“I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.327).

“Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations” (Presidents Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas Monson, “Letter Reaffirms use of King James Version Bible,” Church News, June 20, 1992, p.3).

“The words contained in this Bible are merely a history of what is gone by; it was never given to guide the servant of God in the course he should pursue, any more than the words and commandments of God, given to a generation under one set of circumstances, would serve for another generation under another set of circumstances. There must be something to suggest or to draw forth the command to answer the circumstance under which we are placed at the time” (Apostle Orson Hyde, October 6, 1854, Journal of Discourses 2:75).

“…who in his right mind, could for one moment, believe the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original?” (Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.47.)

“As all informed persons know, the various versions of the Bible do not accurately record or perfectly preserve the words, thoughts, and intents of the original inspired authors” (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.383).

“The Book of Mormon has been, is now, and will forever remain secure in the hands of the servants of the Lord, for which we are immeasurably grateful. But with the Bible it was not and is not so. It is now in the hands of intellectuals and unbelievers and ministers whose delight it is to twist and pervert its doctrines and to spiritualize away the plain meanings of all its important parts. And it once was in the sole and exclusive care and custody of an abominable organization, founded by the devil himself, likened prophetically unto a great whore, whose great aim and purpose was to destroy the souls of men in the name of religion” (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, “The Doctrinal Restoration,” p. 12; quoted in Monte S. Nyman, Robert Millet, ed., Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things).

“The Latter-day Saint use of the Bible differs from the Judeo-Christian norm because it is not the sole LDS source of authority (see Scripture: Authority of Scripture). The Bible is interpreted and understood by Latter-day Saints through four important means: (1) other LDS scriptures, which enrich and give perspective to an understanding of biblical teachings; (2) statements of modern prophets and apostles on the meaning of some biblical passages; (3) the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible; and (4) personal revelation through the gift of the Holy Ghost enhancing the comprehension of the scriptures. Consequently, Latter-day Saints are not left without information about the meaning of many difficult passages that have divided the entire Christian world for two millennia” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1:107).

“During the Dark Ages—during the Black Millennium, if you, will—even the Bible that now is was kept from the people. Many is the martyr who suffered death by fire for reading or possessing biblical manuscripts. The translation and publication of the scriptural word was opposed with satanic fury in that day. For the present the devil has lost that round. Today he centers his powers on denying the authenticity of the scriptures and using them to prove such false doctrines as that God is a Spirit or that we are saved by grace alone without works” (Monte S. Nyman and Robert L. Millet, ed., The Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things, BYU, p.13).

“The final contribution of the Prophet to our understanding of the Apocalypse is in the actual work he did on the text of Revelation as part of his inspired translation of the Bible. As was noted above, he deleted from, added to or changed a total of ninety verses. Obviously, not every one of those changes are of equal significance. The committee that worked on the LDS edition of the King James Version included changes for only forty-seven of the ninety verses, or just slightly better than half of the total changes.” (Monte S. Nyman, Robert Millet, ed., The Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things, BYU, p.258).

“The infallibility of the Bible is a fundamental doctrine among Bible cultists, though by their own admission they cannot find a book, chapter, or verse within the Bible to sustain this doctrine. Infallibility and mortality are incompatible. We no more have infallible books than we have infallible men. Such a belief quickly leads to the ridiculous” (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Gospel Symbolism, p.232).

According to historian Dan Vogel,

“The History was begun in the midst of challenges to Smith’s authority, primarily initiated by Bishop Edward Partridge in Missouri, which evoked Smith’s introduction of the office of president of the high priesthood… It is therefore not simply an autobiographical sketch, but an apology setting forth Smith’s credentials as leader of the church. The History therefore contains the earliest account of what is known as his ‘first vision’ and earliest mention of angelic priesthood ordinations.” (Early Mormon Documents, volume 1, page 26)

Not only does this History present the earliest known account of Joseph’s First Vision, it is the only account of the First Vision recorded in Joseph’s own handwriting. There are numerous versions of the First Vision story, each one different from the next. The “official” story, which has been canonized and today appears in the LDS scripture Pearl of Great Price, was written in 1838.

