Best wishes, 
Daniel Peterson

[SHIELDS note:  This may be a truncated version of this e-mail.]

Mr. Harris:

Do not attempt to deceive yourself.  Do not play games with US.  There is no "reply" to be made on the question of whether Latter-day Saints believe Joseph Smith to be as important as Jesus Christ, other than to concede that your accusation is false and to withdraw it. 

The first of the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

There is no mention of Joseph Smith in the first Article of Faith. 

The fourth of the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says, "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:  first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Please notice what is identified as the first principle of the Gospel.  Then read through the others, and notice that Joseph Smith is not mentioned in the fourth Article of Faith.

Acknowledge your error or your deception -- call it what you choose -- and withdraw it.  That is the only honest course open to you.  If you persist in a despicably and manifestly false claim, you will reap the reputation such unethical behavior deserves.

Daniel Peterson

Response from Harris missing

Mr. Harris:

As we noted in the first and second installments of this discussion, virtually nothing that you have sent to us has the slightest connection with the issue that we are discussing.  That issue, you may remember, is whether Joseph Smith is regarded by the Latter-day Saints as holding an importance equal to the importance of Jesus Christ, or whether their Church teaches them so to regard him.  You say that the Latter-day Saints DO hold Joseph Smith to be as important as Jesus -- or, at least, that this is the teaching of the Church.  On the other hand, the Latter-day Saints themselves deny holding any such belief, they deny that their Church teaches or has taught any such belief, and, what is more, the evidence clearly shows that your allegation is false. 

In justification of your false claim, you sent a long posting containing, thus far, a large number of utter irrelevancies.

Let us now proceed with further examination of your attempt to legitimate your untrue accusation against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

*** PETERSON: In order to save time, I will not summarize or quote all of the things you say, but will merely note the following:
(a) Even were it true that Adam cannot be justifiably termed a “prophet,” and that the Latter-day Saints are mistaken on this minor issue, that would have no relevance whatever, none at all, to the question we are discussing.  And that question is, you may perhaps recall, whether they think Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.
(b) Even if it were true that Adam did not hold the priesthood, and that the Latter-day Saints are mistaken on this quite minor issue, that fact would be irrelevant to the question under consideration here, which is whether they regard Joseph Smith as being of equal importance with Jesus Christ.
(c) Whether or not Joseph Smith was a literal descendant of Aaron, and whether or not that matters, has nothing whatever to do with the question at issue here.  You recall, I hope, what that question is.
(d) Whether John the Baptist held the priesthood or not, and whether Peter, James, and John held the priesthood or not, is of no significance at all with respect to the question we are discussing.
(e) Whatever the relationship between the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods might be, whatever the proper interpretation of the epistle to the Hebrews, whether or not we agree with your view that the Aaronic priesthood is obsolete, none of these matters has any bearing on the question under consideration here, which is -- and I think I had better restate it, so that we don’t lose our focus -- whether your accusation is true that Latter-day Saints hold Joseph Smith to be as important as Jesus Christ.
(f) Whether or not the current First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ is spiritual or not has nothing whatever to do with your claim that we accord equal importance to the Savior and to Joseph Smith.
(g) Whether Brigham Young taught the so-called “Adam-God” doctrine or not, and what that doctrine really means, are interesting and disputed questions.  But they have nothing to do with the issue we are discussing, which is your false and deceptive claim that Latter-day Saints believe Joseph to be as important as Jesus.
(h) Whatever Joseph Smith and Brigham Young may or may not have believed about extraterrestrial biology, and whether or not they claimed to have received revelations on the subject, has nothing whatever to do with the question at issue.  Do you recall what it is?
(i) Alterations in the liturgy of the temple, whether done by revelation or by whim, have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
(j) Past and present views of race have absolutely no connection with the subject of Joseph Smith’s importance relative to Jesus Christ.  (Which is, you remember, the issue we are treating.)
(k) Your debatable assertions about the current status of the Journal of Discourses (which, incidentally, include no sermons by Joseph Smith) have no relevance to the relative importance of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ in Latter-day Saint doctrine.
(l) Your questionable assertions about the current status and reputation of Elder Bruce R. McConkie (who, incidentally, was not Joseph Smith) are of utterly no relevance to the question of whether Latter-day Saints think Joseph Smith was as important as Jesus Christ.
(m) Book of Mormon archaeology, although it is a fascinating topic, says nothing about whether the Church of Jesus Christ exalts Joseph Smith to a status equal to that of the Savior.

Thus, you see, you have continued to spew out irrelevancies that in no way justify your false, deceptive, and misleading charge against the Latter-day Saints.  They take up a lot of space, and they take some time to read, but they have nothing whatever to do with your claim.

*** HARRIS: “I would finally point out the wording of the typical Mormon testimony: ‘I bear you my testimony that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, that a living prophet stands at the head of the church and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church on the earth today.’  This is a testimony about Joseph, not Jesus!”

*** PETERSON: Do you not feel just a bit self-conscious about having yourself fabricated the evidence that you wish to plant against the Latter-day Saints?  At least in American courts of law, such evidence is illegitimate, would subject the person who invented it to criminal charges (e.g., perjury), and would almost certainly result in the acquittal of the defendant.  (We had a famous case here recently, concerning murder accusations against one O. J. Simpson, that unfortunately turned on just that kind of issue.)

On the basis of what studies and surveys do you conclude that what you have written -- what YOU have written, note! -- is “the typical Mormon testimony”?  Where is the evidence?  Where are the statistics?  (I note in passing that even if it WERE “the typical Mormon testimony,” it would be impossible to hold such a testimony without at the same time having a testimony of Jesus Christ, for the truth of the Book of Mormon directly implies the divinity and atonement of Jesus, as do the prophethood of Joseph Smith and his successors and the truth of the Church they have directed.)

I deny that what you self-servingly offer is “the typical Mormon testimony.”  Having heard literally hundreds if not thousands of them, having expressed such testimony myself, I can speak with some authority on this subject.  What you have written, what you have created to make us look bad, is a figment of your hostile, anti-Mormon (certainly non-Mormon) imagination.  What would you think if I had invented a fictional “typical fundamentalist Protestant witness” about the truth of the Bible, etc., but had omitted Jesus Christ -- and then pointed to that as proof that fundamentalists worship the Bible rather than God?  You would dismiss it, rather passionately, as a self-serving lie.  And rightly so.  Would you recognize me as able to issue authoritative statements, on my own, with no quotations, with no supporting documentation, of fundamentalist or evangelical belief?  Would you permit me to make statements in the first person, as if I were an evangelical, and then attribute them to real evangelicals?  I don’t think so.  So why should anybody read something of your composition as expressing the Latter-day Saint view?  Why should anybody read your bogus first-person testimony as if it really came from a Latter-day Saint rather than, as it does, from an avowed enemy of Latter-day Saint faith?

I have dealt with this issue of "the typical Mormon testimony" -- and, unlike you, have supplied some real empirical evidence to support my position -- in a review that you can access via the internet at http://farms.byu.edu/free/review/10_1/r10a.asp?content=dcp.  

So, once again, we have nothing but irrelevancies in your argumentation thus far -- except on your claim regarding Latter-day Saint testimony, where we have a form of fraud.

You are wrong.  Have the grace and the integrity to admit it.  Give up your useful, satisfying, wonderfully shocking accusation.  It will weaken your case against the Latter-day Saints, true, but think of the bracing sense of honesty that you will feel when you know you have done the right thing.  Do it now.  Don't delay your repentance.

Sincerely,
Daniel Peterson

Mr. Harris:

As a self-styled Christian apologist you have been corresponding with members of the Church of Jesus Christ on behalf of Reachout Trust for some time, challenging what we do and say, and defiantly posting untruths on your web site.  Sadly, although on first sight your pages look impressive, with citations from serious and interesting sources, you seem willing to post just about any nonsense on your site as long as it shows the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a poor light.  This undermines your credibility enormously.  Your glorying in what can only be called “cheap shots” does you no credit and is simply an attempt to demonize the Latter-day Saints in the eyes of your more gullible readers.  Those of us who have studied Mormonism for many years are familiar with your “don't trouble me with logic or evidence or expert testimony” approach to debate.  Nevertheless, hope springs eternal and it is in that spirit that I have posted this series of replies to some of the points you raise.

(Do you recognize that language?)

Do you remember the topic we have been considering?  It is whether or not Latter-day Saints teach or are taught by their Church that Joseph Smith is equally important with Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God and our Redeemer.

You will recall that, to this point, virtually none of the evidence or arguments you have presented has had the remotest relevance to the question at issue.  And the one or two items that HAVE had some slight discernible relevance have been false or fraudulent.

Keep these two facts in mind as we continue our discussion of your false accusation: (1) We are talking about the status of Joseph Smith within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Is it equal to that of Jesus Christ, or is it not?  (2) You have presented absolutely nothing thus far to legitimate your slander against the Latter-day Saints.

This will be your last tutorial for a couple of days, as I will be away from home.  You would do well to use that period for reflection and moral self-inspection.  When I return, I will have at least one more installment for you to consider.

Let us now proceed to your further argument:

You begin by discussing the topic of “Joseph Smith and the final judgement.”

*** HARRIS: “I have no problem in agreeing with you that in certain circumstances and specific situations mentioned in the Bible there would be those involved in judging others. However, whatever preamble you give to the matter the point in the end is whether Joseph Smith can have the position given to him and whether such claims make Joseph Smith equal with Jesus Christ.”

*** PETERSON: Good.  You grant that, biblically, certain people will be involved in judging others.  I have surveyed some of the other correspondence that has been sent to you from Latter-day Saints, and they have made this case well.  You are right to agree with them.

You then say that “the point in the end is whether Joseph Smith can have the position given to him and whether such claims make Joseph Smith equal with Jesus Christ.”

This is not really true.  At least, no conceivable answer to either of those questions seems likely to validate your false accusation that Latter-day Saints regard Joseph Smith as equal to Jesus Christ.  Permit me to explain why:  You concede that “in certain circumstances and specific situations mentioned in the Bible there would be those involved in judging others.”  I assume that you do not believe that those people, by virtue of that function, are equal to Jesus Christ in importance.  If you do not, there seems no reasonable ground for you to claim that, by according Joseph Smith a similar role, Latter-day Saints exalt him to a status equal with Christ.  That being the case, the question of whether or not Joseph Smith actually deserves such a role is beside the point, for even if we think he does that would not make him equal with Christ.

*** HARRIS: “Now I live in this dispensation and I believe in Jesus Christ and have committed my life to Him.  I serve Him, follow Him and believe that the promise He made that those who follow Him will be with Him where He is.  Even if He hands my judgement to others the BASIS for the judgement does not change.  Whether I stand before Jesus or a representative the same basis will be in operation.  Have I given my life to Him and have I come into the reality of the situation?  Do I know that my sins have been atoned for at Calvary and there is nothing else I can do but receive His free gift via repentance?  I need no other mediator; the representative will not ask me if I accept the Archbishop of Canterbury or John Wesley or Peter or James or John or Joseph Smith but did I accept Jesus - HIM ALONE.”

*** PETERSON: No Latter-day Saint is likely to grant your implication here that, with Joseph Smith, the basis for judgment has changed.  That is YOUR notion, and, as I mentioned in a previous posting to you, you should not assault us for your ideas, nor should you plant evidence on the scene and then try to convict us because of your fabricated "clues."

Suppose, though, that someone comes to the judgment bar and says, “Yes, I believe in Jesus.  But I am not beholden to Peter or James or John.  I just invent my own notions of Jesus, occasionally based on the Aquarian Gospel and the URANTIA Volume, mixed with a little Edgar Cayce, but usually just spun out of my own imagination.”  Do you think that, if we wish to be saved, we can simply ignore God’s revelation to us?  That we can set scripture aside?  (If so, on what basis can you possibly criticize the Latter-day Saints even if, for the sake of argument, our views are unbiblical?  After all, as you put it, we aren’t going to be asked if we accept Peter or James or John, just Jesus.  And Latter-day Saints do accept Jesus.)

*** HARRIS: “Now let us come to the scenario that Brigham Young put forward.  As I am in this last dispensation to get into the celestial kingdom and be with Christ forever I will not be judged by Jesus Christ but by Joseph Smith who Jesus has given the authority to.”

*** PETERSON: Even assuming that your sketch of “the scenario that Brigham Young put forward” is accurate, doesn’t it strike you as significant that, as you yourself put it, it is “Jesus [who] has given the authority to” Joseph Smith, and not the other way around?  Doesn’t that seem to imply inequality in status?  Doesn't it clearly make Jesus superior to Joseph?

