An Evening with Dr. Reynolds

Last night I met with the President of the Mission Board over south Florida for the Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Dr. Noel B. Reynolds. I had been looking forward to, as well as dreading, this day for months now since the missionaries first suggested that I visit with him. I knew from the outset that I probably would have little of value to add to the conversation as most of my arguments would not be new to him or carry much, if any, weight. But I was determined not to back down, so I accepted the invitation.

After following the missionaries to his house in Plantation, we began the evening with pleasantries and I introduced myself giving a brief introduction to my own background. In the days leading up to the appointment, I had decided that I would present my case for my disbelief in Mormonism to Dr. Reynolds. I would present him with a simple logical proof and proceed to break down how it could not be true. I kept it in the back of my mind as we started our meeting. This is what I had prepared:

Major Premise – The Bible is useful for teaching correct doctrine.
Minor Premise – The Mormon scriptures are useful for teaching correct doctrine.
Conclusion – Both the Mormon Scriptures and the Bible should teach the same, correct doctrines.

I would then proceed to show that the Bible and the Mormon scriptures do not teach the same doctrines, thus the conclusion is false. Therefore, one or both of the premises must be false. This process seemed to me to be a very good starting place for evaluating the claims of Mormonism. Unfortunately, Dr. Reynolds did not see it that way.

I asked Dr. Reynolds if he believed that the Bible was good for teaching doctrines and he agreed that it was. I inquired, “But what about the parts of the Bible that contradict Mormon doctrine?” He told me that he was not aware that there were any such areas. I replied that Mormons believe that they can become a god if they are good enough, but that the Bible teaches there is but one God and no other. He rebutted with the statement of Jesus’ “Is it not written in your law, I said, ‘Ye are gods’?” (John 10:34). Furthermore, he told me, all of the early church fathers believed in deification, that is, the idea that Jesus died so that we may become gods (for a more in-depth treatment see Mormon Defense of Deification and Orthodox Defense of Deification). I told him that the verse he and Jesus were quoting was in reference to God-appointed judges which were men who would one day die (see Psalm 82). In short, Dr. Reynolds claimed that any discrepancy between Mormon and Biblical teachings could be chalked up to the modification of the Bible through the ages. Therefore, any thing that I could cite as being a critical difference could be dismissed as error in translation or a later change in the text. My Socratic dialectical was useless.

Dr. Reynolds told me that comparing the two scriptures (or other doctrinal differences or the philosophical difficulty of an infinite number of Gods and universes) was not the correct starting place, instead he suggested that the question to start with is this: was Joseph Smith a prophet or not? A fair question I admit, but as I sit here at my computer reflecting I can’t help but think that that was my starting point. My proof is just a simple way of evaluating whether or not Smith was a prophet. If he was a prophet then his book should teach the same thing as the Bible. But Dr. Reynolds did not agree that a logical proof could confirm the veracity of the Mormon scriptures.

Instead of using reason to evaluate Smith’s claim to be a prophet, he suggested that the way to know whether or not the Mormon scriptures are true is to follow a simple formula found in the Book of Mormon:

“Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” Moroni 10:3-5

I had read this Scripture before and as it had been explained to me the manifestation of truth that one feels was in the form of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). It wasn’t through reason or tradition, but experience and experience alone that one knows that the Book of Mormon is true. I was about to espouse to Dr. Reynolds the need for other modes of knowing to fully establish a well founded belief from which a solid faith can spring. But before I did I asked him to define what he meant by “God manifesting the truth.” His answer surprised me. He told me that the manifestation of truth was better termed “revelation.” I immediately asked him to define what he meant by revelation and he told me, “It is the still, small voice of God that tells you what to do, or sometimes, what not to do.” Mormons believe that we all receive revelation on a daily basis. We may not all be receptive to the message or heed the instructions, but we all receive them. I have to agree with Dr. Reynolds on this point, I do not deny that God speaks to our hearts through the moral law, but something about this use of “revelation” troubled me. And as I drove back to my house I thought about what he had said.

It seems to me that Dr. Reynolds’ faith is based on what he believes is revelation from God which, though it has its emotional component, is not strictly emotional. It is the revelation that he has received, and continues to receive, that assures him that Joseph Smith is a prophet. The continual revelation is not a part of his faith, but is rather the entire thing. I was shocked when he told me that the Bible and Book of Mormon do not differ in doctrine to any significant degree. I am no great student of the Bible, but I know enough to conclude that the Bible and the Mormon scriptures do not teach the same doctrines. One or both must be incorrect. And in my own sojourning I have found that the Bible is a trustworthy document which I can use to construct doctrine. Dr. Reynolds has the utmost faith in the Mormon scriptures first and makes excuses for the “illusory” inconsistencies between it and the Bible.

