorship, date, and historical value, to determine whether the internal evidence supports the conclusions of the external evidence (a process called higher criticism). These two processes employ a variety of common-sense rules and a great deal of painstaking study to arrive at a text that will contain the smallest possible deviation from the original. (For a more extensive review of the texts of the Bible and their history, see Appendix A.) Mormons may have confidence that the texts currently used by scholars convey the message originally intended by God with an extremely high degree of accuracy. Hence, examination of different texts will rarely result in a greater understanding of the message conveyed by any single passage. However, examination of the original Greek and Hebrew can provide insight into the translation. Known Errors In The Text There are a few instances where differences between the texts are known have made a difference in the meaning of the passages. For example, in Textus ReceptUS, 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows: For there are three that bear witness un heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.1 The bracketed words comprise what scholars call the Johannine comma. It is found only in the Latin versions, and there are no Greek texts that contain it, except two more recent texts that appear to have been translated into Greek from older Latin versions. The Johannine comma is considered by most scholars today to have been an apocryphal addition to the original text, but its message is consistent with other scripture, including many passages in the Book of Mormon. It is not included in the NASB, but is in the JST. Hence, Mormons would conclude that the addition was also inspired. Scholarly criticism has also been directed at the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9.-20). However, there is substantial evidence to demonstrate that these verses were in the original auto grap ha. They are found in all the Greek mss., except B (Vaticanus) and Aleph (Sinaiticus) (see Appendix A), and appear in all the Latin mss., except one. They were quoted as scripture by Justin Martyr (c. 150) and Tatian (c. 175) ,m and verses 9-16 axe quoted by Irenaeus (c. 180) and Hippolytus (c. 200). Mark 16:9-16 appears in the NASB in brackets, but verses 17 through 20 are not included, though they appear in the JST. Evangelicals claim that the errors which have found their way into the scriptural text “are all variations in spelling and a small number of paraphrased renderings.”~ This is clearly an inaccurate description of the situation described above. However, even the errors noted here rarely affect doctrinal analysis or apologetic interpretation. Translating the Texts As noted in the Eighth Article of Faith, the challenge for biblical science today lies in obtaining an accurate translation of the accepted texts. A perfect thought-for-thought translation would be ideal, from a theoretical point of view. Such a translation was attempted in the New International Version (NW) of the Bible, but the result was too much influenced by the theology of the translators to be of value in resolving doctrinal conflicts. For that purpose, a good word-for-word translation is the best. The KJV and NASB are both considered to be superior to the NIV in this regard. One problem in translating New Testament Greek is that the scriptures were not written by Greeks, but by Hellenists-Jews who spoke Greek but whose modes of thought were formed in Hebrew roots and whose minds were steeped in the language of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Therefore, a prime source for the interpretation of New Testament Greek is the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (referred to by scholars as “the LXX”). The LXX was translated into Greek by Jews living at Alexandria, Egypt, two to three hundred years before Christ. The Greek they spoke was modified to embody Hebrew thoughts and idioms. It might be characterized as Hebrew- Greek.0 There are even words and phrases from non-Greek sources, e.g., Aramaic, Latin, Persian, Egyptian, and other sources peculiarly Jewish. The word “paradise,” for example, which is so important in understanding the story of the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43), is a Persian word meaning “a garden of beautiful trees.”~ It is not enough simply to know Greek in order to obtain an accurate~ translation of the Greek New Testament. One must have a knowledge of New Testament Greek, and of the LXX. In selecting a lexicon for research, one must distinguish between lexicons written for interpretation of the New Testament and those written for translating classical Greek. Except where specifically noted, the Greek translations that appear in this book were taken from the lexicon in Robert Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, 21st American ed., rev. Win. B. Stevenson (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, n.d.). Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament by S. G. Green, and Language of the New Testament and Writers of the New Testament both by W. H. Simcox, are also recommended.q The lexicon most commonly used by scholars today, however, is Walter Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th Ed., trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957). Mormons will find footnotes to the KJV published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that give alternate meanings of the Greek and Hebrew where they are important to underStanding the translation. The footnotes also contain explanations of idioms and of rare and archaic words. The LDS publication of the KJV contains the most extensive topical index available anywhere. To avoid argumentS over translation, the NASB is used frequently throughout this book. That version is considered by Evangelical scholars to be the best word-for-word translation of the original autographa available today. Pursuant to copyright requiremeflts~ quotatiofl5 from the NASB are designated as such wherever they appear in this work. If a biblical citation does not designate the version from which it is quoted, it is from the KJV. Again, unless the designation “emphasis added” appears before a biblical quotatiofl~ the words in italics were added by the translators for clarity and do not appear in the original Greek or Hebrew text.r This book is based upon the premise that an accurate understanding of God’s message is contained in the Bible. It would be useless to demonstrate that MormoniSm is biblical without this axiom. Anyone who does not share this view will not be aided by this book, for it is necessary to accept the Bible’s authority as the word of God before men will form their beliefs on the authority of its teachings. Enerrancy Versus Completeness Unfortunately, Evangelical theology goes far beyond the position on inerrancY described above, on which Mormons and EvangeliCalS largely agree. That doctrine has been extended by EvangeliCalS beyond the issues associated with problems in human communication to a belief that the written Word of God is complete. This view not only excludes the possibility that God may have more instruction to convey to Man, it rejects the obvious likelihood that Men have actually lost some of the precious Word of God revealed1to them through the ages. It also rejects absolutely the possibility that God revealed Himself to groups outside the Middle East who might also have made a record of those communications. EvangelicalS assert that everything God has ever said, or will ever say, is contained within the current canon accepted as the Protestant Bible. EvangelicalS would have rejected this view had they lived in the time of Christ and been told by the scribes that the Old Testament was inerrant in the sense that it contained all God had revealed or ever would reveal to Man. It is incongruous, therefore, to accept it now. Indeed, if inerrancy includes completeness, one must ask when the scriptures became inerrant! Was not the Pentateuch inerrant when it was revealed to Moses? What about the writings of the other Old Testament prophets? Were they not inerrant before the time of Christ? To be inerrant, God’s word need not contain everything He ever said, or ever will say. It need only be complete in the sense that it contains the entire message He intended to reveal through that specific writing. This conclusion is consistent with the fact that the Bible is not a single work. In fact, it was not combined into one Book until long after the original autographa were written. The word “Bible” derives from the Greek biblia, which is a plural word meaning “books” (or more accurately, “little books”). Hence, the word itself implies that it is an anthology of individual inspired works. The Protestant Bible (e.g., the KJV) published today is a collection of all the available sacred writings that were considered accurate and reliable by the early Church. It was not compiled in anything like its current form until 367 A.D.. Vast schisms have arisen from disagreements over the correct canon. Even Mormons have a point of disagreement in this area in light of Joseph Smith’s statement that “the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.”s The very nature of the Bible itself implies that it was never considered a complete compilation by its inspired writers. The Evangelical notion of completeness is further belied by the fact that some books, which were originally part of inspired literature, appear to have been lost (see Appendix B). There is an implication from this possibility that Evangelicals are anxious to refute. What if the lost Book of Enoch were found today (not the apocryphal version, but the one from which Jude quotes-Jude 14-15)? What about the first epistle of Jude (Jude 3), or the epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16), or the book of the prophet from which Matthew quotes in Matthew 2:23? Would these texts not be added to the canon of the Bible if they were suddenly available today? What does that possibility do to Evangelical notions of biblical completeness? If the canon of Scripture is not complete in the sense Evangelicals assert, it follows that additional works could be added, if satisfactorily authenticated as inspired. This concept is consistent with Mormon acceptance of additional scripture, and hence is anathema to Evangelicals. (Further information on this subject is provided in Appendix B.) As to the accuracy of the Bible, no implication arises from an assumption that the canon is incomplete. Lost scripture merely proves that God has revealed some things to Man which Man has unwittingly failed to preserve. It should come as no surprise that Men have been so fallible. The addition of new scripture, on the other hand, would only show that Men continue to need current revelation from God, a conclusion that should shock no one who considers Man’s natural tendencies. Despite the occasional failure to safeguard sacred writings and Man’s need for additional guidance on a continuing basis, Mormons are confident that God has accurately preserved in the existing text of the Bible all the important truths He revealed to the Jews and to the early Church.t That confidence may be held without also embracing the unbiblical notion that the canon of scripture is full or that inerrancy demands an end to revelation from God. Interpreting The Bible How does one prove that Mormon theology is biblical? Mormons may think this goal has already been accomplished in numerous works citing Bible quotations that support Mormon doctrine. Indeed, many wonder why EvangelicalS ignore these citations if they really believe in the Bible, and ask why Evangelicals teach doctrine that is contrary to the Bible. This view highlights a fundamental distinction between the way in which Mormons interpret the Bible and the Evangelical approach to that effort. Though most Mormons will recognize the distinction in theory, few appreciate its practical effects. The contrast is largely a matter of degree, but in extreme terms, the two approaches are described in 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 as follows: Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. This passage explains that spiritual things are communicated through the Holy Ghost to spiritual men. The natural or worldly man does not understand them. However, between the totally spiritual man and the totally worldly man are many individuals who are striving to understand biblical language but finding great difficulty in doing so. They struggle for those gifts of the Spirit described as interpretation, discernment, knowledge and wisdom (1 Cor. 12:7-10), but find them difficult to obtain. The power of the Holy Ghost in interpreting and understanding scripture is illustrated by a story from the life of the author’s father, Robert C. Hopkins, who tells of his conversion to Mormonism after many years in the Midwest as an assistant and student minister with his parents, both of whom were ordained ministers in the Christian Church. As a result of his background, Robert was extremely familiar with the Bible before he ever heard of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After he was baptized as a Latter-day Saint and received the gift of the Holy Ghost, through the administration of men duly authorized to perform those sacred ordinances, he again reread the Bible. He relates that it was stunning to find his understanding of scripture so enlarged by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As he puts it, “it was like reading a new book.” Sadly, some Mormons fail to use this gift to the extent they could in scripture study. Some even lose it through disobedience unrepented of, and, finding themselves like those who never experienced the gifts of the Holy Ghost (or worse), they struggle for understanding, or lose interest in the scriptures altogether. Most Mormons come to take the Holy Ghost’s enlightenment for granted. They read the Bible, and without the aid of the biblical sciences, find in it great light and knowledge which they prize highly. Unfortunately, when they seek to share that light and knowledge with others, they assume that the meaning, so obvious to them because of the Spirit they enjoy, will be immediately apparent to their audience. Unfortunately, the passages that Mormons think are powerful to the convincing of Men frequently fall upon unsympathetic ears. Until Mormons understand how to use techniques of biblical analysis to communicate the truths of God contained in the Bible, they will have difficulty convincing Evangelicals that Mormonism is biblical. Thus, the techniques developed by earnest men over the ages to aid them in understanding the scriptures and explaining them to others must also be learned by Mormons. An Introduction To Apologetic Analysis Apologetics, according to Webster,u is the “branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity.” This branch of theology appears to have been inspired by the Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:15. He admonished the early saints to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer (NASH: defense) to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” Guidelines for presenting answers (or defenses) in support of the Christian faith were given by Peter in the next verse: “Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.” From these instructions it appears that Christians should be prepared to defend their beliefs when they are questioned, but their defense should be made with such gentleness and meekness that the teachings of Christ are always exemplified in their good behavior.~ The term “apologetics” is an appropriate designation for this form of defense. Those asking for reasons or attacking the faith of early Christians obviously were not believers endowed with the gift of the Holy Ghost. Thus, the need to defend the truths of God using popular techniques of philosophical analysis was established in the early Church. Unfortunately, the Greek thinking of the time ~s not based upon the wisdom of God. The Greeks accepted, without adequate evaluation, what appeared obvious to them, and frequently neglected to scrutinize the basis or accuracy of their assumptions.w Hence, the early Church soon became infiltrated with Greek notions of philosophy that had no basis in the Bible or in truth. This was especially unfortunate because the early Church also lost its most inspired advocates to lethal persecutions. While employing principles of logic, philosophy, and scientific reasoning, those who remained could not reliably determine the truth using apologetic analysis, and significant conflicts arose. As demonstrated by the textual criticism of Origen described above, the biblical sciences of that era were often more of a hindrance than a help. In the intervening centuries there have been some improvements, but one must always exercise caution. Not everything that appears logical is true, and that which is true will not always appear logical to some. Nevertheless, there is much of value in that branch of apologetics which uses specific passages from the Bible to support theological beliefs. This area of anal-ysis is called exegesis or exposition, and is performed using the rules of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics. The study of theories for the interpretation of meaning is known as hermeneutics.x Lawyers apply hermeneutic principles in order to construe the meaning of contracts and statutes for application in real-life conflicts. Hence, it is a much-developed science in law, as well as in the fields of philosophy and religion. Evangelical theologians place great emphasis on hermeneutics as a method of interpreting biblical texts. However, while the rules of hermeneutjcs aid in the understanding and interpretation of scripture, there is no absolute scientific method to such interpretation. This is apparent from the array of opinions derived by different Evangelical scholars using the same rules of interpretation. Despite the failings of this area of apologetics, Evangelical5 sometimes decry the lack of familiarity with hermeneutic principles among Mormons, and use that alleged deficiency to justify their rejection of Mormon arguments based on the Bible. When one uses hermeneutics to analyze a passage of scripture, the result is called an exegesis, and the person performing such an analysis is an exegete (a term which can also be used as a verb-to exegete). Thus, exegesis is the application of hermeneutic principles in “the actual bringing out into formal statement, and by other means, the meaning of the author’s words.”Y This is to be contrasted with a deceptively similar, and highly improper, form of analysis called eisegesis. In eisegesis, the apologist imposes upon the language of the text his own interpretation of its meaning, rather than drawing from the text the meaning intended by the author. In practice, it is often difficult to distinguish between eisegesis and exegesis, or to avoid the one in performing the other. Generally, an apologist will use exegesis in exposition. “Exposition denotes a more extended development and illustration of the sense, dealing more largely with other scriptures by comparison and contrast.”z Much of what follows in this book is exposition. Before undertaking that analysis, however, it is necessary to review the basic rules most commonly employed in biblical hermeneutics. The rules of hermeneutics are set forth in detail in Table 1 at the end of this chapter. They are based on common sense, and are essentially identical to the rules for construing contracts, statutes, and other written documents in the legal profession. The principle techniques include the following: (1) review all passages in their proper context; (2) consider passages from the point of view of the audience to which they were delivered; (3) examine similarly worded passages and passages dealing with the same subject, especially if written by the same author, to determine how key words are used; (4) determine whether a passage should be interpreted literally or figuratively; and (5) interpret figurative passages appropriately (e.g., through contrast, comparison, metaphor, simile, and type/antitype). Literal interpretation is always to be preferred. However, poetic language language that obviously could not have a literal interpretation should be analyzed for figurative meaning. Not infrequently, Hebrew literary forms employed in the Bible to bring multiple levels of meaning to passages, and types are used as forms of antitypes in putting across important spiritual messages. The rules of hermeneutics are employed (without specific reference) throughout this book. Though Mormons are accused of bad hermeneutics, their common sense and respect for the plain language usually produces a satisfactory hermeneutic analysis. On the other hand, when attempting to contradict Mormon theology, Evangelicals often violate their own rules. This very common tendency can be noted to advantage by Latter-day Saints in an apologetic discussion when it occurs, but only if the rules are first learned and understood. The rules of biblical hermeneutics can also prove useful to those who find themselves struggling with the interpretation of biblical texts, or who wish to obtain a deeper understanding of the scriptures. Some rules (e.g., those of Hasel in Table 1) could be used to teach apostate Mormon groups not to cite passages from Mormon Scripture out of context. Unfortunately, there is no certainty that a correct interpretation will result from the rules of hermeneutics. It is always easier to eisegete than to exegete a passage. What usually results from exegesis is a number of reasonable alternative interpretations. Without inspiration, it is difficult to ascertain the true interpretation among the reasonable alternatives, and so, on many points of doctrine, Evangelical scholars simply agree to disagree. But with sufficient correlation among groups of scriptures, the truth frequently becomes more apparent than critics of LDS theology would like to acknowledge. Hermeneutic principles are used in this book to demonstrate that Mormonism represents, at the very least, a set of reasonable alternative interpretations of the Bible. Evangelical theology, to the extent it differs from Mormon doctrine, is also examined to show its flaws, but actual acceptance of LDS interpretations requires that the reader receive spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost through prayer. Thus, Mormons reading this book should not expect to argue their Evangelical friends into conversion simply by employing good hermeneutics. Good hermeneutics are merely a preamble to spiritual conversion. False Hermeneutics. When confronted with Bible passages that contradict strongly held Evangelical beliefs, the temptation to adjust the rules of hermeneutics grows in proportion to the importance of the subject matter. Over the years this tension has resulted in some adulteration of the rules of hermeneutics. Mormon apologists should be careful to note and avoid improper variations on these rules. One such adulteration is the claim that “statements in the Old Testament must be interpreted in light of passages in the New Testament.”aa This mock rule is deceptively similar to some stated in Table 1. The difference is that legitimate biblical hermeneutics recognizes a continuity of truth between the Old and New Testaments. Proponents of the mock rule invariably use it as an excuse for dismissing any doctrine taught in the Old Testament that contradicts their erroneous interpretations of the New Testament. Another false rule of hermeneutics has developed into an entire school of biblical interpretation-Dispensationalism-the brainchild of Lewis Sperry Chafer. bb The view of those subscribing to this school is that there have been changes in God’s laws relating to salvation during the different divisions, or dispensations, of time. While Mormons recognize different dispensations of the Gospel over the earth’s history from Adam to the present, Dispensa-tionalists believe that the Gospel changed dramatically after the death and resurrection of Christ. They dismiss, as inapplicable to Christians today, the teachings and commandments of Christ during His earthly ministry, including the crucial lessons contained in the Sermon on the Mount! Most Evangelicals reject this school of interpretation, and agree that the truth did not change at the resurrection of Christ, but they still regard with some suspicion any authority quoted from the Old Testament unless it appears to support their own theology. It is true that a greater understanding of the mysteries of God is provided in the New Testament than was had among the people in Old Testament times, but this in no way discredits the clear teachings of the Old Testament. Unless a change has been specifically noted in the New Testament, such as the ful-fillment and abrogation of the Law of Moses. the unequivocal position of Mormonism is that Old Testament authority carries the same weight as New Testament authority, and passages from both Testaments should be interpreted so that they are consistent. Two Examples Of Exegesis Two examples of hermeneutic exegesis are given below. The first is quite simple and demonstrates that an enriched understanding of New Testament • will quickly resolve most apparent contradictions between Bible texts. second is somewhat more difficult, and will lead into the first area of inal analysis in this work-the Mormon understanding of God. tëxtual Contradictions: Acts 9:7 and 22:9. A commonly cited textual contradiction in the Bible is that between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 in the KJV. of these passages relate to the story of Paul’s vision on the road to miascus. Acts 9:7 (emphasis added) reads, “And the men which journeyed him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” Acts 22:9 added) reads: “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” In the KJV translation, these two passages clearly contradict. In the first, says that the men with him heard the voice, while in the second, he that they did not. Thus, these two passages were mentioned under “Bible “in Keith Marston’s Missionary Pal: Reference Guide for Missionaries & Teachers (Salt Lake City: Publishers Press, 1991), a popular work among LDS missionaries for many years. Astudy of the words used in these passages reveals that different forms of the Greek word for “hear” are used in the two texts. Unfortunately, the difference is not reflected in the KJV translation. The form of the Greek word translated “heard” in Acts 22:9 actually means “to hear with comprehension,” or “to understand.” Acts 9:7 however, uses the Greek word in a form that is best translated “hearing,” meaning only to hear. Thus, the men with Paul may have heard the voice, but they did not understand what was said by the heavenly messenger. The 1ST contains a translation of Acts 9:7 that is consistent with Acts 22:9. It is provided in the footnotes to Acts 9:7 in the LDS edition of the KJV. Evangelical critics accuse Mormons of citing these verses as an example of biblical error.cc That criticism is invalid, but Mormons should take note of the inclusion of these verses in Keith Marston’s otherwise useful reference work. Doctrinal Contradictions: Colossians 1:15. Colossians 1:15 contains the statement that Christ is “the firstborn of every creature.” Though the language of this statement seems perfectly clear, the theology it implies is in direct conflict with Evangelical doctrine. Hence, this passage is interpreted by Evangelicals in a way that does not acknowledge the plain meaning of the language. A typical example is as follows: LDS teaching suggests that this means He was “born first” in God’s creation. “Firstborn,” however, does not mean born first nor even imply birth. The Greek word used is prototokos, and means “priority and pre-eminence.”dd The first error in this exegesis is its gross mistranslation of the word prototokos. Prototokos comes from two Greek roots that literally mean “firstborn.” They are not amenable to any other construction. No literal translation would render the term “priority or pre-eminence.” The NASB, for example, translates the phrase: “the first-born of all creation.” It is patent that the word “first-born” implies not only birth, but the fact of being first in birth order. That is the exact meaning of the Greek roots. While Mormons would certainly agree that Christ has priority and pre-eminence over all creation, the word prototokos implies that His preeminence is associated with His being first in birth order. The concept is of Hebrew origin and, in its Hebrew equivalent, refers to one holding the special rights of inheritance conferred upon the Hebrew male who was born first.