*** HARRIS:

“What will He ask me to ensure I can go through?
“JS. ‘Do you believe in the atoning work of Jesus Christ?’
“ME. ‘Yes I do can I do in please?’
“JS. ‘Not yet there is one more question - do you believe in the testimony that I wrote concerning Christ?’
“ME. ‘No because it contradicted what I read in the Bible - can I go in please?’
“JS. ‘No I will not sign your passport.’
“ME. ‘But the Bible tells me that the only judgement for entering the best Kingdom with Jesus is to believe in His atonement surely then I can go in.’
“JS. ‘No, Christ gave the keys to me and I have added some of my own conditions!’”

*** PETERSON: Very convincing.  I suppose that you claim this is based on Brigham Young’s statement in Journal of Discourses 14:203. 

But it is not.  It is fiction.  It is pure projection of your hostile misreading of Latter-day Saint doctrine onto the Latter-day Saints.  It is yet another instance of evidence-tampering, very much of a piece with your fraudulent, forged “typical Mormon testimony.”

Notice, by the way, that even in your spurious bit of pseudo-evidence “Christ gave the keys to [Joseph Smith],” and not the other way around.  Even when you are busy forging misleading and fraudulent “evidence” against him, even YOU know that Joseph Smith is not, in Latter-day Saint understanding, on the same level of importance with the Savior.

But there is another, crucial, problem with your manufactured proof:  No informed Latter-day Saint would agree to your claim that Joseph Smith simply, whimsically, “added some of [his] own conditions” for salvation.  Yet that is the crucial part of the passage for your argument, such as it is, and you have invented it and attempted to stick it in the mouth of Joseph Smith.  Having thus introduced your bogus evidence, you then triumphantly conclude, from that evidence, that your bogus claim is true:

*** HARRIS: “Joseph Smith is making himself equal to Christ because he is changing the BASIS of the judgement that Christ laid down.”

*** PETERSON: No, Doug Harris is unethically attempting to portray Joseph Smith as equal to Christ in Latter-day Saint doctrine by inventing non-existent statements and fraudulently placing them on the lips of the Prophet.  “That is a very serious matter.”

*** HARRIS: “I can reject the testimony of Joseph Smith because it disagrees with the testimony and foundation of Jesus Christ.”

*** PETERSON: That may well be your opinion, but you have no right to invent fictitious evidence in order to buttress your notions and thereby convince the uninformed.  Besides, even if Joseph Smith’s teachings did disagree with those of the Savior, it would not prove that his followers regarded him as of equal importance with Jesus.  (And that, you may perhaps remember, is the question under discussion here.)

*** HARRIS: “The ETERNAL word of God is for all dispensations including mine.  But now I am told that confessing Christ is not enough for this generation I also have to confess Joseph Smith and if I do not do this then I am not of God but ‘anti-christ.’”

*** PETERSON: Again I ask you: If someone were to say, “I believe in Jesus but I reject the New Testament and I hold the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in contempt because they disagree with the Old Testament, would that person be a Christian?  Would that person be saved?  Do you really believe that it is possible to be saved while rejecting God’s revelation and God’s scripture?

Obviously, I am well aware that you do not accept the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price as scripture.  But that is a secondary issue.  If they are scripture, can you ignore them?  Can you, with impunity, tell God to go take a hike?

The ancient Christian heretical sect known as the Marcionites accepted only the gospel of Luke, and rejected the other three gospels.  They also rejected the Old Testament, and vilified Jehovah or Yahweh as a lesser, evil god.  But they accepted Jesus.  Do you think they were saved?  If you do, why cannot the Latter-day Saints also be saved?  Their deviations from your version of Christianity are no more serious than were the Marcionites’.  If you do not, why not?  Could it be that you are adding conditions to salvation?

For that matter, I and millions of other Latter-day Saints confess Christ, accept him as Savior, believe that he atoned for our sins and rose again from the tomb on the third day.  If that is not enough for salvation, aren’t you adding to the requirements and setting yourself up as equal to the Savior?  And if that IS enough, why are you campaigning against the Latter-day Saints and spreading untruths about them?

*** HARRIS: “Whatever you try to say to the contrary for the millions of Christians in this world that want to enter God's kingdom and receive the reward they have been promised Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.”

*** PETERSON: This may be the key statement in your entire catalog of irrelevancies, frauds, and misinterpretations.  Whatever we try to say to the contrary, your mind is made up.  No evidence will convince you.  No quantity of denials, however sincere, will sway you from your determined course.  You know more about our faith than we do.  And you hate it.  And you will stop at nothing to depict it as evil and alien.  And you are restrained by no considerations of honesty or charity in your holy crusade.  (It certainly is an attractive picture of Christianity in action, Mr. Harris!)

*** HARRIS: “The Mormon canon of scripture is not a complete canon but a founding canon, clearly identified as the “standard works” of the church, but the whole canon is not fixed since it is purported to include further revelations and announcements up to the present day.  Hence the statement, “The most important prophet, so far as we are concerned, is the one living in our day and age.”  This makes Gordon Hinckley and the rest of the ‘general authorities’ of the church more important to current church members than Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Peter James and John, or even Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  ‘Watch the prophet’ is the phrase sometimes used.”

*** PETERSON: This is somewhat distorted.  But even if it were true, it would prove nothing concerning your claim that Joseph Smith, in Latter-day Saint opinion, is as important as the Son of God.  It is, as so very, very much of your "evidence" has been, completely irrelevant and beside the point.

*** HARRIS: “Where are we to look then when we wish to know ‘what Mormons believe’?  Perhaps the writings of apologists like Dr. Stephen E Robinson of Brigham Young University might help us.  He is certainly the flavour of the month as author of Are Mormons Christians? and co-author of How wide the Divide?  No help here I am afraid.  In the first mentioned volume he writes in the preface, “It should be understood that I do not speak officially for the LDS church or for Brigham Young University.”  Perhaps we can look to Mike Parker for some authoritative teaching on Mormonism?  No luck here either I am afraid.  A similar disclaimer is found on the Mike Parker LDS Library, ‘Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its presiding authorities.’”

*** PETERSON: Talk about “flavor of the month”!  This claim of doctrinal chaos among the Latter-day Saints is very much in vogue these days among anti-Mormons such as yourself.  (And, yes, I have read your claim that “anti-Mormons” don’t exist.  Nice try.)  But it is the anti-Mormons who see it, not the Latter-day Saints.  I am quite comfortable with the remarkable degree of doctrinal consensus that exists across the Church (at least on the four continents where I have held Church membership and leadership positions).  Once again, we seem to have manufactured and self-serving “evidence” being advanced by our critics.

But here’s a question for you:  I know that Michael Parker has told you that your claim of equality in status between Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ is false.  But what about Stephen Robinson?  Does HE admit that Jesus and Joseph are of equal importance?  Can you find that teaching in his writing?  What do you think he would say, if he were asked about it?  (I would be happy to ask him.  He is a friend of mine.  I know full well what he would say about the accusation, and about someone like you who advanced it.  Dr. Robinson can be withering.)

*** HARRIS: “So you see, when a Mormon jumps up and declares ‘but I don't believe that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus,’ he must of course be believed.  We must also believe, however, that he does not speak for the church and therefore is only an authority on what is both Mr Robinson's and Mr Parker's favourite subject – ‘what I believe.’  He is not an authority on ‘what Mormons believe.’  That honour is claimed and jealously guarded by a group of elderly gentlemen in Salt Lake City.  We will then continue to quote them, and their predecessors, and show the world ‘what a tangled web [they] weave.’”

*** PETERSON: I am rather surprised that you would cite the line about the tangled webs people weave when they practice to deceive, since it so accurately characterizes what you have attempted to do with your false accusation against the Latter-day Saints.

Do you REALLY think that you are a greater authority on “what Mormons believe” than the Mormons are?  What incredible anti-Mormon chutzpah!

*** HARRIS: “Meanwhile it should be categorically understood that many [Latter-day Saints] do not believe that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.”

*** PETERSON:  Many?  What a laugh.  Your statement here is true, but misleading.  It is as if I were to say that most British evangelicals are not serial murderers.  It falsely implies, but does not come right out and culpably say, that a substantial number of British evangelicals ARE serial murderers.  It is a method of suggesting an untruth without actually stating it and being held accountable for it.  In your case, it is more subtle than your brazen falsehood on the relative importance of Jesus and Joseph in Latter-day Saint thinking, but, ethically, it is not really much superior.

*** HARRIS: “Furthermore, it is the opinion of some that no Mormon of his acquaintance believes it and he further believes, in his own opinion, that should any Mormon subscribe to and teach it then they would be in danger of excommunication from the church.”

*** PETERSON: That is my firm opinion.  Indeed, I know it for a fact to be true.  You have offered not a shred of contrary evidence, except a few easily detected frauds.  I guess I am supposed to bow before your superior knowledge of Latter-day Saint doctrine and practice? 

Well, I suppose that is enough for now.  You have still offered nothing that would justify your libel against the Latter-day Saints, nothing that would legitimate your false accusation, nothing that would remove the guilty stain of unethical behavior that now mars you and your "ministry," nothing that would excuse your unchristian behavior in this matter.  Your mischaracterization of “the typical Mormon testimony” was an irresponsible slander against a people who have done you no wrong, and who do not deserve your false witness against them.

Repent.  Now.  Cleanse your soul of falsehood.  Tell the truth, or at least stop telling lies.  If you intend to persist in such foul behavior, please do not do so any longer in the sacred name of Jesus of Nazareth.

Sincerely,
Daniel Peterson

"Dear Dan:

"I remember writing the piece for the ENSIGN that you sent to me.   Obviously I never intended anyone to suppose that I meant that Joseph Smith's blood was shed for the remission of sins, or that Latter-day Saints esteem Brother Joseph to be other than a prophet-leader, the head of the final dispensation.  Moses stood in a mediational role with ancient Israel, not in the sense that he was their Savior or Redeemer, but rather in the sense that God had called him as a covenant spokesman, someone to speak to the people on his behalf.  So it was with Joseph Smith.  He was a man, a mortal man, but a man called and empowered of God.  We do not worship Joseph Smith, but we do admire him, love him, and deeply appreciate him for what God made known through him and for the fact that he sealed his testimony of the Savior with his own blood.  That blood was not shed to ransom or redeem anyone, for that power is found only in the precious blood of Christ.  Joseph Smith's blood reminds us of the price that must occasionally be paid by the Lord's chosen servants to declare the truth.

"I hope these brief comments help to clarify our position toward Joseph Smith.

"Robert L. Millet"

So here you have Robert Millet, one of the specific victims of your slander, expressly denying that Joseph Smith is equal to Jesus Christ.  You cannot quibble with me about my interpretation of Professor Millet's remarks, for it is not mine; he has given it to you himself.

If you are serious about "“allowing Joseph Smith's followers to explain what they think of him,” you will remove your unethical misrepresentation of Dr. Millet from your web page.  You will drop it from your argument to us, from your vain endeavor to justify your deceptive accusation against the Latter-day Saints.

Indeed, if you are serious about "“allowing Joseph Smith's followers to explain what they think of him,” you will no longer claim that they believe him to be equal to Jesus Christ.  You have no evidence to support that malicious charge.  You have no justification for persisting in it.  You are engaging in character assassination.  Stop it.  Repent now.

Sincerely,
Daniel Peterson

Original Attachment File:
BYU Takes up Cudgels1.doc

Finally I bear you my testimony that there is but one God, eternal, unchangeable, and that Jesus is who the Bible says he is, Emmanuel, God with us. That all men, Joseph included will stand before this righteous God and judge and give an account of all they have claimed and done, even in his name. At that time no amount of tithing, temple work, faithful church attendance or sacrifice will count. Only by throwing ourselves on his mercy, and relying on the blood of His Son shed for sinners at Calvary, can we be saved and counted "worthy". Only those who have built with silver and gold, who have declared, "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness" will enter the celestial kingdom of God. All who have built with the wood and straw of good works and righteous acts, depended upon vain genealogies and secret rites, and sought to "earn" blessings by attempting to keep the laws upon which they are "predicated", will swiftly know the folly of their ways. Not for them a lower "degree of glory", or lesser "reward". For those who truly know him will be with him while those who reject him will be rejected of him and spend eternity with their father, the devil. I say these things in true earnest, with a sincere heart, understanding the grave nature of the issues we are addressing, and in the name of the one true God and his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Mr. Harris:

I had intended to conclude our tutorial with this posting, but your recent form letter will prolong this series by at least one message.