Aside from the matter of revelation, I also asked about matters of evidence for the book of Mormon. He cited two examples 1) the use of chiasmus (an ancient literary form only rediscovered decades after Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon), and 2) the discovery of a temple with an inscription of the name of a man who Lehi buried in Arabia on the journey to the New World. I am not going to comment on these two pieces of evidence, because I am not an authority on the subject of ancient literary styles and I know little of the actual facts of Dr. Reynolds’ archaeological evidence. Instead, I will direct you to the following references if you are interested in learning more about these topics: Chiasmus in the Bible, Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, and Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon. I can only conclude that Joseph Smith did receive information from a source that knew about chiasmus and the temple inscription in Arabia. Who or what that source was is indeed the big question.

In conclusion, I wish to say that I do not think that the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach the same doctrines. A polytheistic view is not supported by the Bible, but is necessary for faith in Mormon teachings. Their beliefs detract from the Christian idea of who God is. And to claim that a mere man can become a god equal to Our Father in Heaven is simply blasphemous. We may become more like him, yes, but we shall never be his equal. The truly sad thing is that these people are sincerely striving to be what they think God wants them to be. They are firmly ensconced in the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but Joseph Smith “professing to be wise, […] became [a] fool, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man.” (Romans 1:22-23). Pray that God opens the eyes of the Mormons.

Quotations from the Book of Mormon taken from http://scriptures.lds.org/

*************************************************

Here is some background information on Dr. Reynolds:

For a short bio click here

To read his critique on Greek philosophy in Christianty click here

A Deeper Analysis of Mormon Doctrines

In the past few months, I have many good discussions with the Mormon missionaries. I have found opportunities to ask them questions about their beliefs and reply with my own objections. By speaking with them I have been able to gain more understanding about the theology and teachings of the Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They claim that the Book of Mormon and the Bible present the same theology, furthermore, that the Book of Mormon illustrates this identical theology more clearly and accurately than the Bible. I don’t agree. I would like to show two areas in which the Book of Mormon is in conflict in its philosophy and theology with the teachings of the Bible. The areas I would like to touch upon are the nature of God and the nature of Jesus Christ.

Mormons claim to be monotheists. Indeed, Christianity also claims that there is but one, true God. However, the God in whom the Mormons believe (usually referred to as Heavenly Father) is a totally separate being from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Heavenly Father is like a human in that he has a spiritual body as well as a physical body. The Book of Mormon’s teaching is clear that God the Father has a physical body. Why is it so important that God have a physical body? A secret teaching, not usually told to immature believers, explains why. It was revealed to Joseph Smith that “as man is, God once was.” In other words, Mormons believe that Heavenly Father was at one time a man created by a previous Heavenly Father who was in turn once a man created by a previous Heavenly Father, and on and on to infinity. This doctrine is of course necessary so that good Mormons can have the hope that they themselves can become a future Heavenly Father on their own world or universe. This secret doctrine destroys their monotheistic guise and reveals Mormonism as a polytheistic religion. Furthermore, it is this belief that God was once man and that man can subsequently become God that is squarely in opposition to the teaching of the Bible.

The Bible does not teach that God has a physical body, in fact, John 4:24 is very clear that “God is a spirit.” It is true that the Bible often refers to God’s face, his feet, his hands, etc. but that is always in a figurative sense. If we took those passages literally we would have say that God also has wings (Ps 91:4) is made of wood (John 15:1), and is hot, combusting gas (Heb. 12:29). The Bible is equally clear that there has been only one God: “Before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me.” (Is. 43:10). Mormons like to argue that God made us in his image and if he didn’t have a body he couldn’t have given us bodies. However, this interpretation of Genesis 1:27 does not stand up well to critical examination. Indeed God created man, but even this admission informs us that the phrase “in the likeness of” does not mean “exactly like.” Let me explain. Something that is created or made is intrinsically different from its maker. Birds make nests, but birds are not nests. Cats make hairballs, but (despite some debate) cats are not hairballs. Men create pictures, but men are not pictures. A man can even create a picture that is very much like him, but that picture can never be the same thing as the maker. In the same way God has made man, but God is not himself a man, and neither is man God. God is God, the one and only. Man cannot become God, no matter how god-like we become just as no picture of a man can become a man, no matter how lifelike it is.