~ The Evangelical exegesis expressed above is supported by the following note to Colossians 1:15 by C. I. Scofield, a respected turn-of-the-century Evangelical scholar: As used of our Lord here, this term (Or. prötotokos) refers to priority of position rather than of origin. This meaning is clear in Ps. 89:27: “I also shall make him My first-born,/ The highest of the kings of the earth.” The assertion in 1:15, therefore, is that Christ, as the eternal Son, holds the position of priority in relation to all creation, in that He was before all things (v. 17), He created all things (v. 16), and by Him all things hold together (v. 17) .~ Scofield’s exegesis is based entirely on Psalms 89:27, which he quotes as follows: “I also shall make him My first-born.” The key word in this phrase is “make.” If this is an expression of the Father’s intent to make Christ his first-born at some point in the future (note the use of the future tense, “shall”), Scofield’s interpretation makes sense. Stating an intention to make an existent Being (Christ) God’s firstborn does not imply anything about birth or birth order (though it does raise havoc with trinitarian theology). The problem with Scofield’s analysis is that in Psalms 89:27 the word translated “make” is the Hebrew word, nathan, which usually means to give. U If the preferred translation is used, the verse would be rendered “I also shall give him My first-born,/ The highest of the kings of the earth.” (Emphasis added.) This translation provides no support for Scofield’s interpretation of Colossians 1:15. If the promise of Psalms 89:27 is that God will give Man a Savior, His first-born, Jesus the Christ, who is “the highest of the kings of the earth” (i.e., preeminent over all earthly authority), one is forced to acknowledge that Christ was born first, as indicated in Colossians 1:15. Areview of other relevant passages reveals that this exegesis of Colossians 1:15 is without contradiction in the Bible. It is consistent with the proclamation that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and emphasizes that Christ (“the image of the invisible God”~) is preeminent over Man because of His character which reflects perfectly the character of His Father. Colossians 1:15 (NASB) also declares that Christ was part “of all creation.” This is just as antithetical to Evangelical doctrine as the notion of Christ being born first. They interpret this portion of Colossians 1:15 to mean “in relation to all creation,” as Scofield insinuated above, or “over all creation,” as some argue. These interpretations are nothing but an isogesis of the passage. The word “of’ here is part of the Greek word paches, which is the genitive tense of the word “all.” The genitive tense in Greek is similar to the English possessive tense, but conveys the concept of origin, indicating unequivocally that Christ belonged to and was part of “all creation.”” As indicated by this example of exegesis, it is best to start by confirming the accuracy of the translation and then study the use of key words by other authors. In so doing, it is important to confirm the translation of the cross- referenced passages. The grammatical construction of key words is also important. Even small words, like “of~’ can greatly affect interpretation. Preconceived theological notions should not be indulged to avoid the plain meaning of a passage (e.g., honest scholarship would be reluctant to argue that being “first-born” has nothing to do with being born first!) Before accepting an exegesis, however, it is important to undertake a more thorough exposition. The scriptures as a whole should be examined to determine if other passages confirm the proposed exegesis so that it fits into the teachings of the Bible as a whole. In this case, Part I of this book constitutes that exposition. The most important step however, is to consult the Lord in humble prayer. All who read this book are encouraged to do so in respect to any question examined here. For LDS readers who undertake hermeneutic analysis, a review of Mormon Scriptures should also be conducted. So clearly are the truths of the Gospel taught in the Book of Mormon, for example, that it is like having the answers at the back of a textbook. If an exegesis is not consistent with the truths taught elsewhere in the Standard Works, that exegesis should be thoroughly re-examined. Conclusion In what follows throughout this book, the reader may find it useful to refer to the historical material and rules of hermeneutjcs discussed in the remainder of this chapter. Further study in the biblical sciences using the reference works cited herein is also recommended. Bible commentaries by non-LDS writers can be very useful in giving the reader an understanding of Evangelical thinking on specific passages.ii The reader should have a Bible convenient at all times and look up every reference rather than relying upon the author’s research. This undertaking has been arranged in three Parts. Since the first and most fundamental concept in any system of theology is its teachings about God, Part I begins with an examination of Mormon Theology. Part II, Mormon Soteriology, addresses the next most significant subject-Salvation. Because it is inextricably connected to the issues of salvation, Part III discusses Mormon Eschatology,kk the final judgment of Mankind. The purpose of this arrangement, and the book as a whole, is to aid Mormons in their efforts to convince a growing Evangelical community of the biblical basis of Mormonism. Persuasion and reason are used here. All who use this book are encouraged to follow the same formula, “reviling not against revilers” (D&C 19:30). Only through a scholarly approach will the Church make significant progress in proselyting Evangelicals, who may one day recognize the truths of biblical Mormonism. Table 1 Some Rules Of Biblical Hermeneutics The following rules (in italics) are quoted from Prof. D. R. Dugan, Her-meneutics: a Text-Book, 3d ed. (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Com-pany, n.d.) Chap. VII and VIII (used by permission). The material that follows each rule is drawn from Prof. Dungan’s treatise. Additional rules and advice are extrapolated from Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.); Gerhard F Hasel, “Principles of Biblical Interpretation” in A Symposium on Biblical Her-meneutics, Gordon M. Hyde, ed. (Washington: The Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1974); and Walter M. Dunnett, The Interpreta-tion of Holy Scripture (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984). Rules For The Interpretation Of Sentences Rule 1. Always interpret according to the known purpose of the author. Exception: This rule is not applicable where the author is making an in-cidental remark. How May We Know The Purpose Of The Author? Rule 1. The speaker or writer sometimes states just what he wanted to accomplish by speaking. The first place to look for the author’s pur-pose is the text itself. Rule 2. Carefully consider the immediate context. What was done and said at the time may throw light on the meaning of the words used. Rule 3. The Bible, being the truth of God, must harmonize with itself The Bible should never be interpreted so that its statements are in conflict. Rule 4. Light may be thrown upon a doubtful or difficult passage by comparing it with other statements of the author on the same subject. By gathering all that can be found from the same writer, one can better un-derstand his view on the subject. Rule 5. Help may be had in the interpretation of sentences by examin-ing the statements of other writers on the same subject who are of equal authority Statements by one apostle will agree with those of the Savior and other apostles on the same subject. Rule 6. The use of common sense respecting the things which we know, of ourselves. Common sense is the basic tool men use to interpret the scrip-tures, but the exegete cannot array his whims against the word of God in the name of common sense. He is not at liberty to assert his own opinion as the standard. Rule 7. That which is figurative must be interpreted according to the laws that govern figurative speech. Literal language is not to be interpret-ed by figures. Rather, figures are to be interpreted by that which is literal. Rules By Which The Meaning of Words Shall be Ascertained Rule 1. All words are to be understood in their literal sense, unless the evident meaning of the context forbids. Figures are the exception, literal language is the rule. Rule 2. Commands generally, and ordinances always, are to be under-stood in a literal sense. If an order is not meant to be literal, the author will usually take precautions to assure that the figurative language cannot be misinterpreted. Rule 3. The literal meaning of a word is that meaning which is given it by those to whom it is addressed. An author will use a word in the sense that he knows it will be understood by his audience. How shall we know what the words meant, or in what sense the people understood them? By the use of the same word by the same author in addressing the same people elsewhere; by the use of the same word by other authors among the same people; or by an indication from the audience to whom the language was addressed of the meaning they gave it. If none of the foregoing establishes any special meaning for the word, the classic use may be assumed. Rule 4. The Scriptures are supposed to give to some words meanings which they do not have in the classics, and therefore the Bible becomes a dictionary of itself (see, e.g., the word elder.) Caution: no word in the Scriptures has been used in a sense contrary to its classical use. Rule 5. Words of definite action can have but one meaning. Examples: jump, walk, run, shoot, hang, strike. The meaning relates to the action. When action is ordered by any such word, it cannot be obeyed by doing anything other than that which is the meaning of the word. Rule 6. The writer’s explanation is the best definition that can be found. If the writer has stated the meaning he wished to put into the word, in words that admit of no doubt, that is the sense in which it must be taken. Rule 7. The proper definiti on of a word may be used in the place of the word. If the definition of the ~vrd is substituted for the word in the passage, a true definition will give the same sense that the word would give. If the definition is wrong, the sense of the passage will be so altered as to make it readily apparent that the definition is incorrect. Rule 8. By antithesis. When two positions are matched against each other, the antithesis may define the thesis. Rule 9. By the general and special scope. The main purpose (general scope) of the author must be kept in mind when interpreting words used in connection with any sub-purposes of the writer (the special scope). Rule 10. Etymological construction will many times tell the meaning of the word. (Etymology is the analysis of the roots or component parts of words.) Caution: Words frequently take on meanings entirely different from the parts of which they were originally composed. Example: sin-cere, from two Latin words that refer to honey and mean, “without bee’s wax. Rule II. The meaning of a word is frequently known by the words used in the construction with it. The grammatical and syntactical setting should be considered. If it is determined what part of speech the word is, whether it indicates action or transition, the meaning of the word may be made clearer. Rule 12. We may have to sometimes study the history of a word in order to get its meaning at any particular time. Some words have changed their meanings since they were used by the author or the translator. Example: the word let meant “to hinder” in old English, and has that meaning in the KJV. Rule 13. illustrations orparables may give the peculiar sense in which a word is to be understood in the Scriptures. E.g., the parable of the Good Samaritan defines the special sense in which the Lord used the ~vrd “neigh-bor.” Also, the parallelisms of Hebrew poetry may provide a greater un-derstanding of the writer’s use of certain words. Rule 14. In defining a definition, nothing but primary meanings are to be used. Example: To eat means literally “to chew and swallow.” If this word is translated into any other language, the word containing that thought must be used and no other. If a secondary meaning is used (such as to consume), a subsequent translation could result in error (e.g., use of the word to burn, instead of the word to eat, since a fire may also con-sume and to be consumed by fire is to burn). - How Can We Know Figurative Language? Rule 1. The sense of the context will indicate it. Nothing should be regard-ed as figurative unless the immediate context or the meaning of the pas-sage as a whole demands it. Rule 2. A word or sentence is figurative when the literal meaning involves an impossibility. Caution: What is possible to God is often impossible to Man. One must know that impossibilities are really confi~nting them before they assume that the passage is figurative. Rule 3. The language of Scrt~oture may be regarded as figurative jf the liter-al interpretation will cause one passage to contradict another. if there are two passages, and the literal interpretation of both will make them contradict each other, the language of one, at least, may be regaided as figurative. Rule 4. When the Scn~tures are made to demand actions that are wrong, or forbid those that are good, they are supposed to be figurative. Example: It is not right for a man to dissect himself, so when Christ says, “And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee,” one may know He is speaking figuratively. Rule 5. When it is said to be figurative. When the author says that the lan-guage is figurative, it is figurative. Rule 6. When the definite is put for the indefinite. When a definite amountlnumber/thing is substituted for an indefinite concept, the definite is figurative. Example: The command to forgive “seventy times seven” does not mean that after 490 times, forgiveness may be denied. Rule 7. When said in mockery Men have the habit of using ~vrds in mock-ery to convey a thought quite different from that which a literal interpretation would indicate. Rule 8. Common sense. Figures of speech sometimes occur when we have to depend on the things we know in order to decide jf the language is figurative or literal. Statements made for emphasis or intensification, which are in excess of the ~cts, may be recognized, through common sense, to be figurative. Rules For The Interpretation Of Figurative Language Rule 1. Let the author give his own interpretation. When speaking figurative-ly, the author will often recognize the need for explanation. The exegete should not think to correct the blunders of the author l~r making out of the figures things that the writer never intended. Rule 2. The interpretation should be according to the general and special scope. The rule is the same as when interpreting literal language. Rule 3. Compare the figurative with literal accounts or statements of the same things. The figurative does not contradict the literal, but only adds beauty and strength. Rule 4. By the resemblance of things compared. A diligent search should be made for the features of likeness between the symbols (the figurative) and the facts (the literal). Caution: Be careful not to compare accidental qualities of symbols to facts which the figure was not intended to illuminate. Rule 5. The facts of history and biography may be made to assist in the interpretation offigurative language. If the person or thing being referred to is known for certain, the point and the power of the figure can be better ascertained. Also, if the fulfillment of a prophecy is known, the language of the prophecy that was dark because of the highly wrought imagery be-comes plain in light of the history. Rule 6. Any inspired interpretation, or use of the figure in an argument or teaching, will decide its meaning. If an inspired writer has exegeted a figurative passage, his interpretation may be accepted as the meaning of the figure. Rule 7. We must be careful not to demand too many points of analogy. Too many exegetes interpret figures by inventing as many features of similar- I ity as they can, demanding a literal thought or purpose for each. The pur-pose for which God intended the figure is often lost in such an effort. Rule 8. It must be remembered that figures are not always used with the same meaning. Under most circumstances, the figurative meaning of words cannot be compared between texts. However, if two writers are describing the same thing and employing the same figure for that pur-pose, it is possible that one of them has been clearer in his use of the figure than the other. Rule 9. Parables may explain parables. One figure of speech may be used in the interpretation of another. Christ often gave more than one parable to illustrate a single teaching. Each parable may have some different ends in view, but be similar in several features. If so, one may be used to inter-pret the other. Rule 10. The type and the antitype are frequently both in view at the same time. A spiritual thought or fact (the antitype) becomes apparent through figurative use of words, descriptions, events, institutions, and per-sons (the type). The type brings out the fuller import and deeper meaning of the antitype. However, several types may be employed to represent the same antitype, and the writer may have several antitypes in mind when using one type. Rules For Interpretation Of Rare Words (from Terry) To ascertain the meaning of rare words, words that occur only once, and words of doubtful import, ancient versions of scripture are useful. The LXX is preferred, but other ancient versions should also be consult-ed. Caution: Sometimes the rules of interpretation will have greater weight than the usage of the word in ancient versions, especially where the ver-sions conflict. In cases where it is still difficult to determine the meaning of the word, ancient lexicons and glossaries may be useful. It may be necessary to study the word in non-biblical literature. But the timing of that literature must be noted. Words were sometimes used in a different sense in sacred writ than they conveyed in secular writing centuries later or earlier. Interpreting Scripture As A Whole (from Hasel) The individual word is properly understood within the sentence and the sentence by means of its words. This reciprocal relationship is called the “hermeneutical circle.” It spirals out from individual words to the en-tire Bible. There is mutual dependence of general knowledge on the par-ticular and the particular on the general. Interpreting The Old Testament In Light Of The New (from Hasel) It is apparent from the New Testament that Old Testament writers them-selves recognized that their words had a deeper level of meaning and a fuller import which they sensed but may not have fully comprehended themselves. This fuller import and deeper meaning must be homogene-ous with the literal meaning and sense, and is merely an outgrowth of what the original author put into words. The interpreter may gain a more com-prehensive understanding than the author may have had, based upon the context of the entirety of inspired revelation, if he allows all the inspired scriptures to illuminate the meaning of a particular text. This is the her-meneutic function of the canon of scripture as a whole. Interpreting The Scriptures (from Dunnett) In any effort to understand the scriptures, one must (a) cultivate an aware-ness of the similarities and differences between the biblical world and the modem world; (b) be alert to the diversity of history and culture within the scope of biblical writings; (c) look for evidence within the writings that defines specific cultural expressions or historical events, persons, in-stitutions, or customs; (d) relate Old Testament backgrounds to New Testa-ment texts, and do the same within each Testament (e.g., the book of Acts can be related to the epistles with great benefit); and (e) keep in mind there may be more to the text than the cultural situation suggests-the author may be saying something that transcends his own cultural situation. 2 The Nature And Characteristics Of God While Mormons occasionally disagree on obscure points of doctrine, the diversity of beliefs among other religions calling themselves Christian is staggering by comparison. Evangelicals are comfortable with this diversity to varying degrees, but there is a growing effort among them to present a more united doctrinal front. That effort is being led by the Christian Research Institute (CR1), founded by the late Dr. Walter Martin. That organization sponsors the nationally syndicated Christian radio program, “The Bible Answerman,” through which a daily effort to stabilize Evangelical opinion is made by refuting contrary views. CR1 subscribes to the position that there are two major doctrines on which all must agree if they wish to bear the name “Christian.” The first of these doctrines will be examined in this Part. It is a belief in the Trinity as the historically orthodox concept of God. Mormons do not accept this concept, though it has been taught for nearly seventeen hundred years in most Christian denominations. For this reason, Dr. Martin, CR1, and with them a large portion of the Evangelical community, have accused Mormonism of being a “cult.” But such name-calling does not aid in the discernment of truth. The fact that Mormon teachings about God do not comport with ideas that have long been labeled orthodox by Evangelical Christians is entirely irrelevant to any reasoned inquiry about which theology is, in fact, biblical. The biblical foundation for the “orthodox” concept of God is not seriously questioned by Evangelicals. Most accept its contradictory teachings as a mandatory constraint on their faith, and assume it to be true because they regard it as ancient. Despite good cause for concern, the long-accepted creeds that established their doctrine of the Trinity are treated as though they were part of the Bible itself. It is those creeds that must be reexamined if Evangelicals are to discern the truth about God as taught in the Bible. Instead of exploring the errors of their false creeds, Evangelicals assume Mormon theology is wrong and accuse them of teaching “another Jesus.” The passage cited to support this accusation is 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (NASH): But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity ofdevotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. Paul’s criticism of the Corinthian saints in this passage is a reminder that, though open-mindedness is usually a virtue, it is possible to be so broad- minded that everything passes through. The failure to discern correct principles and to hold fast to the truth can lead to acceptance of teachings so foreign to Christ that one, in effect, accepts “another Jesus.” But the question is: Who has done this, the Mormons, or the early Christians to whom Paul was speaking? Evangelicals point to the Mormons as the culpable party because of a statement in verse 3 (“lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness”). Wrongly exegeting the Genesis account of Eve’s deception, they claim that Mormons lead their followers to “another Jesus” by teaching that Men can become like God. Such teaching, they assert, compares to that of Satan who told Eve that she and Adam would be “as gods” if they partook of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:5).a This exegesis is grossly flawed. It takes a single verse out of context without analyzing the passage as a whole. The entire passage, Genesis 3:1-7 (NASH) reads as follows: Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.”’ And the serpent said to the woman, “You surely shall not die! “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. The real subtlety of Satan in this passage is that he told Eve both a lie and a truth. Specifically, he told her (1) that she would not die, and (2) that she would become like God, in the sense that she would obtain a knowledge of good and evil. It is clear from verse 7 that Satan’s second statement (verse 5) was the truth! Adam and Eve did, in fact, obtain the promised knowledge, and God, Himself, attested to that fact in verse 22 (NASH: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil”). Satan frequently mixes truth with error in this manner. The challenge is to discern which statements by Satan are the truth and which are the lies. Only by using inspired discernment can the maze laid out by Satan’s deception be traversed correctly. The critics of Mormonism have failed to meet that challenge. Satan’s lie to Eve is found in his first statement, “You surely shall not die!” In that statement he directly contradicts God’s declaration of the consequences that will follow disobedience to His commandments (Gen. 2:17). Contrary to Satan’s promise, and true to the word of God, Adam and Eve died as a result of their eating the forbidden fruit. Their death was both spiritual- they were cast out of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:23), where they had been in the presence of God-and physical. Man and all creation became subject to corruption and death (cf., Gen. 3:16-19) in what is now referred to as the Great Fall.b Thus, Evangelicals err in pointing to Mormons as the teachers of deceptive doctrine based on 2 Corinthians 11:3-4. Mormons teach only the true portion of Satan’s message to Eve. The problem Paul was addressing in 2 Corinthians II was the readiness of the Corinthian saints to accept false doctrine. Unfortunately, they did not repent of that propensity. For nineteen-hundred years the influence of Greek philosophy, in which the Corinthians were steeped, so permeated the historic Christian Church that those who embrace orthodoxy today do not even realize how many of their concepts about God have come from Hellenism rather than the Bible.c The truths about God that are taught in the Bible differ significantly from the concepts of Greek philosophy. To Evangelicals, whose theology is influenced extensively by Hellemsm, the truths taught in the Bible can actually sound blasphemous. They often react to Mormon teaching in the same way the ancient Pharisees reacted to Christ (John 10:31). They want to take up stoning! This poses an enormous barrier in the effort to show that Mormon teachings are biblical. Since much of what Evangelicals believe is biblical actually is not, their greatest challenge is to put aside their preconceived notions based on Greek thinking, and acknowledge what the Bible really teaches. Only then will they learn the true nature and characteristics of God. For example, a Bible question-answerer on Evangelical radio once claimed that Men are so different from God, it is as impossible for a man to become like God as it is for a dog to become like a human.d However, the same person also taught, consonant with Bible passages, that men and women are the children of God, made in His image. Resolving the contradictory nature of these two statements is a herculean task for Evangelical expositors. The strain of such exposition disappears when one realizes that the first premise, the notion that God is utterly different from Man, is pure Hellemsm. (The Bible teaches that God differs from Man in degree, not in kind.) Many other contributions from Greek culture and philosophy have subtly infiltrated historic orthodoxy, and remain part of the theology of most Christian churches today. The object of this book is to identify such adulterations, and separate them from the true concept of God taught in the Bible. God The Father Has A Body Of Flesh And Bones The Image of God. The true physiological nature of God was made clear in entirely unambiguous terms at the beginning of the first book of the Old Testament. Genesis 1:26-27 (NASB, brackets added) reads as follows: Then God [Heb. elohim, a plural noun] said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And God [elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God [elohim] He created him; male and female He created them. The words “image” and “likeness” in this passage have been the subject of extensive exegesis by those unwilling to accept their plain meaning. Evangelicals treat this passage figuratively, acknowledging a similarity between Man and God that includes only selected characteristics-e.g., free will, and the capacity to exercise reason and discernment. A figurative interpretation, however, is not appropriate for this passage. An examination of the author’s other writings reveals that he used these words literally. Just four chapters later, in Genesis 5:1-3 (NASB, brackets added), Moses states: This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God [elohim] created man, He made him in the likeness of God [elohiml. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man Iliterally, Adam] in the day when they were created. When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of [literally, begot] a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. The words “likeness” and “image” in verse 3 come from the same Hebrew words used in verse 1 and in Genesis 1:26-27. Seth was the literal son of Adam, and clearly inherited Adam’s appearance and characteristics through the laws of genetics and through Adam’s teachings. Adam is known to have had other Sons before Seth, e.g., Cain and Abel (Gen. 4), but only of Seth is it said that he was in the image and likeness of his father. Thus, it is clear that the words “image” and “likeness” were used by Moses to convey a concept that is both genetic and behavioral. To claim that the terms “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1:26-27 refer only to a figurative resemblance is to introduce a limitation not reflected in Moses’ use of those terms. Further evidence of the physical dimension inherent in the words “image” and “likeness” is found in Genesis 1:26-27, itself. The physical characteristic of gender is specifically mentioned in verse 27 as one way in which Man resembles elohim. Thus, “image” and “likeness” convey more than a figurative dimension of similarity. There is a literal physiological connection between elohim and Man. Since Adam was a Man, it must be concluded that God is a Man (though not a mortal man since Adam was not mortal-that is, subject to physical death-when God spoke in Gen. 1:26-27). The reference in that passage to a female image clearly demonstrates that there is a Mother in Heaven just as the reference to the male gender denotes the existence of a Father. This is one reason for the use of a plural noun to designate God in these passages. Thus, from the beginning, the Bible teaches the concept of an anthropo-morphic God (elohim) ,(see, Gen. 32:30; Exod. 33:18-23; and Num. 12:5-8), having a male and female counterpart-i.e., a Father and a Mother in Heaven. These verses are eye-witness accounts, not figurative descriptions. Any other idea of God’s nature is not biblical in origin, but the result of Greek philosophy popular among the Jews and the early Church at the time of Christ. God is the Father of the Human Race (speaking genetically and without reference to gender), and has a body like that of Man in its basic genetic structure, though clearly not subject to death. References to any different physiology can be explained by their context. For example, reference is made toGod’s “wings” inRuth2:12, Psalms 17:8, andPsalms9l:4. Thatthelanguage in these passages is figurative appears from their context (see, e.g., Christ’s use of similar language in Matthew 23:37 in referring to himself). Lessons from the Resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of Christ is taught by all Christians as the heart of the Gospel (1 Cor. 15:14). Nevertheless, there is confusion among Evangelicals about the physical nature of Christ’s resurrection and its implications. CR1 has attempted to resolve this confusion in favor of a belief in the physical resurrection, but refuses to acknowledge the implications of that truth.e In fact, a well-known Christian radio teacher, speaking of the resurrection, once candidly admitted that he did not really understand why Man would want his “grubby flesh” back in the resur-rectionf This remark evidences the continuing influence of Greek philosophy on Evangelical theology today. The idea that Man’s flesh is “grubby7 and less desirable than his spirit, comes from the philosophy of plato.g The fallen state of Man’s physiology, “the flesh,” is recognized by inspired writers as a source of evil habits, and on one occasion was associated by Paul with Man’s current sinful condition (Rom. 8:3), but flesh itself is never characterized as evil in the Bible. Nevertheless, so ingrained in orthodoxy is the Platonic deprecation of Man’s flesh that some have gone so far as to claim the resurrection is not a raising of the flesh, but of the spirit. h To reconcile that claim with the implications of the word “resurrect,” those who teach this doctrine say that, upon death, the spirit becomes unconscious and is only raised from that state of unconsciousness by the resurrection. Under this theory, the state of the spirit after death is called “soul sleep.” The proof-text used to support this belief is Ecclesiastes 9:5 (NASB: “but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten” see also Eccles. 9:10). Reliance on this passage, however, is misplaced. It is part of a discourse examining the viewpoint of men “under the sun” (Eccles. 9:3), and reflects the attitude of the natural world that knows nothing of God. It is a description of death from the viewpoint of the worldly man and does not reflect the true state of the dead. Paul has said that “to be absent from the body” is to be “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6-9, NASH; see, also, Phil. 1:21-24). This clearly implies a conscious state after death. The story of the rich man and Lazarus told by Christ in Luke 16:19-31 unequivocally supports that position. The resurrection is not a raising of the spirit but of the body in a restoration of flesh and bone to spirit. As Job triumphantly declared: “And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me” (Job 19:26-27; see, also, Ezek. 37:1-14’). (Note that it is flesh and bone that are restored, not flesh and blood. Paul refers to “flesh and blood” as “mortal” and “corruption” in 1 Corinthians 15 :49-55.J) The reality of the physical resurrection was graphically demonstrated by Christ when He appeared before His apostles who were assembled in an upper room on the first Easter Sunday. The account is provided in Luke 24:3643 (NASH) with the clinical objectivity typical of Luke who was a medical doctor: And while they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst. But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” [And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.] And while they still could not believe it for joy and were marveling, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them. From this account, there is no mistaking that Christ’s resurrection involved the restoration of His spirit to His body. He was not merely a spirit, though He was mistaken for one (which shows that the appearance of the body and of the spirit are similar). He had “flesh and bones,” and demonstrated His material nature by eating solid food. He was recognizable to those who had known Him intimately during His mortal life, and retained the prints of the nails in His hands and feet as evidence of His sacrifice for mankind. Of course, His resurrected body and Man’s mortal body exhibit significant differences. Christ appeared out of nowhere in the closed upper room where the disciples were meeting, and another passage indicates He could disappear at will just as easily (Luke 24:25-32). He was also able to keep his identity hidden from those to whom He appeared until He chose to reveal Himself (Luke 24:16; see also verse 31). While Evangelicals may endorse the bodily resurrection,k they refuse to accept its implications. If Christ’s spirit were again to be separated from His resurrected body, that new and glorious body would die (James 2:26). Paul testified that such an eventuality will never occur. In Romans 6:9 (NASB), he assured the Church: “knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.” Being raised from the dead with a body of flesh and bones, a body from which His spirit will never be separated, it is clear that “flesh and bone” remains Christ’s permanent physiological nature. Furthermore, it is the clear testimony of those who saw Him after His resurrection that the form of His body of flesh and bone was definitely human (Luke 24). Thus, to put it in unequivocal biological terms, Jesus the Christ is the same species as Man, though resurrected, and will remain so forever. in light of this conclusion, consider the significance of passages that compare Christ with the Father. Paul told the Colossians that Christ “is the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). Paul made this statement in approximately 60 A.D., well after Christ’s resurrection. It was also after His resurrection when Paul told the Philippians that Christ is in the “form of God” (Phil. 2:6, c. 60 A.D.). The author of Hebrews1 makes the same point, also after Christ’s resurrection, proclaiming that Christ is “the express image of his [the Father’s] person” (Heb. 1:3, c. 68 A. D., emphasis added). By examining the image, the original may be known. That is the point of identifying the image, and a prime reason for Christ’s appearance in the flesh. He came, in part, that Man might know the Father through Him (John 14:1-14; 14:7-9). After His resurrection Christ was an immortal human being, having a glorified body of flesh and bones. Inescapable logic requires the conclusion that God the Father is also an immortal human being with a glorified body of flesh and bones. If the Son came to show the Father, he who would know the Father must not turn a blind eye to the physical characteristics of the Son’s body. Lessons from the Sonhood of Christ. The biblical conclusion that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as Man’s is consistent with the scriptural declaration that Christ is the literal, begotten Son of God (John 1:14, Luke 1:30-35). As a begotten Son, the laws of genetics require that the physical nature of Christ be identical to that of His Father. There is nothing contrary to this clear message taught anywhere in the Bible. Not only is the Father human, as is Christ, He is truly the Father of the human race. Christtaught this principle in John 20:17 (NASH): “but go to My brethren, and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God “Brethren, Sons and fathers are always the same race. The words used in this passage cannot be interpreted to ignore that reality under any sound hermeneutic principle. A figurative interpretation of this passage is not reasonable, nor would it detract from the exegesis of this passage. The clear message is that Men have a relationship to God that is just like that of Christ in at least two respects. God is “Father” of both Christ and Men, and He is “God” over Christ as well as Men. Men are certainly human, and Christ is human, as was demonstrated by His resurrection. If God is the Father of humans, and if, in particular, His “only begotten” is human, then God too must be human! Answers to Counter-arguments. Despite the foregoing, Evangelicals claim that the Bible teaches God is only a spirit and has no physical body Most commonly cited for this proposition is John 4:24, which reads in the NASH as follows: “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” Because this passage says “God is spirit,” Evangelical exegetes jump to the conclusion that He is only a spirit. The possibility that He is a spirit and.that He has a physical body is denied by them without a valid reason in either scripture or logic. If John 4:24 is interpreted in the restrictive manner endorsed by Evangeli-cals, it must also be construed as a requirement that Men shed their physical bodies in order to worship God. If God is only spirit and this passage requires Men to worship Him “in spirit,” then Men must worship God only in spirit. Thus, to cite John 4:24 against the teachings of Mormon theology isto claim that Men cannot worship God as mortal beings. That conclusion is obviously contrary to the Bible, which uses the present tense to command all Men to worship God (see, e.g., 1 Chron. 16:29). The idea that John 4:24 describes God exclusively as a Spirit therefore, must be rejected. It merely tells of God’s spirituality and requires the same of Men. It does not address God’s physiological nature-only the means by which Men communicate with Him. Men must do so spiritually, that is, spirit to Spirit, and must therefore develop a spiritual nature. Of course, God is spirit (as well as Body), and so is Man. Both Man and God have a spirit and a body. Man’s spirit is now clothed with a body of flesh and blood, while the Father’s spirit is clothed with a glorified body of flesh and bone like that of Christ after His resurrection. (Of course, if Man did not have a spirit, and some sects teach that he does not, he could never worship God “in spirit and truth’~-see, also, Numbers 16:22, Ecclesiastes 12:7, and Isaiah 42:5.) Were this not true, all the passages in the Bible regarding God’s anthropomorphic characteristics would have to be taken figuratively. Such interpretation would not be hermeneutically sound. There is nothing in any passage from Genesis through Revelations that suggests all of the anthropomorphic descriptions of God contained in the Bible should be taken figuratively. To so interpret them all, regardless of their context, would be extremely poor hermeneutics. In every way God is truly “Our Father which art in heaven” (Matt. 6:9). Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, all Men can be like Him and, correspondingly, like their Father (or Mother) in Heaven, obtain bodies of flesh and bone that are incorruptible and glorious (1 Cor. 15:51-57). Yet another passage quoted to support the Evangelical concept of God is Numbers 23:19 (NASB): “God is not a man that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent.” Like John 4:24, this passage focuses on the spiritual characteristics of God, not His physical aspect. Under the rules of hermeneutics, this language may be interpreted figuratively because it is poetic. In fact, if it were taken literally, it would contradict other scriptures (see, e.g., Matt. 12:40, 13:41, 16:13, etc., in all of which Christ refers to Himself as “the Son of Man”). The passage could have a literal interpretation in one sense. At the time Numbers was written, Jehovah had not yet been born the Son of Man on earth. Therefore, strictly speaking, the statement was literally accurate at the time it was made, but this is a nicety that does not reach the heart of the message. The point in Numbers 23:19 is not the physiological nature of God, but His integrity as compared to that of mortal Men. The fact is that God, as taught in the Old and New Testament, is a Man, or more precisely, a perfect and glorified Human Being. Though the Jews of Christ’s day also thought this concept was blasphemous (John 10:31), it is not. It is a simple, biblical truth. To recognize this truth, however, one must reject yet another doctrine born in Greek philosophy-the notion that being human limits God to finite characteristics. The Father Of Man Is Infinite Mormons deny that the physiological nature of God, as taught in the Bible, is an inhibiting characteristic. Even those Evangelicals, who acknowledge the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, declare that physical existence in space-time is finite, while the nature of God is infinite in a highly philosophical sense.m This false notion implies that Christ’s physiological nature as a resurrected human being is somehow incompatible with an infinite nature. This view is the result of Greek thinking found nowhere in the Bible. Since Evangelicals draw a dichotomy between what exists in real space- time and what they consider to be infinite, they assume that anyone who believes God has a real physical body cannot possibly believe He is also infinite. Mormons reject that notion and aver that God is both finite (only in the sense that He exists in real space-time, and has a resurrected body of flesh and bones), and infinite. This is nota contradiction, but the recognition of a reality that is more complex than Greek philosophers have imagined. Though a description of God’s characteristics as infinite occurs only once in the Bible (Ps. 147:5-His understanding), God’s characteristics are described as infinite five times in Mormon scriptures (2 Ne. 1:10; Mosiah 5:3; and Hel. 12:1;-His goodness; Moro. 8:3 -His goodness and grace; Mosiah 28:4-his mercy). God is thrice described as infinite (Alma 34:14; D&C 20:17 and 28). His atonement is described as infinite in four additional passages (2 Ne. 9:7, 25:16; Alma 34:10, 12). (One of the most profound discussions of God’s infinite nature found in inspired writing is contained in Alma 34: 8-16 in the Book of Mormon.) Thus, Mormons acknowledge and accept all the biblical truths about God’s physical nature, while at the same time they proclaim His infinite glory. Critics of Mormonism cling to the idea that a Being with a physical body cannot have the characteristics attributed to God in the Bible.~ Those characteristics are only associated in the minds of “orthodox” thinkers with an incomprehensible being who does not exist in space or time.0 That these assumptions, adopted from Greek philosophy, are neither logical, realistic, nor biblical can be demonstrated by a review of the Bible’s teachings about God’s infinite characteristics. Omnipresence. The issue of God’s omnipresence is perhaps the most obvious point on which Greek thinking requires a distinction between the finite and the infinite. The Hellenist argues that only an infinite being, one without finite bodily restrictions, can be omnipresent. If the Bible taught that being omnipresent means being present at every point in the universe simultaneously, this Hellenistic assumption might make sense, but the Bible contains no such doctrine. The definition of omnipresence assumed by Hellenists is barely a step removed from the pagan notion of pantheism (the belief that God is, or is in, everything). If God is present at every point in the Universe simultaneously, one could easily conclude that God is in everything and that everything is God. Suddenly the worship of idols becomes justifiable. If God is in everything, God is in the idol and the idol becomes an appropriate symbol on which to focus one’s worship. This form of omnipresence is absolutely contrary to biblical teaching. The Bible teaches that, though God is bodily in one place at any one moment of real space-time (see, e.g., Rev. 7:10), His glory, influence, and power fill the universe (Jer. 23:24). He is continually aware of everything that is happening everywhere in the universe, and can communicate with, and travel to, any spot instantaneously (Ps. 139:7-12). Jeremiah 23:24 states: “Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.” The language of the second question in this passage must be interpreted in the context of the first. The assertion is not that God is of such enormous size that He takes up all available space in the universe. Rather, there is no place hidden from Him and no place from which He is precluded. His perception fills heaven and earth, and an awareness of Him permeates all creation. This is biblical omnipresence. The Bible nowhere supports the notion that God is literally present at every point in the universe simultaneously. Were that notion accurate, it would have made no sense for Paul to tell the Greeks on Mars Hill, “he be not far from every one of us” (Acts 17:27). The phrase, “not far from,” is hardly descriptive of the physical distance between Man and a god who is simultaneously present at every point in the universe. Paul’s statement describes God as a person who, though He may not be in Man’s presence now, can be here, or at any other point in the universe, instantaneously. It is in this way that He is “not far from every one of us.” Omniscience. That God is omniscient, yet still a man, is another problem for Greek thinkers. The Bible teaches both that God is a Man and that His mental capacity is unlimited (Ps. 139:6). Of course, mortal Men do not know what God knows (Isa. 55:8-9), but the human brain has the capacity to learn. Brain researchers have recently determined that “the brain’s memory storage capacity is effectively unlimited.”P A glorified and perfected human body clearly provides the preeminent tool for an omniscient God to function in space-time. The contrary assumptions of Hellenists are nothing but the whims of philosophers with limited knowledge of reality and biblical truth. That God is omniscient is unquestioned by Mormons. They believe and teach that God is constantly aware of all that transpires throughout His creations, and is in possession of all knowledge. The following passage from the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 9:20) is incontrovertible on this point: “0 how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it.” Such unlimited knowledge is omniscience, and Evangelicals cannot deny that a glorified Man is the possessor of such knowledge on the basis of any passage in the Bible. Perfection. Mormon theology teaches that God is infinitely perfect. This is not a characteristic that is incompatible with humanity, for Men can be perfected through the blood of Christ (though Mormon theology does not teach that God the Father required the benefits of any atonement-cf., John 5:19). The Bible records that some men reached this goal of perfection during their mortal lives (e.g., Noah: Gen. 6:9; and Job: Job 1:8), and all Men have been called to this standard of perfection (Matt. 5:48). It makes sense that a perfect Being would have children capable of achieving the same standard. Otherwise it would have been an intentional insult for Christ to have said: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Mart. 5:48). The fact that Christ pointed to the Father as Man’s example of perfection in this passage is yet another indication that the Father is a Man. Omnipotence. That God could be a Man and still be omnipotent is another difficult concept for Hellenist thinkers. However, there is nothing in the Bible that suggests physical existence is incompatible with infinite power. In fact, it is more logical to conclude that both physical and spiritual existence is necessary for omnipotence in both realms.q Man is incapable of understanding God’s power at this time, and often leaps to erroneous conclusions about it. Is God all-powerful in the sense that Hehas every power that exists in a real universe, or does His infinite power include the ability to act in ways that contradict the very fabric of the universe? That is, does God have the ability to act paradoxically, such as creating a rock so large He cannot lift it, or causing something to exist and not exist at the same time? The Bible does not make distinctions in this regard (see, e.g., 1 Sam. 14:6, Jer. 32:17, Matt. 19:26). However, it appears from observation of the universe God created that He does not allow the existence of paradoxes. One could assert that paradoxical powers, by definition, do not exist, and therefore are not a dimension of omnipotence, or one could argue that God simply refrains from exercising paradoxical powers for good reasons of His own (e.g., because paradoxes violate principles of perfect justice). Either way, paradoxes are not a part of the real universe. Knowing that God does not act paradoxically despite His omnipotence is important in responding to the challenge of skeptics who claim that a God who is All Good and All Powerful would not allow the existence of Evil. The