I note with interest, too, your suggestion that I not be “so aggressive.”  I am not “aggressive.”  You attack my faith; I do not attack yours, nor do I even know precisely what your faith is, nor do I care.  I do not run a web site or a ministry devoted to assaulting your religious beliefs.  I do not picket or pass out leaflets at the dedication of new fundamentalist Protestant buildings.  I do not make demonstrably false allegations about fundamentalist Protestant dogma, and stick to them against protest and evidence.

As we have discussed in our previous installments, your allegation that the Church of Jesus Christ holds Joseph Smith to be as important as the Savior is, simply and beyond reasonable dispute, false.  (And that, you will recall, is the issue we are discussing.  Not Joseph’s allegedly false prophecies, not questions about the priesthood, not tiny and disputable matters of biblical interpretation, and not even the many other false, misleading, and distorted claims of your web site.)  “We allow his followers to explain what they think of him,” your web site disingenuously says, while obstinately refusing to do anything of the kind.  If you really allowed members of the Church of Jesus Christ to explain what they think of Joseph Smith, you would not be making the deceptive, insulting allegations that you do.

Let us now proceed to a scrutiny of some more of the arguments you advance to legitimate your false witness against the Latter-day Saints:

*** HARRIS: “So we come back again to the question ‘which LDS writer has claimed that the Mormon Church believes Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ?’”

*** PETERSON: The correct answer, of course, is that this is merely a trick question, since NO Latter-day Saint writer has ever claimed that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ. 

In one of your web site’s honest moments, after a rather lengthy exhibition of irrelevancies and excursions that generate much confusion but little light, it admits “we did not quote any source as saying it.”  That, of course, is a very important confession.  It ought to caution you that what you are doing is dishonest.  Unfortunately, though, you are determined to persist in what must be one of the most gratifyingly damaging accusations you have been able to invent against the faith of the Latter-day Saints, and you ignore your own revealing confession.

Indeed, you imply previously that Joseph Smith himself said it, although you can muster no statement -- not a single one! -- where he did.  We shall now examine the quotations that you marshal in support of your calumny against the Latter-day Saints:

* “I combat the errors of the ages; I meet the violence of the mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth diamond-truth; and God is my ‘right hand man’”  - History of the Church vol.5, p.467.

*** PETERSON: This apparently boastful comment is largely irrelevant to the question at issue, which is (you may recall) whether the Church of Jesus Christ regards Joseph Smith as being equal to Jesus Christ.  For a claim to fight error does not make one equal with Christ.  (Presumably that is what you think YOU are doing, it is not?  Does that make you equal with the Savior?  Does it mean that you claim such equality?  I think not.)  Nor does an assertion that one has to deal with anti-Mormon mob violence make one equal with Christ, nor imply any claim to be such.  Nor does an ability to deal with judicial tyranny or abuses of police power have anything to do with being, or claiming to be, equal with Christ.  Cutting “the gordian knot of powers” is admittedly rather vague, but does not seem translatable, even loosely, into “I am equal with Jesus Christ.”  Mathematical expertise is a good thing, and presumably God is fairly good at mathematics, but, once again, it doesn’t seem to say that Joseph is of equal stature with the Redeemer.

Finally, however, we reach a statement where Joseph could be seen as exalting himself to a status of rough equality with the Savior, when he says that God is his “right hand man.”

It seems a rather strong statement -- although it should be pointed out, as your web site acknowledges, that it does not actually say that Joseph is as important as Jesus.  A friend, aware of your use of this passage, asks a significant question:  If it could be shown that a biblical figure made a similar statement, would that indicate that he was claiming equality with God?  This is not merely a hypothetical inquiry.  In Psalm 16:8, David says: “I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.”  And my friend also reports seeing, as I have, automobile bumper stickers here in the United States, on vehicles presumably owned and driven by evangelical Protestants, proclaiming “God is my co-pilot.”

If such statements indicate that these evangelical Protestants believe themselves to be equal with God, I would suggest that you retire from anti-Mormonism and devote yourself to cleaning up your own back yard, where there seems to be a problem of immense and blasphemous proportions.

Here is another statement from the Prophet that you want to use to demonstrate that the Church of Jesus Christ proclaims Joseph Smith to be as important as the Savior:

* “If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster; I shall always beat them... I have more to boast of than any man had.  I am the only man that has been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam.  A large majority of the whole have stood by me.  Neither Paul, John, Peter nor Jesus ever did. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I.  The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day saints never ran away from me yet.”  (History of the Church vol.6, pp.408-9.)

*** PETERSON: While this statement may seem vain and boastful, it cannot, even if it is taken at face value or in its most obnoxious sense, conceivably demonstrate that Latter-day Saints believe Joseph Smith to be of equal importance with Jesus Christ.

What Joseph Smith seems to be saying here is that among the various heads of dispensations -- who, as heads of dispensations, occupy positions of equal status under the Lord, just as department heads enjoy equal status under the overall boss -- he was more successful in keeping a church going than any other.  Note the limited character of the claim:  He does not say that he has atoned for anybody’s sin.  He does not claim to be a mediator.  He does not say that he is the overall boss.  He does not say that he is to be worshiped.  He does not say that he is the divine Son and Savior.  Keeping a church together is a nice achievement, but it does not, by itself, save.  If there were no atonement, keeping a church together would have no value or purpose whatever.  Whose Church was it, after all?  It was and is the Church of Jesus Christ, never the Church of Joseph Smith.  And isn’t part of the credit for the church’s staying together, as Joseph expresses it, really due to his followers, rather than to him?

But there is something more to be said about the apparent boastfulness manifested in this quotation.  Even in the History of the Church (where it occurs at 6:408-409), the passage is described as resting upon a “synopsis” by Thomas Bullock.  So is it a primary source?  Probably not.  The date of the sermon is 26 May 1844.  A month later, the Prophet was dead.  Did he supervise this entry?  No.  The last years -- YEARS, mind you! -- of his entries in the History of the Church were actually made by others after his death in an attempt, consistent with the historiographical practices of the day, to complete the narrative.  I find it consistently amusing that the very same people who vehemently reject the History of the Church as an unreliable source when it seems to support the LDS position clutch it to their bosoms as an unparalleled historical treasure when they think they can use it as a weapon against the alleged errors of Mormonism.  This point is vitally important to keep in mind when trying to assess the character of Joseph Smith, his moral and spiritual quality, through the so-called “Documentary History.”  Dean Jessee's “Preface” to his collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith -- Jessee is the leading living authority on the autographic writings of the Prophet -- specifically addresses the issue of the seeming egotism that enters into Joseph's later statements as edited by well-meaning others -- which is, he says, quite foreign to Joseph Smith himself.  You should read Prof. Jessee's remarks.

The impression I myself get of Joseph Smith from reading his authenticated statements is of a humble and sincere man, struggling to do the will of God as he understood it.  (Read Jessee's collection, to see what I mean.)  However, even if a note of proud defiance HAD crept into Joseph's tone during a speech in Nauvoo -- at a time when both city and Church were under pressure from gangs of unprincipled anti-Mormon bigots who would shortly murder him and his brother, grievously wound a close friend, and drive his people into the wilderness during the dead of winter -- I for one would not have blamed him.

On the general reliability of the History of the Church, by the way, I think it worth saying that, in view of the way the text was put together, it is not in the overall thrust or narrative where we are likely to find mistakes, but in the nuances, the tone, the details.  This is precisely the opposite problem from that which you and other anti-Mormons would have us see in it:  You think the overall story of the History incorrect (e.g. divine intervention, revelation, Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, etc.), but you want us to accept its details of tone and mood -- at least when those details seem to put the Prophet in a bad light.  It won’t wash, however.  Your approach is, at the best, arbitrary, whimsical, and comically self-serving. 

You next direct our attention to a quotation from Brigham Young, hoping that it will persuade us to let you off the hook for flagrant defamation and slander.  It won’t.  You claim that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.  However, as your own web site admits, “we did not quote any source as saying it.”

* “Well now,” said Brigham Young, “examine the character of the Savior, and examine the characters of those who have written the Old and New Testaments; and then compare them with the character of Joseph Smith, the founder of this work - the man whom God called and to whom he gave the keys of Priesthood, and through whom he has established his Church and kingdom for the last time, and you will find that his character stands as fair as any man's mentioned in the Bible.” (Journal of Discourses, vol.14.p.203.)

*** PETERSON: You may possibly recall that the subject we are discussing is whether or not Latter-day Saints believe, or are encouraged to believe, or have ever been encouraged to believe, that Joseph Smith is as centrally important to their salvation as Jesus Christ.  We are not talking about any other subject than that.

Keeping our eye on the issue in question, we can easily see that there is no support in this citation from Brigham Young for your libelous accusation against the Latter-day Saints.

Indeed, it is scandalous that you overlook the damage this quotation does to your deceptive claim.  For, if God called Joseph Smith, if God gave Joseph Smith the priesthood, and if God used Joseph Smith as an instrument to re-establish God's church and kingdom, there can hardly be any question here of God and Joseph Smith being on an even level.  The superiority of master to servant is clear beyond cavil.

What is really going on in this passage?  Brigham Young is paying tribute to the character of his dear friend, Joseph Smith, who had been murdered some years before by an anti-Mormon mob, and whose character anti-Mormons like yourself have endeavored to assassinate ever since.  He says nothing here about Joseph being as important as Jesus, nor about Joseph being a savior or mediator.  He merely says that Joseph was as good a man as ever lived.  That is quite a distinct proposition from the one that you are unethically attempting to shove into his mouth.  “We allow his followers to explain what they think of him,” you falsely declare, and then proceed to explain, yourselves, what his followers think of him -- even though you acknowledge that you could not “quote any source as saying it.”

I am certain that you don’t like Brigham Young saying that Joseph was a good man, even though Brigham knew Joseph somewhat better than you do.  What must surely bother you most, though, is Brigham’s apparent claim that Joseph was as good a man as Jesus.

Now, even if Brigham really meant to say that, it would not mean that Joseph was as IMPORTANT as Jesus.  Those are two quite different ideas.  But does Brigham Young mean to say that Joseph Smith was as morally perfect a man as the sinless Son of God?  I doubt it.  Note what Brigham said on another occasion, when that same subject was on his mind:

“Who can justly say aught against Joseph Smith?  I was as well acquainted with him, as any man.  I do not believe that his father and mother knew him any better than I did.  I do not think that a man lives on the earth that knew him any better than I did; and I am bold to say that, JESUS CHRIST EXCEPTED, no better man ever lived or does live upon this earth.  I am his witness. He was persecuted for the same reason that any other righteous person has been or is persecuted at the present day.”  (Journal of Discourses 9:332 [August 3, 1862], emphasis mine; compare 10:319 [July 31, 1864].)

I suspect that Brigham Young did not intend to include the divine Savior in his comparison to Joseph Smith when he spoke of the men “mentioned in the Bible.”  (Remember, these were spontaneous oral discourses.  Have you ever spoken imprecisely?  And remember that they are transcriptions of spontaneous oral discourses.)

You may respond that I am trying to excuse what Brigham Young said.  I am not.  I am trying to EXPLAIN and UNDERSTAND what he said.  If he really were claiming that Joseph Smith was sinless like the Savior, it would be inconsistent with every other teaching of the Church and everything else Brigham Young ever said on the subject.  If, on the other hand, he was NOT claiming moral equivalency between the Redeemer and the Prophet, that would be entirely consistent with his teachings, with the teachings of the Church, and with the passage that I just quoted to you above.  Of the two explanations of his meaning, mine is clearly far superior to yours.

By taking one passage of Brigham Young, and giving it an unjustifiably negative and anomalous reading, are you not attempting to make him an “offender for a word,” just as Isaiah complained regarding the wicked of his day?  Is this charitable?  Is this loving?  Is it consistent with 1 Corinthians 13?  Is it the sort of thing that Christians should be doing? Since it doesn’t even make intellectual sense, shouldn’t you abandon it?

“We allow his followers to explain what they think of him,” you say.  Really?  Then LET them do it!

You next quote another remark of Brigham Young, in which that great prophet speaks of the genealogy of Joseph Smith:

* “The Lord had his eye upon him, and upon his father, and upon his father's father, and upon his progenitors clear back to Abraham, and from Abraham to the flood, from the flood to Enoch, and from Enoch to Adam.  He has watched that family and that blood as it has circulated from its fountain to the birth of that man.”  (Discourses of Brigham Young.)

*** PETERSON: Nothing, absolutely nothing, in this passage would suggest to anybody not animated by irrational bias that Latter-day Saints regard Joseph Smith as being of importance equal to the Savior.  All it says is that the omniscient eye of providence was upon the family line leading up to the Prophet Joseph Smith.  This is scarcely unusual doctrine.  Since the Bible says that God has his eye upon the birds of the air and the grass of the field (Matthew 6:25-30) and that the very hairs of everybody’s head are numbered to him and that a sparrow cannot fall upon the ground without God’s knowing it (Matthew 10:29-31), and since you claim to be a believer in the Bible, it is difficult to see why this would bother you.