Now following this train of thought it would seem impossible that God could become a man. A man can be the subject of a picture, but he can’t physically become a picture. So it would seem that God could not become a man. However, the Bible tells us that what is impossible with man is possible with God (Luke 18:27). Mormons believe that Jesus is not God, but is only one in spirit and purpose with Heavenly Father. There is no Trinity and Jesus was just a very spiritually elevated man. However, this is not what the Bible has to say about the matter. In John 1:1 the book’s author tells us that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” What does the Word do? Well, “the word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Whether we understand it or not the fact is that the Word, the Logos or God’s mind, became human. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that John calls Jesus the “only begotten from the Father.” Not only does this further set Jesus apart from the rest of mankind but it introduces an important concept. Unlike things which are created, things which are begotten are the same as the begetter. Birds beget birds and cats beget cats. In an analogous way God begets God. It would be difficult to argue that God could beget a man, no more than if a man could beget a picture of his son. It is true that God did miraculously impregnate Mary; however, I do not think that John’s reference to begetting is an allusion to the Virginal Conception.

In addition to the first chapter of John, the rest of the New Testament tells us that Jesus firmly believed that he was God. He claimed to forgive sins (an act only possible by God Himself) and was nearly killed on more than one occasion because of his claims. Both Jesus and the people around him know who he was claiming to be: God in the flesh. Jesus claims to be God can either be true or false. If they are false then he is either a madman or a liar. Neither option would suggest that he was just a Good Prophet like many claim. The only other option is that Jesus was telling the truth about his divinity.

The missionaries I have met with always object when I tell them that Jesus is God. If Jesus is God, and Heavenly Father is God, and if the Spirit is God doesn’t that mean that you believe in three Gods and not one? The simple answer is no. The Trinity is a very complex subject, but one should expect the truth to be complex. C.S Lewis once wrote, “If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anybody can be simple if he has no facts to bother about” (Mere Christianity). The fact is that Jesus claimed to be God and all throughout the Bible allusions are made to the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. When we look at the Bible we see that there are three distinct personalities claiming to be God. And while they are each making claims to Divinity none make claims to subtract from the others. If we want to make it simpler for ourselves and say that God the Father is the only God and Jesus and the Spirit are very godlike, but didn’t quite make the cut we must call Jesus and the Spirit liars. That is what the facts force us to do.

In conclusion, the Bible is often unclear about certain points of doctrine. But it is clear that Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all separate while all being one God. It is clear that God the Father is a spiritual being and that Jesus was fully man and fully God. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts presented in the Bible. If, as I have shown, the teachings of the Mormons stand in such stark contrast to the teachings of the Bible there can be only two logical courses of action. One is to accept the Bible and reject the Book of Mormon (along with the Mormon’s other Scriptures). The other is to accept the Book of Mormon as truth and reject the Bible as misinformation. The option to accept both as Holy Scripture is simply dead in the water.

Third Nephi: My First Look at Mormon Beliefs

It may seem that this installment is somewhat superfluous. By the end of my last article I have fully rejected that the Book of Mormon is inspired Scripture. You may be asking “Why continue to talk about the Book of Mormon?” and I would answer, “Maybe we can glean some truth from the Book of Mormon.” It might not be credible Scripture, but neither is The Republic and we can still learn truth from Plato. The Elders told me that everything taught in the Bible is analogous to what is taught in the Book of Mormon. They claim that the two records make it more difficult for false schisms to form by stabilizing one another. So let us examine the two books and see if they are really as closely aligned as we would be told.

The first section I read in the Book of Mormon was the account of Jesus’ appearance in the Americas (3 Nephi 11). To summarize: a great number of people are gathered together discussing the meaning of the past few days’ signs (these signs were prophesized to signal the arrival of Christ). A loud voice from Heaven calls three times (it was unintelligible the first two times) saying “Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him” (3 Nephi 11:7). Do you remember hearing something like this before (Matt. 3:17)? After they hear the voice, the glorified Jesus descends from the clouds and stands among the people. Everyone gets a chance to pass by and feel his wounds. He preaches to the crowd and baptizes them. He picks out twelve specific men and gives them the authority to baptize and spread the gospel. Chapters 12 through 14 pretty well mirror chapters 5 through 7 of the book of Matthew, which (for those of you like me who aren’t Bible scholars) is the Sermon on the Mount.