truth is that Evil exists because God has opted to give Men free agency. To do this requires that Men be allowed to make real choices between good and evil. Evil choices invariably have evil consequences. To prevent evil consequences while granting Men true free agency would involve a paradox, and God does not countenance paradoxes. Thus, evil will always be part of a universe in which free agency is allowed. God’s infinite power deals with Evil (Rom. 8:28), but it does so without eliminating its existence. Thus, God is omnipotent, but He allows the existence of a real universe in which His plan of salvation is designed to compensate for real problems that necessarily arise from the real gift of free agency Men have been given. Eternal, Immutable, and Uncreate. There are many passages in the Bible, and even more definitive statements in Mormon Scriptures, that say God is eternal, immutable, and unchangeable (see e.g., Hebrews 13:8). D&C 76:4 states, “From eternity to eternity he is the same.” Moses 1:3, in the Pearl of Great Price, reads: “And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?” Yet there have been changes in the way God has dealt with Man, and in His own physical form. The priesthood and the Law of Moses were changed following Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (Heb. 7:12). Jehovah, who spoke to Moses and identified Himself as “the Lord God Almighty” (Moses 1:3), became flesh and dwelt among Men as Jesus the Christ (Phil. 2:6-8). How then is God’s immutability and eternal nature to be understood from a biblical perspective? Clearly, God is not static. He causes, permits, and even participates in change.r The Creation is doubtless the most extraordinary of God’s changes. Understood in that sense, it is easier to accept the biblical teaching that Christ, Himself, experienced changes in connection with the Creation, while at the same time He remained, in the most fundamental sense, eternal and immutable. Evangelicals view the Creation in a purely Hellenistic way. Two axioms of the Greek-influenced Creeds are that God is uncreate, meaning, not created,s and that God created the space-time universe out of nothing.t In the Hellenist’s view, nothing that was created could have existed before the Creation. Hence, only the Creator can be called eternal. This view is entirely without biblical support. From the perspective of an Eternal Being, the Creation was a change, not a start. Of events before the Creation the Bible gives little information (but see, Prov. 8:22-23). However, it does not teach that Time began with the Creation, as Evangelicals claim.” Nor is there anything in the Bible to suggest that there was no material in existence before the Creation, or that God formed the heavens and the earth out of nothing. The word create, used in the Bible, does not mean to make something out of nothing (Latin: ex nihil). Indeed, the phrase “out of nothing” appears nowhere in the Bible. The only use of the word “nothing” in connection with the Creation appears in Job 26:7 (NASB, emphasis added) which states that God “hangs the earth on nothing7 and modern astronomy will certainly attest to the accuracy of that statement. The Hebrew word translated “create” in the first chapters of Genesis is barn, which means, literally, “to prepare, form, or fashion.” Thus, it distinctly implies the impressing of information upon existing material. The Greek word for create, ktizo, has the same meaning. It refers to a “making” or a “thing made? The concepts conmiunicated by these words do not require the illogical and unrealistic assumption that no material was used to fashion the final product. The Greek word ginomai, from which the word “made” is translated in John 1:3, means “to become” or “begin to be.” This comes closest to the “out of nothing” concept, but still does not support the assumption that a thing which “becomes” was fashioned out of nothing, or that it did not exist as formless matter before it “began to be.” For example, clay will begin to be a pot when it is formed in the potter’s hand, but before it became the pot it existed as formless clay. Consistent with these principles, Mormons teach that God created the heavens and the earth by forming the planets, the sun, and the stars out of something- formless matter. In fact, Mormons believe that even the spirits of Men were formed out of existing components. Before being formed into spirits, Men existed as intelligences (Abraham 3:22-23 in the Pearl of Great Price). Intelligences were not created but are eternal in nature (D & C 93:29). Thus, it is a distinct precept of Mormon theology that, before His creation as the firstborn of the Father, Christ existed from all eternity, His form being that of a perfect intelligence. In a very real and significant way, He was, therefore, “uncreate.” His “creation” as the Son of God only meant that His eternal nature as an intelligence took on the form of the spirit Son of God. The Bible attests that Christ is immutable, or unchanging, but this simply means His basic character has always remained the same. This is a reassuring and powerful testimony of Christ. While Mormons believe all Men have an eternal element in their nature (their intelligences also existed from all eternity), all Men, save Christ, have had to change at least some of their basic traits and attitudes to be in the perfect image of God. No such change was required of Christ. Though He learned from the Father (John 5:20), Christ has always been the perfect example of the Father’s Love (cf. John 5:19). Thus, only theform of His existence has changed (Phil. 2:6-8). God revealed to Men in the flesh, He has remained perfect and unchanged throughout all eternity. The idea that Christ was created, even in the sense indicated above is soundly rejected by Hellenistic Evangelicals. But, as will be demonstrated later, the Bible clearly teaches that Christ was formed by God the Father as His first creation-His firstborn spirit child. It is only Greek thinking that prevents Evangelicals from accepting this biblical truth. Dr. Robert Morey, a noted Evangelical philosopher, claims “it is the addition of the concept of ‘infinity’ that makes God the Creator instead of a creature.”” The God he imagines is a philosophical fiction based on nonbiblical assumptions which he never examines. In Morey’s view all that is created is finite, or limited, because it was created out of nothing and exists in real space-time. If Christ was created, He is a “creature,” in this view, and must also be finite, rather than the infinite Creator. Only the Aristotelian logic of a philosopher could assume that everything God creates is finite. The Bible specifically refutes that view. Ecclesiastes 3:14 states: “I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.” Thus, God’s creations are exactly the opposite of Dr. Morey’s assumptions about them. They are infinite, they “shall be for ever.” Do Evangelicals suppose that God, though an omnipotent Being, has no power to reproduce Himself? The Bible teaches that He did exactly that in Christ (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). The change Christ experienced at Creation did not make an infinite nature impossible, but the opposite. God’s creation of Christ was not a condemnation to finite limitations. It was the beginning of an increasingly empowering change of form, part of a plan that included Christ’s being made flesh (Phil. 2:6-8), and later being resurrected. Since God did it, it was intended from the beginning to be infinite! The Creation Of God The Son: “In The Beginning Was The Word” John 1:13 (NASB) teaches of Christ’s creation as follows: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He [literally, This one] was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by [or, through] Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. Evangelicals note that this passage says Christ (“the Word,” see John 1:14) existed (i.e., “was”), “in the beginning. . . with God.” They interpret this to mean that Christ existed in triunity with God the Father at the time of Creation. From this they conclude that Christ could not have been created because He existed before the Creation and participated in it. According to this logic, He existed, He was with God, and He was God, creating “all things” out of nothing. Not only is this interpretation based on ignorance of Christ’s eternal existence as an “intelligence” before the Creation, it ignores the construction of verse 1 entirely, running its three separate clauses into a single incompre-hensible jumble. The first clause in verse 1 says, “in the beginning was the Word.” This clause announces His creation as the beginning of God’s crea-tive acts. The first thing God did in creating the heavens and the earth was to create, or form, the Word. The second clause states that the Word was “with God.” This is John’s testimony that, after His creation or formation, Christ was with God and assisted Him in the creation, as indicated in verse 3. The third clause proclaims a change in His status, at which time He “was God.” This change will be explored carefully in the next Chapter. It is very significant that these three events, or stages in Christ’s pre-mortal life, are described separately by Isaiah, as well as by John (see, Isa. 9:6). The second verse is transitional. John, who was referring to the creation of Christ and detailing His progression in verse 1, makes it clear that He acted jointly with God in the Creation, the scope of which he describes in verse 3. This sequence of events provides the context for the phrase, “all things” in verse 3 (“all things came into being by him”). “All things” is translated from a single Greek word, pas, which literally means, “all [blank],” the blank being whatever the context implies.” The word “things” is not actually in the text. What is included within the scope of the blank implied in the wordpas depends entirely on the context in which the author uses that word. For example, if the context of the passage were men, pas would refer to “all men.” If the author were talking about animals, the scope of the word would be “all animals.” (Likewise, the word “nothing” in the second half of verse 3 is translated from the Greek word oude, meaning, “not even.” Like pas, its opposite, it takes its scope from the context.) Thus, the context must be fully and accurately established. The temporal context of John 1:3 is a point in time after Christ’s creation as the spirit Son of God described in John 1:1. Thus, when verse 3 says “all things came into being by Him,” it is referring to all things that were created at some point in time after His own creation. Verse 3 testifies of Christ’s participation in the creation of the heavens and the earth. It does not discuss His own creation, nor the creation of God’s other spirit children. Hence, the scope of “all things” would not embrace those aspects of God’s work. This understanding is corroborated by another statement about the creative work of Christ-as indicated in Colossians 1:15-17. Colossians 1:15 was analyzed in Chapter 1, but a more thorough analysis of that passage is appropriate here. This passage reads in the NASB as follows: And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. An understanding of this passage also begins with an exegesis of the term “all things” (Greek: pas) used in verses 16 and 17. Could “all things” in this context mean “everything,” as most Evangelicals assume? If so, it teaches some very strange doctrine. Verse 16 mentions “the visible and the invisible,” and verse 15 refers to God the Father as the “invisible God.” If the phrase “all things” really refers to “everything,” and is not properly narrowed to the scope intended by the author, it would require the conclusion that Christ created God the Father! Such an interpretation is patently erroneous. Therefore, it is certain that the term “all things” in this passage does not include everything. The scope of pas in Colossians 1:16-17 is determined from Colossians 1:15, which states that Christ was “the first-born of all creation.” Since Christ was createdfirst according to this verse, the scope of pas in verse 16 is exactly the same as it is in John 1:3. It is limited to all things that were created after Christ was formed as the first-born spirit Son of God. That which was created after Christ is expressly described in the balance of the verse. It refers to the creation of the earth and the heavens surrounding it, which Moses described in Genesis, not to the creation of spirits in the abode of God. The word “by” in the first phrase of verse 16 (“for by Him all things were created”) is taken from the Greek word en, which may be translated either “by’ “in” or “with.” The latter is clearly the most accurate in this context. Combined with the appropriate limitation on the word pas, the first phrase in verse 16 may be rendered: “For with Him [that is, with His assistance] all the things that were formed after He was born the first of God’s spirit children were created.” The word “by” in the last phrase of verse 16 (“all things have been created by Him and for Him”) is from the Greek word dia which also means “through” or “by means of.” This confirms the interpre-tation that Christ assisted the Father in the creation. That understanding is implied in Proverbs 30:4, which reads in the NASH (emphasis added): Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know! The Jews knew, or should have known, that His name was Elohim. He was the Father, and His son’s name was Jehovah. Acting together, His Son was created or formed first, before the Father and the Son “established all the ends of the earth.” The Greek wording translated, “And He is before all things” in verse 17 may also be rendered “And He has existed prior to all things.”w “All things” has the same context and scope in this verse as it does in verse 16. Thus, it also refers to all things created after Christ was formed as the firstborn of the Father. Thus verse 17 may be translated “And He has existed prior to the Creation of all things that were formed after He was born the first of God’s Spirit Children.” This affirms that Christ existed eternally, as an intelligence before being formed as the spirit Son of God. The testimony of Paul in Colossians 115-17 is identical to that of John in John 1:1-3, and these two testimonies are confirmed by the author of Hebrews (Heb. 1:2). In no way do any of these passages contradict the LDS teaching that Christ was created first, as the firstborn spirit Son of God, and that God the Father had other spirit children as well before the heavens and the earth were created by He and the Savior acting together. Each passage confirms that the Creation was initiated after Christ’s creation and after He had been exalted to God’s right hand. That Christ’s spirit birth, in fact, marks the true beginning of God’s creation is confirmed in Colossians 1:18 (NASB) which states: “He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.” Christ is first in the Church, He was the firstborn spirit child of God, and He was the first to be resurrected from the dead. Truly, as this passage indicates, He has “first place in everything.” That Christ’s spirit birth was the first creative act of God is unequivocally substantiated in Revelations 3 which contains Christ’s message to the Church at Laodicea. At the outset of His message (Rev. 3:14, NASB, emphasis added), Christ identifies Himself as follows: “And to the angel of the ch’iirch in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this.” Truly, Christ’s birth as the firstborn of God’s spirit children was “the beginning” of Creation, so that He may truly be addressed as “the Beginning of the creation of God.” The word translated “Beginning” in this phrase is archë, the same word used in John 1:1. At some point after His creation, the heavens and the earth were created with and through Christ, so that He is the Creator of the ends of the earth (Isa. 40:28); He laid its foundations (Job 38:4); He created the heavens, and stretched them out (Isa. 42:5); and mortal Men are the work of His hands, as the clay is the work of the potter (Isa. 64:8; see also, John 1:10; Acts 17:24; Eph. 3:9; Heb. 1:2, 11:3; 2 Pet. 3:5; and Rev. 4:11). All these acts were carried out after He was first created or formed as the Son of God. Thus, the Bible teaches that He is literally the Son of God, both physically and spiritually! Conclusion There is nothing in the infinite nature of God or Christ that is incompatible with the anthropomorphic characteristics of God as taught in the Bible. Nor is the infinite nature of Christ inconsistent with His birth as the spirit Son of God the Father. The reluctance of Evangelicals to accept these principles stems solely from their indoctrination in the notions of Greek philosophy that infiltrated the early Church and influenced the basic creeds of historic orthodoxy. The Bible teaches that both the Father and the Son are Men. Mortal Men were literally created in His image and likeness. They have His appearance (“image”) and are genetically like Him (“likeness”). Some day. they may become fully like Him (1 John 3:2). That God is a glorified, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, and infinite Human Being is entirely consistent with both the teachings of the Bible, and observations of the real space-time universe. God’s physiological nature, as Man, is not only compatible with His infinite nature, as God, it is a perfect part of that reality. This is the Mormon understanding of the nature of God. It is also what the Bible teaches about Him. That the current Evangelical concept of God differs from it enormously is not the result of any hermeneutic analysis. It is comes solely from Greek thinking, so influential in the early Church, which was memorialized in the early creeds and continues to bias mainline theo-logical opinion to this day. 3 The Number Of God Mormons believe the Father and the Son are separate individuals and that there is a literal father-son relationship between them. They also believe in the Holy Ghost as the third individual identified by the title “God in the New Testament. Because of this, their belief in three separate individuals who are designated in scripture as God, Mormons have been labeled polytheists (believers in more than one God) by the Evangelical community, a Some claim that Mormons believe in many gods and are worthy of the polytheist label on that account. This accusation arises because most Evangelicals do not understand the relationship between Man’s worship of God and the Mormon teaching that Men can become like God. With Paul, Mormons firmly declare, “to us there is but one God (1 Cor. 8:6). Mormons do not now, and have never, taught that Men (speaking of the children of God who did, do, or ever will, inhabit this planet) were, are, or ever will be, subject to any God other than the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost! If Mormons are to be accused of polytheism, let the record be clear as to the true basis for that criticism. It is their refusal to accept the merger of three separate Beings, whom the Bible refers to both individually and collectively as God, into a literal singularity (the Trinity). All who believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, must face the same criticism if they cannot explain, as this chapter will, why a belief in three separate persons, each of whom is God, can rightly be termed monotheism (a belief in one God). God Is One Adeclaration of the number of God first appears in the Bible in the Old Testament at Deuteronomy 6:4 (NASB): “Hear, 0 Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! The word translated “Lord” appears in the original Hebrew mss. as “YHWH” without vowels, as was the practice in the Hebrew text, and was never pronounced by the Jews. Therefore, the exact pronunciation is unknown. Though it is sometimes vocalized as “Yahweh,” the traditional transliteration is “Jehovah.” Mormons believe this is the name that designates the pre-mortal spirit Son of God known on earth as Jesus the Christ. The word translated “God” in Deuteronomy 6:4 is the Hebrew elohimb (plural for eloah) , which is conunonly translated in the singular as “God.” The term literally is a title meaning “God” rather than a proper name. Used cwer2,SOO times in the Old Testament, it is also utilized in reference to heathen gods. It is not always used as an identifier of any specific member of the Godhead. However, in colloquial usage, Mormons and Evangelicals both sometimes use the term Elohim as referring to God the Father, to distinguish Him from Jehovah, who is God the Son. The term is often used in the Old Testament in conjunction with YHWH to designate the position or authority of Jehovah, and occasionally it is used as the equivalent of the term Godhead, introduced in the New Testament (Acts 17:29). Thus, Deuteronomy 6:4 literally says “YHWH is our elohim, YHWH is one!” This passage can be interpreted as a statement that Jehovah occupies the position of Elohim, or God, over Israel, and is the one God Israel is commanded to worship. The passage itself is clear in its message: Jehovah, who is a God, is one-He is a singular entity. He is not three Gods in one essence-a trinity. It is paradoxical that this passage, which is often quoted by Evangelicals, says just the opposite of what they interpret it to mean. It cannot be used to prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are New Testament fabrications, because elohim, a plural word, is used to describe God instead of the singular eloah. c In fact, there are many passages in the Old Testament that are consistent with the New Testament’s teachings about God. Genesis is filled with them (see, e.g., Gen. 3:22, NASB, emphasis added: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil”; see, also, Prov. 30:4). The New Testament introduced Israel to a great deal of new information about God. With that knowledge, however, there came an element of confusion. The Godhead was clearly identified at the baptism of Jesus as being separate, distinct individuals located in three different places at the same time (Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22), they are also declared in various passages of the New Testament to be “God” (see, e.g., Acts 5:3-4, which implies that the Holy Ghost bears that title). Showing how these passages are to be understood, in light Old Testament teachings of monotheism, has been a challenge to Christianity for centuries. The Johannine Comma directly addresses this issue. 1 John 5:7 states, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” As indicated in Chapter One, this language is not accepted by most scholars as part of the original version of I John. However, the Bible generally, and Mormon Scriptures specifically, are consistent with its message. The Book of Mormon for example, teaches (2 Nephi 31:21): And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (See also, Alma 11:44, and D & C 20 :27-28d) In light of these teachings, it is natural to ask, “How can Three be One?” That question racked and split the early Church during the third and fourth centuries, A.D. The answer that became historical “Christian” orthodoxy was the seminal step into an Apostasy that has influenced Christian churches to the present era. The Trinity, an incomprehensible conglomeration of the Three into one substance, essence, or nature-.--co-substantial, co-equal, and co~eternal~~remains one of the two most telling legacies of that Apostasy in Christianity today. Mormons reject this concept as an early heresy, and insist that references to God’s oneness were not meant to be interpreted in a mechanically literal sense, but in a more figurative sense is consistent with all the relevant passages in the Bible and with common sense. The Triune God Of Historic Orthodoxy The formulation of the Trinity as an explanation for Bible passages about the number of God reflects a need in Man as ancient and deep-rooted as idol worship. Without the guidance of prophets, Men have sought to embody in their theology a psychological need for the characteristic of inscrutability in the Being they choose to worship. With Man’s ego, it is hard to worship a real Father in Heaven as the true and living God, just as it is difficult to obey an earthly father. The anthropo-morphic God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was too mundane, and too familiar in nature to be GOD. To find a GOD worthy of his submission, Man had to invent false deities (idols) who appeared transcendently different and far more wonderful than themselves. Often built on a grand scale, early and less sophisticated idols incorporated mallY elements of mystery in common with the later-adopted concept of the ‘i.xiuity. For example~ the spirit, or essence, of the false god was supposedly embodied in the object of worship.t The paradoxical mysticism associated vjjth idols provided a level of comfort that was lacking in the simple Hebrew worship of a God who lives in some remote place called Heaven. In the heyday of Greek philosOphY~ Man’s intellect generated the ultimate idol. A completely inscrutable paradox, the false concept of god known as the Trinity transcends both substance and comprehension. The Trinity, according to Dr. Robert Morey, is a singular Spirit Being, who manifests Himself (Itself?) in “three centers of consciousness” which are only metapizoriCallY referred to as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.~ This is the god of current EvangeliCal theology, whom Mormons are expected towoTshlP if they would be called “Christian” by the Evangelical community. Initially, it may be noted that Dr. Morey’S explanation of God does riot satisfy certain logical objections. One can imagine lessons to be learned from the appearance of a god in two centers of consciousness metaphoricallY referred to as the Father and the Son. The imagery would show that Man’s obedience to God should be like a child’s obedience to his father, and that the love of God for Man is like the love of a father for his children. Problems arise, however, in finding a reason for the metaphoric reference to a third person. Why did God chose to reveal Himself as three centerS of consciousneSS, and why is the third center of consciousness metaphorically referred to as the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit)? The metaphor is unintelligible, and hence the message to Man is clouded. A satisfying answer is not provided in Trinitarian theology. (The real reason for calling the third member of the Godhead the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is that this name distinguishes His nature from that of the Father and the Son, both of whom have bodies of flesh and bone.) Still, the Mormon scriptures cited above state the number of God in a way that might at first appear compatible with the Trinity. For that reason, some Evangelicals claim that the Book of Mormon. which clearly teaches that the Three are “one God,” contradicts the teachings of Joseph Smith, who said that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate individuals.” Of course, EvangelicalS also teach (1) that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost arc “three separate persons,” and (2) that “these three persons eternally co-exist as the one God.”’ The difference between Mormons and Evangelicals on this point arises from the following unusual distinction draw by Evangelical theologians: While Evangelicals believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate persons, they emphatically deny that they are separate individuals. This distinction is neither biblical, nor consistent with semantics or common sense. Yet Evangelicals call Mormons polytheists (or tritheists-believers in three Gods), while labeling themselves monotheists, on the basis of this bewildering differentiation. On this point, Elwell’s The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states: While the term “person” in relation to the Trinity does not signify the limited individuality of human persons, it does affirm the I-thou of; personal relationship, particularly of love, within the triune Godhead. This attempt to explain the distinction between “persons” and “individuals” is so illogical it requires the abandonment of all common sense simply to express it. Describing the “individuality of human persons” as “limited” is unsupported by any scriptural reference, being nothing but pure Hellenism. Nor is Elwell able to explain how “the I-thou of personal relationship” within the “triune Godhead” differs from the “individuality of human persons” (limited or otherwise). Another attempt to distinguish the indistinguishable is made by Donald Bloesch in his Essentials of Evangelical Theology. k He states: “It should be recognized that persons in the early church did not mean personalities in the modern sense (which indicates autonomy) but objective modes of being.” No authority for this claim is supplied, but if this idea of persons really existed in the early church, it is certain the notion came from Greek philosophy, for it is not found in the Bible, and Bloesch gives no citations therefrom in its defense. Bloesch at least recognizes some of the problems inherent in his distinction. A footnote to the sentence quoted above reads: Barth rightly recognizes that the modern concept of personality includes the attributes of self-consciousness and this, therefore, creates problems for the doctrine of the Trinity. To hold that there are three distinct centers of consciousness, three self-conscious personal beings, comes close to tritheism. Is Bloesch suggesting that the three centers of consciousness that make up the Trinity are not conscious of being separate persons, or is he contradicting Morey’s explanation of the Trinity? Wasn’t Christ self-conscious while here on earth? How can any being use personal pronouns (“I,” “Thou,” “My" etc.) as God the Father and Jesus Christ do (see, e.g., Matt. 3:13-17), if they are not individually self-conscious? Bloesch does not answer these questions, nor can he because his doctrine is Greek, not biblical! The theology Evangelicals have embraced to explain how the Three can be One simply does not make sense. Mormons should not be criticized for rejecting nonsense. Nor can anyone claim that, by rejecting the Trinity, Mormons are rejecting biblical truth, for the Trinity is not in the Bible. It is Evangelicals, not Mormons, who should be called cultists for accepting false creeds like the Trinity, rather than using the Bible to learn about God. The Nicene Creed Mormons accept the Bible’s teachings that (1) God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons, each of whom is referred to in the Scriptures as “God”; and (2) these Three are One God. However, unlike Evangelicals, Mormons do not resolve these two seemingly contradictory statements by adopting the doctrine known as the Trinity.’ The Trinity is based on heresy embraced by the Council at Nicaea in 325 A.D. The transmutation of God into an incomprehensible Being was an irresistible temptation for the early Church. Greek philosophy was the only acceptable mode of thinking for intellectuals at that time, and intense Roman persecution had caused the death of knowledgeable Christians (e.g., the Apostles) before new leaders could be adequately trained. As a result, there was confusion in the Church on many points of doctrine. ACouncil, such as that held at Nicaea, was unprecedented as a means for learning the truth about God. Historically, God revealed His truth through prophets (Amos 3:7). Of course, if a prophet had convened the Council at Nicaea, it is conceivable that an illuminating Creed that revealed God’s true nature might have been received. Instead, the world was given a formula that added more error than truth to the prevailing theories of the age, for this Council was convened, not by a prophet, but by Constantine, the heathen emperor of Rome. To make matters worse, he was not seeking the truth, but to resolve a controversy that threatened to split his kingdom.m Constantine had chosen the Christian religion to unify the waning factions of the Roman Empire, only to find that there were deep schisms within the Church itself. The Arian Controversy, which the Council was convened to resolve, was the most divisive of its time. Anus was a subordinate to Alexander, bishop of Alexandna. Though Mormons would disagree with many of Anus’ theories about God, he correctly identified many problems with the trinity in unity concept then being advanced by his superiors. Many in the early Church sided with Anus, and the resulting conflict was bitter. While the Nicene Council was arrayed to sit in judgment of Anus, the attendant bishops found it difficult to refute the arguments he raised. Finally, Constantine himself interceded by suggesting that the Greek word homo ousios (homo meaning "same," and ousios meaning "substance ,being, or essence”) be incorporated in a Creed that would silence Anus and his followers. While the word ousia is found in the Bible (only once-Luke 15:13), homo-ousios (or homoousia, as it is sometimes rendered) appears nowhere. It has never been associated with the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in any inspired writing. As a result, the Nicene concept was viewed as a major theological change by many bishops of the time, and resulted in even more dissension than it was meant to quell .‘~ Finally, Constantine was forced to replace dissenting bishops with ones willing to support the new Creed.0 By this means, and with the aid of such proponents as Athanasius, the new doctrine ultimately found universal acceptance in the Roman Church. The Creed itself is an ancient eastern baptismal confession into which Constantine’s heretical wording was inserted. Mormons agree generally with the original confession (quoted below), but firmly reject the additions made at Nicaea. Those additions are indicated by brackets in the following translation of the revised baptismal confession that became the Nicene Creed: We believe in one God, the Almighty Father, creator of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God, who alone was begotten of the Father (that is of the substance of the Father] God of God, Light of Light [very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father], through whom all was made that is in heaven and on earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down and became flesh, became man, suffered and rose on the third day, is ascended to heaven and will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.P (Note that the idea of Christ being “begotten, (meaning to be born] not made” was introduced at Nicaea.) The most popular restatement of the Nicene Creed is named after Athanasius. The widely accepted Athanasian Creed (c. 490 A.D.) expresses the inscrutability of the Trinity in its classic form as follows: We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensi-ble, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord~q (The word “incomprehensible” in this Creed is believed by some to be trans-lated from a word that literally means ‘~infinite.”r However, all who accept the Athanasiajn Creed also teach that God is completely incomprehensible.s) No matter how it is expressed, there is simply no semantic way to turn this concept into anything but a statement of contradictions, and its proponents intended it to be nothing less. Early post-Nicene theologians taught the notion of the Trinity, or Triune God, by claiming that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are a “genenical” and “numerical” unity of substance, and hence a paradox.t The Trinity, a man-made incongruity, is a monument to Aristotelian think-ing. The concept, as it is commonly taught by Evangelicals, is that, “within the nature of the one true God, there are three separate persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three persons eternally coexist as the one God.”u The key word here is “co-exist.” It appears nowhere in the Bible, but to Evangelicals it means something much different than “peaceful co-existense.” They believe all Three persons exist within the same time and space. As, Bloesch puts it: Barth is correct when he affirms that God exists in three modes of being, but these are distinctions, as he acknowledges, that pertain to the inner life of God himself and not merely to dimensions of his activity (as in the heresy of Modalism). This is why orthodox theology speaks of the ontological or essential trinity and not just the economical trinity, which refers to the way in which God relates himself to the world. The Trinity must be thought of neither as one God in three manifestations nor as a symmetrical triad of persons with separable functions; instead the Trinity signifies one God in three modes of existence-Father, Son, and Spirit, and each of these participates in the activity of the other. To the extent any explanation of an incomprehensible god can itself be comprehensible, the god described here is clearly a being who cannot be accepted without suspending one’s God-given common sense. Evangelicals acknowledge this, but claim their formula for God’s nature is the only biblical alternative to the heresy of Arianism. But where is their effort shown to be biblical? There is not a single citation of any Bible passage in Bloesch’s commentary on the Trinity quoted above. Old Testament Arguments In Support Of A Triune God While the Bible speaks pluralisticly of God in both the Old and New Testaments, and also refers to God as one, such passages do not support the Trinity. To do that, Evangelicals must find texts that prove the Three are one in substance or essence-co-existent, co-substantial, and co-eternal, as described in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Evangelicals acknowledge that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost did not come into existence as three separate persons (or centers of consciousness) at the birth of Christ.w While the identification of these three separate persons reflects the greater understanding of God provided in the New Testa-ment, this new understanding does not reflect a change in God’s basic nature. The Jews, working from the Old Testament alone, accuse both Evangelicals and Mormons of being polytheists. Therefore, when Evangelicals use Old Testament passages to contend with Mormons on this issue, the result is to hoist themselves on their own petard. Both Evangelicals and Mormons must put Old Testament passages in context to show that they are consistent with New Testament teachings. To rebut Jewish accusations of polytheism, Evan-gclicals must use essentially the same explanations of Old Testament passages osMormons do in replying to Evangelical criticism based on the same verses! Two Old Testament passages frequently quoted by Evangelicals to discredit Mormon theology are Isaiah 44:8 (“Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any”), and Isaiah 43:10 (“before me there was no God ibrmed, neither shall there be after me”). The context of both is a message fium God to the ancient Israelites spanning chapters 41 through 46 that contains frequent reference to the practice of idol worship so rampant in that day. That context clearly indicates that these verses were meant to uphold the sovereignty of Jehovah, the God of Israel, in the face of popular idolatry, not rebut the concept of diefication. Referring to Isaiah 43:10, however, Evangelicals reject this argument, and claim: “Mormon missionaries nearly always teach that this passage is referring to idol-gods. It can’t be though, because idols were formed after Him!”x This response notes that idols were “formed” after Jehovah, and argues that the passage could not be referring to idolatry because, the passage says no God will be formed “after me.” This exegesis is grossly flawed, but it does, at least, acknowledge that the phrase “neither shall there be after me” refers to a specific point in time when Jehovah was “formed.” The Hebrew word from which “formed” is franslated isyatsar, which may be rendered “constitute.” Men have constructed idols after Jehovah, but in so doing they have never constituted a God over Man. An idol is not a “God,” no matter what its makers intend. The only one who can form, or constitute, a “God” is God Himself! No matter how many idol-gods Men have attempted to form through the ages, they are, and have always been, nothing (1 Cor. 8:4). The scriptures record the constitution of only one God over Man, namely Jesus the Christ, who Was known in the Old Testament as Jehovah (see Isa. 9:6; John 1:1; and other Passages to be discussed below). Isaiah 43:10 and 44:8 must be interpreted so they do not contradict the New Testament teaching that there are three separate persons who constitute the Godhead. These passages conden-m the efforts of Men to establish false gods, idols. That is their context and the setting in which they must be Construed. The verses immediately following Isaiah 44:8 (Isa. 44:9-20) clearly Confirm this analysis. Hence, these passages cannot be used to support the Greek concept of the Trinity which assumes that God is three separate persons! In seeking for Biblical support of the Nicene god, Evangelicals attempt to demonstrate that there are two Jehovahs. Their argument is based on Isaiah 44:6, which they quote in the following form: “Thus saith the Loiw the King of Israel, and His Redeemer the Lord of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside Me there is no God.” The Evangelical criticism of Mormomsm based on this passage is as follows: In Mormon theology, Jesus is Jehovah. However, two persons are called Jehovah (translated “LoRD”) in this verse. The first Jehovah is called “the King of Israel.” The second Jehovah (“Loan of Hosts”) is called “His Redeemer~’ namely the One who belongs to the King of Israel. This presents another serious problem in the Mormon doctrine of God, because if Jesus is the only Jehovah in Mormon theology, then who is His Redeemer? The Bible tells us here that two separate persons are Jehovah. Also notice that the two persons exclaim as one Jehovah, “I am the First, and I am the Last; and beside Me there is no God.”z This interpretation presents far more problems for Evangelicals than it does for Mormons. It postulates the heretical notion that Jehovah needs a Redeemer. Mormons reject that concept and this exegesis with it. Surprisingly, the error in this analysis arises from nothing more than a grammatical mistake- capitalizing the word “His” in the phrase “His Redeemer, the Loan of hosts.” That mistake makes it appear that the pronoun “His” refers to deity. That is contrary to both the KJV and the NASB (which is very careful about capitalization). In the NASH, the passage reads as follows: “Thus says the Loan, the King of Israel ‘And his Redeemer, the Loan of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, ‘And there is no God besides Me.”’ Note that the word his before “Redeemer” in the second line is not capitalized. That is because it does not refer to deity. The pronoun his modifies the nearest noun-Israel. Thus, the Loan, the King of Israel, is also the Redeemer of Israel. Jehovah (the one and only Jehovah) is Israel’s Redeemer and the Loan of Hosts. There are not two Jehovahs, but only one, who is given two titles in this passage. The phrase calling Jehovah both a King and a Redeemer is a typical example of parallelism-a common form of Hebrew writing found hundreds of times in the Old Testament. Evangelicals make the same type of error analyzing Matthew 28:19. In that passage, Christ commanded baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” A typical Evangelical exegesis of this phraseology is as follows: “Notice that it says ‘name,’ not ‘names.’ In the original Greek, this suggests the meaning: ‘in the One Whose name is Father- Son-Holy Ghost.’ “~ This analysis, too, is grammatically flawed. The singular form of the word “name~~ is correctly used to shorten the passage from “in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost” to “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” If the plural form were used, it would signify that the passage had been shortened from “in the names of the Father, and in the names of the Son, and in the names of the Holy Ghost.” The use of the singular (name, rather than names) is proper where each person designated in the phrase has His own name, as when one is speaking of three separate individuals. Thus, this passage militates against the Nicene theory, not in its favor. The New Testament is always clear in treating the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as separate persons. How could Christ also be God the Father in the Nicene sense, if He prayed to God the Father? Surely He was not a ventriloquist at His own baptism, where the Father was heard to say, “This is my beloved Son, in whom lam well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). When the Father said Jesus was the Son of God, was He lying? Could Jesus really somehow be his own Father? If He is His own Father, why did He say He was the Son? One Evangelical response to these questions is very revealing. They claim that “He was not both God the Father and God the Son at the same time.”bb This claim requires that Christ, as God the Son, was materially separated from God the Father at some point in time. Philippians 2:6-8 is offered as a proof-text that this separation occurred when Christ was born on earth. Unfortunately, the notion that the center of consciousness metaphorically referred to as the Son separated from the center of consciousness metaphor-ically referred to as the Father at the birth of the former undermines the en-tire Nicene theory. It was during Christ’s life on earth that He taught of His oneness with the Father (John 10:30)! Therefore, whatever the nature of Their oneness while Christ was on earth, that is the nature of Their oneness through-out all eternity (John 17:20-23). Since this explanation admits that the one-ness of God did not include co-substantiality while Christ was on earth (and see Matt. 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; and Matt. 27:46), Evangelicals must admit that the oneness of the Father and Son does not include co-substantiality at any time. Beings that are not always co-substantial, cannot also be defined as co-eternal, since they would lack the essential element of continuity in their co-substantial existence. If they are ever separate, they cannot be defined as both co-eternal and co-substantial. Either They always have the same substance, or They are not always co-substantial. In the final analysis, all arguments in favor of the Nicene concept of God reach a paradox. By so doing, the Trinity doctrine frustrates all the principles of apologetics and solo scripturus (the reliance solely upon scriptural authority, not tradition, for divine truth). Thus, the only support for the Nicene Creed is a position of non-argument. As Dr. Walter Martin put it, “the Trinity is a-logical, or beyond logic. It, therefore, cannot be made subject to human reason or logic.”cc Elsewhere, he explains: There can be no doubt that the New Testament sets forth the thesis that there are three separate Persons in the Deity, known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and each of these is affirmed to be the Eternal God (2 Peter 1:17; John 1:1; Acts 5:3,4). At the same time, the New Testament declares that there is only one God (1 Timothy 2:5). We are led inexorably to the conclusion that the three distinct Persons are the one God, though the finite mind of man may not be able to grasp the depth of this revelation of the divine character.”dd Notably, 1 Timothy 2:5 does not support Dr. Martin’s thesis. It mentions one God, the Father, and one mediator between God and Man, Christ. Thus, according to the best Evangelical authorities, Man’s inability to understand the Trinity (which Man, himself, invented!) is the result of his finite intellect. “The concept of the Trinity is difficult to comprehend because we have nothing to relate it to in our limited, three-dimensional thinking.”ee (Today’s mathematicians might find this remark insulting. They are quite capable of analyzing n-dimensional space.) Bible commentators from the Christian Research Institute have been heard to say that “God is three persons in one ‘What?’,”~~ referring to God as an unknown. This expression aptly describes the attitude of Evangelical scholars toward God. To them, God is a question mark, an unknowable, unfathomable mystery-a paradox! Because they cannot understand Him, they simply label Him a “What.” The real problem with comprehending the Trinity is not “the finite mind of man” or “three-dimensional thinking,” but conceptual error based on Greek philosophy. Ignorance about the basic nature of God is, itself, contrary to biblical precepts. and a sign of apostasy. That was the teaching of Christ, when He spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well. In John 4:22, He chided the apostate Samaritans for a lack of knowledge about the nature of God, saying: “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.” The Jews did not consider God to be a “What.” They knew God’s basic nature, ibr He was revealed in the Old Testament as an individual, in form like a man (Gen. 32:30, Exod. 33:18-23, Num. 12:5-8). John 4:22 identifies as false any system of theology that leaves God as a “What” (cf., John 17:3). The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds teach that God is a “What,” that is, He is fundamentally incomprehensible. In so doing, they evidence the same apostate condition Christ found in the ancient Samaritans. Of course the full extent of God’s ways, thoughts, knowledge, and love, areunknown to Man (Job 38, Ps. 139:6, 145:3, Isa. 40:27-28, 55:8-9, Rom. 11:33-36; see also Moses 1:5 in the Pearl of Great Price). But not one passage in the Bible suggests there is anything incomprehensible about God’s nature. Instead, the Bible teaches that He is a glorified, perfected Human Being endowed with infinite capabilities, as unequivocally displayed in His Son, Jesus Christ. It is impossible to believe that Christ is “the image of the invisible Iunseen] God” (Col. 1:15), and still conclude that God is a “What.” The Nicene Creed Contradicts The Bible Though the Nicene Creed speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost separately, its mechanical interpretation of Their oneness does not allow for true separation at all. The Creeds say that the Three are separate but that They are not separate. This is a classic paradox. Not only does this paradox make God a “What,” it eliminates any rational explanation for an unending number of Bible teachings, all of which imply a literal separation between the Three. For example, how can the Father and the Son be the same in the triune sense when One was the teacher of the Other (John 5:19-20, 8:28)? If the Father and the Son were the same in the way the Nicene Creed describes, why did one raise the other from the dead (Gal. 1:1, Eph. 1:20)? How could the Son have been “sent” by the Father (John 5:24)? How could the Son be the firstborn of the Father (Col. 1:15, Ps. 89:27, Rom. 8:29, Heb. 1:6, 12:23)? Further, unless the Father and the Son were literally and mechanically separate individuals, it is inconceivable that They would not share the same knowledge. Yet the Bible teaches that they do not! Matthew 24:36 reads in the NASB (emphasis added): “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” The Son was seen standing on the right hand of the Father by Stephen the martyr in his vision of God (Acts 7:55-56). Evangelicals try to explain this vision by pointing out that Stephen saw “the glory of God,” as if that means he did not actually see God at all. That is not the implication of this passage. In both verses 55 and 56 (NASB), Stephen states that he saw [v. 56, “Jesus, the Son of Man”] standing at the right hand of God.” Clearly, both Jesus and God the Father were seen by Stephen, separately and in juxtaposition to each other. Evangelicals argue that Stephen didn’t see God because no man can see Him (John 1:18: “no man hath seen God at any time”). But John 6:46 (emphasis added) clarifies John’s earlier statement as follows: “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.” Evangelicals claim that Christ is the only one to whom this passage refers, the only one who is “of God,” and hence the only one who has seen the Father. But there is no rational basis for so limiting John’s statement. “He which is of God” refers to those who take heed to Christ’s teachings (John 8:47). Hence, the scope of this verse includes many others besides Christ. In John 10:30, Christ referred to God as “Father.” Indeed, He consistently testified of a literal father-son relationship between Himself and God (see, e.g., John 5:17-18). The Nicene dogma mandates that such references be taken figuratively, for a literal father-son relationship between them is impossible in the Trinitarian view. (A son can hardly be his own father, or a father his own son.) Thus, the Trinity doctrine denies any real Fatherhood of God. This is doubtless the saddest contradiction of biblical truth embraced at Nicaea. The One God Of The Bible Historically, critics of Trinitarianism, while correct in their rejection of that heresy, have provided no clear, biblical alternative to Arianism as an explanation for the oneness of God taught in the scriptures. It would be unfair to so scathingly critique this ancient and heretical doctrine without also offering a biblical explanation of LDS theology that will distinguish its teaching from both Anus and Nicaea. That explanation lies in a thorough understanding of the Bible’s teachings about God the Father and his relationship to the Son. The scriptures make no effort to explain their seemingly contradictory teaching