According to late LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley, the First Vision is of the utmost importance to the LDS Church. He said,

“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not. If it did not, then this work is a fraud.’ (Salt Lake Tribune, October 7, 2002)

It’s interesting to note, then, that there are significant differences between the “official” version and the 1832 version of the story. For instance, the 1832 version tells of Joseph becoming concerned for his soul at the age of 12,

“which led me to Searching the scriptures believing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations led me to marvel exceedingly for I discovered that they did not adorn their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository…thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind…my mind become exceedingly distressed for I become convicted of my Sins and by searching the Scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament…” (Early Mormon Documents, volume 1, pages 27-28)

As Joseph first told the story leading up to his ultimate vision experience, he explained his motivation in an entirely different way than what is presented in the official account. Note that Joseph claimed in 1832 that he had discovered by “searching the scriptures” that different denominations didn’t seem to behave or talk as he thought Christians ought; he discovered in the pages of scripture that there had been an apostasy from the true faith and all denominations were in error.

In the official version, however, Joseph’s motivation for seeking God in prayer was “to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join…(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)” (Joseph Smith – History 1:18). Indeed, according to the official version, as soon as Joseph gained an audience with God the Father and Jesus Christ, he asked that very question and was given a resounding and controversial answer. Well, did Joseph ask that question? Or not?

Another significant difference between these two versions of the First Vision story is in the actual vision itself. In 1832 Joseph wrote:

“and when I considered all these things and that that being seeketh such to worship him as worship him in spirit and in truth therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life behold the world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the Gospel and keep not my commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth…” (Early Mormon Documents, volume 1, page 28)

Here Joseph said that when he was 15 years old (the official version says 14) Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him his sins were forgiven. This is the most significant part of the vision’s message as Joseph reported it. Jesus was also said to have spoken briefly about the state of mankind; nevertheless, the bulk of the discourse attributed to Jesus in the official First Vision account was not present in this early telling of the story. Nor could it be. The main content of the message Joseph received in the official First Vision account concerned God’s answer to a question Joseph didn’t need to ask according to his 1832 account, for he already knew the answer.

Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, in the 1832 account Joseph only testified of seeing Jesus; he did not say that two Personages appeared to him; he did not mention the Father whose introduction of the Son (“This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!”) is such an integral part of the official version. Did Joseph’s First Vision include God the Father? Or not?

This is a very important detail for the LDS Church, for the Church bases its understanding of the nature of God on Joseph’s First Vision. Ten years ago LDS Church News reported,

“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President [Gordon B.] Hinckley spoke of those outside the [LDS] Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I do not. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.’” (6/20/1998, page 7)

Latter-day Saints believe in a Christ who is not the “traditional” Christ because Joseph Smith emerged from the grove with a new and different understanding of the nature of God. Or did he?

In bearing testimony of Joseph Smith, President Hinckley once said,

“I have read and believed his testimony of his great first vision in which he conversed with the Father and the Son. I have pondered the wonder of that as I have stood in the grove where he prayed, and in that environment, by the power of the Spirit, I have received a witness that it happened as he said it happened.” (Ensign, May 1992, pages 51-52)

The question is, of which “way that he said it happened” did this spirit bear witness?

—–

For more information see:
Which First Vision Account Should We Believe?
Joseph Smith’s Changing First Vision Accounts
Photo of a portion of Joseph’s 1832 handwritten First Vision account

Ron Huggins’ entire talk, “Those ‘Abominable’ Creeds”, is now available for $2.99 on MP3 audio and $3.99 on MP4 video. His suggestion on the use of “homoousios” between Mormons and Christians is particularly interesting. This talk was really helpful to me. Just yesterday I used three different things from it in a long conversation with three Mormon missionaries over lunch.

“Joseph Smith claimed that while experiencing his ‘First Vision’ he was told that the creeds of Christendom were an ‘abomination’ in God’s sight. Current Mormon leaders and apologists like to claim that they believe the Bible, but not the Creeds, thus attempting to drive a wedge between the Bible and historic Christianity. Professor Huggins shows how the creeds, far from contradicting the Bible, emerge naturally from it, and as such continue to stand as important witnesses for Biblical Christianity at precisely those points where Mormonism departs from it. ”

Your purchases help Mormonism Research Ministry help others!

“I believe the doctrines of the church,” she says. “And our church teaches a lifestyle that encourages us to live well and to serve other people. Even if our doctrines were wrong, you wouldn’t lose anything.”