Let’s take a moment to look at these chapters with a discerning eye. The first thing that I noticed was Jesus’ entrance into the New World. His choice of entrance is just about as opposite as you can get from the way he came onto the scene in Judea. In the Old World, He entered in with no fanfare in a shed in a little town called Nazareth. He lived a fairly uneventful thirty years before beginning his ministry. During his ministry he often told the disciples not to proclaim him the Messiah (Matt. 8:4; 16:20; Mark 8:29-30; Luke 9:20-21). But all those previous ways of doing things go out the window as Jesus crossed the Prime Meridian. Instead of a quiet ministry beginning in rural South America, Jesus comes in like it’s the Second Coming. It seems that from the beginning this might not be the same Jesus of the Bible.

The fact that the chapters which retell the Sermon on the Mount are nearly identical to the account in Matthew is a source of little interest. Maybe if Joseph Smith had never read Matthew, then this would be of great importance. The only interesting point in those three chapters is the addition of a Beatitude. In 3 Nephi, the first beatitude is not “Blessed are the poor in spirit” but rather blessed are those that are baptized (12:2). This beatitude is conspicuously absent from the Biblical account. Of course, this addition doesn’t prove that the Book of Mormon is totally different theologically from the Bible, Jesus did preach about baptism; but it does begin to show the disproportionate amount of importance that Mormonism places on good works, in this case baptism.

In addition to reading those chapters, I also skimmed through the histories that recorded the events before Christ’s appearance. It seems that even before he was born the people in the New World knew that the Messiah’s name would be Jesus. Even more surprising is the fact that they actually understood the purpose of the Messiah! Almost two thousand years after his appearance there are still a great numbers of Jewish scholars who don’t understand the purpose of the Messiah. So how did the people here understand and believe everything about Jesus’ necessary sacrifice? Remember that during Jesus’ time most Jews thought that the Messiah was going to be a political savior not a man who would die on a cross. To fully appreciate this problem, please allow me a short tangent so that I can propose an adequate analogy to illustrate my point.

The progression of revealed religion and mathematics has a great deal in common. Both started off with a very basic understanding. The idea that a God even existed is as enormous a leap as the discovery that there exists a number called zero. In our modern day we take zero for granted, but it was quite a feat to come up with the concept of zero. As time progressed so did math and religion. Math added new functions like addition and division. Religion discovered the new ideas of good and evil. Even more time passed and both branches of knowledge continued to advance. Mathematicians found algebra, geometry, and calculus. Theologians (or their ancient counterparts) were shown Jehovah, the sacred act of the sacrifice, and finally the Great Act of the Sacrifice of God Himself for the sins of mankind. When we look back at these discoveries through time, we lose the appreciation of the monumental changes in thought that it took to move on to the next level of development. In addition to this loss of awe, we have taken for granted that we need each step in the progression to get to where we are now. Without basic algebra we wouldn’t have discovered calculus. In a like manner, without exposure to the early Judaic beliefs and practices we would not be able to understand Christ’s sacrifice. That is part of the reason I believe that we have the Old Testament. It tells us where we came from spiritually so that we can understand critical points of doctrine, such as, why Jesus died.

It seems to me that the people in the New World were at the level of basic math in their spiritual lives when the Jews arrived around 600 BC. They quickly advanced to algebra with guidance from the displaced Israelites. And when Christ arrived they made another enormous jump-- from algebra to calculus III. Now it is possible that they were capable of making these huge leaps in understanding, but I doubt it. If you throw the average Algebra student into an advanced calculus college course he will be able to follow some of the lecture. But at the end of the day you will have a very confused kid. In the same way, I think that the people of the New World would not have been able to understand Jesus as quickly as they purportedly did.

This short entry is no doubt far from the entire story, but I think that even from this small sample we can see that the Book of Mormon does not accurately portray the Jesus in the Bible or the required progression of thought needed to understand Christ’s mission. There may be something yet for us to learn from the Book of Mormon, but the odds are that it won’t be much.

A Brief Introduction to Mormonism

Wednesday morning last October started as Wednesdays usually did. I awoke, showered, had some breakfast and sat down to finish up some Physical Oceanography homework for the next day. As I worked, a knock came at the door. I rose and answered it. To my surprise two nicely dressed gentlemen in their twenties introduced themselves as missionaries of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints. They asked if they could come inside and talk to me. I agreed and they entered as I scrounged up three chairs.

Once we were comfortably seated they proceeded to go through their rehearsed speech. They asked if I had heard of Jesus, salvation, Joseph Smith, prophets, etc. I told them I had and what I didn’t know, they kindly filled those blanks. They shared with me Scriptures from the Bible as well as from the Book of Mormon. At the end of our hour long meeting they gave me my own copy of the Book of Mormon and asked me if I would take some time to read some of it, and pray about its veracity. I told them I would.