You next profess to be offended by alleged Latter-day Saint belief in Joseph Smith as a mediator.  You cite Robert Millet to this effect:

* “The life of Joseph Smith was in some degree patterned after that of his Master, Jesus Christ.  That pattern holds true even when extended to its tragic conclusion.  Like his Master, Joseph Smith also shed his blood in order that the final testament, the reestablishment of the new covenant, might be in full effect (see Heb.9:16).”

*** PETERSON: You grievously abuse Professor Millet when claiming that he believes Joseph Smith to be a mediator like Jesus.

I have already shared with you what Dr. Millet has to say on this subject.  However, I shall add a few comments to his:
(a) Nothing in this passage says that Joseph is mediator, as Jesus Christ is a mediator.  You have no justification for misreading it as you do.
(b) Dr. Millet’s statement that Joseph’s life was “patterned after” that of Jesus clearly indicates Dr. Millet’s sense that Joseph is subordinate to, not equal with, the Savior.  You have no excuse for failing to notice this.
(c) Professor Millet’s reference to the Savior as Joseph Smith’s “Master, Jesus Christ,” unmistakably indicates the unequal relationship between Joseph and Jesus.  Master and servant are not equal.  You have no extenuation for attempting to obsure that fact.
(d) Isn’t a Christian’s life SUPPOSED to be patterned after that of his Savior?  I am astonished that you would forget so elementary a principle of Christian living.

Finally, you claim to be offended that Brigham Young taught that Joseph Smith would have a role in the last judgment:

* “No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.14, p. 203.)

Others attempting to help you have already pointed out biblical evidence that the twelve apostles in Palestine, as well as others, were to be given a role in the last judgment.  There is no purpose in repeating what you already know, even if (or, perhaps, especially if) you refuse to see its implications.  But since the notion that selected human beings -- prophets and/or apostles -- will have a role in the judgment is clearly, unmistakably, indisputably biblical, and since that notion presumably does not suggest to anybody whatever that those persons are of equal importance with the Savior, there seems no justification at all for your apparent attempt to impose a double standard on the Latter-day Saints in the eager hope of condemning them for asserting very much what the Bible does.

You are quite accurate when you confess that you “did not quote any source as saying” what you libelously allege the Latter-day Saints to say about Joseph Smith.  Your allegation is false.  It is slanderously, deceptively, damnably false and untrue.  Stop telling lies about what the Latter-day Saints believe concerning Joseph.  Give some substance to your now-hollow boast that “We allow his followers to explain what they think of him.”

Mr. Harris, I have spent considerable time writing and sending these messages to you.  I have not done it because I have any great expectation that you will repent and begin to tell the truth, although a Christian like myself is supposed to live in hope.  I have too much experience with anti-Mormonism to expect integrity from you.  Rather, I have been discharging my duty to warn you of your folly and your sin.  If you do not change your ways, I will be a witness against you . And I will exert considerable effort to ensure that my testimony against you and your dishonest operation is widely heard.

Sincerely,
Daniel Peterson

Doug Harris responds. Well, in a manner of speaking.

dcp

[missing Mr. Harris' response.]

Mr. Harris:

Don't worry.  This brief posting will not count as the final installment of your free tutorial.  It is an extra or bonus posting, inspired by the latest declaration of your unapologetic insistence on slandering the Latter-day Saints.

*** HARRIS: "I guess I could say the same about you and your ministry."

*** PETERSON: I do not HAVE a "ministry."  And I am most definitely not in the religious bigotry business.

*** HARRIS: "I trust you [sic] exploits do not bring you into conflict with the living God.  In the final judgement day we will know who is right - I hope it is not too late for you."

*** PETERSON: I'm feeling rather serene about the matter.  After all, it is not I who have been caught in an obvious untruth.  It is not I who persist in it, grimly refusing to repent.  It appears, astonishingly, that you really are going to fail the integrity test.  How sad!

Daniel Peterson

Mr. Harris:

This final session of our tutorial will allow us not only to cover the issues you raised in your most recent unrepentant form letter, but will permit us to review some of what we have previously said about the irrelevance and weakness of your vain attempt at self-justification. 

As we have seen, you have offered no evidence whatever to validate the false witness you bear against the Latter-day Saints.  We have learned, to our considerable amazement, that you intend to continue to proclaim that “it is as clear as crystal that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ” among Latter-day Saints, despite your self-admitted inability to “quote any source as saying it. ” We have discovered that your professed intention to “allow his followers to explain what they think of him” is at best a tongue-in-cheek joke.

Now let us look at the specific elements of your last form letter:

*** HARRIS: “I am not anti-Mormon but I am pro Christian.”

*** PETERSON: I only know you through your web site and your messages to me and to friends of mine.  From these, you seem far less interested in affirmatively teaching your message than in assaulting my faith.  “Anti-Mormon” is a precisely, clinically, accurate term for describing what you do and what you seem to be.  It is understandable that an anti-Mormon would tend to resort to lies and distortion to damage the object of his wrath; a real Christian would not do such a thing.  A real Christian would be ashamed to soil the name of Jesus with such a sin, purportedly committed to honor him.

*** HARRIS: “I know you are frustrated but I do not want to be your enemy but we feel we must stand for truth.”

*** PETERSON: Then please DO so for a change!  So long as you tell deliberate lies about me, my family, my friends, and my faith, you ARE my self-proclaimed enemy.  Slander is not a friendly act.

*** HARRIS: “Maybe for one final time I can seek to explain why we say what we say about Joseph Smith and Jesus.”

*** PETERSON: You have failed so far to provide the slightest legitimation for your attempt to impose your hostile notions upon the Latter-day Saints while, at the same time, disingenuously claiming that you “allow his followers to explain what they think of” Joseph Smith.  Note that you are trying to justify “why [you] say what [you] say about Joseph Smith and Jesus,” while at the same time you cannot “quote any source as saying it” and you deceitfully claim to “allow [Joseph’s] followers to explain what they think of him.”  It is a pathetic and depressing exhibition.  But I am willing to consider your attempts at self-justification “one final time.”

*** HARRIS: “TEN REASONS WHY WE BELIEVE THAT TO A MORMON JOSEPH SMITH IS EQUAL TO JESUS CHRIST”

*** PETERSON: Can you not sense, even for a brief moment, how ludicrous it is for you, a dedicated enemy of Mormonism, to arrogate to yourself the right to explain what Joseph Smith means “to a Mormon,” when actual informed Mormons consistently deny what you say and denounce it as a malicious lie?  Does this not give you some pause?  Or do you even care about truth at all?

*** HARRIS: “The statement on our web page indicates that some Mormons would not agree with this statement.”

*** PETERSON: “SOME Mormons would not agree?”  You are deceiving your audience with that sort of subtly misleading claim.  Though you have neither evidence to back you nor moral justification to erase your guilt, you imply that some, and perhaps many, Latter-day Saints WOULD agree.  And the more evidence you are given indicating the falsehood of your accusation, the more evident it is that your deception is not inadvertent.  What an embarrassment to real Christians!  You bring shame upon the sacred name of Jesus by such lamentable behavior.  How dare you?

*** HARRIS: “The fact is that there are clear unequivocal statements in the writings of the Latter-Day Saints that some Mormons would want to ignore or try to explain away.”

*** PETERSON: The fact is that no Latter-day Saint believes Joseph Smith to be as important as the Savior.  Nobody is ignoring statements to the contrary.  Nobody is trying to explain such statements away.  No such statements exist.  Even at the end of your own tortured catalogue of irrelevancies and distortions, you were obliged to admit, obviously because you COULD not, that you “did not quote any source as saying it.”  Now, you seem to be wanting to claim that, although no sources say it, they “clearly” and “unequivocally” DO say it.  This makes no sense.  And it reflects very, very badly on you that you persist in your false witness in the teeth of the evidence and against the protests of those who really know the truth.  Your behavior is offensive and insulting, and a blot on the honor of the British evangelical community.

*** HARRIS: “Are we calling individuals a liar when they state that they accept Jesus Christ as being superior to Joseph Smith?  No, that is not the case.  Such ones are genuine in that is what they assert to in their minds but that is not necessarily what every Mormon has believed and it is not necessarily what their practice shows to be true.”

*** PETERSON: Since you have presented not one iota, not one shred, not one tatter, of evidence that would indicate that any Latter-day Saint has ever believed Joseph Smith to be equal to the Savior, it is mightily graceful of you to acknowledge that Latter-day Saints who do not believe it may not be liars.  Charming, Mr. Harris.

*** HARRIS: “Having read many arguments, we still believe that the following statement on our web site is true, ‘Many Mormons disagree with these statements especially that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus.  However we believe the evidence is in their own literature - see what you think.’”

*** PETERSON: “Having read many arguments,” you might have said, “but having dealt seriously with none of them, we persist in our slanderous and deceptive allegation.”

“MANY Mormons disagree” with your claim that, for them, Joseph Smith is as important as Christ?  Find a single Latter-day Saint who would NOT disagree with you!

The statement that you believe that there is evidence in Mormon literature to suggest that Latter-day Saints esteem Joseph Smith to be as important as Jesus may well be true.  I don’t know if your really believe it or not, but I suppose it is possible.  (I confess that I am not convinced you are operating in good faith.  It is difficult to imagine how somebody could possibly hold to the position you do in the face of so overwhelmingly much evidence against it.)

As to there being evidence in Mormon literature to support your inaccurate charge, one can only wonder why, if there is, you have failed to provide a single example of it.  As you yourself pointed out, “we did not quote any source as saying it.”

And now we turn to briefly examine your ten excuses for continuing to bear false witness against the Latter-day Saints on this issue:

*** HARRIS: “1. Joseph Smith must give his consent to those living in this dispensation to enter the celestial Kingdom of God – Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.289.  [This was written by Brigham Young the second Living Prophet of the Mormon Church.]  But the Bible shows that only Jesus’ consent is necessary. – John 3:16”

*** PETERSON: You have been shown considerable biblical evidence by others indicating that various figures besides Jesus will be involved in the final judgment.  If they are truly to be judges, then it would seem that their judgment will be relevant to the outcome of that process. Which would, in turn, seem to imply that their consent or refusal of consent will be relevant. Which is to say that their role will arguably be very much the same as the one that Brigham Young ascribes to Joseph Smith. If their role in the judgment fails to make THEM somehow equal to Jesus, as it does, it is difficult -- absent an obvious and indeed brazen double standard -- to see how the same role, ascribed to Joseph, would make HIM equal to Jesus.

*** HARRIS: “2. Joseph Smith negated the supreme sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary.
When Jesus died the veil of the Temple was torn down signifying that the way was open to all to enter into His presence.  Joseph Smith put the veil back up again and added secret passwords and hand shakes so that only a few could enter.”

*** PETERSON: All this one really says is that Doug Harris, a dedicated anti-Mormon whose ability to understand accurately what he reads is in grave doubt, dislikes and disagrees with the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith.  But that unfortunate fact scarcely proves that Latter-day Saints regard Joseph Smith as of equal importance with the Savior.

And, by the way, (1) no Latter-day Saint would ever agree to your allegation that “Joseph Smith negated the supreme sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary,” (2) few Latter-day Saints, if any, would agree with your interpretation of what the rending of the temple veil signifies, and (3) no believing Latter-day Saint would ever agree to your painting the liturgy of their temple as either a direct or an indirect repudiation of God’s rending the veil of the Jerusalem temple.

So you impose your own questionable interpretations on the New Testament as if they were obvious and beyond possible dispute, then you falsely imply that the Latter-day Saints would not only agree with your interpretations but would defiantly reject them even though they are the obvious and indisputable sense of the New Testament, and then you draw from your dubious first interpretation and your despicably false characterization of them the logically ludicrous fantasy that Latter-day Saints equate Joseph and Jesus in importance.

It is on the basis of such tenuous and hostile reasoning that you pretend it to be “as clear as crystal that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.”

Is this your idea of allowing Latter-day Saints to speak for themselves?

“We allow his followers to explain what they think of him,” you say, with a wink and a nod.

*** HARRIS: “3. It is taught by at least some Mormons that there is no salvation for people alive today unless they accept Joseph Smith – Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith Jr, Vol.1, p.189.  But the Bible clearly teaches that we only need to accept Jesus Christ. – John 1:12”

*** PETERSON: So you have no problem with the notion that one can be saved while rejecting what God has to say about himself?  I could, for instance, reject the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter, choosing instead to invent my own Jesus (based upon, say, the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre or Don Cupitt or A. N. Wilson, or your own Plato and Aristotle) and still be saved?  So the Bible isn’t necessary?  I realize that you do not believe the revelations of Joseph Smith to be valid.  But that is not the point.  That is a factual question.  In principle, though, if they were valid, would it be possible for you to reject God’s revelation of himself and about himself and still claim full salvation?  If so, why cannot someone similarly reject the Bible and claim such salvation?