I don’t know what Mrs. Holmes meant by the word “anything,” but biblically, sound doctrine matters.

Christian pastor John Piper exlpains,

“God gives good press to doctrine… In God’s book, knowing his Son and believing true things about him is liberty. ‘You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’ (John 8:32). God’s self-revelation in the Bible is not a wax nose. Paul calls it ‘the standard of teaching to which you were committed’ (Romans 6:17). It’s a standard, a yardstick, a pattern. You measure truth by it. Elsewhere he calls it ‘the whole counsel of God’ (Acts 20:27), and the ‘pattern of the sound words’ and ‘the good deposit entrusted to you’ (2 Timothy 1:13-14). It does not change. Our everlasting salvation is determined by whether we believe it: ‘Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son’ (2 John 1:9). Depart from the doctrine, and you depart from Christ. Or, better, keep watch over your doctrine and “[by so doing] you will save [both] yourself [and your hearers]” (1 Timothy 4:16).

When Mrs. Holmes says Mormons who live a good lifestyle wouldn’t “lose anything” if the doctrines of the LDS Church were wrong, she’s advocating for a wholly works-based belief system. In this view, eternal happiness is based on how well a person does at living morally and helping others. Proponents of this view apparently think human beings are able to perform righteous and holy deeds sufficient to equal the perfect holiness required by God (but see Isaiah 64:6 and Romans 3:10-20).

God says this: “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Knowledge of who God is, is doctrine.

Mormon doctrine says, among other things, that God the Father was once a man on another planet who achieved Godhood by obeying the LDS Gospel; he is a being of flesh and bone; he is of the same species as mankind; he is but one of many gods in a long line of gods stretching back through eternity; he is subject to natural law.

In contrast, Christianity has always held that the doctrine of God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible is this: He is eternally God; the only true God, past, present and future; a Being of spirit; transcendent and unique; Creator of all, subject to none.

If the Mormon doctrine of God is wrong, Mormons don’t lose anything, they lose everything. Take care, friends. Anyone following and trusting the wrong god has built his spiritual house upon the sand. The rain will fall, the floods will come, and the winds will blow and beat against it, and great will be the fall of it (see Matthew 7).

For more information see God the Father According to Mormonism

“there is no such thing as a Mormon fundamentalist or a Mormon polygamist. Regrettably, those who suggest otherwise only add to the confusion we are trying to clear up.” (Brooke Adams, “Fundamentally, we’re Mormon, coalition asserts”)

Confusion? How’s this for confusion:

At the General Conference of the LDS Church in April 1990 apostle Russell M. Nelson spoke about the divinely revealed name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He explained that the revelation naming the LDS Church (Doctrine and Covenants 115:4) did not say, “Thus shall my church be named,” but rather, “Thus shall my church be called.” Mr. Nelson discouraged the use of any nickname for the Church, specifically mentioning a directive from Church leadership issued in 1984 against the too frequent use of the term “Mormon Church.” (Ensign, 5/1990, page 16)

But then in September 2000 the LDS Church issued a press release that stated in part:

“The term Mormon is a nickname applied exclusively to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or to that church (see The Associated Press Stylebook). It is not accurately applied to any other person or organization… Since those who practice polygamy today are not affiliated with ‘the Mormon church,’ and since they are not ‘Mormons,’ a more accurate and less misleading description of them in the media would be polygamist, or polygamous sect,…” (Excite News, 9/13/00)

Following this, on February 20, 2001, the Salt Lake Tribune reported,

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wants to jettison its best-known nicknames — the Mormon church and LDS Church — in favor of one that leaders believe more accurately reflects its spiritual identity.” (Peggy Fletcher Stack and Bob Mims, “Church Moves To Adjust Use Of Its Name”)

The new nickname desired by the LDS Church was “The Church of Jesus Christ.” The article quoted LDS apostle Dallin Oaks:

“I don’t mind being called a Mormon, but I don’t want it said that I belong to the Mormon church.”

This 2001 Salt Lake Tribune article stated that since 1982 LDS public relations had pressured Church members and media journalists “to replace ‘Mormon’ with ‘LDS Church’ or ‘Latter-day Saints.’” With the new 2001 twist toward replacing “LDS” with “The Church of Jesus Christ,” the newspaper said Mr. Oaks indicated that “Mormon leaders [were not worried] about possible confusion with more than 20 other American denominations with ‘Church of Jesus Christ’ in their corporate names.”

