http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2781
Is the Book of Mormon From God? [Part II]
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is the second installment in a two-part critique of The Book of Mormon. Part I
appeared in the September issue. Part 2 follows below, and continues,
without introductory comments, where the first article ended. It is
certainly not the intention either of Apologetics Press or the author of
this article to insult, demean, or misrepresent Mormons. Nevertheless,
multiplied thousands of individuals, who have embraced Mormon doctrine,
deserve the opportunity to assess their beliefs in light of the Bible
and in anticipation of eternity. We sincerely pray that no reader will
take personal affront at what follows, but will simply weigh the
evidence and arrive at the truth.]
Outlandish Doctrines
Can Humans Become Gods?
One of the more eye-opening beliefs of Mormonism is the polytheistic
notion that humans can become gods. Standard Mormon theology maintains
that even God (the Father) and Jesus Christ were initially human. They
were preceded by other humans who themselves progressed to the status of
gods.
Of course, this doctrine was not presented initially by Joseph Smith, but was developed
after the production of
The Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon
actually contradicts later Mormon revelation, in that it affirmed in
1830 the biblical doctrine of the oneness of God in three persons, i.e.,
the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Observe the
conversation between Ammon and King Lamoni:
And then Ammon said: “Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?”
And he said, “Yea.” And Ammon said: “This is God.” And Ammon said unto
him again: “Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created
all things which are in heaven and in the earth?” And he said: “Yea, I
believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not
know the heavens.” And Ammon said unto him: “The heavens is a place
where God dwells and all his holy angels.... I am called by his Holy
Spirit to teach these things unto this people” (Alma 18:26-30).
Nephi declared: “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” (2 Nephi
31:21, emp. added). Amulek contended with the diabolical Zeezrom: “And
Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And
Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said:
Is there more than one God? And he answered,
No” (Alma 11:26-29,
emp. added).
The Book of Mormon also affirmed that Jesus was God in the flesh:
And now Abinadi said unto them: “I would that ye should understand
that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall
redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called
the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the
Father, being the Father and the Son—the Father, because he was
conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus
becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (Mosiah 15:1-4, emp. added).
Even the “three witnesses” to
The Book of Mormon, Oliver
Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, affirmed monotheism and the
oneness of God: “And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to
the Holy Ghost, which is
one God” (“The Testimony...,”
1981, emp. added). Joseph Smith affirmed the same thing in the Articles
of Faith: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus
Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (
Pearl of..., 1981, p. 60).
These teachings certainly are in harmony with the Bible. The Bible
repeatedly and frequently affirms the doctrine of monotheism and the
unity of God: Deuteronomy 4:35,39; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6,8; 45:5;
46:9; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4,6; 1 Timothy 2:5. These
and many other passages indicate “there is but one infinite Spirit
Being, and that within that one Spirit essence there are three personal
distinctions, each of which may be, and is, called God” (Lanier, 1974,
p. 46). There is only one divine essence (
ousia) or nature (
phusis)—a solidaric unity—one divine substance
in (not
and) three persons (
prosopa or
persona), with each “person” being the subsistence (
hupostaseis) of the divine Essence [NOTE:
For discussions of the biblical concept of Trinity and its treatment in
church history, see Archer, 1982, pp. 357-361; Bickersteth, n.d.;
Boles, 1942, pp. 19ff.; Chadwick, 1967, pp. 84ff.; Schaff, 1910,
3:670ff.; Walker, 1970, pp. 106ff.; Warfield, 1939a, 5:3012-3022].
But by 1844, Joseph Smith had begun to advocate a very different understanding of deity—in direct contradiction to
The Book of Mormon.
He began to promulgate the idea that God had, in fact, previously been a
man Himself Who had become exalted, and that all men were capable of
the same progression (see Tanner, 1972, p. 163). This shift was
expressed formally in the
Pearl of Great Price. In the Book of Moses, God is spoken of in the
singular
throughout. For example: “I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty
God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning
I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest” (2:1). In
stark contrast, however, in the Book of Abraham, in a section discussing
the same creation event, God is spoken of as “
Gods.”