Anyway, this is a distortion of Latter-day Saint belief, though perhaps (in this case) a product of your failure to understand rather than of your egregious and distressing ethical deficiency.  The term “salvation” can be used in several distinct senses.  I suggest that you look at chapter 40 of the current priesthood and Relief Society manual, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, for some interesting reflections on the salvation of those who do not and never do accept Joseph Smith.  (And while you are at it, contemplate the difference between the Latter-day Saint assertion that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ -- a biblical doctrine -- with the absence of any similar assertion about Joseph Smith.)

*** HARRIS: “4. Joseph Smith was proved to be a false prophet (See History of the Church Vol.1, p.315 and Vol.2, p.182) and yet Mormons still say we must accept his message as a true prophet.  Jesus warned against the message of the false prophets. - Matthew 24:24.”

*** PETERSON: We have already discussed this one.  Even if we were to grant that Joseph Smith prophesied falsely -- which we do not -- it would not demonstrate at all that we believe him to be equal to Jesus Christ.  This issue is irrelevant to your perjured witness against the Latter-day Saints on the relative status of Jesus and Joseph.  It cannot save you.

*** HARRIS: “5. If, living in this dispensation, I do not confess Joseph Smith along with Jesus Christ I am the ‘anti-christ.’ – Journal of Discourses, Vol.9, p.312.  [This was written by Brigham Young the second Living Prophet of the Mormon Church.]  The Bible shows that there is only one name to confess and that is the name of Jesus. – Romans 10:9.”

*** PETERSON: You don’t really believe this, or you would leave the Latter-day Saints alone and cease lying about them.  For the Latter-day Saints DO confess the name of Jesus, yet you claim to believe that we are bound for hell.  You insist that it must be YOUR version of Jesus that we accept, rather than the true Jesus.

Again, I am not free to invent my own Jesus, independent of the revelations of God.  Whether his revelations come through ancient prophets or modern prophets is essentially irrelevant here.  I am not at liberty simply to ignore or disdain either Matthew or Joseph Smith.  Do you think that I can arrive at the judgment bar, declare that I despise the testimony of the New Testament concerning Jesus, and still plausibly claim to be, and claim the blessings of being, a Christian?  Weren’t the people that the New Testament denounces as “anti-Christ” precisely those who ignored its witness on central issues?  If believing in the revelations of God is immaterial to my salvation, if it is not necessary for me to have an accurate understanding of Jesus based on his revelations and the writings of inspired men, what conceivable basis do you have for attacking my faith and claiming to be concerned for my eternal destiny?

*** HARRIS: “6. Joseph Smith claimed that his followers stayed whereas those of Jesus ran away – History of the Church, Vol.6, p.408.  The Bible shows that not only did the followers of Jesus return in the power of the Holy Sprit most laid down their lives for the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

*** PETERSON: This is entirely irrelevant to the question we are discussing.  And, you might ask, what is that question?  It is whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches its members, or has ever taught them, to revere Joseph Smith as of equal importance with their Savior.

*** HARRIS: “7. Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was, ‘the most correct book on earth’ (History of the Church, Vol.4.)  This means that he claimed it is even more correct than the Bible the living word of Jesus Christ.”

*** PETERSON: This is the purest sophistry.  We venerate the living word of God wherever it is found.  We do not dismiss the Bible to the extent that it is “the living word of Jesus Christ,” but have questions about it to the extent that it is NOT.  But it should be stressed that we have a very high degree of confidence in the Bible; Latter-day Saint Christians and evangelical Christians are relatively close on the degree of historicity and accuracy that we ascribe to it.

You are subtly misleading your audience, and slandering the Latter-day Saints when you suggest that we exalt the Book of Mormon above “the living word of Jesus Christ.”  We see both books as CONTAINING that living word.  (Unlike you, of course, we see that “living word” as really continuing to live and be spoken.)  To the extent that you indirectly hint that we exalt the word of Joseph Smith over that of Christ, you are lying.  We do not see the Book of Mormon as the word of Joseph Smith -- that is your view, not ours (another instance of your refusal to let us speak for ourselves).

*** HARRIS: “8. Joseph Smith claimed that God was his ‘right hand man.’ – History of the Church, Vol.5, p.467.  God is not the right hand man of anybody and the place at God’s right hand is a very special place.”

*** PETERSON: Mr. Harris, think about your last comment for just a second.  If x is standing to the right of y, then y is to the LEFT of x, as illustrated below:

Figure 1: On Elementary Directions

y          x

Thus, if God is at Joseph’s right hand, Joseph is at God’s LEFT.  So the second part of your last sentence is even more irrelevant than is usual for you.  But we have already discussed this issue, and D. Charles Pyle has supplied you with biblical evidence that must either lead you to withdraw this “argument” or reveal you to be working with a flagrant double standard.

*** HARRIS: “9. Some Mormons have taught that Joseph Smith’s character stands as fair as that of Jesus Christ. -–Journal of Discourses, Vol.14, p.203.  As Jesus was perfect and never sinned, this is making an extraordinary claim concerning Joseph Smith.”

*** PETERSON: Even if “some Mormons” really had made such a claim, it would not demonstrate that they believed Joseph to be as important for their salvation as Jesus.  It would be, again, irrelevant.  But we have discussed this “argument,” and we found that you have no apparent evidence to back it up.  You should, therefore, in honesty, withdraw it.  Just do the honorable thing.  Wouldn’t you feel better?

*** HARRIS: “10. Joseph Smith negated the memorial of Jesus’ tremendous sacrifice on Calvary by saying that God had changed His mind and any liquid could be used in the remembrance of Christ’s death.  Jesus in His agony took time to leave a remembrance, until He comes, of bread and wine.  The wine represents His blood shed and to substitute water is to negate one of Jesus last acts.”

*** PETERSON: This is a new one, but absurd.  What a trivial and questionable point upon which to base your slanderous charge that Latter-day Saints hold Joseph Smith to be as important as Jesus!  Latter-day Saints believe the WATER to represent the shed blood of Christ.  Even if we were wrong on this tiny issue, it would hardly demonstrate that Joseph Smith has somehow thereby “negated the memorial of Jesus’ tremendous sacrifice on Calvary.”  And it would have no relevance whatever to your dishonest accusation that Latter-day Saints hold Joseph to be as important as Jesus.

Aren’t you ashamed of this sort of nonsense?  Aren’t you embarrassed by your uncharitable zeal to accuse people who have done you no injury?  Aren’t you at least a little bit shy about making such damaging accusations on the basis of such flimsy pretexts?  Do you not find it ironic that, although you claim to believe in salvation by grace alone without works, you are resorting to the most nitpicking kind of legalism in your zeal to crucify the Latter-day Saints?  Where in the Bible does it say that the memorial of the Savior’s sacrifice must always and ever feature wine, or it will negate that sacrifice?  Must that be red wine?  Must it be red wine from a particular variety of Palestinian grape?  Must it be Palestinian red wine from the vintage of 30 A.D.?

I return to your “ten reasons” for unethically slandering the Latter-day Saints, and suggest a few different but more probable motivations for your appalling behavior in this matter:

TEN REASONS WHY WE BELIEVE THAT TO A MORMON JOSEPH SMITH IS EQUAL TO JESUS CHRIST

(1) It serves our purpose to make this claim, as it grossly exaggerates the seemingly alien character of Mormonism and helps us to inflame the passions of those we intend to dupe.

(2) It will help us to raise money, both to fight the supposed evil of Mormonism and to spare us the necessity of seeking honest employment.

(3) It will provide a mind-numbing slogan that will prevent people from fairly and justly considering the claims of the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

(4) It would be deeply embarrassing to admit that we were wrong on this one, and that we persisted in it long after the evidence against us had become overwhelming.

(5) We don’t really know very much about the Church of Jesus Christ, and we understand even less.

(6) We don’t, frankly, care very much about accuracy.

(7) We lied with a straight face when we said that “We allow his followers to explain what they think of [Joseph Smith].”

(8) The truth about Mormonism wouldn’t serve us or our cause nearly as well.

(9) Most people in the United Kingdom don’t know any Latter-day Saints and are not likely to have access to Latter-day Saint literature or to objective materials about Mormonism, which presents us with a fabulous opportunity to get away with sloppy and dishonest claims.

(10) We are doing the bidding of our infernal Master, the well-known father of lies.

“We allow his followers to explain what they think of him.”  Were you laughing out loud when you wrote that, or just chuckling quietly to yourself?  “Although we did not quote any source as saying it, nevertheless it is as clear as crystal that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.”  Really, Mr. Harris, if this were not a case of vicious and unchristian libel, it would almost be funny.

Doesn’t it seem to you, if it really is “as clear as crystal that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ” to Latter-day Saints, that you should be able to find at least one unambiguous, explicit statement of that supposed truth?  Doesn’t it strike you as odd that, instead, you were unable to “quote any source as saying it”?  That you couldn’t find a single one?

Or does truth and accuracy mean nothing to you?

Unfortunately, since you have ignored the evidence, analysis, and testimonials sent to you -- despite your transparently false assertion that you “allow his followers to explain what they think of [Joseph Smith]” -- it is becoming more and more apparent that accuracy, truth, and ethical conduct are not high on your list of priorities.  I have looked at your speaking schedule for the fall, and I see that religious bigotry must be essentially your profession.  That would explain a great deal.

This is your last warning from me.  I have done my duty.  You have been informed of the truth, and you have been advised to speak according to it.  I am free of your guilt.  (See Ezekiel 33:1-11; Acts 20:26-27, 30-31.) I have no more time to waste on you.  There are others who actually care about the truth, to whom I shall turn my attention. 

But your correspondence with me and others will be preserved, and displayed.  Indeed, it will be showcased.  Reachout Trust will serve beautifully as a particularly clear and, indeed, brazen example of the dishonesty that we so often encounter among enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Other issues may be debatable.  This one is not.  Latter-day Saints do not believe, and have never believed, that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.  You have been presented here with a perfectly transparent test of your integrity, and, unless you change your web site instantly, you have failed it.

This correspondence will serve as a witness against you and against anti-Mormons like you, against “whosoever loveth and maketh a lie” (Revelation 22:15).

Brigham Young, whom you have slandered and maligned, rebukes you:

“Joseph [Smith] told us that Jesus was the Christ -- the Mediator between God and man -- and the Savior of the world.  He told us that there was no other name in the heavens nor under the heavens, neither could there be, by which mankind could be saved in the presence of the Father, but by and through the name and ministry of Jesus Christ, and the atonement he made on Mount Calvary.”
   (See Deseret News Weekly, 22 October 1862, p. 1; reprinted and easily accessible in Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, pp. 37-38.)

Brigham Young knew of no other mediator.  He knew of no other Savior.  He knew of no other name through which salvation would come.  He had never heard any other doctrine from the Prophet Joseph Smith.  Brigham Young stands as a witness against you.

My friends who have written to you, who have supplied you with evidence and personal testimonials utterly destroying your libelous accusation, rebuke you.  You have ignored their attempts to save your soul, but, instead, have grimly clung fast to your lie.  You evidently find it too delicious to yield up, even in the face of truth.  They stand as witnesses against you.

With all seriousness and solemnity, I too rebuke you and stand as a witness against you.

Very sincerely yours,
Daniel Peterson

Mr. Harris:

You have shown yourself apparently incapable of recognizing and dealing with arguments.  You do not even respond to them.  You have demonstrated yourself to be unwilling to retract your false allegation against the Latter-day Saints.  There is, accordingly, no point in continuing this correspondence.

One last message, however, and I am done with you.  If you or your co-conspirators respond to me in the future, I will not answer.  I have no more time to waste on you and your unpalatable antics.  I have had enough of you.

HARRIS: “With all seriousness and solemnity, Scripture rebukes you and stands as a witness against you.”

PETERSON: Scripture nowhere condemns those who defeat others with superior arguments.  Nowhere does scripture rebuke those who supply evidence to which their self-proclaimed opponents have no reply.  Scripture condemns false witness, Mr. Harris, and those who bear it.  You are in serious jeopardy here, but do not seem to realize your danger.

HARRIS/THOMAS: “BYU Takes up Cudgels!”

PETERSON: Brigham Young University doesn’t know that you or Reachout Trust exist.  Don’t be self-important.