The Arizona Republic interviewed non-Mormon religion scholar Jan Shipps for its story on this issue. Ms. Shipps believed the LDS move away from “Mormon” was an effort to put distance between the LDS Church and the modern-day polygamous splinter groups that were so frequently cropping up in the news even then. (Kelly Ettenborough, “Church hopes ‘Mormon’ will fade from its identity,” February 18, 2001)

In another article, published by The New York Times, Mr. Oaks was quoted,

“This decision [to change the nickname] is right-oriented, not result-oriented,” Elder Oaks said. “We’re only trying to do what the Lord wants us to do.” (Gustav Niebuhr, “Adapting ‘Mormon’ to Emphasize Christianity,” February 19, 2001)

Moving ahead, on September 5, 2002, the LDS Church filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to legally mark (service mark) the word “MORMON.” (A service mark is a word intended to be used, in commerce, to identify and distinguish the services of one provider from the services provided by others, and to indicate the source of the services.)

The “goods and services” to which the mark would apply were described as:

“religious services [Class 45], namely, operating places of assembly for worship and gatherings; ministerial services, namely, providing religious worship services and conducting church sponsored programs” (find this application document at uspto.gov)

The application was denied. The examining attorney for the USPTO found the term “MORMON” to be “a generic name for services” and therefore not able to be registered on the Principle Register. After several rounds of arguments between the examining attorney and the law firm representing the LDS Church (Kirton & McConkie in Salt Lake City), on November 1, 2005 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office sent the applicant this notice:

“FINAL REFUSAL: THE MARK ‘MORMON’ IS GENERIC FOR CLASS 45 SERVICES

“The proposed mark, “MORMON,’ is incapable of serving as a source-identifier for applicant’s religious services…

“Generic terms are by definition incapable of indicating a particular source of the services, and cannot be registered as trademarks; doing so ‘would grant the owner of the mark a monopoly, since a competitor could not describe his goods as what they are.’”

Having hit a wall on the effort to service mark “MORMON” as a Class 45 mark, on September 6, 2006 the LDS Church revised and divided its application, eventually receiving the service mark rights for “MORMON” in Class 41 (educational services) and Class 42 (genealogical services) on May 8, 2007.

In his last-ditch effort to win the Class 45 service mark, however, the attorney for the Church argued,

“In the case at hand, the term MORMON is utilized only in association with services provided by the Applicant [i.e., the LDS Church]. The term MORMON is never utilized to describe or utilize religious services provided by another source…

“Protestants, Catholics, Buddhists and/or any other religious service provider do not use the mark MORMON as an identification of the goods or services rendered by those organizations. The only source utilizing the mark, or for which the mark is utilized, is the Applicant.”

The examining attorney was not persuaded.

This brings us up to the present. To recap the history:

• April 1990 – An apostle in General Conference calls for no nicknames for the Church, specifically calling out the term “Mormon.”
• September 2000 – The LDS Church issues a press release stating they are the only ones rightly called “Mormon.”
• February 2001 – The Church directs media to stop using the nickname “Mormon” and instead adopt the new nickname, “The Church of Jesus Christ.”
• September 2002 – The LDS Church applies for exclusive rights to the mark “MORMON” in a religious services class.
• September 2006 – Notwithstanding the constant efforts of the LDS Church to publicly distinguish itself from the media-grabbing self-named Fundamentalist Mormons, the attorney for the LDS Church argues that “the only source” using “MORMON” to describe or utilize religious services is the LDS Church.

Does this clear up the confusion?

On June 26, 2008 the LDS Church sent a letter to media outlets asking them to stop referring to the polygamous members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as Fundamentalist Mormons. The letter stated in part,

“Over the years, in a careful effort to distinguish itself, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has gone to significant lengths to protect its rights in the name of the church and related matters. Specifically, we have obtained registrations for the name ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’ ‘Mormon,’ ‘Book of Mormon’ and related trade and service marks from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and corresponding agencies in a significant number of foreign countries.

“We are confident that you are committed to avoiding misleading statements that cause unwarranted confusion and that may disparage or infringe the intellectual property rights discussed above.”