For example:
And then the Lord said: “Let us go down.” And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. ...And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. ...And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed. ...And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness. ...And the Gods
planted a garden, eastward in Eden, and there they put the man, whose
spirit they had put into the body which they had formed (4:1,5,18; 5:8,
emp. added).
Anyone who is familiar with the King James Version cannot help but be
struck with the fact that the author of the Book of Abraham had before
him a copy of a KJV and merely paraphrased the
text. It is equally apparent that the author “had an axe to grind” in
adjusting the text to foist upon the reader the notion of multiple
“gods.” In fact, in the 31 verses of chapter four, the term “Gods” is
used
32 times. It is used 16 times in chapter 5.
Polytheism now so thoroughly permeates Mormonism that one Mormon apostle
asserted that humans are the offspring of the union between an Eternal
Father
and an Eternal Mother (McConkie, 1979, p. 516)!
“Let Us make man”
Separate and apart from the issue of the inspiration of
The Book of Mormon, the question must be asked: Does
the Bible
give credence to the notion of multiple gods? Certainly not! However,
various verses have been marshaled in an effort to defend the Mormon
viewpoint. For example, on the sixth day of Creation, God said, “Let Us
make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). It is
alleged by Mormons that the use of the plural in this verse implies a
multiplicity of “gods.” However, an examination of the context reveals
that the doctrine of the Trinity is being conveyed (see Leupold, 1942,
1:86ff.).
The Holy Spirit was active at the Creation, “hovering over the face of
the waters” (1:2). “Hovering” refers to attentive participation (cf.
Deuteronomy 32:11). Elsewhere, the Bible makes clear that Jesus also was
present at the Creation, in active participation with Deity’s creative
activity (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; 2:10). Hence, when
God spoke of “Us,” He was referring to Himself and the other two members
of the divine Essence [NOTE: Compare “Godhead” (
theotes) in Colossians 2:9, “divine” nature (
theios) in Acts 17:29 and 2 Peter 1:3-4, and “divinity” (
theioteis) in Romans 1:20. The first term (
theotes) differs from the third term (
theioteis)
“as essence differs from quality or attribute” (Thayer, 1901, p. 288;
cf. Vine, 1966, pp. 328-329; Warfield, 1939b, 2:1268-1270)]. Some (e.g.,
Archer, 1982, p. 74) have suggested that God was including the angels
in the “us,” since “sons of God” sometimes can refer to the angels
(e.g., Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; cf. Psalms 29:1; 89:6), and “sons of God” can
be shortened to “God” while still referring to angels (e.g., compare
Psalm 97:7 with Hebrews 1:6, and Psalm 8:5 with Hebrews 2:7,9). In
either case, the fact remains that the Bible presents a consistent
picture that there is
only one God, and that this divine essence includes
three—and
only three—persons.
“Ye shall be as gods”
Another verse that has been brought forward to substantiate Mormon
polytheism is the comment made on the occasion of Adam and Eve being
tempted to eat the forbidden fruit: “For God knows that in the day you
eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing
good and evil” (Genesis 3:5—NKJV). The King James
Version says, “ye shall be as gods.” Four points of clarification are
in order on this verse. In the first place,
Satan made this statement—not God. Satan’s declarations are
never to be trusted, since he is “a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).
In the second place, the uncertainty conveyed by the various English
translations in their differing treatment of the verse (i.e., whether
“God” or “gods”) is the result of the underlying Hebrew term
elohim. This word is not to be confused with Yahweh, the formal name for God throughout the Old Testament.