HARRIS/THOMAS: “[J]ust let a Christian challenge Mormonism's spurious claims, bogus history and inflated view of itself and its prophets and a thousand Mormons are down your throat before you can say righteous indignation.”

PETERSON: But not, evidently, before you can utter a major lie and emit several substantial distortions.

HARRIS/THOMAS: “I have never read anything as offensive, reactionary and childish as the name-calling that is the stock-in-trade of the average Mormon responding to critics.  Professor Peterson's letter is not untypical.  His language is strong indeed, accusing us of malice, misrepresentation, deception, dishonesty, abuse and slander (actually I believe he should have said libel.  Slander refers to the spoken word, libel the written).”

PETERSON: In point of fact, I have also accused you of libel.  You must have overlooked that.  (Which is not surprising.  You have overlooked a great deal.)

I have called you no names, though you have tempted me almost beyond endurance.  There is nothing “childish” -- and certainly nothing “reactionary,” whatever you may think you mean by that term -- about accusing people of “malice, misrepresentation, deception, dishonesty, abuse and slander” when, in fact, they are guilty of “malice, misrepresentation, deception, dishonesty, abuse and slander.”  And the fact that Mr. Thomas claims to have been a Latter-day Saint for fourteen years, if it is true, certainly suggests deliberate misrepresentation or blind hostility rather than mere innocent incompetence.  The bitterness of the apostate, I suppose.  His letter is “not untypical.” 

I notice, though, that, while Mr. Harris’s earlier message suggested the possibility of modifying your accusation against Professor Millet, you are now essentially -- no big surprise here! -- sticking with it, while accusing Dr. Millet of “dissembling.” That, I suppose, is NOT “strong”?  Not “name-calling”?

Still, it is amusing to see you complain about my tone.  Since you are unwilling to deal with my arguments or evidence, this seems a fairly transparent ploy to change the subject.  A classic ad hominem fallacy.  Even if I were unpleasant, though, you would still be lying.  Your reply fails to respond meaningfully -- or, indeed, at all -- to any of the arguments I made.  It simply repeats your discredited irrelevancies, as if repetition somehow made them worthy of credence.

And, by the way, the first entry in the Oxford English Dictionary under “slander” defines it as “the utterance or dissemination of false statements or reports concerning a person, or malicious misrepresentation of his actions, in order to defame or injure him; calumny, defamation.”  There is no requirement here that it be oral . And the examples illustrating this usage go back to 1290 A.D.  It fits your accusation against the Latter-day Saints perfectly.

HARRIS/THOMAS: “In my experience, when your opponent in debate descends to name-calling it usually means he has nothing better to say and has lost the argument.”

PETERSON: That may or may not be so, but it is irrelevant here in either case because I and others have supplied numerous arguments to which you have had no cogent response -- and, in most cases, indeed, no response at all.  You can scarcely have won an argument in which you never really participated.

Your exegesis of Hebrews 9 is interesting, but, again, essentially irrelevant.  Even if Professor Millet were guilty of poor exegesis, which I by no means concede, it would not prove that either he or any other Latter-day Saint believes or has ever believed that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.  And if the problem is unclear writing -- which I do not admit -- he has now clarified his intention.  Period.

Remember, our belief in the equal importance of Jesus and Joseph Smith is supposed to be obvious, “as clear as crystal.”  You should be able to supply more and better evidence for it than a tortured bit of scriptural exegesis of Hebrews 9 in the face of an explicit denial.

We could argue about this, back and forth, but there really isn’t any point, is there?  You have proven yourself entirely unwilling to admit your error, and you have ignored the many arguments and considerable evidence against you.

I dealt with the passage about Joseph Smith keeping the church together.  You have ignored what I said.  I discussed Joseph Smith’s alleged boastfulness.  You have ignored what I said.  I discussed Brigham Young’s supposed moral equation of Joseph and Jesus.  You have ignored what I said.

So why should I or any other person who knows and understands the reality of the Church of Jesus Christ spend any more time on you?

Henceforth, I shall ignore what YOU say.  (A wise course, I suggest, for anyone concerned with the truth.)

HARRIS/THOMAS: “This effectively has Joseph presiding over everything for the past two thousand years and however much longer it is before Jesus comes back.  It puts a whole new slant on the text that reads the Father has entrusted all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father (John 5:22-23).  Perhaps it should continue and the Son has entrusted all judgement to Joseph, that all may honour Joseph as they honour the Son.  Maybe this is a piece of missing scripture!  Quick!  Where's my Joseph Smith Translation?  Forgive me, I am being facetious.”

PETERSON: No, you are being true to character.  You are inventing non-existent scripture and trying to put it on our lips as proof of your position.  It’s rather like Mr. Harris’s invented “typical Mormon testimony.”  Forged evidence doesn’t carry much weight, you know.  You wouldn’t do this if you had real, explicit evidence to back up your slander.  You wouldn’t have to.  If any genuine Latter-day Saint scripture says any such thing, supply it!

HARRIS/THOMAS: “But I do wish Mormons would wake up to the implications of what they are saying.”

PETERSON: Ah . . . So Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph Smith is equally important with Jesus, but they don’t know that they believe it.  “We allow his followers to explain what they think of him,” writes Mr. Harris.  And, adds Mr. Thomas, since they clearly don’t think of him what we say they are supposed to think of him or at any rate don’t realize that they think of him what we want to CLAIM they do, although they really don’t but they do but they don’t realize that they do, we will TELL them what they think of him, though they don’t know it.  Moreover, although Mr. Harris confesses his inability to “quote any source as saying it,” Mr. Thomas prays that the Latter-day Saints will “wake up to the implications” of what they believe, though they don’t know that they believe it, so that they will finally see that “it is as clear as crystal that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.”

“As clear as crystal”?  This is really funny, folks.  In the United States, we call such nonsense “doubletalk.”  Do you have that word in the United Kingdom?  No matter.  I KNOW you have the word “absurdity,” and that will do just as well.

HARRIS/THOMAS: “I also wish they would say what they mean and mean what they say.”

PETERSON:  We do.  You refuse to listen.  When we speak, you accuse us of “dissembling.”  “We allow his followers to explain what they think of [Joseph Smith],” writes Mr. Harris, but, adds Mr. Thomas, they neither “say what they mean” nor do they “mean what they say.”  So the authorities at Without Trust have to interpret for them.  And then, when Without Trust has explained what Joseph Smith’s followers really meant when they were “allowed” to explain what they thought of him, it all becomes, miraculously, “as clear as crystal.”

I’m actually beginning to like you guys.  It takes a remarkable degree of chutzpah and brazen gall to maintain so silly a position as yours is in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and those are qualities not to be taken lightly.

HARRIS/THOMAS: “‘That is your interpretation’, they say when you point out to them what is plainly on the page and plainly against all that scripture has to say on the subject.  Worse, they say it in an accusatory tone suggesting that you are deliberately misinterpreting or misunderstanding.”

PETERSON: It IS your interpretation.  And nothing BUT your interpretation.  It certainly isn’t OURS.  We deny it.  Categorically.  Unanimously.  Repeatedly.  As Mr. Harris admitted, he “did not quote any source as saying it.”  And that was clearly not for lack of desire or failure to try.  He couldn’t FIND one.

I’m suggesting deliberate misinterpretation, by the way, because that is the most charitable explanation I can think of for your bizarre behavior in this matter.  There are other possibilities, but they would be uncharitable.

It is instructive that it is you, and you alone, who have come up with this malicious nonsense about Joseph Smith being equal to Jesus Christ.  You can’t find it in any verse of Latter-day Saint scripture, or you would have cited such a verse.  You can’t locate it in any statement from any Latter-day Saint general authority.  “We did not quote any source as saying it,” confesses Mr. Harris.  But, as I have noted above, that certainly wasn’t from lack of effort, or for lack of interest.  It was because he COULDN’T.  You can’t find it in any statement from any Latter-day Saint scholar or author, though you have struggled mightily to force it on Professor Millet against his explicit repudiation of the idea.  (“We allow his followers to explain what they think of him,” you say, straining desperately to stifle a deep guffaw.)  You cannot find it in the statement of any NON-Latter-day Saint scholar.  In fact, so far as I am aware, you can’t even find it in the writings of any other ANTI-Mormon.  This is YOUR revelation, invisible to anybody else.

Your source for this ludicrous accusation is Mr. Harris’s eccentric misinterpretation of a tiny handful of quotations from Brigham Young and a few others.  “It is as clear as crystal,” laughs Mr. Harris.  “We allow his followers to explain what they think of him,” he manages to blurt out between breathless gasps, doubled over with mirthful self-admiration.

Brigham Young was not known for mincing words and speaking cryptically.  He was famous for his bluntness and frank speech.  If Brigham Young had ever meant to say that Joseph Smith is equal to Jesus Christ, he would have said so and been done with it.  And he would have made sure that every other Mormon knew and taught the doctrine.  Yet no Latter-day Saint speaker or writer -- not a single one -- has ever picked up the concept (“as clear as crystal”) that Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ are equally important.  No books mention it.  No pamphlets allude to it.  No sermons discuss it.  There aren’t even any announcements in the ward bulletin to substantiate your charge or vitiate your guilt.  There is nothing supporting you.  There is nothing to assuage your guilt. 

Were the Latter-day Saints waiting for YOU to tell them what they believe?  You seem to think so.  Nobody else does.

HARRIS/THOMAS: “I ask Professors Millet and Peterson four very simple questions:”

PETERSON: I am not going to drag Professor Millet into this pointless conversation, especially not when I am in the process of leaving it myself.  He is a friend of mine.  He has said what he had to say, and you have refused to accept it, but have, instead, accused him of “dissembling.”  Why should he correspond with people who won’t believe what he writes even when he is talking about his own views?

HARRIS/THOMAS: “Do you believe that Joseph, in any way, achieved more than Jesus did?”

PETERSON: Yes.  Of course.  He probably spoke better English.  He certainly traveled further.  He lived longer.  There are plenty of areas where he was able to do more.  But he did not do more for our salvation.  Important though he is, he is not as important as Jesus.  “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, SAVE JESUS ONLY, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it”  (Doctrine and Covenants 135:3; emphasis mine).

I have already addressed this issue, but you have chosen to ignore what I said.

HARRIS/THOMAS: “Do you believe that Joseph's character equals that of Jesus?”

No.  Nor does any other Latter-day Saint.  I have already addressed this issue, but you have chosen to ignore what I said.

HARRIS/THOMAS: “Who is your judge Joseph or Jesus?”

PETERSON: Jesus will be my judge.  And yours.  But Joseph Smith, like others among the prophets and apostles, will play a role in the judgment that is not very clearly spelled out in the scriptures or elsewhere.  I have already addressed this issue, but you have chosen to ignore what I said.

HARRIS/THOMAS: “Did Joseph's shed blood simply seal his testimony, or did it have the effect of releasing new covenant blessing?”

PETERSON: As Professor Millet has explained, it sealed his testimony.  No Latter-day Saint has ever claimed that Joseph’s blood, shed by anti-Mormon bigots, atones for anybody’s sin.  YOU claim we do (“We allow his followers to explain what they think of him,” you say, hoping to maintain a straight face), but we don’t and never have.  As has already been pointed out to you, in the very same sermon from which you carefully extracted your proof text to show that Latter-day Saints hold Joseph Smith to be as morally perfect as our Redeemer, Brigham Young expressly says that Joseph was not the Savior, but only a prophet.  (See Journal of Discourses 14:202-203 [13 August 13 1871].  But then, why bother?  You’ve already seen the sermon, presumably, since you quote from it, but you are carefully suppressing the part that shows your claim to be spurious and false.)

HARRIS/THOMAS: “And if the former will you repent of implying the latter in the Ensign?”

PETERSON: Professor Millet is not responsible for your misreading of his Ensign article, and neither am I.  Will you repent not only of wrongly inferring your pet libel from his article, but of trumpeting it to the world and refusing to surrender it when proved wrong?

There are many ways to serve God, Mr. Harris.  I am sorry that you and your associates think slander is among them.

Goodbye.

Daniel Peterson

Dear Dan

I am glad that I have been able to make you laugh. My regret is that have I failed to provoke you to serious thought and reflection. You seem so galvanised into defence mode, so set in your preconceptions and prejudices (no doubt charges you would happily level at me) that you fail to see the problems in your own belief system, the flaws in your own arguments. On the other hand you seem to feel that my beliefs and prejudices are so obvious as to be self evident, needing only a simple assertion to point them out to the more slow-witted. Indeed it seems to me that much of what you present as "evidence" is no evidence at all but blunt assertions that you feel we are simply bound to accept as true just because you have presented them.

