http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2763
Is the Book of Mormon From God? [Part II] Extended Version
[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 II
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 once 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. Francis Bacon noted in his
Historia Naturalis: “For we copy the sin of our first parents while we suffer for it.
They wished to be like God, but their posterity wish to be even greater” (as quoted in Church, 1884, p. 207, emp. added).
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.”
“Ye 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 often
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).
Baptism for the Dead
Another troubling, yet prominent, Mormon doctrine is the “ordinance” of
baptism for the dead. The doctrine is alluded to several times in
Doctrine and Covenants.
Mormons allege that, for many people who have lived, water baptism was
not available, or they died before learning about “the true gospel and
baptism by the proper priesthood authority” (
Primary 5: Doctrine...,”
1997, p. 193). For those people who would have received the Gospel,
been baptized, and lived righteously if they had been given the
opportunity, God instituted “proxy” baptism in which Mormons are
baptized “vicariously” on their behalf: “We can do for these people what
they cannot do for themselves” (p. 193), thus enabling them to be in
the “celestial kingdom” (
D&C 127:7). As one of the Council
of the Twelve stated: “With proper authority an individual [can] be
baptized for and in behalf of someone who...never had the opportunity.
That individual [can] then accept or reject the baptism, according to
his own desire” (Packer, 1975, p. 97). D. Todd Christofferson, of the
Presidency of the Seventy, explained that “Today’s expansive
construction of temples across the world has as one of its primary
purposes to provide the place where ordinances essential to salvation
may be performed for those who, in life, were not privileged to receive
them” (2000, p. 9).
According to Mormonism, this ritual may only be done in a Mormon temple:
For this ordinance belongeth to my house.... For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth,
and for which the same was instituted from before the foundation of the
world, your baptisms for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me (D&C 124:30,33, emp. added).
The baptisms must be duly recorded and meticulous records kept:
And again, I give unto you a word in relation to the baptism for your
dead. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning your dead: When
any of you are baptized for your dead, let there be a recorder, and let
him be eye-witness of your baptisms.... And again, let all the records
be had in order, that they may be put in the archives of my holy temple, to be held in remembrance from generation to generation, saith the Lord of Hosts (D&C 127:6,9, emp. added).
Consequently, the LDS Church in Salt Lake City maintains the most extensive genealogical records in the world (cf. Petersen, 1980, p. 34).
Despite the teaching of proxy baptism in
Doctrine and Covenants, The Book of Mormon
forcefully teaches that the eternal destiny of those who reject the
truth while in the body is fixed at death, with no possibility of
repentance after death:
For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life
is the day for men to perform their labors.... I beseech of you that ye
do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for
after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.
Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will
repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that
same spirit which doeth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out
of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in
that eternal world. For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of
your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to
the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked (Alma 34:32-35; see also 42:4,13,28; Helaman 13:38; 2 Nephi 9:24-25,27; Mosiah 2:36,39, emp. added).
Not only do Mormon scriptures contradict each other on the doctrine of
baptism for the dead, the doctrine most certainly contradicts what the
Bible teaches from beginning to end. Many passages eliminate the
possibility of post-earthly life conversion/salvation by stressing the
singular necessity of responding obediently to God in this life:
-
“When a wicked man dies, his expectation will perish, and the hope of the unjust perishes” (Proverbs 11:7).
-
“And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
-
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each
one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has
done, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10).
When the rich man died and entered into the hadean realm, his spiritual
condition was cinched, based strictly upon his behavior while on Earth.
When he expressed his desire to be assisted with his tormented
condition, Abraham responded:
“Son, remember that in your lifetime you received
your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is
comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and
you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from
here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us” (Luke 16:25-26,
emp. added).
Observe that Abraham made clear that the rich man’s predicament was
permanent and could not be altered. When this reality became apparent to
the rich man, his thoughts immediately turned to his brothers on Earth
and a strong desire to prevent their coming to his location:
Then he said, “I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to
my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to
them, lest they also come to this place of torment.” Abraham said to
him, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” And he
said, “No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they
will repent.” But he said to him, “If they do not hear Moses and the
prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead”
(Luke 16:27-31).
Observe that Abraham’s response to the rich man proves that no offer of
proxy baptism is available in the afterlife. Abraham surely would have
indicated its availability to both the rich man and his brothers.