Elohim
is a generic term used some 2,570 times in Scripture, and generally
refers to the one true God, but also is used to refer to pagan gods, and
even can refer to human judges or rulers (e.g., Exodus 4:16; 7:1; 21:6;
22:9,28) and, as noted previously, to angels (Harris, et al., 1980,
1:44-45; Miller, 2008, pp. 114-115). Though the word is plural in form,
it is used in both the plural and singular sense [cf. “face” (
panim—Genesis 50:1; Exodus 34:35) and “image” (
teraphim—1
Samuel 19:13)]. English shares a similar phenomenon with its plural
nouns like “deer,” “seed,” “sheep,” and “moose.” The same form is used,
whether referring to one or many. Hebrew, like most other languages,
matched the number (whether singular or plural) of verbs and adjectives
with the noun. In the case of
elohim, with only rare exception,
the verbs and adjectives used with it are either singular or plural in
conformity with the intended meaning (Ringgren, 1974, p. 272). Fretheim
noted that its use in the Old Testament for Israel’s God is “always with
singular verbs” (1997, 1:405; cf. Archer, 1982, p. 74).
Some Hebrew scholars maintain that the plural form used to designate the one true God is the
pluralis majestatis or
excellentiae
(the plural of majesty), or the plural of intensification,
absolutization, or exclusivity (e.g., Fretheim, 1:405; Gesenius, 1847,
p. 49; Harris, et al., p. 44; Mack, 1939, 2:1265; Reeve, 1939, 2:1270),
although others question this usage (e.g., Grudem, 1994, p. 227; Jenni
and Westermann, 1997, p. 116). In the case at hand, Satan was tempting
Eve with the prospect of being like God—Whom she knew, and from Whom she
(or at least her husband) had received previous communication (Genesis
2:16-17; 3:3). She knew nothing of other “gods”—pagan or otherwise.
Since the term
elohim occurs 58 times in the first three chapters of Genesis and is consistently rendered “God,” and since
Satan himself used the term
earlier in the same verse, as well as four verses earlier (vs. 1), to
refer to the one God, no contextual, grammatical, or lexical reason
exists for rendering it “gods” in verse five. In fact, most of the major
English translations properly render it “God” (e.g., NKJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV). [NOTE: See also the discussion in Clarke, n.d., 1:50, who noted that the ancient Syriac version rendered the term correctly].
Third,
elohim in this verse has an attached prefix (
Biblia Hebraica,
1967/77, p. 4)—what Hebrew scholars call an “inseparable preposition”
(Weingreen, 1959, p. 26). In this case, the prepositional prefix is the
11th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the
kaph, and means “like” or “as.” Satan was not saying that Eve would become God or a god; He was saying she would become
like God.
This realization brings us to a fourth point: the context stipulates
in what way
Eve would become like God. In the very verse under consideration, an
explanatory phrase clarifies what Satan meant: “You will be like God,
knowing good and evil”
(emp. added). This meaning is evident from subsequent references in the
same chapter. When they disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit, “the
eyes of both of them were
opened, and they
knew...” (vs. 7, emp. added). God commented: “Behold, the man has become
like one of Us,
to know good and evil” (vs. 22, emp. added). In other words, Adam and Eve became
like God in the sense that they now were privy to a greater breadth of awareness, understanding, and insight:
They now had a sufficient discovery of their sin and folly in
disobeying the command of God; they could discern between good and evil;
and what was the consequence? Confusion and shame were engendered,
because innocence was lost and guilt contracted (Clarke, p. 51).
As Keil and Delitzsch summarized: “By eating the fruit, man did obtain the knowledge of good and evil, and
in this respect became like God” (1976, 1:95, emp. added).
“God of gods”
A third attempt to substantiate the Mormon doctrine of plural gods is
the use of various verses from the Bible that speak of God being a “God
of gods.” For example, on the occasion of the deliverance of the
Israelites from Egypt, the “Song of Moses” declared: “Who is like You, O
Lord,
among the gods?” (Exodus 15:11, emp. added).