The letter closed with a request that it be shown to each organization’s editorial staff and legal counsel.

“Legal counsel”? In the letter the LDS Church asserted its ownership of the service mark “MORMON’ and suggested journalists would not want to “infringe the intellectual property rights discussed above.” Is this meant to be a threat of some sort? It’s interesting that, in reality, the LDS Church only controls the term “Mormon” in regards to educational and genealogical services; there is no trademark infringement when someone uses the word in relation to the FLDS Church or its members. In fact, what the LDS Church is attempting to do is specifically what the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was guarding against when it refused the LDS request to service mark “MORMON” in Class 45; “Doing so would ‘grant the owner of the mark a monopoly, since a competitor could not describe his goods as what they are.’”

The LDS Church published an article on their LDS Newsroom web site on July 10, 2008, again trying to establish their position and reasons for it in regards to “Mormon” and “Fundamentalist Mormon.” Acknowledging that the LDS Church and other Mormon groups may share some history and theology, the article argued,

“Furthermore, all Christian denominations have some historical and theological connection to Catholicism. Nevertheless, this does not authorize them to use the word ‘Catholic’ in their official name. Lutherans and Methodists do not call themselves ‘Catholic fundamentalists.’ Nor did the early Christians call themselves ‘reformed Jews.’

“Likewise, it just doesn’t seem right that the FLDS can overturn more than a century and a half of common usage simply by virtue of the fact that it established itself a century and a half after the Mormon faith was born, and adopted many of its early principles. By declaring that any group professing Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon can rightly be called Mormon is akin to declaring that any Christian group that professes the Bible can rightly call itself Catholic.” (”Proportion and Perspective on Polygamy Reporting”)

To say that religious movements didn’t call themselves after the name of another is not to say that they couldn’t have if they had so chosen. As a matter of fact, many denominations share a foundational, basic element of their official names with others. For instance, there is the Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Members of all four of these organizations are called Lutherans. There is the Baptist General Conference, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Baptist Church, etc. Members of all are called Baptists. If further distinction is required or helpful, members will state they are WELS, Southern Baptist, or whatever.

In the same vein, LDS Mormons and FLDS Mormons are distinguishable by being precise – by employing terms that are perhaps similar, but definitely different. We find Latter-day Saints, Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, and, formerly, Reorganized Latter Day Saints (to name but a few). All are, at some level, Latter-day Saints or Mormons. After all, as Ken Driggs told the Salt Lake Tribune, they really are just “different evolutions of the Joseph Smith tradition.”

Bryan Hurlbutt’s entire talk, “Discerning the Wind: Responding to the ‘Trump Card’ of Mormon Personal Religious Experience”, is now available for $2.99 on MP3 audio and $3.99 on MP4 video. I love his description of true Christianity as a “dance” between objectivity and subjectivity.

“In an LDS culture personal experience is cherished as the authoritative means of obtaining spiritual truth. How do we deal with this very personal and precious issue with our Mormon neighbors without disavowing the reality of genuine Christian, personal, spiritual experience? In this presentation Bryan assesses the nature of Mormon ‘testimony’, discusses a criteria for evaluating religious experience and proposes a means of engaging this foundation of individual Mormon conviction.”

Your purchases help Mormonism Research Ministry help others!

Here are some other resources related to faith, reason, and “sight” that I recommend:

• Testing The Book of Mormon By Moroni 10:4, by Timothy Oliver
• Facts: Seen and Unseen, by John Piper
• Nine Ways to Know That the Gospel of Christ Is True, by John Piper
• Faith and Reason, by John Piper
• Is Faith a Way of Seeing?, by John Piper
• Inside Connection - A Digression on the LDS Concept of Internal Witness, by James Patrick Holding

The eleven minute mark was particularly interesting to me.

Discuss!

I don’t mean to make light of environmental conservation issues, but the crime seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Nevertheless, it’s interesting to read the unfolding story.

Initially, one of the men, Charlie Bright, told the state Department of Land and Natural Resources that he bought the rocks. However, Mr. Bright would not identify the seller.

Later Mr. Bright told reporters that he had a letter granting permission from the landowner for the men to take the rocks. Mr. Bright was unwilling to identify the landowner, but indicated that the name would be provided at the subsequent hearing.