that three Persons are one God. But, in light of John 4:22, one must assume that the information available to the Jews of Christ’s day was sufficient for anyone, not in a state of apostasy, to know exactly what they wor-shiped. Knowing that the essence of eternal life is to know God (John 17:3), and tl~at God wants all Men to be like Him (1 John 3:2), there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the failure of biblical authors to provide an explanation otliis seemingly mysterious contradiction. It is that there is, in fact, no mystery at all! The fundamental nature of God, and the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is neither complex nor unfathomable, and may be perceived through simple concepts familiar to all. Bible authors obviously intended their references to the oneness of God to be taken figuratively, in the sense of composite unity, not literally, and certainly not mechanically, as was done in adopting the Nicene Creed’s use of the term homo-ousios. The Nicene thinkers erred in assuming that the term “one God” could be referring to only one Being. Hence they tried to force three entirely separate Persons into a single entity. The scriptures require no such feats of consolidation. They teach only that the Three are one God, not that they are one person. The question is not “How can three persons be one Person?” but, “How can three Persons be one God?” In that context, passages that treat the Three as one can be understood in terms comprehensible to all. The word God in the New Testament comes from the Greek word theos, which designates an “ohject of worship.” No Biblical text demands that this word refer to a singular Person except where the word is used to identify a specific individual who bears that title. Thus, the Bil~le teaches that there are three entirely separate individuals who are so perfectly organized and united that they constitute a single, universal authority over all things. The term “God,” used of the Three collectively in this manner, is best rendered Godhead. That term was derived from Paul’s writings. He referred to theios (“the godhead;’ or “that which is divine”) in Acts 17:29, theiotes (“divinity”) in Rom. 1:20, and theotes (“Deity”) in Col. 2:9. The KJV translators wisely rendered all three of these words “Godhead,” and thereby correctly captured the sense of composite unity comprised in the Bible’s teachings about the oneness of God. All of the concepts necessary to understand this sense of oneness are used in other contexts in the Bible and are common to human experience. For example, in Ephesians 5:31 (emphasis added) Paul taught: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” This verse does not mean that a man and his wife will cease to be separate individuals and become physically joined in a paradoxical form of co-substantial flesh. The perfect unity of husband and wife, like that of the Godhead, is one of authority, will, character, and goals, not literal substance or homo-ousios. Husbands and wives are often treated as one in the modern legal system also (e.g., California Corporations Code, § 158(d)). In community property states, either the husband or the wife are authorized to act as the sole administrator or manager of jointly owned property for “the community~’ a singular term used to refer to the married partners collectively, (e.g., California Civil Code, § 5125.) Similar concepts of composite oneness, or unity, appear in business law and other applications. A group of individuals are treated as one in a corporation, and in some ways even in a partnership. A Board of Directors, which may comprise any number of individuals, is often referred to in the singular as the Board. A military group acting jointly is called a unit. None of these concepts is mysterious. Likewise, there is nothing mysterious or incomprehensible about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being “one.” In yet another effort to explain what he claims is unexplainable, Dr. Martin comes very close to the Mormon view in the following: But what does the word “one” mean? Does it always indicate solitary existence? Genesis 2:24 recounts that God spoke of Adam and Eve becoming: “one flesh” (bosor echod). God did not mean that Adam became Eve, or vice-versa; rather, He meant that in the marriage union the two persons became as one before Him. So we see that unity of a composite character was recognized by God Himself as existing within the world which He had created. If the United States should be attacked by a foreign power, everyone would “rise as one” to the defense of the country. Yet no one would say that everyone had instantaneously become “one person.” Rather, we would be one in a composite unity, one in purpose or will to work toward a common goal. .. . Why then should we not accept composite unity where the nature of God is concerned? Certainly the Scriptures do not prohibit such a view.~~ In the segment omitted from the last paragraph quoted above, Dr. Martin seems to contradict his own thesis with the following statement: “Scripture, however, indicates that the doctrine of the trinity of God is far above the idea of mere agreement of will or goal; it is a unity of the basic Scriptural nature of substance, and Deity is that substance (John 4:24; Hebrews l:3).”hh Dr. Martin does not define “the basic Scriptural nature of substance,” nor clarify his use of the term “Deity~’ and the passages he cites neither clarify nor support his interjection (e.g., Heb. 1:3 says Christ “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high”). Therefore, it is uncertain what he had in mind by this statement, but the bulk of his remarks, quoted above, clearly support the Mormon concept of a composite unity in the Godhead. In His great intercessory prayer for his disciples (John 17), Christ states the exact sense in which His unity with the Father should be taken. The entire chapter gives deep insight into the oneness of the Father and the Son, but verse 22 (NASB, emphasis added) is particularly instructive: “And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one.” This verse teaches that, in fact, the sense in which the Father and the Son are one is exactly the same as the sense in which Christ sought to have His disciples be one with Him. That was clearly a figurative, or composite form of unity. Nothing more mysterious or paradoxical was intended by Christ’s prayer. The word homo-ousios is notably absent from John 17. Thus, Christ did not want His disciples to join Him in some incomprehensible, co-substantial “What.” Likewise, He and His Father are not one in that sense either. Even more important, John 17:22 shows how the Father and the Son became one (and, correspondingly, how Men may become one with Them). The passage says that the glory which the Father gave the Son was, in turn, given by the Son to His disciples so that they too could become one. Mormons understand that the “glory” of God is “light and truth” (D&C 93:36), which may also be called wisdom and knowledge, or intelligence (not the intelligences from which spirits are formed). The Bible records that Christ received wisdom from His Father before the beginning of the earth (Prov. 8:22-26) and was taught by Him (John 8:28). It was this wisdom or knowledge He, in turn, gave to His disciples through His teachings. Shared knowledge and understanding make the Father and the Son one, though They are separate individuals, furthermore, the same “glory” can make Men one with each other, and with God, as Christ indicates in John 17:22. Though Mormons frequently use the phrase “one in purpose” to describe this state of perfect unity, the oneness of the Father and the Son involves much more than mutual purpose. They share a oneness of authority, understanding, judgment, will, and character that is the epitome of perfect union between separate individuals. Jesus forcefully communicated this concept to the Jews in John 10:30 when He said: “I and my Father are one.” Thinking there is some support for the Nicene Creed in this statement, Evangelicals reason as follows: Furthermore, Jesus Himself did claim to be the same God in essence, as His Father. In John 10:30 Jesus says, “I and my Father are one.” The Greek word for “one” is neuter and demands the meaning of “one in essence.” This does not mean one person, but two persons who constitute one God. The Greek text literally reads, “I and my Father, We are one (essence) .“~ The Greek word heis (neuter) is commonly translated “one~~ in the New Testament, implying unity. “One essence” would be an unusual translation. However, even if that translation were used, nothing in this Greek word contradicts the biblical teaching of the Godhead or supports the Nicene Creed. If the Lord had meant to convey the Nicene concept of God, He would certainly have used the word homo-ousios here, but neither that word, nor any form of it, is used in John 10:30 (or anywhere else in the Bible). Thus, while Christ taught that He and the Father are one, He did not teach that He was homo-ousios (co-equal, co-eternal, or co-substantial) with the Father. Christ’s expression of unity with the Father in John 10:30 was filled with metaphor, not paradox. The figure conveyed by that metaphor was a Hebrew concept that the Jews grasped immediately. When they heard Christ say He and His Father are “heis,” they understood that He was implying equality. By using the word “one” in the neuter tense, Christ was alluding to a degree of oneness characteristic of identical (but separate) neuter objects. In English, this characteristic is called “fungibiity’ and is best illustrated with dollar bills. Each dollar bill is much more than physically identical to all other dollar bills. One can be exchanged for another with no loss of value. It does not matter to the holder which dollar bill he possesses because fungible objects are legally interchangeable. Thus, the Lord’s use of the word heis communicated the understanding that He was not only like God, but had the right to stand in His Father’s place. The Jews understood exactly what Christ was saying, and took up stones to stone Him, explaining: “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” (John 10:33 NASH.) Evangelicals erroneously attempt to use passages like this, which teach of Christ’s resemblance to the Father, to support the Nicene Creed. An example of their reasoning is the following analysis of Hebrews 1:3: This same verse calls Him the “express image” of His person. This word (charakter) was used in classical Greek of a branding iron or stamp impressed into coins and seals, giving the exact reproduction of the original .ii This analysis only shows how erroneous Nicene doctrine is. The Greek word charakter refers to an exact reproduction, not the original! Use of this word, like Christ’s use of the word heis in John 10:30, conveys the understanding that Christ is exactly like, but not the same person as the Father. In fact, the use of a word commonly connected with the stamping of coins in Hebrews 1:3 is consistent with the concept of fungibility Christ used in John 10:30. An understanding of these principles clarifies such passages as John 14:9, in which Christ told Philip, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father’ He did not mean that Philip was actually looking at the Father when he gazed at the Son, but that the Son even looks just like the Father. By seeing the Son, an exact reproduction (charakter), Philip could see what the Father was like in every way, both physically and spiritually. Thus, the Bible teaches that there exists between the Father and the Son a type of oneness that is not foreign to Man’s understanding, but is beyond any degree common to human experience. With the Holy Ghost, They form a singular unit, the Godhead, that reigns over Man in so perfectly united an administration that the Three can only be spoken of as “one God.” Jesus Christ Is Jehovah To more fully understand the oneness of the Godhead, one must know how it is organized. To do that requires a biblical understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son. That understanding begins with an accurate identification of the Son as He was known before his mortal incarnation. Every individual who has ever lived on earth has had a physical body of flesh and bones plus his own unique spirit which occupies and operates his physical body. The same is true of Christ. The spirit that occupied His body before it took on earthly flesh was none other than that great Spirit identified in the Old Testament as Jehovah. (Jehovah, as a spirit, had the appearance of a man (Exod. 33:18-23) because, as noted in the last chapter, the spirit of a man looks like a man (see Luke 24:36-39). The belief that Jesus and Jehovah are the same person is shared by many Evangelicals. However, their belief is based on the position that Jehovah is a name for the Trinity. Some groups, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, claim that Jehovah is the name of God the Father. Evangelicals, who strongly disagree with Jehovah’s Witnesses on that point, have developed many prooftexts that are quite useful in disproving this misconception in addition to those cited below. However, to demonstrate that Jehovah is not God the Father, or the triune God of the Creeds, one need merely observe that Jehovah is repeatedly referred to in the Old Testament as the One who will judge Man (see, e.g., 1 Sam. 2:10, 1 Chron. 16:33, Ps. 9:7-8, 72:2, 96:11-13, and Isa. 33:22). John 5:22 states unequivocally that the Father will judge no man, but has committed a//judgment to the Son. Therefore, Jehovah is unquestionably the Son only, not the Father or any triune God. (This passage also contradicts Bloesch’s notion that each person in the Trinity “participates in the activity of the The conclusion that Christ was Jehovah is confirmed in many other scriptural references. For example, Jehovah is referred to frequently in the Old Testament as the Rock (see, e.g., Deut. 32:3-4, 15, 18, 31, Ps. 62:1-2, 118:22, and Isa. 17:10). Paul’s unequivocal testimony about the identity of the Rock of Israel is, “that Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:1-4). He does not say, “that Rock was the Father,” or “that Rock was the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”! Finally, in John 8:56-59 Jesus Himself boldly revealed to the Jews exactly who He was. In verse 56, He told them, “your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” The Jews chided him, noting he was not even fifty years old, and asked tauntingly if he had seen Abraham. His response stunned them, for in it He identified Himself by the very name He, as Jehovah, had used to address Moses on Mount Sinai, “I AM” (Exod. 3:14). This announcement was an unmistakable assertion that He was the God of Moses and of Abraham. The Jew’s desire to stone Him for this assertion indicates they clearly understood that He had identified Himself as Jehovah. The Father And The Son Vs. The Nicene Creed Biblical analysis of the relationship between the Father and the Son reveals that there is a definitive hierarchy, or organization within the Godhead. Anus taught this principle, but erred in his interpretation of its implications. He assumed that the Father and the Son were unequal, an idea that is clearly contradicted by the Bible (see, John 5:18 and Phil. 2:6). He too was steeped in Greek thinking and failed to grasp that the existence of a hierarchy within an organization does not have to mean that the members of the organization are unequal. A hierarchy may exist among equals because of the benefits that lie in an organized administration. God’s organization of the family is an example of just such a hierarchy. The roles of the Father and the Son in the Godhead are noted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6: As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Verse 6 describes the functions of the Father and the Son in the Godhead. Paul’s description of the Father’s role is like that of a sole shareholder in a large corporation. He is the source of all power (KJV: “of whom are all things”; NASB: ‘from whom are all things”). The Son, whose function is like that of the Chief Executive Officer, is the one who carries out the Father’s plan (KJV and NASB: “by whom are all things”). In Philippians 2:5-11, Paul gives further information about the relationship between God and Christ in the Godhead. As noted above, many Evangelicals cite part of this passage to support their teaching that the Father and the Son separated when Christ was born on earth. That interpretation reflects a basic misunderstanding of the Godhead, as will be shown below. Philippians 2:5-8 (NASB, brackets added) reads as follows: Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped [as a robber clutches his spoils-see the KJV], but emptied Himself [i.e., laid aside His privileges], taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Nothing in this passage suggests that Christ was the same person as the Father, only that Christ was like Him. The Greek word morphê translated “form,” conveys the same meaning as do the Greek words heis and charakter in the passages discussed above. Momhe implies that the nature, appearance, and characteristics of the Son are identical to the Father, in whose image the Son was created. Paul used the same root word in Galatians 4:19, which reads (NASB emphasis added): “My children, with whom Jam again in labor until Christ is formed in you.” Paul does not mean that the Galatians will become co-substantial with Christ through Paul’s labors, but that they should emulate Christ’s characteristics until they are, in all moral respects, like Him. Similarly, morphë in Philippians 2:6 indicates that Christ had the same characteristics as the Father, but was a separate individual. Christ laid aside His privileges and responsibilities in the Godhead (“emptied Himself”), and took on a physical body that could be subjected to death. Though Christ was the very Jehovah of the Old Testament, verse 7 explains that He willingly accepted His mortal ministry, making Himself “of no reputation” (KJV), or in other words, unknown as to His true identity. He became “in fashion as a man” (verse 8, KJV), humbling Himself like mortal Men, even to the point of submitting to physical death. Mormon theology teaches that the principles by which Christ became a man are not physiologically different from those by which all men enter mortal existence. He had a physical father and a physical mother. However, Christ’s physical father was not Joseph, the betrothed of Mary, nor any other earthly male. His natural, physiological father was God the Father (Luke 1:31-35), making Him literally the Only Begotten of the Father (John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 1 John 4:9). Because of this purely biblical teaching, Mormons are accused of denying the virgin birth of Christ, but that is a mistaken notion. Mormons emphatically believe in the virgin birth (see Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 11:18-20, and Alma 7:10).” The fact that Christ was the literal, physical Son of God the Father, as reported in Luke 1:31-35, does not require that His conception occurred by other than immaculate means. It certainly does not require that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary!~ In this day when artificial insemination has become a commonplace reality, it is obvious that other means of causing pregnancy than physical intercourse exist. The Bible doesn’t define bow, but contains the angel’s promise to Mary that “the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Isaiah, speaking of Christ’s mortal birth, said “a virgin shall conceive” (Isa. 7:14, emphasis added). The language of this passage implies that Mary did conceive in normal human fashion, but that the conception of Christ was accomplished in a way that left Mary a virgin. 1 Nephi 11:18-20 (in the Book of Mormon), clearly describes Mary as a virgin after the Christ Child was born to her (consistent with Matt. 1:25). Luke reported the angel’s specific promise to Mary that she would conceive in her womb (Luke 1:31). When she asked the angel how this would be done, seeing she was a virgin, it is obvious that her intent was to remain a virgin (Luke 1:34). The angel’s response was, “thepower of the Highest [meaning the Father] shall overshadow thee” (Luke 1:35). The Greek word translated “overshadow” is episkiazö. This word was used in Luke 9:34-35 to describe the effect of the cloud, from which the Father spoke, unseen, to Peter, James and John at the Transfiguration. To Mary. that word implied that the Father would be present in the cloud, but her conception would involve the most gentle and nonintrusive contact imaginable. With that explanation, Mary agreed to bear the child of God (Luke 1:38). The immaculate impregnation of a virgin is an accomplishment that can be duplicated by scientists today. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Father was capable of accomplishing the same feat without the intimacy involved in any form of sexual contact. Though the Holy Ghost was involved in Christ’s conception, apparently as a facilitator in some unrevealed manner (“the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, . .‘ see Luke 1:35) Mormons unequivocally aver that Jesus is the literal Son of the Father, “the Highest” (NASB: “the Most High”), not the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35). The assertion by some Evangelicals that the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus, rather than God the Father, is clearly refuted by the dozens of passages in the New Testament where Jesus and God the Father refer to each other as “Son” and “Father.” All men are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), but Paul spoke literally of Christ when he said, “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9, emphasis added). In Philippians 2:9-11 (NASB, emphasis and brackets added), Paul explains that, at some point in the past, God “exalted” Christ to His present position over Men: Therefore also God highly exalted Him [Jesus Christ], and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. By thus exalting Christ, God gave Him a title of such significance that it is described as “the name which is above every name.” At this name every knee would be required to bow (verse 10). The name or title thus described could be none other than that which Men associate with the ultimate authority of God! This observation is consistent with the chronology described in John 1:1 and Isaiah 9:6 (NASB), which reads as follows: For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor,~~ Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. This passage speaks from an eternal perspective, teaching that Christ would be recognized first by the name (or title) “Wonderful Counselor.” While this designation gives Men assurance that He is an able counselor to each person in need, it is far more meaningful in describing His relationship to the Father (see, e.g.,John 1:2-3; and Heb. 1:2). Itteaches that, inthebeginning, Christ worked with the Father in the creation of the earth, and hence was called “Wonderful Counselor.” This is not to imply that the Father received counsel in the form of wisdom from the Son, but that the Son assisted Him in all things (Col. 1:16). Christ clearly retains this title, as His every act in the work of Man’s redemption is still directed to helping the Father (see, e.g., John 1:3; 7:16; and 8:26-28). Next, as Philippians 2:9-11 indicates, He became, and should be recognized as, the “Mighty God.” By virtue of His example and message to Man, He is “the Prince of Peace,” and ultimately, He will be called the “Eternal Father.”~ These passages (John 1:1 and Isa. 9:6) are often cited by Evangelicals to support Nicene doctrine as if they taught that Christ was simultaneously “with God” (as His “Wonderful Counselor”) and “was God,” (meaning God the Father). That interpretation is not required by the texts, and does not comport with common sense. Such a non-sensical interpretation should not be adopted when the passage is susceptible of sensible interpretation.PP The exaltation of Christ by God is mentioned in other Bible passages. For example, Psalms 45:6-7 (some emphasis added) reads: Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. This passage teaches that Christ was anointed by His God to a position above His fellows. Christ did not exalt Himself to that position, nor did He give Himself the name which is above every name. This had to be the act of a separate, and higher, authority. The Greek word translated “exalted” in Philippians 2:9, means to “lift up above.” If that word has any meaning at all, it is that Christ did not have the name which is above every name before He was thus exalted. Clearly, He was raised from the position “Wonderful Counselor” to the position “Mighty God”. Having appointed the Son over all creation, the Father made the following acknowledgment of Christ’s authority in Hebrews 1:8-9 (emphasis added): But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. In verse 8, the Father calls the Son, “0 God,” but not “My God.” In so doing, He acknowledges Christ’s title and authority over Men, but not over Himself. The Father’s paraphrase of Psalms 45:7 in verse 9 reiterates His act of exalting the Son, but affirms His own position as Christ’s God. Clearly, Christ was not exalted above the Father. In 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 (NASB) Paul expands on this understanding. He tells of the kingdom and mission given to Christ by the Father, and even designates its consummation. After explaining that all men will be resur-rected, Paul states: But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. Death entered this world through the Fall of Adam.~~ Obviously, when Adam and Eve fell, Christ was given the mission to redeem Men from death and return creation to its pre-fallen state. At the end of Christ’s reign He will deliver up the “kingdom” to His Father, having subdued all enemies under His feet, the last enemy being death. This makes Christ the “Alpha and Omega” of the Bible (Rev. 