Forty years later, in his stirring challenge to the Israelites to be
firm in their future commitment to God, Moses reminded them: “For the
Lord your God is
God of gods and Lord of lords, the
great God, mighty and awesome” (Deuteronomy 10:17, emp. added). During
the days of Joshua, some of the Israelites exclaimed: “The Lord
God of gods, the Lord
God of gods,
He knows” (Joshua 22:22, emp. added). These verses, and many more in
the Bible, speak of “gods” in such a way that a cursory reading might
leave one with the impression that the Bible teaches that “gods”
actually existed. However, one cannot
really study the
Bible and come away with that conclusion. The Bible presents a
thoroughgoing monotheistic view of reality. It repeatedly conveys the
fact that “gods” are merely the figment of human imagination, invented
by humans to provide themselves with exemption from following the one
true God by living up to the higher standard of deity. Humans throughout
history have conjured up their own imaginary gods to justify freedom
from restriction and to excuse relaxed moral behavior.
Consequently, all verses in the Bible that use the term “gods” to refer
to deity (with the exception of the one God) are referring to
nonexistent, imaginary deities that humans have invented. When God gave
the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, the very first one said: “You
shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). Liberal higher
critics of the Bible (like Wellhausen) have alleged that this dictum
advocated only monolatry (exclusive worship of Yahweh) rather than
actually denying the
existence of other gods. However,
distinguished professor of Old Testament languages, Gleason Archer,
maintains that “this construction of the words is quite unwarranted”
(1974, p. 235). Many additional passages clarify the point. For example,
the psalmist declared: “For the Lord is great and greatly to be
praised; He is to be feared above
all gods” (Psalm
96:4, emp. added). One might get the impression from this verse by
itself that the psalmist thought that “gods” actually existed. However,
the next verse sets the record straight: “For all the gods of the
peoples
are idols, but the Lord made the heavens” (vs. 5, emp. added). The Hebrew word for “idols” (
elilim)
means “of nothing, of nought, empty, vain” (Gesenius, p. 51). Notice
carefully the contrast the psalmist was making. The people
made their gods; but the one true God made
the heavens
(i.e., the Universe). The genuineness, reality, and greatness of God
are placed in contrast to the people’s fake, nonexistent gods
who could not make anything.
Archer concluded: “This passage alone...demonstrates conclusively that
the mention of ‘gods’ in the plural implied no admission of the actual
existence of heathen gods in the first commandment” (1974, p. 236). As
God Himself announced: “They have provoked Me to jealousy by
what is not God” (Deuteronomy 32:21, emp. added).
The denunciation of the Israelites for conjuring up false
gods—pretending that such actually existed, rather than devoting
themselves exclusively to the one and only God—reached its zenith in the
eloquent preaching pronouncements of the Old Testament prophets. Elijah
treated the notion of the existence of gods in addition to the one God
with sarcasm and forthright ridicule (1 Kings 18:27-29). The idea of
multiple gods would have been laughable, if it were not so spiritually
serious (cf. Psalm 115:2-8). The people on that occasion finally got the
point, for they shouted: “The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!”
(vs. 39).
Likewise, the reality of monotheism was pure, well-defined, and
single-minded for Jeremiah. He frequently chastised the people by
accusing them of following gods that were, in fact, “not gods” (2:11;
5:7; 16:20). Isaiah was equally adamant and explicit:
You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have
chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior.
I have declared and saved, I have proclaimed, and there was no foreign
god among you; therefore you are My witnesses, says the Lord, that I am
God. Indeed, before the day was, I am He; and there is no one who can
deliver out of My hand; I work, and who will reverse it? (43:10-13, emp.
added; cf. 37: 19; 40:18-20; 41; 44:8-24).
Over and over, Isaiah recorded the exclusivity of the one true God: “I am the Lord, and there is no other;
there is no God besides Me” (45:5, emp. added); “There is
no other God” (45:14, emp. added); “I am the Lord, and
there is no other” (45:18, emp. added).