Later still Mr. Bright called state officials confessing that the three men had taken the rocks, but he said they did not know it was illegal.

The men had allegedly loaded 943 coconut-sized river rocks into pickup trucks, planning to take them to their LDS ward on another island via the interisland ferry. One of the accused men, Ralph Chun, is the Kahaluu Ward bishop. Mr. Bright explained the incident:

“‘We do this for the Mormon church. Our bishop told us to come to Maui to get imu rocks because ours is old already, about 10 to 12 years old,’ Bright said, according to the report. ‘We use the rocks to cook kalua pig for the Boy Scouts to support them through our fundraisers. It was for a good cause.’”

Like I said, the “crime” was pretty insignificant, and it was most likely done in ignorance. The courts will decide whether to grant the men mercy and declare them innocent, or whether they are guilty and required to pay a fine.

While we might chuckle over the lighter side of this story, there is a more serious lesson to take away from it. I think about Mr. Bright getting caught, as it were, with his hand in the cookie jar. He offers several excuses, hoping he’ll hit on one that will get him off the hook. He begins by trying to make the crime appear to be no crime at all. Then he pleads ignorance. Finally he tries to blame someone else and finishes with an appeal to the idea that the end justifies the means.

This reminds me of the scene in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit. When God confronted them Adam said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Then God said to Eve, “What is this that you have done?” Eve said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” And why did they eat? Though they knew it was wrong, they thought the end would justify the means: “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate” (Genesis 3:1-13).

It’s human nature to make excuses for our sin. Like Adam and Eve — and like Mr. Bright as well – we try to divert attention away from our transgressions. But when we stand before the Holy and Just God, no excuse will do. Each one of us is guilty, plain and simple. Each one of us deserves condemnation for our sins (Romans 3). Just as the apostle Paul wrote, every one of us may cry out, “Wretched [person] that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24) Paul’s immediate response to his expressed grief was this: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

Why does Paul praise God when faced with his own wretchedness, his own sin? Because

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1-4).

Indeed, Paul had reason to praise God, Paul’s sinfulness notwithstanding. Every person who is “in Christ Jesus” will join in that praise, for there is no condemnation for anyone who has been rescued and redeemed by Christ.

When we stand before God to be judged there will be no place for excuses, no option for casting blame on another, no acceptable appeals to a higher cause. When we stand before God to be judged we stand alone and condemned by our sin; or we stand with Jesus our Advocate, who pleads our case on the basis of His finished work on the cross. According to His abundant grace, Jesus endured the wrath of God in our place so that our sins are no longer counted against us. If we abandon all our excuses and instead cry out for mercy, surely God will grant it (1 John 1:7; 2:1-2; 1 Peter 1:3-4).

Yes, thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

—

Related devotional reading: One Appeal: His Mercy

Richard Packham’s video is also available on YouTube

Publicly exposing the Mormon temple ceremony takes away the superficial power of secretiveness and mystery and helps people face reality. The power of mystery is largely sapped with a simple YouTube video.

Obeying God’s commandments is a form of Christian worship. God’s word tells us:

“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, ‘Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.’” (Ephesians 5:11-14)

Even the LDS Articles of Faith say, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Since many Mormons use this verse to argue that the someone’s form and content of worship (especially their own) should never be criticized, I ask: Are Mormons going to criticize my form and content of worship when I obey God by exposing shameful things?

Trade in your green fig leaf apron for a cross. What God has revealed to the children of man, he has revealed to all the children of man. Find more private satisfaction in the public, personal word of God than in the shameful ceremonies of Joseph Smith.

Tips to Christians For Using (or Not Using) the LDS Temple Ceremony Content When Engaging Mormons