Of course there are certain statements that any reasonable person would find acceptable without further question. For instance, I have no doubt that you are Dan Peterson, that you are a professor at BYU, that you are a faithful and honest Latter-day Saint and that you do not believe that Joseph Smith is equal to Jesus in Mormon theology. I also know what it is to have such "facts" questioned for what appears to be no other reason than simple pique. For instance, I certainly was a Mormon for fourteen years and it seems pointless and silly to call the fact into question. It is also irritating when Mormons, having begrudgingly accepted that fact, inevitably put everything I do and say down to my suffering the bitterness of the apostate.

They are blinkered zealots who demand immediate acquiescence in their own opinions while looking on the ideas that fail to correspond with their own as rank heresy or rascality. This helps them avoid the expediency of having to think, having dismissed me as a willing tool of Satan, but it does them no credit when they display such mindless and blind prejudice. Indeed it is ironic that at a time when the Mormon Church seems so determined to present a face of tolerance and mutual understanding between faiths the views of the so-called "apostate" are so routinely dismissed as poisoned, darkened and spawned out of resentment and anger.

You have accused me of making ad hominem statements instead of directly dealing with the issue when I was simply making observations on your apparently intemperate approach to our exchanges. No doubt I wrote somewhat tongue-in-cheek, nevertheless I wrote from what I had experienced through reading your rather colourful letters and noting their tone of frustration and anger. Their pontifical style is a clear indication of a man who considers himself "six feet above contradiction", as the old saying goes. If we could just get past this stereotyping and this how-dare-you-gainsay-anything-I-say attitude perhaps we both might learn something. Of course if you are typical you will have already decided that there is nothing a "rabid anti-Mormon" and an "apostate" can possibly teach you.

I have reviewed the correspondence between you and Doug Harris, much of which passed without my involvement, and your correspondence with me as I have latterly become involved, and find your letters liberally peppered with the accusation of straying from the point. I can see how you might see it that way but suggest that, though we might well have strayed from time to time, nevertheless it is you who have singularly failed to address the central issue. Allow ME to remind YOU.

The first issue that needs clarification is that of "what Mormons believe". Of course I appreciate that cynical old you believes that everything I write is calculated to twist the truth and that really, especially as an "apostate", I know full well the answers to all these points and simply refuse to face the truth, preferring to hide it from my readers. Nevertheless this is a complicated issue (a tangled web?) and you and all other correspondents have singularly failed to answer what I regard as a reasonable question. As you are a member of a church that purports to bring clarity where there is confusion I find it hard to understand your reluctance to simply deal with the questions in hand.

WHAT MORMONS BELIEVE

A thorny issue for Mormons at the moment is that of authority, and the question of who speaks for the church and who is speaking from their own personal convictions and human viewpoint. This is a very important point for us because we are forever being accused of misrepresenting the church and its teachings. One way of ensuring that we get it right is by knowing and using reliable sources. Attempts to clarify this issue often include the following quote:

The only works that are authoritative and binding on the church and its Members are the four books of scripture: the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price (collectively known as the standard works), and official pronouncements from the First Presidency, the church's three-Member governing body.

On the face of it this is not an unreasonable statement. There has to be a measure, or plumbline, a local vertical if you will, by which all other claims to truth can be judged. For the Christian it is the Bible, for the Muslim it is the Koran, for the Jew the Torah. The above statement seems reasonable as a final standard by which to judge truth, or at least Mormon truth. It is a clear statement with apparently no equivocation. Mike Parker illustrates this point by reference to Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R McConkie.

Thousands of books have been written by Latter-day Saints over the last 166 years. Some of them are well-written and accurate, some contain merely the personal theories of the writer. But just because a Latter-day Saint writes something doesn't mean what he writes is correct or speaks for the church.

A case in point is a work widely accepted by Members of the LDS church: Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. In this encyclopedic work, McConkie attempted to explain in detail what Latter-day Saints believe about more than 1,100 gospel topics. Unfortunately, some of his interpretations and beliefs were not correct, and the second edition of his book had a number of, what were termed in the preface, "changes, clarifications, and additions." McConkie, as great a man as he was (and I will quote him later), was imperfect just like the rest of us.

These two statements seem to clearly define the contrast between "scripture" and those writings, statements, commentaries made by Mormons about scripture and truth. For the Latter-day Saint, however, there is a problem here.

From the earliest days of Mormonism remarkable claims of revelations, prophecies etc. have been the norm. Even though the LDS church started with a book, nevertheless what was written has always proven insufficient and "the saints" have been encouraged to look to "living prophets" for guidance and direction. In a defining statement Ezra Taft Benson said:

The most important prophet, so far as we are concerned, is the one living in our day and age. This is the prophet who has today's instructions from God to us today. God's revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Every generation has need of the ancient scripture plus the current scripture from the living prophet. Therefore, the most crucial reading and pondering which you should do is of the latest inspired words from the Lord's mouthpiece.

(Conference Report, Korea Area Conference, 1975, p.52, quoted in 1989 Priesthood Manual, Seek to Obtain My Word)

Essential to Mormon thinking is the belief that the heavens have been opened once more, and that God, through his servants the prophets, directs and guides the affairs of his people. Continuous revelation is understood to be the lifeblood of the church. Members are encouraged to believe that the affairs of the church are guided on a daily basis by revelation through living prophets.

This being the case, when the average Latter-day Saint looks to his leaders for guidance and clarity he hardly expects to have to pick carefully through a selection of teachings, comments and pronouncements, weighing each one. He certainly is not encouraged to even consider the possibility that apostles and prophets would be found wanting in clarity and accuracy in bringing the true "interpretation" of church teaching to their congregations. Listen to Mormon apostle Orson Pratt:

Have we not a right to make up our minds in relation to the things recorded in the word of God, and speak about them, whether the living oracles believe our views or not? We have not the right.

(Journal of Discourses 7:374-375)

Brigham Young declared:

I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them to the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office…I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.

(Journal of Discourses, vol.13.p.95. Also see vol.13.p.264)

Joseph Fielding Smith said:

Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voices of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord.

An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voices of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be.

(Ensign, July 1972, p.88)

It has long been understood amongst the Latter-day Saints that "when the prophet speaks all debate is ended". Indeed, if you had to define the seminal message of the Mormon Church it is that men may once again look confidently to prophets and apostles to guide them unerringly in their lives and devotion to God.

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan - it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.

(Improvement Era June 1945,p.354)

Contrast this with another quote from Joseph Fielding Smith:

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, ed. by Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft), 1956, 3:203-4.)

But surely what makes the "authorities of the Church" authorities is their dependability and their insight into the business of God. It is almost a given that their comments, in whatever form, will be "in accord with the revealed word in the standard works". Their humanity will surely show through in tone and presentation, but surely not in content. If this is not the case then they are no "authorities". Of course an individual may hold an opinion that has no bearing on eternal verities, e.g. 'should a Mormon drink Coke?' and this opinion we may choose to ignore. However, when a "prophet" speaks, even as a man, touching gospel principles then, even as a man, his opinion should be in accord with revealed truth. We should be able to trust him. If we are to sift and check, harbour doubts, speculate and essentially question him then how does he differ from the Dalai Lama, Rajneesh or the Archbishop of Canterbury? How could you square such thinking with statements like this from Spencer W Kimball:

Apostasy usually begins with question and doubt and criticism…They who garnish the sepulchres of the dead prophets begin now by stoning the living ones…They allege love for the gospel and the Church but charge that leaders are a little 'off beam'...Next they say that while the gospel and the Church are divine, the leaders are fallen.

(The teachings of Spencer W Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982)

How can we trust a leader whose personal opinions differ from his official pronouncements for God? Surely we have been promised that such a thing would never happen?

Of course the problem here, typically, is that the Mormon Church is trying to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously. The traditional position of the church is that God once again speaks through prophets and that, in contrast to a dead tradition, the "true church" is in a state of growth and development, a state of flux. The Mormon canon of scripture is not a complete canon but a founding canon, clearly identified as the "standard works" of the church, but the whole canon is not fixed since it is purported to include further revelations and announcements up to the present day. Hence the statement, " The most important prophet, so far as we are concerned, is the one living in our day and age." This makes Gordon Hinckley and the rest of the "general authorities" of the church more important to current church members than Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Peter James and John, or even Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. 'Watch the prophet' is the phrase sometimes used. Spencer W Kimball criticised [sic] the practice of some that, "return to the pronouncements of the dead leaders and interpret them to be incompatible with the present programs." The message, clearly, is that one should test the past by the present.

On the other hand, as the church grows more sophisticated, in an increasingly sophisticated world, it is apparent that these prophets are more closely scrutinised [sic] by a people who are ever more critical and discerning. Leaders can no longer make pronouncements that are xenophobic, confrontational or overtly triumphalistic in nature, and expect to get away with it. Nor can they any longer make ridiculous claims about archaeology and the Book of Mormon, the imminent fate of the United States Government, or the inhabitants of the moon. The answer is to have a fixed canon of scripture, controlled from the centre, against which everyone, even the prophet, is to be tested. This is the current thinking. The message here is that one should test the present by the past. The position of the church has shifted. Surely, though, in a church that claims continuing revelation, and promises unerring guidance there should be perfect accord between prophets past and present?

It has long been apparent that the phenomenal success of the Mormon Church is in no small measure due to its ability to change and adapt. Mormon leaders have long been image conscious and anxious to own the correct reputation. Such concerns have been the driving force behind some remarkable changes in policy and practice over the years.

The nineteenth century Mormon Church was isolationist and aggressive, much in the traditional style of new religious movements. Speeches and statements from church leaders frequently reflected inflated ambitions to "rule every nation". In that rare atmosphere of triumphalism all sorts of wild statements of doctrine and belief were made, leaders never imagining that the world would change so much as to be able to put Mormon claims to the test (a singular absence of prophetic foresight here). One classic example is the following extract from a contemporary journal:

Inhabitants of the Moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the Earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the quaker Style & are quite general in style, or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; comeing [sic] generally, near a thousand years. This is the description of them given by Joseph the Seer, and he could "See" whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see.

(Journal of Oliver B. Huntington)

And again, from the Journal of Discourses we have this from Brigham Young:

Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?…when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it. It was not made in vain.

(Journal of Discourses, vol.13,p.271)

Thinking that their 19^th century world-view would endure they never imagined that one day "the most learned" would land on the moon and find it barren and uninhabited. Trusting in their splendid isolation amongst the Rocky Mountains they defied the world and developed many of the doctrines and practices for which they are still famous. One notorious teaching was Brigham Young's Adam/God doctrine. Young stated on April 9^th, 1852:

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth…When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives with him…He is Michael, the Arch-angel, the Ancient of Days!…He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.

(Journal of Discourses,vol.1,pp.50-51)

Today what the church calls the Adam/God "theory" is stridently denied and those who teach it are excommunicated. Along with polygamy, blood atonement, and men on the moon, Adam/God was dropped, and the church buried its 19^th century mistakes with its 19^th century dead. One commentator observed that "The [Mormon] Church entered the twentieth century in anxious pursuit of respectability."

This century, however, has also seen the Mormon Church face controversy. One notable hangover from the days of Brigham and Joseph has been the church's stance on Negroes. One noted Mormon leader stated:

As a result of his rebellion [in a pre-mortal existence], Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who were not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage.

(Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p 102)

Another leader declared:

Is there any reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of the worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life?…We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in the pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments.

(Mark E Peterson, Race Problems - As They Affect the Church)

According to performance in a pre-mortal state men and women are born into different races. The Negro is the lowest of these and not deserving of Mormon priesthood blessing. Clearly to be born White, Anglo-Saxon, and LDS puts a person at the top of this caste system.

In 1978 the then prophet, Spencer W. Kimball, announced that "all worthy male members of the church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard to race or color", claiming to have received revelation on the matter. This has opened up a whole new mission field to the church, which is now expanding at a phenomenal rate amongst African nations.

Once again the Mormons are digging graves for past mistakes. Dead and gone are key portions of the temple ceremony. Notably the blood oaths were removed in 1990, and a controversial section portraying the typical Christian clergyman as a lackey of Satan, who taught a "ridiculous and incomprehensible" philosophy, which he called "orthodox religion", was removed. The Journal of Discourses was once a key source of doctrine. It has recently been demoted to the position of interesting but uninspired teachings, which may, or may not, be reliable. Many of the problems they are trying to bury are from this, once unimpeachable, source. (The preface to volume eight of the Journal states "The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the Standard Works of the Church")

Bruce R McConkie simply shares the fate of all past prophets. While his writings were once essential reading in every seminary and institute class, he is increasingly marginalised [sic] as his teachings fall behind current Mormon thinking. As with the prophets of the nineteenth century, the Mormons seem to be burying their 20^th century mistakes with their 20^th century dead.