The New Testament continues the same recognition of the nonexistence of
deities beyond the one God Who exists in three persons. Paul reminded
the Galatian Christians of their pre-Christian foolish belief in other
deities: “But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those
which by nature
are not gods” (4:8, emp. added). By
definition, the “gods” that people claim actually exist are not gods. In
his lengthy discussion of whether Christians were permitted to eat
foods that had been sacrificed to pagan deities, Paul clarified
succinctly the Bible position on the existence of so-called gods:
Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods,
whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),
yet for us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,
and through whom we live (1 Corinthians 8:4-6, emp. added).
In this passage, Paul declared very forthrightly that idols, and the gods they represent, are, in fact,
nonentities. The RSV renders the meaning even more clearly: “We know that
an idol has no real existence, and that
there is no God but one” (emp. added).
Of course, Paul recognized and acknowledged that humans have worshipped
imaginary, nonexistent, “so-called” gods in heaven (like Greek
mythology advocated) and on Earth (in the form of idols). He used the
figure of speech known as “metonymy of the adjunct,” where “things are
spoken of according to appearance, opinions formed respecting them, or
the claims made for them” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 597; Dungan, 1888, p.
295; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4). He spoke of “gods” as if they existed,
simply because many people of his day had that opinion. But Paul knew
“there is no God but one.” As Allen observed: “The gods (i.e., the
so-called divine beings contemplated by the pagans) represented by the
images
did not exist. ...[T]hey were nothing as far as
representing the deities envisioned by the heathen” (1975, p. 98, emp.
added; cf. Kelcy, 1967, p. 38; Thomas, 1984, p. 30).
Paul continued his discussion of idols two chapters later, and again
affirmed the nonexistence of any deities besides God: “What am I saying
then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is
anything?” (1 Corinthians 10:19). For Paul, it was technically
permissible for a Christian to eat food that had previously been used in
a pagan ceremony as an offering to a “god.” Why? Because
such “gods” did not, and do not, actually exist—except
in the mind of the worshipper (cf. 8:7-8)! Thus, the food used in such
ceremonies was unaffected. However, the person who
really thinks there are “gods,” and who then worships these imaginary “gods,” is, in actuality, worshipping
demons
(10:20). Paul said there are only two possibilities: “But I say that
the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not
to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You
cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (10:20-21). Paul
envisioned no class of beings known as “gods.” There is only the one
true God, and then there are the demons and forces of Satan (cf. 2
Corinthians 6:15-16). This bifurcation of the spiritual realm (i.e., God
versus Satan and his forces) is the consistent portrait presented
throughout the Bible. The Bible simply admits no knowledge or
possibility of “gods.”
“You are gods”
A final passage that is alleged to support the notion of “gods” is the
statement made by Jesus when the Jews wanted to stone Him because He
claimed divinity for Himself:
The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You,
but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are
gods”?’ If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came...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”? (John 10:33-36).
Mormons allege that Jesus here endorsed the notion that men can become
“gods.” But, of course, Jesus did no such thing. On this occasion, He
appealed to an Old Testament context to deflect the barb of His critics.
Psalm 82 is a passage that issued a scathing indictment of the unjust
judges who had been assigned the responsibility of executing God’s
justice among the people (cf. Deuteronomy 1:16; 19:17-18; Psalm 58).
Such a magistrate was “God’s minister” (Romans 13:4) who acted
in the place of God, wielding
His authority, and who was responsible for mediating
God’s help and justice (cf. Exodus 7:1). In
this sense, they were “gods” (
elohim)—
acting as God to men (Barclay, 1956, 2:89). Hebrew parallelism clarifies this sense: “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are
children of the Most High’” (Psalm 82:6, emp. added). They did not share
divinity with God—but merely delegated
jurisdiction. They still were mere humans—although invested with divine authority, and permitted to act in God’s behalf.