Instead, Abraham demonstrates the only means for a person to be saved in
eternity:
hearing and obeying God’s Word while still on Earth.
We have only this life in which to make our decisions, and when we
leave this life, we have no further opportunities to repent (cf. John
8:24).
1 Corinthians 15:29
But doesn’t the Bible speak of “baptism for the dead”? Yes, it does, in
Paul’s discussion of the resurrection: “Otherwise, what will they do
who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then
are they baptized for the dead?” Does this verse teach that people who
are alive on the Earth can be baptized, and the efficacy of that baptism
then be offered to those who already have died and are in the spirit
realm? Referring to this very verse, Mormon President Howard Hunter
affirmed:
Latter-day prophets have told us that baptism is an earthly ordinance
that can be performed only by the living. How then can those who are
dead be baptized if only the living can perform the ordinance? That was
the theme of the Apostle Paul’s writing to the Corinthians when he asked
this question: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the
dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the
dead?” (1 Cor. 15:29) (1995, p. 2).
But this verse is not teaching proxy baptism as practiced by the
Mormons. At least four adequate explanations exist that avoid
contradicting the rest of the Bible.
First, “dead” refers to the “old man of sin” (Romans 6:6). We are
baptized for the dead in the sense that we are baptized in water to
eliminate the dead man of sin. Hence Paul was asking why one would be
baptized to eliminate the old man of sin in anticipation of eternal
acceptance if the resurrection will not be forthcoming.
Second, “dead” refers to the world of lost souls—those who are
spiritually dead. “They” refers to the apostles and “baptism” refers to
the baptism of suffering that the apostles endured in order to make
known the Gospel to the world (alluded to in passages like Mark
10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Acts 9:16, and 1 Corinthians 4:9). Thus Paul was
asking why the apostles would subject themselves to the baptism of
suffering, in behalf of the spiritually dead people of the world if, in
fact, no one has hope of the resurrection.
Third, “they” refers to those who are baptized in water on the basis of
the preaching and teaching done by those who had since died. In other
words, why would a person obey the command to be baptized, and thereby
have hope of life beyond the grave, if the one who taught the person to
be baptized has since died and will not be raised from the dead?
Fourth, Paul was using the logical argument form known as
argumentum ad hominem—an
argument based upon what men were doing at that time and with which the
readers would be familiar. The Corinthians were familiar with people
who practiced an immersion for the benefit of the dead. He used the
third person pronoun “they” as opposed to “you” or “we.” New Testament
baptism would have been referred to in the first or second person. This
tactic of referring to what outsiders were doing (without implying
endorsement) to make a valid spiritual point was used by Paul on other
occasions (e.g., Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12).
These four possible interpretations each have contextual evidence to
support them. None of the four contradicts any other Bible doctrine, as
does the Mormon spin on the passage. What is critically important is
that we not miss Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 15. He brought up the
subject of “baptism for the dead” for one reason: to reaffirm the
reality of the resurrection. Christians were being drawn into the
destructive heresy that the general resurrection is fictitious. In a
setting where he ardently defended the actuality and centricity of the
resurrection, he advanced two questions. If the resurrection and
end-time events are not to occur, then “why are they baptized for the
dead?” and “why do the apostles stand in jeopardy every hour?” (vss.
29-30). He wanted the Corinthians to face the fact that many things
Christians do have meaning only if resurrection is an anticipated and
ultimate objective. If when we die, that’s it—no future conscious
existence—why take risks living the Christian life as the apostles
frequently did? If this life is all there is, forget Christianity and
live it up (vs. 32). But resurrection is coming! So do not live this
life indulging the flesh and mingling with those who will influence you
to do so (vs. 33). Live righteously, and get your mind straight in view
of your knowledge of the coming resurrection (vs. 34). In other words,
the reality of the resurrection has a direct bearing on how a person
lives while in the body on Earth, since his spiritual status is made
permanent at death, and that condition will be brought forward at the
resurrection. This verse provides no corroboration of the Mormon
doctrine of vicarious baptism.