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13), the beginning and end of Man’s redemption. Paul goes on in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 (NASB, brackets added) to confirm the limitations of Christ’s exaltation to the title of “Mighty God” as follows: For He [the Father] has put all things in subjection under His [the Son’s] feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He [the Father] is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him [the Son]. And when all things are subjected to Him [the Son], then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One [the Father] who subjected all things to Him [the Son], that God may be all in all. The understanding that Paul conveys in this passage requires careful review of the passage. Paul is saying that, in subjecting “all things” to Christ, the Father did not include Himself. He was an exception to the scope of Christ’s dominion. Though “every knee should bow7 the Father’s knee is not, and will never be, included. The Son will always be in subjection to the Father. Now, if Christ were the same individual as the Father, as Trinitarians claim, these passages would be saying that Christ is in subjection to Himself. That is not subjection in any conceivable sense of the word. If the Father and the Son were a singularity, as taught in Nicene doctrine, there could be no separation of authority between them with One in subjection to the Other, as Paul unequivocally taught. Furthermore, if Christ was exalted, as indicated in Philippians 2:9-11, 1 Corinthians 15:23-26, and Psalms 45:6-7, He could not always (i.e., co-eternally) have been co-equal with the Father, for if He had been equal with the Father before His exaltation, the act of elevating Him would necessarily have put Him above the Father. Such an arrangement would conflict with HebrewS 1:8-9 and 1 Corinthians 15:27-28. Finally, and most telling of all, the Greek word translated “fellows~~ in HebrewS 1:9 means “partners, holding with others.” If Nicene doctrine were correct and God had no other Spirit Children at the time of Christ’s exaltation, this term could only refer to the Holy Ghost and the Father, the word “fellows” 1,eing plural. According to Hebrews 1:9 and Psalms 45:7 Christ was anointed above his “fellows.” That would mean He was exalted above the Holy Ghost and the Father. But Christ was not exalted above God the Father. He never was, and never will be, in authority over His Father (1 Cor. 15:27-28). Hence, Nicene theology cannot be harmonized with the Bible under any satisfactory hermeneUtiC. In the Godhead, the Father’s position is chief. From Him, the chain of command proceeds to the Son. All things, even prayers to the Father, must be done “in the name of Christ” (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:17), for no one may approach the Father except by the Son, and no one can be saved except by His name (Acts 4:12, to the same effect: see, also, Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21, and Mosiah 3:17). Clearly, Christ is the one and only mediator between God the Father and Man (1 Tim. 2:5). These passages reveal a vertical line of authority in the Godhead. Evangelicals imagine that Mormons believe in three horizontally separate Gods over the earth7 This is emphatically not so. Christ’s statement that, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other” (Matt. 6:24) demonstrates the folly of such an organization. Evangelicals make this assumption because they view the Trinity hori-zontally-three persons of equal authority who are, of necessity, conglomer-ated into one. If the Trinity were not cosubstantiaL in Evangelical theology, Men would be confronted with three separate autonomies, three Gods, any one of whom they might elect to worship and obey. Such an arrangement would lead to universal chaos! Hence, their resistance to the idea of three separate individuals in the Godhead. The biblical view of Heaven from Man’s perspective, however, reveals a singular autonomy-not three separate autonomies. One Authority exercised by three Persons, acting in perfect unity and organized in a monolithic vertical administration-one God! This single authority in which the three act in unity, which is proclaimed by the Bible and taught in Mormon theology, is the characteristic that makes Mormonism, of all Christian religions, most clearly monotheistic. Conclusion There is no convincing argument that the Nicene Creed is either logical or biblical, and the claim that Men simply do not understand the Trinity because God’s basic nature is beyond their comprehension is equally contrary to biblical authority. Acceptance of the Nicene formula constitutes a statement that, like the ancient Samaritans, “Ye worship ye know not what” (John 4:22). The Trinity makes of God an utter paradox, and places a conceptual barrier of insurmountable proportions between God and Man. This is contrary to the will of the Father who made Man in His image (Gen 1:26-27), and wants all Men to know Him (John 17:2-3). Most importantly, the Trinity directly contradicts numerous important Bible passages. The singular authority over the heavens and the earth is “the Godhead,” a term that may also be rendered “God” or “Deity” in a sense that refers to the position itself. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, three separate individuals, are the members of the Godhead, each having the right to be designated by the title “God.” These Three are not one individual, but are vertically organized and so united that they display the profoundest sense of composite unity imaginable and are describable only as “one God.” God And Man Among Evangelicals, Mormon doctrine about the relationship between God and Man is perhaps the most misunderstood of any subject in LDS theology. Typical of Evangelical opinion about this theme of Mormomsm is the following: Satan is deceiving the Latter-day Saints to believe in exaltation to godhood.. The doctrines of “exaltation” and “celestial glory” (people can evolve into gods and goddesses) are rooted in ancient witchcraft. Yet these doctrines, complete with the same terminology, are being perpetuated through the Mormon Church today. The Bible is clear, salvation cannot include godhood. God Himself proclaimed in the Bible that “before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me” (Isa. 43:10). As a matter of fact, throughout the Bible, God condemns in the strongest terms anyone practicing the belief of becoming like God. We are not saved to become a god.a The idea that Men can become like God (known in theology as deification) is as old as Adam (see, Gen. 3:22). Any variation on this concept that might have been taught in ancient witchcraft is simply a perverted form of the original doctrine. Mormonism, as it is called today, is the same Gospel, the same theology, and the same plan of salvation, that God taught Adam in the Garden of Eden. It is the source from which apostate forms arose (such as the occult), not the other way around. As for the biblical citations used to support Evangelical criticism of this doctrine, they remind one of the man caught stealing chickens, who said, “I can prove I was doing right by the Bible! It says, ‘go therefore and steal. . K’ “Why don’t you finish the passage?” the judge asked. “I’ve gone far enough to prove my point,” the man replied. Typical of such hermeneutics, Isaiah 43:l0 is taken grossly out of context in the quotation above. In that passage Christ declares that He is the only one the Father exalted to authority over His fellow brothers and sisters, not that His brothers and sisters cannot become like Him and His Father. The Bible repeatedly teaches that all Men can become like their Father (or Mother) in Heaven. Children Of God The Bible refers to God as the Father of all Men, not just of Christ (see, e.g., Mal. 2:10; Matt. 5:48, Luke 11:2; John 20:17; Eph. 4:6; Heb. 12:9).h It teaches that Men are the children of God, both physically-through Adam- and spiritually. The Evangelical argument that all this filial jargon is to be taken figuratively would be more convincing if the scriptural message were not so pervasive. By the sheer number of His repetitions, one would think His children might eventually take Him at His Word, and acknowledge God as their literal Father in Heaven! The first inkling of this truth appears in the account of Man’s creation in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 11:7). As noted in Chapter 2, the words “image” and “likeness” imply both a genetic link between a father and his son, and a connection that results in similarities of a spiritual dimension. After His resurrection, Christ emphasized the relationship between God and Man in His instructions to Mary (John 20:17, NASB): Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God’.” In this passage, Christ seems to be intentionally definitive about the link between Himself and Man and their mutual relationship to God. He is explicit in His indication that Men have the same Father and the same God as He, and that He and other Men are “brethren.” Paul preached extensively on this subject. In his speech to the Athenians on Mars Hill, he concluded with these words (Acts 17:28-29): For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. In this passage, the word “offspring” is translated from the Greek word genos, meaning “race.” This word forms the basis for such English words as “genetics” and “genes,” and indicates unequivocally that Men are the same species as God. The word is used in Revelations 22:16 to describe Christ as the “root and offspring of David.” That reference clearly recognizes the literal genetic link between Christ and David (through His mother, Mary, who like Joseph, was also a descendent of David). The same genetic link between God and Man is conveyed by the word genos in Acts 17. Paul was teaching the Hebrew understanding of the nature of God, declaring that, if Men are the race or offspring of God, they ought not to think that the Godhead is like gold or silver or stone. What then should Men think about the nature of the Godhead on the basis of Paul’s teachings? If Men are as different from God as Evangelicals claim, Paul was asking the Greeks to think of God as incomprehensible. But, from Paul’s earlier statement, “we are also his offspring,” it is clear he wanted them to think that God is a Man! Paul taught the Romans the same principle in even more detail. In Romans 8:14-17, he states: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. The word “sons” in verse 14 is from the Greek huios, meaning “mature children”, or “heirs.” As Men allow themselves to be led by the Spirit of God, they become, in a figurative sense, mature children, obedient to their parents and ready to be made heirs. But the word translated “children” in verses 16 and 17 is the Greek word teknon, meaning simply, “one born,” i.e., one literally related by birth. This word unequivocally communicates the truth that Men are the literal children of God. The distinction between “mature children” and “offspring” was drawn by Christ in John 8:37-44. He spoke there to the Pharisees, who claimed salvation as the “seed” (descendants) of Abraham. Christ acknowledged their physical lineage in verse 37 (NASB emphasis added), saying, “I know that you are Abraham’s offspring,” but He accused them in verse 39 (NASB emphasis added) as follows: “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham.” Thus, Christ distinguished between the literal genetic relationship of the Jews to Abraham, and their moral kinship with that righteous patriarch. Men may be the literal offspring of God, but they do not become children of God unless they learn to act like their Father. The phrase ‘joint-heirs with Christ” in Romans 8:17 confirms that Men have a fraternal relationship to Christ. Christ and Man are brothers (John 20:17). This does not mean that all Men are related to Christ through the same physical parents, though all Men are related to Christ through a common ancestor-Adam, and more recently, Noah. But there is yet a deeper meaning in this profession of Christ’s brotherhood. The Bible teaches that God is the father of the spirits of all Men (Num. 16:22; Mal. 2:10; Eph. 4:6), just as He is the Father of Christ’s spirit. Thus, Christ and Man are literal brothers-they are all spirit children of the same Father! The lineage of Man’s spirit is compared with his physical parentage in Hebrews 12:9: Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? This verse acknowledges that, although God is the ultimate physical ancestor of all Men in that He created Adam and Eve in His image, He is not the natural parent of each man or woman’s physical body. Man has a literal parent-child relationship with a fleshly father, one who corrects him here on earth. But “the Father of spirits” is none other than God the Eternal Father, to whom it is far more important that Men submit. That each person has a spirit which inhabits and operates his or her physical body is clear from numerous Bible teachings (see, e.g., Job 32:8; 1 Cor. 6:20). Man’s spirit was created by being born of God as a literal spirit child (Zech. 12:1). He does not call Himself “the Father” because He spoke Man into existence out of nothing. Men were not told to address Him as “Our Father” (Man. 6:9) because He wanted to use a metaphor to teach them proper behavior toward other members of their species. He is called “Father” because He is! Men must learn to treat each other as literal brothers and sisters, for all Men are truly part of the same family, both in heaven and on earth (Eph. 3:14-15). The Pre-Mortal Existence Of Spirits That the birth of all Men as spirit children of God occurred long before their birth in the flesh is apparent from many Bible passages. God spoke intimately of His relationship with Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:5, implying that their acquaintance had extended long before Jeremiah’s birth: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” This reference to’God knowing Jeremiah, sanctifying him, and ordaining him a prophet before he came out of the womb implies a personal acquaintance far more extensive than the period of gestation. It also speaks of an act requiring an interpersonal relationship-He ordained Jeremiah a prophet! Ordination to such a calling is accomplished by the laying on of hands (Num. 27:22-23). There is no reason in sound hermeneutics that Jeremiah 1:5 should be interpreted figuratively. Rather, it is consistent with the understanding gained above. Jeremiah, like all Men, lived with his Father as a spirit child for an unknown duration before being born on this earth. Angels. The realization that Men lived with God as His spirit children before their sojourn on earth explains many otherwise mysterious Bible teachings. First, it solves a great mystery about the origin and nature of the spiritual host referred to in scripture as angels. These servants and messengers of God are none other than the spirits of Men, God’s spirit children. The early saints understood this truth and referred to the spirit of Peter as “his angel” (Acts 12:15). The term “angel” is often used in the Bible to refer to messengers and ministering spirits (e.g., Heb. 1:13-14). As spirit children of God, the spirits of Men often act in this capacity to do His bidding. (Some act in a similar capacity for Satan-see Rev. 12:7-9). Angels are usually spirits, but the term can be used to designate physical messengers of God, such as the three who visited Abraham on their way to oversee the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:1-8). Job 38:7 (NASB) speaks of Earth’s cornerstone being laid, “When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy” The word translated “sons” in this verse is the Hebrew word “ben,” which literally means “offspring.” Use of this word confirms that “the sons of God” referred to here were Men, described by Paul as the “offspring” of God in Acts 17:28-29. The term “sons of God” is a reference to the spirits of Men in pre-mortality, and this verse tells of their joy at the prospect of earth’s creation (Job 3 8:4-7). Hebrews 2:7 (quoting Ps. 8:5) says of Man, ~~Thou madest him a little lower than the angels.” The word “madest” is not in the Greek text, but is part of the word translated lower.” Thus, it does not imply creation at all. The phrase, ~madest him a little lower than the angels” means that Men were transported to a position below the angels. The context of Hebrews 2:7-8 recalls the act of God placing Adam in the Garden of Eden and giving him dominion over the earth. Thus, when the spirits of Men were sent from their heavenly abode to earth, to inhabit fleshly bodies, they were conveyed to a location that is lower than the place where they lived with the other angels, Sons and daughters of God. Men could not have been transported from the home of angels if they had never occupied that realm! The NASB indicates that the phrase “a little” in “a little lower than the angels” (KJV) has temporal significance. The translation there is “Thou hast made him for a little while lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:7, NASH emphasis added). Thus, Man’s departure from the home of his Heavenly Father, Mother, brothers and sisters, was viewed in God’s perspective as one of brief duration. Christ, too, “was made a little lower than the angels,” for the expi~ss purpose of “suffering death” so He could fulfill His mission and be crowned with glory and honor (Heb. 2:9-10). From Adam until the meridian of timeC, Christ was known to Men on Earth as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and He acted in that capacity. Thus, His descent from the circumstances He enjoyed in pre-mortality to life on earth was especially pronounced (as described in Phil. 2:5-8). An understanding of pre-mortality gives crystal clarity to Ecclesiastes 12:7 (emphasis added), which states: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” Certainly that is the intent of all spirits who leave their Heavenly Home “for a little while” to be in a place “lower than the angels.” They want to return to God, and, if their hope is realized, their end will be greater than their “first estate,” or occupancy in that Heavenly realm (see Jude 6). This explains the joy expressed when the foundations of the earth were laid (Job 38:7). Unfortunately, not all the sons of God have “kept their first estate” (Jude 6). Evil Brothers. Job 38:7 refers to “the morning stars” singing together. The mention of “stars” in this passage is not a reference to distant suns, as astronomers use the term. It refers to a special group of spirits among the “Sons of God.” In Numbers 24:17 (NASH), Christ is called “a star” which “shall come forth from Jacob,” and in Revelations 22:16, Jesus states that He is “the bright and morning star” (NASH: “the bright morning star”). Thus, “the morning stars” mentioned in Job included Christ in His pre-mortal state. Hut Job 38:7 speaks of “morning stars” (plural). Though Christ is uniquely designated “the bright morning star,” there must have been others in that group. Surprisingly, Isaiah 14:12 (NASH) refers to Satan as “a star of the morning.” That evil one was once among the select group spoken of by Job. Indeed, the name by which he was first known, Lucifer, means “the shining one.” That Satan was a “son of God” is clear fromJob 1:6 (NASH): “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Loiui, and Satan also came among them.” Since it is the same author and the same wording, the term “sons of God” used in this verse must be taken in the same sense as Job used it in chapter 38. The phrase “Satan also came among them” indicates that Satan was also a son of God. It is incongruous to suppose that be was crashing this meeting, especially in light of the extensive and parental conversation God has with him on seeing his arrival (Job 1:7-12). Thus, the Bible teaches that Lucifer, one of the sons of God, was a spirit brother of Christ (and of all Men), and one of that elite group designated as “the morning stars.” Distasteful as that relationship may be to Evangelicals, it is pure biblical doctrine. Of course, the relationship between Christ and Lucifer ends with their common parentage. Satan, like all Men, was free to make evil choices in his first estate (Jude 6), and he did so in a big way (Rev. 12:7-9”). So basic and far-reaching were his evil choices, that now, though they are sons of the same Father, there is certainly no other form of kinship between Christ and Satan. To charge Mormons accusingly with the belief that “Christ is the spirit brother of Lucifer’ is an attempt to shock Evangelicals who don’t know what the Bible actually teaches. It is a verbal form of “yellow journalism,” where a truth is intentionally and repeatedly phrased so that recipients will automatically reject it rather than investigate and accept it. By intent Evangelicals who use this phrase do not explain the Latter-day Saint teaching on the subject, nor examine its scriptural basis-they only assert that Mormons believe in a “different Jesus” because the Mormon Jesus is the “spirit brother of Lucifer.” By so stating the truth, they imply much more than the reality, that Christ is the brother of all God’s spirit children (John 20:17). The truth of Satan’s parentage is a simple fact taught in the Bible. It is an important biblical truth that should be neither ignored nor demeaned-a sobering reminder of just how far Men can fall (Isa. 14:12). Fellows. Psalms 45 :7 says of Christ, “Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” (That this passage is addressed to Christ is evident from Hebrews 1:8-9.) From this verse it is clear that, as spirits, Men were capable of making choices and were given free agency to choose evil, as Satan did,or good, as Christ did, and that rewards followed (for Satan’s reward, see Rev. 12:9; see, also, Jude 6, and 2 Pet. 2:4). The word “fellows” was examined in the previous chapter where it was noted that the term could not have included God the Father. Only a knowledge of Man’s pre-mortal existence makes this reference comprehensible. Christ’s “fellows” were His brothers and sisters, the other spirit children of God the Father. As noted in the last chapter, “fellows” means “partners, holding with others,” so it may also have had specific reference to “the morning stars” mentioned in Job 38:7. Foreknowledge. The knowledge that Men existed as spirit children of God before coming to Earth explains one of the most perplexing teachings found in the Bible-the doctrine of predestination. During Man’s pre-mortal existence, God was able to observe each individual and their choices. He became completely and perfectly acquainted with every personality so that He “foreknew” the choices they would make during their lives on earth (Rom. 11:2). Many were chosen, or elected, knowing they would accept the gospel message and accomplish specific callings in His service (1 Pet. 1:2). Truly, He has “chosen us in him from before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4)! The doctrine of predestination can only be appreciated through a knowledge of Man’s pre-mortal existence. “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). Foreordination was a pre-earthly consecration (a predestination) to an earthly calling in Christ’s service. By responding to that pre-earthly call and making the right choices on earth, this verse anticipates that many of Christ’s brethren will be able to return to the abode of God with Him. Only with this understanding is it clear that God is not guilty of arbitrary or capricious acts of favoritism. Man’s free agency remains intact, and his choices are determinative of his rewards. Election is only a calling based on God’s knowledge of each person’s capabilities. Because the memory of that calling, and of the pre-mortal existence itself, is veiled (1 Cor. 13: 12; 2 Cor. 5:7) it remains for each individual, as a free agent, to live up to the calling, election, predestination, or foreordination he or she received in pre-mortality. Memories. Indeed, the veil over Man’s memory of his pre-mortality has many purposes. It creates of this existence a kind of closed-book test where Men are placed on their own, separated from God, to show their true mettle. Of course, the proof is not for God’s benefit, but for Man’s. All Men must bow their knee to Him and confess that His judgments are just (Rom. 14:11; Book of Mormon, Mosiah 16:1). In Job 38:4 (NASB) God asks, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.” Here God is asking Job if he has any knowledge of where he was when God laid the foundation of the earth. This questioning acknowledges that Job was somewhere. Of course, God knew that Job did not recall his pre-mortality. The question was not meant to be an insult, but a reminder that Job’s perspective was limited. Job, like all Men in this life, was undergoing a test. This reminder of Job’s limited perspective shows that God’s administration of that test should not be questioned by Man. Without their memory of the pre-mortal existence, Men are incapable of seeing things from God’s point of view. This is a necessary aspect of the test. If Men could recall their pre-mortal existence, this life would not provide the opportunity for self-realization and development that God intended. Intelligences. As indicated in Chapter 2, Mormons believe that nothing is created out of nothing. Even the spirits of Men were organized out of something. In Mormon theology that something consists of individual entities called intelligences (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3:22-23). The nature and character of intelligences has not been revealed to Man, and is not within his scope of understanding at this time, but it is clear from the Pearl of Great Price reference that they are self-conscious and differ in personality one from another. Like God, each individual intelligence has always existed as a fundamental building block of life that cannot be created (D & C 93:29). This eternal element within each man and woman is critical to their ultimate destiny- deification, a doctrine clearly taught in the Bible, as will be shown below. Thus, Men have progressed from intelligences, to spirit children of God, to physical embodiments in a mortal world. Their ultimate goal is to be resurrected to a glory and eternal life like that enjoyed by Christ, and return to live forever with their Father and Mother in Heaven. What this means in terms of Man’s potential is regarded by Evangelicals as one of the most controversial subjects in Mormonism, and will be discussed next. Becoming Like God Each day Men grow older they take on an appearance closer to that of their earthly fathers and mothers. Since Men are the children of God, it should surprise no one that, as they mature, they can become more like Him. Evangelicals have a very odd reaction to this doctrine, however. While they teach it themselves, more or less (using such passages as 1 John 3:2 to show that Men will be resurrected and become like God in a vague figurative way), they condemn Mormons, along with many of their own cohorts, for teaching the biblical truth that Men may become like God in a far more literal sense. Just understanding this doctrine seems difficult for many. One famous televangelist, Kenneth Copeland, teaches that Men are “little gods,” but he sounds more like a charismatic New-Ager than a Mormon. In reacting to the error he mixes with truth, it is not surprising mainline Evangelicals have misconstrued and rejected Mormon teachings on this subject. Atypical misunderstanding is reflected in the statement of Craig Hawkins, a former co-host of “The Bible Answerman.” He thinks Mormons believe they can somehow become part of the Trinity.e Since Mormons do not even accept the Trinitarian concept of co-substantiality, it is difficult to comprehend how anyone could formulate so erroneous a notion about Mormon doctrine. For those who do not believe God is a Man, it is doubly difficult to understand how Men can become like God. Mr. Hawkins’ comments reflect an important distinction that must be drawn in order to understand what the Bible (and the Mormon Church) teaches on this subject. There is literally a generation of difference between teaching that “Men may become like God,” and saying “Men may become God.” No one in the curent generation of God’s spirit children, except Christ, has ever, or will ever, become God over this earth or over His children who inhabit it. It is this distinction that was communicated by Christ, as Jehovah, who declared in Isaiah 43:10 “before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” To the extent these words apply to Men rather than idols, they are directed to those who have delusions of grandeur extending beyond the plane of this existence. They apply directly to this generation of God’s spirit children, and were intended to foreclose any thought that they would be gods over their fellow Men. Christ was “anointed . . . with the oil of gladness” above His “fellows” (Ps. 45:6-7; Heb. 1:8-9). He became “the Mighty God” to all Men (Isa. 9:6; see, also, John 1:1). Mormons do not believe that the progress of Men toward God-like-ness will ever allow them to assert authority over God the Father, Christ, or their fellow brothers or sisters on this earth. No other God than Christ will be appointed, “formed,” or “constituted” to rule and reign over this generation of spirits. Though a man may one day become as God is now, He will always remain subject to the Father, and will always honor, worship, and obey God through Jesus the Christ. This truth is typified in the relationship that should exist between parents and children on earth. The fifth commandment does not say “Honor thy father and thy mother, until you become adults like them” (see Exo. 20:12). Becoming like his father is each man’s genetic destiny, and some day most men and wvmen will have families of their own. When that day comes, their children will owe them honor. But each parent still owes honor to his or her own father and mother. Likewise, each Man, no matter what his destiny, must honor, ~vrship and obey his Heavenly Father, despite the fact that he may someday become like Him, even to the extent of having spirit children of his own. The Bible clearly condemns the idea of Men exalting themselves over God. It was just such an egomaniacal desire that led Satan to his just condemnation. When he did not receive the glory given to Christ, his brother (Phil. 2:9-11), he sought instead to usurp all honor and authority from the Father. These events are described in Isaiah 14:12-17, a passage frequently misquoted by Evangelicals who criticize Mormon teachings on this subject. The passage reads in the NASH as follows: “How you have fallen from heaven, 0 star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! “But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ “Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit. “Those who see you will gaze at you, They will ponder over you, saying, ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms, Who made the world like a wilderness And overthrew its cities, Who did not allow his prisoners to go home?”’ As in Job 38, the term “stars” is a reference to the spirits of Men. Thus, it is clear from verse 13 (“I will raise my throne above the stars of God”) that Satan sought to exalt himself over his fellow spirit brothers and sisters. In verse 14 (“I will make myself like the Most High”) Satan arrogantly assumes an ability he does not have. The humility of Christ’s submission to the Father in all things (John 5:19-20; 6:37-38; 7:16-18, 28-29; 8:49-50, 54-55; Heb. 5:5-6), stands in stark contrast to the attitude ofjealous insurrection expressed by Satan. From the remaining verses, it is clear that Satan never actually sought to be like the Father. His actions and motives were evil. He shook kingdoms, made the world like a ‘vilderness and overthrew cities. Verse 17 says he “opened not the house of his prisoners” (KJV). In contrast, Christ was able to “bring out the prisoners from the prison” (Isa. 42:7; cf., 1 Pet. 3:18-19), a reference to His atoning sacrifice and work of salvation for the dead. Though Satan aspired to the authority of Christ, he refused to emulate His works-for his path was in the opposite direction. Mormon doctrine teaches that Men are just as unable to “make [themselves] like the Most High” as was Satan. Men, being imperfect and finite, can only become like God through the atonement of Jesus Christ and by His gift of eternal life. It is God alone who can bestow this gift on Men, and Men will not be invested with so exalted a state if their behavior, like that of Satan described above, is inconsistent with the character of God. Thus, an understanding of Man’s potential is an understanding of his need for salvation. The only way Men can attain the goal of becoming like the Father is through His plan of salvation. Satan was not condemned for seeking to be like God, for he never made that effort. Rather, he was condemned for seeking to usurp God’s authority in wickedness. Christ commanded all Men to make it their goal to become like God (Matt. 5:48). In so doing, Men must always recognize their subjection to Christ, as He recognizes His subjection to the Father (1 Cor. 15:27-28). The Bible clearly teaches that they may become as much like the Son as He is like the Father (John 17:18-23). Many passages say that Men will be changed into the image of God. “But we all, with open fiice beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18); “And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (1 Cor. 15:49; see, also, Col. 3:10). The clearest declaration of this principle is found in 1 John 3:2-3. There the Apostle taught: Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. What an incredible promise! “We shall be like him.” This glorious assurance is made to all who can number themselves with John as “the sons of God.” This is a literal promise that Men may be endowed with the same infinite characteristics God displays. That John meant this promise to be taken literally is evident from his closing phrase in verse 2: “for [Greek: hoti, meaning “because”] we shall see him as he is.” God is an infinite being whose characteristics are incomprehensible to finite Men. It would be impossible ft)r beings restricted to finite vision, as Men currently are, to see God, an infinite being, as He is. But John asserts that those who will be transformed into God’s image will be able to see Him as He is, requiring the same infinite vision God enjoys! Only because they have that ability, will Men know they have become truly like Him. Paul describes this transformation in 1 Corinthians 15:52. “For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” The raising of “the dead” incorruptible (1 Cor.15 :53-54) speaks of the resurrection of all Men. The reference to being “changed,” however, is restricted by the personal pronoun “we.~~ Since that pronoun is inclusive of the author (Paul), it must refer to those, like Paul, who can look forward to the transformation John promised. This is truly an exciting prospect for all who, like Paul and John, “purifieth [themselves], even as He is pure” (1 John 3:3). Christ’s Testimony Of Man’s Potential Apowerful testimony of these truths was given by Christ in John 10:30-36. In John 10:30, Christ stated His equality and oneness with the Father. The idea that a man could become as God was as difficult for the Pharisees to accept then as it is for Evangelicals to believe now. The Pharisees said, “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God” (John 10:33, NASB). A similar criticism is leveled at Mormons today. Of course, in Christ’s day it was more than a theological criticism-it was a charge of blasphemy under the Law of Moses, and could mean death by stoning. The response to that charge was as follows (John 10:34-36, NASB): Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” The quotation in verse 34 is from Psalm 82:6. Evangelical commentators claim that Psalms 82 has nothing to do with Men being “gods,” but was directed at the judges in Israel, who were derogatorily called “gods” in that passage because of the way they wielded the power of life and death over their people.~ They have no valid hermeneutic basis for this strained interpreta-tion. Not only does it strain the language of the passage, it undermines Christ’s use of it in John 10:34. In fact, it contradicts the interpretation Christ gave when He quoted it to the Pharisees! Psalms 82 reads, in full, as follows: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in dark-ness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. Ihave said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, 0 God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. This Psalm encourages all Men to judge righteously and to be merciful to the poor and orphaned. When Christ reiterated this admonition in His Sermon on the Mount, He did not restrict it to the judges in Israel (Matt. 7:1-5). All Men should do what they can to see that the poor and needy are delivered out of the hands of the wicked. It is verse 6 that reveals the au-dience to whom the Psalm was directed. It says, “all of you are children of the most High.” Clearly, “you” refers to all “children of the most High,” not just to the judges of Israel. Christ said that Psalms 82:6 was directed to those “to whom the word of Godcame” (John 10:35, NASB). The word translated “came” inJohn 10:35 is not erchomai, the usual word in Greek that means “to come” in the sense ~arriving at a destination. It is ginomai, which, as noted in Chapter 2, means “tj~ become,” or “to come to pass.” The phrase could be rendered, “in whom the word of God lives.” Did Christ miss something in this Psalm? According to the Evangelical interpretation, He should have said that Psalm 82 was directed “unto the wicked judges of Israel.” Instead, He said it refers to those to whom the word of God comes alive. These are they who purify themselves as John directed in 1 John 3:3, so that they may become “sons of God” (1 John 3:2). As the phrase “children of the most High” in Psalm 82:6 implies, these are “children” (or “sons”) who have learned to behave in a way that reflects their true lineage (see Rom. 8:14). Christ cited Psalm 82 as a defense against the charge of blasphemy. He was countering a threat from the legalistic Pharisees who thought they had at last found evidence that would justify pulling Him to death. He deftly parried their charge using Psalms 82:6, which He noted “could not be broken.” His purpose would not have been met if Psalm 82 was nothing more than a derogatory reference to the wicked judges in Israel, intended to be taken in a figurative sense! If the Evangelical interpretation were correct, it could only mean that the Pharisees had misunderstood His statement in John 10:30 and He was trying to correct them. It would mean that He was not making Himself out to be God, as the Pharisees had surmised. Instead, He was using the term “god” in a derogatory and figurative sense, as Evangelicals suppose it was used to refer to the wicked judges in Israel in Psalm 82. This would have been a woefully inadequate defense. But the Pharisees knew exactly what He said, and He did not mean it to be taken in some derogatory and figurative sense. He had told them that He was God. To counter the Pharisees’ claim that this was blasphemy under the law, Christ proved that scripture refers to all Men (“unto whom the word of God came”) as potential Gods. He did that with Psalm 82:6. Thank heaven the Pharisees did not misunderstand that passage the way today’s Evangelicals do! They could not accuse Him of blasphemy for saying He was the Son of God, because all Men are the spirit children of God, and may be referred to in terms that recognize their potential, as His children, to become like Him. Of course, in the next verse, the Psalmist, in humbling tone, points out that, although “children of the most High” are “gods,” they are all subject to death, and will be struck down in time. This places Man’s lofty origins in the proper perspective. It was an appropriate reminder of Man’s current state of finite vulnerability, lest he forget and be overcome with the egotistical mania that prompted Satan’s rebellion. Men have not yet attained anything like their potential, but if they purify themselves as Christ is pure, so that they are true children of God in whom the word of God lives, they will one day realize the blessing of these promises. Though lowly and finite in their present state, Men may yet be so changed that they will actually see God as He truly is, being like Him in His glorified, infinite, and perfect nature! Eternal Families That Men are the spirit children of God implies that God is capable of having children. The idea of having children in Heaven, however, is totally foreign to Evangelicals. They categorically reject such a prospect on the basis of a single passage in the Bible that has been woefully misinterpreted. Some critics of the Mormon belief in eternal procreation, say that it makes no sense for resurrected beings, with bodies of flesh and bone, to have spirit children. With their “vast knowledge” about the syngamy of resurrected beings, they contend that resurrected men and women should reproduce only resurrected (or at least, physical) children.g An appropriate response to these detractors is given in Job 38:2 (NASB): “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” There is absolutely no reason to assume that a resurrected human being cannot reproduce a spirit version of itself. Mormons believe in both eternal marriage and eternal families, and these beliefs imply the procreation of children in the same way God created Men as His spirit children. This concept follows logically from the Bible’s teachings about the resurrection. Human bodies, as formed by God, are fully capable of reproduction. The perfect restoration of the body suggests these capabilities will remain intact after the resurrection (Ezek. 37:1-14). Job used emphatic language to declare that his resurrected body would be in the same form as his mortal body (Job 19:26-27): And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me. Christ appeared to His apostles in the exact form He had during His mortal life (Luke 24:36-39). If Men are thus raised in the exact bodily form they ~njoyed during this life, why should theologians expect resurrected beings to be sterile? The only biblical passage that even raises the possiblity that the resurrection will involve the removal of reproductive organs is found in Matthew 22:23-30 (and Mark 12:18-25) where Christ is erroneously understood by Evangelicals to have said that all Men “neither marry, nor are given in marriage” in the resurrection. A careful analysis of this passage reveals that its message was limited to the individuals specified in the example. That passage, along with several other Bible verses, must be grossly misinterpreted to arrive at any other conclusion. Matthew 22:23-30 (NASB) reads as follows: On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Him and questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies, having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up an offspring to his brotherf “Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother; “so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. “And last of all, the woman died. “In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her.” But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” This passage describes a confrontation between Christ and a group of Sadducees-members of a sect who did not believe in the literal resurrection of the body. The Sadducees did not come to Christ to seek understanding. They came to confront Him with a situation they thought would demonstrate the foolishness of His teachings and vindicate their own belief that there is no resurrection. They had concocted a clever trap by carefully drafting a hypothetical question. The question they chose would not have served their purpose if Christ had not been teaching eternal marriage! They assumed Christ would say that each marriage in their story continued after the resurrection. If His answer was consistent with ihis, their meager understanding of eternal marriage, it would prove that Christ’s teachings result in a state of intolerable confusion. God is not the author of confusion but of order (see, e.g., 1 Chron. 15:12-14; 2 Chron. 29:35). Therefore, they hoped Christ would be caught contradicting scripture. If Christ had not been teaching eternal marriage, their question would not have fit their plot. It would simply have allowed Christ to bear further testimony of the resurrection. From the parenthetical reference to the Sadducees’ disbelief in the resurrection (Matt. 22:23), it is obvious they would not have wanted that. Hence, it is clear that Christ was teaching eternal marriage, and the Sadducees had heard of it. In fact, just three chapters earlier in Matthew’s record, Christ had taught eternal marriage to the Pharisees in response to their question about divorce. In Matthew 19:3-6 (NASB, see also Mark 10:2-9) it reads: And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, “and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’? “Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” God joined Adam and Eve when they were immortal (Gen. 2:18-25), and commanded no man to part them. Would that same God later separate them himself? Certainly not! That was the point of Christ’s instruction (especially verse 6). What God does remains forever (Eccl. 3:14). Christ’s message was that the joining of husband and wife was ordained of God, and was meant to be eternal. The Pharisees, who believed that they could divorce their wives on the flimsiest of grounds, were rebuked by this teaching, and obviously reported Christ’s teachings to the Sadducees, with whom they disagreed as to the resurrection. The Sadducees saw in this an opportunity to discredit Christ on the two doctrines (resurrection and eternal marriage) together. What then does Christ’s response to the Sadducees’ mean? Christ con-tradicted the Sadducees’ assumptions in verses 29 and 30, but the impli- r cations of His contradiction are not as broad as Evangelicals have always assumed. He was not denying eternal marriage, only that the spec jfIc marriages identified in this question were not eternal (verse 30: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,” emphasis added). What was jtaboiit the marriages in this example that differed from the marriage of Adam and Eve cited by Christ in Matthew 19? The basis for the Sadducee’s error was that they did not understand (1) “the Scriptures,” or (2) ‘ ‘the power of God” (Matt. 22:29). Lack of scriptural knowledge is evidenced by their failure to note that Adam and Eve’s marriage had been performed by God, and would therefore “be for ever” (Eccl. 3:14). They also failed to note that the purpose of marriage to the brother of a deceased spouse was only to raise up a mortal posterity for the deceased spouse (Deut. 25:5-6). One would not expect, therefore, that any of the subsequent marriages would last after the first brother and his wife were restored to each other in the resurrection. Finally, they failed to note that God’s laws are spiritual (Rom. 7:14), and no spiritual purpose would be served by a marriage performed by God if it could not continue after the resurrection. In Matthew 16:19, just a few chapters before Christ taught the Pharisees about eternal marriage, He explained that the power of God includes the power to bind on earth and have it bound in heaven. Such authority (or “power”) is needed to ensure that an earthly marriage is contractually binding in the eternal realm. As Christ noted, the Sadducees knew nothing of this power, and their question failed to mention its use in connection with any of the marriages. Hence, none would be binding in Heaven. Christ did not contradict Himself, nor change His mind between Matthew 19 and Matthew 22. What His answer to the Sadducees demonstrates is that, through “the power of God,” orderly marital relationships are maintained in heaven. This answer completely frustrated the Sadducees’ trap. The most important aspect of the message of Matthew 22:23-30, however, was not the way in which Christ foiled the Sadducees, but the implications of His answer to them. Marriages performed under Man’s authority alone will not remain in effect after the resurrection. The power of God must be used to bind men and women in order for their marriages to last forever. Those who axe not married by such authority, like the men and woman in the Sadducees’ example, remain as the angels in heaven-messengers only, separate and single forever. This interpretation of Matthew 22 is consistent with Paul’s teachings on the subject (1 Cor. 11:11, emphasis added): “Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” The phrase “in the Lord” refers to Man’s ultimate state of rest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul is saying that in that realm, the relationship of men and women is the same as that of Adam and Eve, who, in their immortal state, were joined by God as one flesh. As in Eden, the creation of such a relationship requires the power of God, specifically the power given by Christ to Peter in Matthew 16:19. For those who are bound by that power, unlike those in the Sadducees’ example, Heaven will include the promise of continueti marital bliss, and with it, parenthood! Gods Many And Lords Many It is now possible to put in context some of the statements of early Mormon leaders that are commonly misinterpreted by Evangelical critics. The Bible teaches that Men may become like God. Like God, Men may also have spirit children of their own, with the concomitant duty to care for them and see to their development as mankind has been nurtured and developed by their own Father in Heaven. This suggests to the mind an eternal pattern, one that not only continues in the future, but may have been repeated innumerable times in the infinite past. Man’s Heavenly Father may have had His own Father in Heaven, and may have passed through an existence like that of Christ on an earth populated by His own brothers and sisters. Support for this conjecture can be found in the Bible, most notably in John 5:19 (NASB), which reads as follows: Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.” The implications of this verse are profound. The language suggests that the Father, at some unknown time in the eternal past, did the same thing on the world to which He was sent as Jesus Christ has done here. His actions were apparently recorded so that the Son could review them and prepare for His own mission on this earth. The passage is short on details, but many early Mormon leaders have exposited on the concepts implied in this verse consistent with the doctrines considered in this chapter. Their statements must be taken in that context. They are the thoughts and opinions of inspired men about a technical subject on which the Lord has revealed little. The statements of LDS leaders about many gods are entirely consistent with the comments of Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, in which Paul, speaking of food offered to idols, made a very deep parenthetical comment: As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Since Paul was speaking of idols, Evangelicals assume that verse 5 refers to false gods, the creations of Men. That assumption is inadequate to explain the language of this verse. Paul may have been referring to idols when he said, “there be that are called gods, . . . in earth,” though more likely he had in mind such instances as Moses being called a “god” to Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1). Heaven has also called them “gods, to whom the word of God came” (see John 10:34-35 and Ps. 82:6). But it is entirely unlikely that idols have ever been “called gods . . . in heaven!” The most startling aspect of Paul’s language in verse 5 is his parenthetical statement that “there be gods many, and lords many.” This positive indication of the actual existence of many gods and many lords cannot be ignored the way Evangelicals do. Paul did not say “there bejèdse gods many and false lords many.” He said there actually are many “gods” and many “lords.” If this were not the clear meaning of his remarks, it would have been entirely unnecessary for him to state at the beginning of the next verse, “But to us there is but one God.” He would certainly have left those key words out had he not just verified the actual existence of many gods and lords in the universe. Paul’s attitude toward idols is clearly indicated in verse 4-they are “nothing.” If Paul were talking about idols in verse 5, there would have been no need to personalize the statement in verse 6 with the words “to us.” He could have ended his comments with the simple affirmation that “there is but one God!” Instead, having digressed into a deep subject, giving Men a profound look at the universe, it was necessary to restore proper perspective with the phrase “to us there is but one God.” What exists in the universe concerning the many gods and lords referred to by Paul is not revealed in scripture, but Man’s powers of reason have lead some to deep speculation. The speculative statements of early LDS leaders on this subject should not alarm Evangelicals. Like any other non-canonical exposition on John 5:19 and 1 Corinthians 8:5, they should be viewed with some latitude for opinion. Above all, Mormons, like Paul, believe that, to Man, there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, His Son, Jesus Christ. Mormons do not teach that any Man, save Christ, will ever occupy that lordship position over those who are his fellow brothers and sisters (Isa. 43 :lO).h Nor will Men be establishing eternal families in the near future (speaking cosmologically). There is too much left to be done in the work of redeeming their brothers and sisters now. Conclusion This chapter presents insights on the teachings of the Mormon Church regarding Man and his relationship to God and the potential inherent in that relationship. They are the teachings of the Bible. They tell much about where Men came from, why they are here, and where they may be going in their eternal future. Having learned of his potential, Man’s earnest desire should be to understand the means by which he may achieve the goal of becoming truly like his Father. That goal can only be attained through salvation, which is available in and through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.