• Be led by the Spirit and be respectful and sensitive to people. The challenge here is immersing yourself in the Bible so that you adopt more biblical concepts of love and respect than worldly concepts. Being loving and sensitive will often require you to engage other issues of the heart and simply point people to the true nature of God and the gospel. But the Spirit may lead you to tear down false pretensions (cf. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5) and idolatry by exposing the ceremony. It is no more disrespectful to expose the shameful LDS temple ceremony than it is to expose pervasive mold to a prospective house buyer.
• Part of the whole question of whether to reveal the temple ceremony concerns strategic and loving engagement, but there is also a power struggle that is real. It cannot be ignored. People who feel like they have secrets often feel like they have a power over other people. Mormons will sometimes refer to the temple as the only appropriate place to discuss certain doctrines. Sometimes it helps to break this superficial facade of power and exclusivity by revealing your knowledge of the temple.
• Bringing up the ceremony will often end a conversation, so be wise about if and when you do it.
• That said, I suggest teaching Mormons who haven’t been through the ceremony, especially teenagers, the three secret hand clasps. Ask them if they think secret handshakes will help get them into Heavenly Father’s presence. Many will vehemently say, “No!” Express your agreement. Ask the same people, “If Satan told you to make a green fig leaf apron, what would you do?” The responses I hear are interesting. “I wouldn’t do it!” “I’d tell him to be quiet.” I like to advise people, “If Satan ever tells you to make a green fig leaf apron, rebuke him!” If they go through the temple ceremony, they will be reminded of these things. This will help them feel creeped out by the ceremony. They should feel that way, and you owe it to them in love to help them be sober about it.
• Break the news to them. The things you have just spoken of are actually in the LDS temple ceremony. If they don’t believe you, tell them to ask their parents. Or Google. The internet has more power to deliver knowledge than the Mormon “priesthood” ever will.
• Don’t over-sensationalize the role of Satan in the temple ceremony. I recommend a good article by Jerald and Sandra called, Obsession With Lucifer?.
• Expect opposition over this. Letting the cat out of the bag will drive some defenders of Mormonism in your community nuts. But keep a sober mind that this isn’t about them. It’s about the true seekers. The inherent shamefulness of the LDS temple ceremony really causes a crisis of conscience in people that causes them to leave the Mormon Church and take Christianity more seriously. Don’t want to see a close relationship severed? That’s OK. You can at least get the word out to people who haven’t been through the temple, who you can tolerate being upset at you. It’s worth it in the long run for their own sake.
• Remind your LDS friends that this isn’t a matter of trivial humor. It’s serious. It is a matter of informed consent. People have a right to know about this all before they join Mormonism.
• Ask, “Is the Book of Mormon is sacred?” “Of course.” “Is it public?” “Yes.” “So, if something is sacred, does it have to be secret and hidden from the public?” This helps when someone explains that simply because the ceremony is “sacred” it cannot be discussed publicly.
• Ask, “Why was the temple veil torn in two when Jesus was crucified?”
• Ask, “Can you think of any examples of people being married in the Old Testament temple?”
• Ask a Mormon if they are aware of the changes in the temple ceremony. Also ask, “Are the parts of the temple ceremony removed in 1990 still sacred?”
• Express your feelings about having your pastor mocked as a hirling of Satan in the pre-1990 LDS temple ceremony. Ask, “If Protestants had a secret ceremony where we called your bishops hirlings of Satan, what would you think if I said it was too ’sacred’ to talk about?”
• Point them to the sufficiency of Christ. Share Hebrews 7 and tell them you want them to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, our great high priest. Eternal life is all about knowing Jesus, receiving Jesus, and believing Jesus as he freely offers us the forgiveness of sins and fellowship with God forever. Christians now have the indwelling of the Spirit, and our level of intimacy and fellowship with God is not dependent on whether we are in a certain building.
• Be like Jesus: “And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.’” Mark 13:1-2

I’ll close with a letter from an ex-Mormon Christian written to Bill Mckeever:

“Good afternoon Mr. McKeever. This email is an apology to the nasty and derogatory remarks I sent you in the past. I do not know if you remember our conversations but it was obvious that I was so deep into Mormonism, I did not realize how uneducated I sounded for defending a false faith. It is my prayer that every member of the LDS church come to the realization that Joseph Smith is one of the false prophets that the Bible warns us about. I came to my realization shortly after finding out the details of Temple rituals. I was officially removed from the membership records as of May 2005… Realizing that accepting Christ as my personal savior and putting all of my trust in him instead of Gordon B. Hinckley has made a magnanimous impact upon my life as a Christian. I want to personally thank you for distributing websites like these to bring LDS members out of the dark and into the light. Thank you for being a bold servant of Christ and May God Bless you and your co-workers always. Please feel free to post this message on your site as a hopeful inspiration to all LDS who wish to leave.”