1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:6
Mormon President Joseph F. Smith claimed that on October 3, 1918, while
pondering in his Salt Lake City room, he opened his Bible to 1 Peter
chapters 3-4. Having read 3:18-20 and 4:6, he claims he received a
vision explaining that the verses referred to Jesus initiating the
preaching of the Gospel, via the righteous dead, to other deceased
persons in the spirit world, so that they might receive baptism enacted
on their behalf on Earth (
D&C 138; cf. Smith, 1971, p. 2; see also the remarks by Spencer Condie, one of the 70 (2003, p. 26).
Does 1 Peter 3:18-20 teach that Jesus descended into the spirit realm
and preached to deceased people? Proper exegetical analysis, with a
close consideration of the grammar, will clarify the passage. First, the
preaching referred to was not done by Jesus in His own person. The text
says Jesus did the preaching
through the Holy Spirit: “the Spirit,
by whom...” (vss. 18-19, emp. added). [NOTE:
Observe that “My Spirit” in Genesis 6:3 is equivalent to “the Spirit of
God” and “the Spirit of Christ” in Romans 8:9.] Other passages confirm
that Jesus was said to do things that He actually did physically through
the instrumentality of others (cf. John 4:1-2). Paul said
Jesus
preached peace to the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:17), when, in fact, Jesus
did so through others, since He, Himself, already had returned to heaven
when the first Gentiles heard the Gospel by Peter’s mouth (Acts 15:7).
Similarly, Nathan charged King David: “You have killed Uriah the Hittite
with the sword” (2 Samuel 12:9), when, in fact, David had ordered it
done by another. Elijah accused Ahab of killing Naboth, using the words,
“Have you murdered and also taken possession?” (1 Kings 21:19), even
though his wife, Jezebel, arranged for two other men to accomplish the
evil action. So the Bible frequently refers to someone doing something
that he, in fact, did through the agency of another person.
Within the book of 1 Peter itself, Peter already had made reference to
the fact that the Spirit of Christ “testified beforehand the sufferings
of Christ and the glories that would follow” (1 Peter 1:11). But it was
the prophets
who did the actual speaking, according to verse 10. Then, again, in
chapter 4, Peter stated that “the gospel was preached also to those who
are dead” (1 Peter 4:6). Here were individuals who had the Gospel
preached to them
while they were alive (“in the
flesh”), and who responded favorably by becoming Christians. But then
they were “judged according to men in the flesh,” i.e., they were
treated harshly and condemned to martyrdom by their contemporaries. At
the time Peter was writing, they were “dead,” i.e., deceased and
departed from the Earth. But Peter said they “live according to God in
the spirit,” i.e., they were alive and well in spirit form in the hadean
realm in God’s good graces. The contextual point of the passage is that
no matter what happens in this life to deter a person from being right
with God, he or she can, in fact, obey the Gospel and, hence, be in the
proper spiritual condition upon leaving this life and entering into the
spirit realm.
Second,
when did Jesus do this preaching through the Holy Spirit? Notice in verse 20, the words “formerly” (NKJV) and “when”—“when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah.” So the preaching was done
in the days of Noah by Jesus via the Holy Spirit Who, in turn, prompted Noah’s inspired preaching (2 Peter 2:5).
Third, why are these people to whom Noah preached said to be “
spirits in prison”?
Because at the time Peter was writing the words, that is where those
people were situated. Those who were drowned in the Flood of Noah’s day
descended into the hadean realm, where they continued to reside in
Peter’s day. This realm is the same location where the rich man was
placed (Luke 16:23), as were the sinning angels (“Tartarus”—2 Peter
2:4). However, Jesus did not go to that “prison” or “Tartarus.” He said
He went to “Paradise” (Luke 23:43). [NOTE: For a discussion of the hadean realm see
Miller, 2005, 4[1]:1-R, and
Miller, 2003.]
Fourth, why would Jesus go to Hades and preach only to Noah’s contemporaries? Why would He exclude those who died
prior
to the Flood? What about those who have died since? Since God is no
“respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11), Jesus would not have
singled out Noah’s generation to be the recipients of preaching in the
spirit realm.
Fifth, what would have been the
content of such preaching? Jesus could not have preached the whole Gospel in its entirety. That Gospel includes the
resurrection
of Jesus (Romans 4:25; 1 Corinthians 15:4). However, at the time the
alleged preaching was supposed to have occurred, Jesus had not yet been
raised!