Let’s fast forward a few days to the point where I have read a bit of the Book of Mormon and have had the chance to meet again with the two Elders (that’s their title as they are in their 2 year missionary journey). They believe that the Book of Mormon is the inspired record of Jesus in the New World. Here is the basic storyline: around 600 BC a group of Jews flee Jerusalem as the Babylonians are invading and end up in the New World by boat. They build up a civilization that is taught about Jesus Christ. In 33 AD, Jesus, in his resurrected form ascends down on their Temple. He teaches them, they all believe, and He returns to Heaven. They all live in peace and harmony for awhile, but after about 400 years the people have become so evil that they self-destruct. Before they do, the son of Mormon, Moroni, buries the records of this civilization, which are in the form of golden plates, so that they won’t be destroyed. During the early 1800s, Joseph Smith is praying and asking God to show him the one, true church. The answer that he gets is that they are all wrong. So God, a resurrected Moroni, angels, among others, in a series of appearances showed Smith the golden plates with the Book of Mormon on them. He was given the ability to translate the plates into English, and we have what is known as the Book of Mormon. Smith founded the Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1830. Soon after founding the church, Smith and his followers were persecuted and moved to Illinois where Smith and his brother were murdered by a mob. Brigham Young became Smith’s successor and led the Latter-Day Saints to Utah where the headquarters of the Church remains to this day.

Mormons hold that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are inspired Scriptures. However, there are some big differences in the two. Unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon cannot show us the original manuscripts from which the English translation comes. The plates from which the translations were made have been taken by the messenger who first gave them to Joseph Smith. I have been told that you must pray and ask God for the knowledge that Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true. God does grant us wisdom if we ask (James 1:5). But God also calls us to use our minds so that we may know the truth (1 Thessalonians 5:21). God does give wisdom, but wisdom is the correct use of knowledge and God does not command us to ask for knowledge. We must seek out knowledge for ourselves.

So let us objectively look at the claims for the Book of Mormon. As I have already stated, there are no original manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. Maybe there are third party pieces of the Book of Mormon. Even if we didn’t have the manuscripts we could still reconstruct all but a handful of verses of the entire New Testament. But there are no letters containing pieces of the Book of Mormon. No ancient commentaries on this book have been unearthed. There aren’t even any writings that refer to the Book of Mormon, before the 1800s of course.

The Book of Mormon may not have original manuscripts or third party fragments like the Bible. But both books include lengthy sections of history. Now it is well known that the places mentioned in the Bible exist. You may have even heard of Jerusalem or Rome. The Bible also speaks of people, like Paul, Jesus, Pontius Pilate, Abraham, Moses, and Solomon. There is a plethora of third party confirmations that these people actually existed. Ancient records and inscriptions outside of the Bible talk about them. The Bible also includes events, like the Roman rule of Judea in the 1st century AD, the exodus, and the exile. Many of these events have external confirmations that they in fact happened. So maybe the Book of Mormon has such confirmations of the places, people, and events which make up the history it reports. But, as you may have already guessed, there is no such confirmation.

Now I will grant the concession that I am no great student of the Book of Mormon, and (believe it or not) I know far from everything. There could be some evidence for the Book of Mormon, but the missionaries that I have spoke with have not been able to cite any real evidence. Their best attempt has been to tell me that they know that there is “all kinds of evidence,” for the Book of Mormon; they are just ignorant of it.

For the Elders, the credibility of the Book of Mormon stands on one thing: faith. They have prayed and asked God if the Book is true. And in their own ways they have received affirmative answers. I cannot dispute the credibility of their experiences. Their experiences are in the realm of the Subjective where Lady Reason has no sway. But I can relate to their belief. My own conversion to Christianity was largely subjective. I felt the Holy Spirit move and after much diligent work on His part I acted. But as time passed I was not satisfied that I had felt something that May evening a decade ago. I studied to see if the story that the Bible told was indeed true. I wanted to know if my subjective feelings were based on an objective reality. After some time I found the answer that I sought. There is indeed a Jesus and he did die. More so than that, He was resurrected. I came to see that my faith is not placed in a feeling that can come and go, but in a God-Man who lived and died on this Earth, rose, ascended and is coming back. Without credible objective evidence to support it, Mormonism appears to be a religion based on subjective feelings that have no roots in reality.