This point is apparent throughout the Torah, where the term translated “judges” or “ruler” is occasionally
elohim
(e.g., Exodus 21:6; 22:9,28). Take Moses as an example. Moses was not a
“god.” Yet God told Moses that when he went to Egypt to orchestrate the
release of the Israelites, he would be “God” to his brother Aaron and
to Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). He meant that Moses would supply both his
brother and Pharaoh with the words that came from God. Though
admittedly a rather rare use of
elohim, nevertheless “it shows that the word translated ‘god’ in that place
might be applied to man” (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, emp. in orig.). Clarke summarized this point: “Ye are my
representatives, and are clothed with my power and authority to dispense judgment and justice, therefore
all of them are said to be
children of the Most High”
(3:479, emp. in orig.). But because they had shirked their awesome
responsibility to represent God’s will fairly and accurately, and
because they had betrayed the sacred trust bestowed upon them by God
Himself, He decreed death upon them (vs. 7). Obviously, they were not
“gods,” since God could and would
execute them!
Jesus marshaled this Old Testament psalm to thwart His opponents’
attack, while simultaneously reaffirming His deity (which is the central
feature of the book of John—20:30-31). He made shrewd use of
syllogistic argumentation by reasoning
a minori ad majus (see
Lenski, 1943, pp. 765-770; cf. Fishbane, 1985, p. 420). “Jesus is here
arguing like a rabbi from a lesser position to a greater position, a
‘how much more’ argument very popular among the rabbis” (Pack, 1975,
1:178). In fact, “it is an argument which to a Jewish Rabbi would have
been entirely convincing. It was just the kind of argument, an argument
founded on a word of scripture, which the Rabbis loved to use and found
most unanswerable” (Barclay, 1956, p. 90).
Jesus identified the unjust judges of Israel as persons “to whom the
word of God came” (John 10:35). That is, they had been “appointed judges
by Divine commission” (Butler, 1961, p. 127)—by “the
command of God;
his commission to them to do justice” (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, emp. in
orig.; cf. Jeremiah 1:2; Ezekiel 1:3; Luke 3:2). McGarvey summarized the
ensuing argument of Jesus: “If it was not blasphemy to call those gods
who so remotely represented the Deity, how much less did Christ
blaspheme in taking unto himself a title to which he had a better right
than they, even in the subordinate sense of being a mere messenger”
(n.d., p. 487). Charles Erdman observed:
By his defense Jesus does not renounce his claim to deity; but he
argues that if the judges, who represented Jehovah in their appointed
office, could be called “gods,” in the Hebrew scriptures, it could not
be blasphemy for him, who was the final and complete revelation of God,
to call himself “the Son of God (1922, pp. 95-96; cf. Morris, 1971, pp.
527-528).
This verse teaches
the exact opposite of what Mormons would like for it to teach! It brings into stark contrast the deity—the
Godhood—of Christ (and His Father Who “sanctified and sent” Him—vs. 36) with the
absence of deity for all others! There are no other “gods” in the sense of
deity,
i.e., eternality and infinitude in all attributes. Jesus verified this
very conclusion by directing the attention of His accusers to the
“works” that He performed (vs. 37-38). These “works” (i.e., miraculous
signs) proved the divine identity of Jesus to the exclusion of all other
alleged deities. Archer concluded: “By no means, then, does our Lord
imply here that we are sons of God just as He is—except for a lower
level of holiness and virtue. No misunderstanding could be more
wrongheaded than that” (1982, p. 374). Indeed, the Mormon notion of a
plurality of gods is “wrongheaded,” as is the accompanying claim that
humans can become gods.
It is unthinkable that the consistent prohibition of polytheism and
idolatry throughout the Bible would or could give way to the completely
contrary notion that, as a matter of fact, many gods
do
exist, and that these gods are merely exalted humans who now rule over
their own worlds even as God and Christ rule over theirs. It is likewise
outlandish—and contradictory—that humans would be
required to worship God and Christ—while being
banned
from worshipping these other gods. The fact of the matter is that
“historic Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic” (Mack,
1939, 2:1265). The same may be said of historic Christianity. To think
otherwise is
pure pagan hocus-pocus—“a mere creation of
the imagination, a mere matter of
superstition” (Erdman, 1928, p. 78, emp. added).