Here, perhaps, is the most important consideration: The notion of
people being given a second opportunity to hear the Gospel in the
afterlife is an extremely dangerous doctrine that is counterproductive
to the cause of Christ. Why? It naturally and inevitably makes people
think they can postpone their obedience to the Gospel. Yet the Bible
consistently teaches that no one will be permitted a second chance. This
earthly life has been provided by God for all human beings to determine
where they wish to spend eternity. That is, in fact,
the whole point
of earthly existence. Each individual chooses his or her eternal abode
based solely upon personal conduct in this life. Once a person dies, his
eternal destiny has been fixed. He is “reserved for judgment” (2 Peter
2:4; cf. vss. 9,17), and then he is given his
unending
(“everlasting”) eternal abode—either ongoing, permanent punishment or
perpetual life with God (Matthew 25:46; cf. Revelation 20:10-15). His
condition will not and cannot be altered—even by God Himself (Luke
16:25-26; Hebrews 9:27). Indeed, according to the Mormon “Book of Moses”
(8:16-30) in the
Pearl of Great Price, Noah declared the
Gospel to his contemporaries for a lengthy period (“Noah continued his
preaching...” [vs. 23]), yet the people persisted in their rejection of
the Gospel. Why, then, would God offer them a second chance in the
spirit world? The answer is that the God of the Bible would not do so,
while the god of Mormonism would.
Hebrews 11:40
Another passage that has been marshaled in an effort to give biblical
credence to the doctrine of proxy baptism is Hebrews 11:40. Mark
Peterson, a member of the Council of the Twelve, explained:
When visitors have gone from room to room prior to the dedication of
these temples, explanations have been given concerning the work done
there. Always a center of interest is the baptismal font. In each of the
temples this font rests upon the backs of twelve stone or bronze oxen,
following in this, as in other particulars, the pattern given by the
Prophet Joseph Smith as he instituted temple building in his day under
the direction of the Lord. Why is there a baptismal font in the temple?
Cannot people be baptized anywhere? The living, yes. But the font in the
temple is for vicarious baptisms performed in behalf of the dead.
Baptism for the dead? Is that a Christian doctrine? In the
Epistle to the Hebrews we read about the forefathers of the faithful and
then the author declares “that they without us should not be made
perfect” (Heb. 11:40), showing that there is a definite relationship
between the salvation of the living and the dead (Peterson, 1980, emp. added).
Mormon exegesis of the Bible leaves much to be desired. A simple
perusal of the context of Hebrews 11 demonstrates that the writer hardly
had Mormon vicarious baptism in view.
The central purpose of Hebrews was to provide Hebrew Christians with
encouragement not to revert to the inferior system of Judaism to which
they were habituated, but to remain firm in their commitment to Christ
and His new covenant: “But we are not of those who draw back to
perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul” (Hebrews
10:39). Hence, the Hebrews writer was simply pointing out that all
persons who lived on Earth prior to the advent of the Gospel and the
Christian religion are ultimately dependent on the blood of Christ and
the propitiation it provides. Referring to Jesus, Paul explains: “whom
God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to
demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance
God had passed over the sins that were previously committed”
(Romans 3:25). All who lived prior to the sacrifice of Christ could be
saved only in anticipation of that atoning act, as pre-planned by deity
in eternity (Revelation 13:8). In
that sense, “they should not be made perfect apart from us” (Hebrews 11:40, NKJV).
This verse is actually employing the figure of speech known as metonymy
of the effect, in which the effect is put for the cause producing it
(see Bullinger, 1898, p. 560). In this case, the effect (“us,” i.e., we
Christians—those who are the beneficiaries of the completed system of
salvation) is mentioned in place of the means of salvation—the same
means that enables those prior to the Cross to be saved as well—via the
atoning sacrifice of Christ. In his 1880 commentary on Hebrews, Robert
Milligan summarized the point:
The phrase “without us” may therefore be taken as equivalent to without the religion which through Christ we now actually enjoy....
[A]s the ancients were not, and could not, be perfected without the
cleansing efficacy of his blood, it may be truthfully said, that they
were not perfected “without us” and the “better thing” which we by the
grace of God now actually enjoy (p. 335, italics in orig.).