CONCLUSION
An honest and humble appraisal of these and many other discrepancies
and doctrines should create great concern in the heart of one who
believes Mormon documents to be inspired. Many criticisms have been
leveled against the Bible over the centuries, yet have been answered
decisively (e.g., Lyons, 2003; Lyons, 2005; Archer, 1982; Haley, 1977).
If
The Book of Mormon were from God, it, too, could be defended
and its divine authenticity substantiated. However, the lack of
adequate explanations to clarify such problems compels the honest
individual to conclude that
The Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures do not derive their origin from the God of the Bible.
[NOTE: For an extended version of this article, which includes a discussion of the Morman doctrine of baptism for the dead, visit http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240218.]
REFERENCES
Allen, Jimmy (1975),
Survey of 1 Corinthians (Searcy, AR: Privately published by author).
Archer, Gleason L. (1974),
A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.
Archer, Gleason L. (1982),
An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Barclay, William (1956),
The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press), second edition.
Barnes, Albert (1949 reprint),
Notes on the New Testament: Luke and John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/77), (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung).
Bickersteth, Edward (no date),
The Trinity (MacDill AFB, FL: MacDonald Publishing).
Boles, H. Leo (1942),
The Holy Spirit: His Personality, Nature, Works (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1971 reprint).
The Book of Mormon (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898),
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Butler, Paul (1961),
The Gospel of John (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Chadwick, Henry (1967),
The Early Church (New York: Penguin Books).
Clarke, Adam (no date),
Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).
Dungan, D.R. (1888),
Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Erdman, Charles (1922),
The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Erdman, Charles (1928),
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Fishbane, Michael (1985),
Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Fretheim, Terence (1997), “
elohim,” in
The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Gesenius, William (1847),
Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1979 reprint.
Grudem, Wayne (1994),
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980),
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Haley, John (1977 reprint),
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann (1997),
Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint),
Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Kelcy, Raymond C. (1967),
First Corinthians (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Lanier, Roy H., Sr. (1974),
The Timeless Trinity for the Ceaseless Centuries (Denver, CO: Roy H. Lanier, Sr.).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1943),
The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Leupold, Herbert C. (1942),
Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1950 reprint).
Lyons, Eric (2003),
The Anvil Rings: Volume 1 (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Lyons, Eric (2005),
The Anvil Rings: Volume 2 (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Mack, Edward (1939), “Names of God,”
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
McConkie, Bruce (1979),
Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft).
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.),
The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Miller, Dave (2008), “Promised Messiah” in
Behold the Lamb, ed. David Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University).
Morris, Leon (1971),
The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Pack, Frank (1975),
The Gospel According to John (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Pearl of Great Price (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Reeve, J.J. (1939), “Gods,”
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1974 reprint.
Ringgren, Helmer (1974), “
elohim,” in
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Schaff, Philip (1910),
History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979 reprint).
Tanner, Jerald and Sandra (1972),
Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City, UT: Modern Microfilm).
“The Testimony of Three Witnesses” (1981 reprint), Introduction to the
Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Thayer, Joseph H. (1901),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
Thomas, J.D. (1984),
The Message of the New Testament: First Corinthians (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press).
Vine, W.E. (1966 reprint),
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Walker, Williston (1970),
A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Warfield, Benjamin (1939a), “Trinity,”
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
Warfield, Benjamin (1939b), “Godhead,”
International Standard Bible Ency-clopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
Weingreen, J. (1959),
A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Oxford University Press), second edition.
A
mass beheading of 21 Egyptian/Coptic Christians by ISIS militants is
the latest outrage perpetrated by those who claim to represent
accurately the teaching of Islam (“Video Purports…,” 2015). Despite
insistence from several sources that such atrocities do not represent
Islam, the Quran contains a number of passages that clearly advocate
violent action against those who reject Islam.