Indeed, this passage has absolutely nothing to do with an alleged
vicarious role enacted by living Mormons in behalf of the deceased. The
idea is preposterous, completely foreign to the book of Hebrews, and in
conflict with the entire scheme of redemption as worked out through
centuries of human history and reported to us on the pages of the Bible.
CONCLUSION
An honest and humble appraisal of these and many other discrepancies
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.
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).
Bales, James (1958),
The Book of Mormon? (Rosemead, CA: Old Paths Book Club).
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).
Bickersteth, Edward (no date),
The Trinity (MacDill AFB, FL: MacDonald Publishing).
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/77), (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung).
Boles, H. Leo (1942),
The Holy Spirit: His Personality, Nature, Works (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1971 reprint).
The Book of Mormon (1830), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), [On-line], URL: http://www.irr.org/mit/bom/1830bom-default.html.
The Book of Mormon (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
“A Brief Explanation About the Book of Mormon” (1981),
The Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: The 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).
“The Challenge the Book of Mormon Makes to the World” (1990), (Euless, TX: Texas Fort Worth Mission).
Christofferson, D. Todd (2000), “The Redemption of the Dead and the Testimony of Jesus,”
Ensign, November, p. 9.
Church, R.W. (1884),
Bacon (London: MacMillan).
Clarke, Adam (no date),
Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).
Comfort, Philip (1990),
Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House).
Condie, Spencer J. (2003), “The Savior’s Visit to the Spirit World,”
Liahona, July, [On-line], URL:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Liahona/2003.htm/liahona%20july%202003.htm/the%20saviors%20visit%20to%20the%20spirit%20world.htm.
Doctrine and Covenants (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
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).
Haley, John (1977 reprint),
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Hamilton, Victor P. (1980), “
pilegesh,” in
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980),
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Hunter, Howard W. (1995), “A Temple-Motivated People,”
Ensign, February.
Huntington, Oliver B. (no date),
Oliver Boardman Huntington Journals, 1842-1900 (Salt Lake City, UT: Utah State Historical Society).
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).
Lewis, Jack P. (1991),
The English Bible From KJV to NIV (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), second edition.
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).
McGarvey, J. W. (1974 reprint),
Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Company).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1968),
The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).
Miller, Dave (2003), “One Second After Death,” [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2244.
Miller, Dave (2005), “Afterlife and the Bible,”
Reason & Revelation, 4[1]:1-R, January, [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2672.
Miller, Dave (2005),
The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Miller, Dave (2008), “Promised Messiah” in
Behold the Lamb, ed. David Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University).
Milligan, Robert (1950 reprint),
Epistle to the Hebrews (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Morris, Leon (1971),
The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Pack, Frank (1975),
The Gospel According to John (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Packer, Boyd K. (1975), “The Redemption of the Dead,”
Ensign, November, p. 97, [On-line], URL:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1975.htm/ensign%20november%201975.htm/the%20redemption%20of%20the%20dead.htm.
Pearl of Great Price (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Petersen, Mark E. (1980), “Why We Build Temples,”
Tambuli, October, 34, [On-line], URL:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Liahona/1980.htm/tambuli%20october%201980%20.htm/why%20we%20build%20temples.htm.
Primary 5: Doctrine and Covenants, Church History (1997), “Joseph Smith Teaches About Baptism for the Dead,” 34602, Lesson 34.
Reeve, J.J. (1939), “Gods,”
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1974 reprint.
Reynolds, George (1883),
The Myth of the “Manuscript Found,” (Salt Lake City, UT: Juvenile Instructor Office).
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).
Smith, Joseph Fielding (1971), “Salvation Universal,”
Ensign, February, [On-line], URL:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20february%201971.htm/message%20from%20the%20first%20presidency%20salvation%20universal.htm.
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 Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
Weingreen, J. (1959),
A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Oxford University Press), second edition.
Whitmer, David (1887),
An Address to All Believers in Christ, [On-line], URL: http://www.irr.org/mit/address-ch1.html.
Wood, Wilford C. (1958),
Joseph Smith Begins His Work (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret News Press).
When
thoroughly scrutinized, error always exposes itself through some kind
of self-contradiction. Truth alone stands the test of scrutiny. One such
example is highlighted when considering a fundamental plank of the
atheistic naturalist’s position.