So here we are quoting McConkie and Tanner and Talmage etc. as authorities, naively thinking that they are endorsed by a church that itself extensively quotes them. In manuals, periodicals and journals we are led to believe that, if an apostle says it then it must be so. But I am afraid the Mormon Church wants the penny and the bun. It wants apostles and prophets but it does not want to be held accountable for what they say when what they say is no longer politically correct.

Where are we to look then when we wish to know "what Mormons believe"? Perhaps the writings of apologists like Dr. Stephen E Robinson of Brigham Young University might help us. He is certainly the flavour of the month as author of Are Mormons Christians? and co-author of How wide the Divide? No help here I am afraid. In the first mentioned volume he writes in the preface, "It should be understood that I do not speak officially for the LDS church or for Brigham Young University." Perhaps we can look to Mike Parker for some authoritative teaching on Mormonism? No luck here either I am afraid. A similar disclaimer is found on the Mike Parker LDS Library, "Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its presiding authorities."

So you see, when a Mormon jumps up and declares "but I don't believe that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus", he must of course be believed. We must also believe, however, that he does not speak for the church and therefore is only an authority on what is both Mr Robinson's and Mr Parker's favourite subject - "what I believe". He is not an authority on "what Mormons believe". That honour is claimed and jealously guarded by a group of elderly gentlemen in Salt Lake City. We will then continue to quote them, and their predecessors, and show the world "what a tangled web [they] weave".

In light of the above what are we to make of a recent statement by Gordon Hinckley:

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. 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.'"

Was this just his opinion or is it official Mormon doctrine? If the latter then why on earth have we suffered grief all this time at the hands of Mormons who insist that "of course we believe in the same Jesus!" who accuse us of knowingly deceiving people when we dare to insist otherwise? It is not we who are telling less than the truth but Mormons who do indeed believe in a different Jesus and insist that they don’t. But then Hinckley could be simply expressing an opinion. And I prophecy now that at some point in the future, when a Mormon is backed into a corner over worshipping a different Jesus, and this quote is brought up as "proof", the well worn riposte "that was just his opinion" will be trotted out once more. Because any point, quote, verse or question that is raised in such confrontations is always labelled out of context, misquoted, misrepresentative, misunderstood or mischievously twisted. And, whatever the source, every quote is up for negotiation and can be devalued at a stroke - as expediency demands. The Mormon answer to everything is to bleat "OH! We are so misunderstood and misrepresented. Please allow US to explain." And, like the walrus and the carpenter, they invite unsuspecting oysters to 'come and join the dance'. Well, Dan, there's a purpose close behind you and its treading on your tail!

HYMNS OF THE CHURCH

The original article to which Mike Parker took exception was published in the spring 1995 issue of the Reachout Newsletter and subsequently reproduced on the Reachout Trust Web Pages. It is interesting that you should write about the number of hymns to Joseph Smith compared with those to Jesus. It is with this very point that I begin my piece. Singing hymns of praise to a man is so much a part of your religious worship that you fail to see how singularly odd the practice is. It is not how many there are that is significant but the fact that there are any at all. I don’t believe you realise how odd this looks to a Christian whose song repertoire is confined to hymns and choruses that praise God. However the average Latter-day Saint thinks nothing of bellowing out "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!" To a Christian the content of this hymn is positively blasphemous since it clearly expresses "Praise" for a "created [being] rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen!" (Rom.1:25). It is Praise to the man, mark it well Praise to the man. Not Praise to Jehovah, not Glory to God, but Praise to the man. I have before me a copy of the very hymnal to which you refer in your letter, 1985 edition, and you are right of course. There are indeed many hymns of praise and worship to Jesus, many more than to Joseph or "the prophet". But, you see, simply pointing them out does not contextualise the issue, as you seem to think. Again, as you rightly point out, the hymn clearly declares the "prophet" to be anointed by Jesus but this does not help you or rescue you from your predicament since it does not change the words Praise to the man.

The hymn goes on to declare "Brother Joseph" honored, extolled, revered, lauded, having blood that effectually "pleads unto heaven", and enjoying great glory and a position of endless authority amongst the Gods. Amongst the Gods, mark you. Not only is Joseph exalted but God, the one true God of the Bible, is demoted to merely one amongst many. Joseph is to be found, not with God, but amongst Gods with whom he "plans for his brethren". Surely, if Mormon theology holds true to form, we are here singing the praises of a man who has himself become a god? A god amongst gods!

"Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven! Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain - Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren; Death cannot conquer the hero again."

Ask any Christian who it is that has ascended to heaven, whose blood pleads unto heaven, who is with God working out his plan for his brethren, and over whom death has no power and they will answer resoundingly with the name of Jesus. And, of course, any Latter-day Saint may well answer in the same manner. I have heard them do so and do not doubt their sincerity when they so declare BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE WORDS OF THE HYMN PRAISE TO THE MAN!

This hymn is not about Jesus, who is mentioned a mere once (twice if you ascribe to him the name Jehovah), but about Joseph whose name, fame and glory are the very meat of the composition. It is not even about God but about gods. And you dare to thunder at me, pompously calling judgement [sic] on my head and demanding repentance? Look to yourself Dan and remember whom you offend when next you sing Praise to the man. For God is a jealous God who will not share His glory or his praise with anyone. (Isaiah 42:8)

The problem here is not my ignorance of what Mormons believe or my writing being twisted by blind prejudice or animosity. It is that Mormons need to wake up to the reality of what they are saying and singing when they "revere" the prophet. Of course there are plenty of hymns and testimonies about Jesus (more on testimonies later) but there is so much blatant praise of Joseph. The existence of the former does not reduce the significance of the latter. A little leaven will leaven the whole lump.

 ROBERT MILLET

Whilst your defence of Robert Millet is quite touching (what are friends for?) nevertheless it has proved entirely inadequate and, although not altogether surprised, I am disappointed. Again you seem to believe that by merely publishing a statement from Robert explaining his intentions you have dealt with the issue and despatched [sic] the miscreant Mike Thomas with a flea in his ear. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just as you cannot dismiss Praise to the man by simply trivialising it away, so you cannot deal with the issue of Robert's commentary by simply stating "it just ain't so".

I will be blunt here and say that I have known Mormons lie, deceive, dissemble, deal economically with the truth and get it wrong out of plain ignorance of the facts (I could give you examples from prophets down to stake presidents but space and time will not permit). I do not accuse you of any of these things but you will excuse me perhaps if I refuse to simply take a Mormon's word for it! Of course we were happy to publish your objections on our web site, along with Robert's statement, and did so immediately we received it. Which is more than the Mormon Church would ever consider doing for us. Whilst you are happy to accuse us of deception and worse, you fail to acknowledge that we are pleased to publish what you write and give you a fair hearing. In light of this to object because you can't have it all your own way is hardly gracious. I ask you again to consider AND STICK TO THE POINTS reproduced below. In your letters you say, "we are watching". Let me remind you that others are watching you and some have already commented on the fact that you have not dealt with these issues. It will do your reputation no good if you continue to avoid the inevitable.

I repeat:

We are happy, of course, to be able publish Professor Millet's response. Nor are we so mean-spirited as to insist on not believing that his intention, as elaborated upon in his response, was never to say that Joseph Smith was equal to Jesus. Sadly we cannot leave it there. A Christian reading his article would still be hard-pressed, I believe, to confidently come to the conclusion that, as Professor Millet put it:

We do not worship Joseph Smith, but we do admire him, love him, and deeply appreciate him for what God made known through him and for the fact that he sealed his testimony of the Savior with his own blood. Let us look at what he is saying now and compare it with what is recorded in the Ensign article, June 1994, p.22.

NOW: Joseph Smith's blood reminds us of the price that must occasionally be paid by the Lord's chosen servants to declare the truth. In a dissembling fashion Professor Millet seems to be saying that Joseph's blood was shed simply to seal his testimony. This, however, seems suspiciously like back peddling on his part for, whatever his intentions, it is not what he wrote in 1994.

THEN: The life of Joseph Smith was in some degree patterned after that of his Master, Jesus Christ. That pattern holds true even when extended to its tragic conclusion. Like his Master, Joseph Smith also shed his blood in order that the final testament, the reestablishment of the new covenant, might be in full effect (see Heb.9:16)" (Emphasis added).

As I have already explained, Hebrews 9:16 is a reference to the death of Jesus releasing to his beneficiaries (all who believe - Rom.10:9) "the promised eternal inheritance" (v15), thus making him "the mediator of the new covenant" (v15). Mormon theology teaches that such benefits were lost in apostasy (a complete falling away from the truth) before the end of the second century and that a restoration was necessary. Professor Millet appears to be saying that it was necessary that there had to be a shedding of blood once more in order to re-establish that which was once lost, thus making Joseph the mediator of the restored covenant. This comparison is extravagant, to say the least, even for someone whose blood was shed to seal his testimony. For such a one surely the heroes of Hebrews 11:32-40 would have been a more appropriate comparison than Hebrews 9:16. For here are the equals in scripture of those who die in order to seal their testimony of God.

However, Professor Millet compares Joseph, not with saints of previous ages martyred for their testimony, but with Jesus. Did Jesus, then, simply die to "seal his testimony", as Professor Millet is now saying Joseph did? Not at all! Taken in context, verse 16 of Hebrews 9 is speaking not of testimony but of testament (Mormons use the KJV which uses this word). Here the word means will, as in last will and testament, (NIV, Jerusalem Bible, RSV), and the passage is speaking of an inheritance following the death of one who made a will. In this case it is an eternal inheritance, freedom from sins (v15).

Professor Millet does not seem to be confusing testimony and testament because he does clearly use the word covenant in the correct context. I cannot see how he could have been ignorant, therefore, of the parallel he was drawing in comparing Joseph with Jesus. The key phrase is in order that. He declared that Joseph "…shed his blood in order that the final testament (not testimony or witness but testament, covenant or will), the reestablishment of the new covenant (or will), might be in full effect". He then makes clear reference to Hebrews 9:16. Joseph's blood, then, does not simply seal his testimony but rather releases new covenant blessing. I simply cannot get "shed his blood to seal his testimony" from "shed his blood in order that the final testament (or covenant) might be in full effect (see Heb.9:16)". Whatever his intention he is declaring that Joseph's death had the effect of releasing covenant blessing as did the blood of Jesus. This is not a matter of theology but of plain English.

In light of the above, I have tried to understand Professor Millet's latest assertion that Joseph's death simply sealed his testimony. The only way this could be so is if he is reading Heb.9:16 out of context. In the KJV it reads: For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. Perhaps he is making this verse stand alone and interpreting it as, where there is a testimony then the testifier must seal it with his death. If this is the case this is poor exegesis, indeed it is not exegesis (reading the meaning of the text) but eisegesis (reading a meaning into the text). Furthermore, if this is the case he certainly should have known better, for the Mormon reference Bible has a footnote for this verse that clearly shows testament to mean covenant and not testimony. We cannot get away, I am afraid, from the phrase "shed his blood in order that the final testament (or covenant) might be in full effect (see Heb.9:16)". And whilst we are willing to believe Professor Millet guilty of no more than poor exegesis nevertheless his original article must be seen against the background of what Joseph and his successors have said about the first Mormon prophet.

Mormons would have us believe that Joseph succeeded where Jesus failed. I quote again the words of Joseph himself:

I have more to boast of than any man had. I am the only man that has been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter nor Jesus ever did. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I.

(History of the Church vol.6, pp.408-9)" (emphasis added)

No man, not even Jesus, has done what Joseph has done, this is the claim, not since the days of Adam. Think about that for a moment. It is breathtaking enough that any man should boast of whatever he presumes that he has achieved in the service of the living God. I am reminded of the words of Paul, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord" 2Cor.10:17. But here is a man who boasts of doing better than the Lord, "Neither Paul, John, Peter nor Jesus ever did it".

It should be remembered that it is against the background of such astounding boasts that Professor Millet's remarks are being interpreted. I remind you of what Brigham Young said of Joseph:

Well now, examine the character of the Savior, and examine the characters of those who have written the Old and New Testaments; and then compare them with the character of Joseph Smith, the founder of this work - the man whom God called and to whom he gave the keys of Priesthood, and through whom he has established his Church and kingdom for the last time, and you will find that his character stands as fair as any man's mentioned in the Bible.

(Journal of Discourses, vol.14.p.203)

A character as fair as any man mentioned in the Bible? Even Jesus? In light of such pronouncements it is not at all difficult to interpret Professor Millet's words as I have done.

No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day the priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are…

(Journal of Discourses, vol.7, p.289)

This effectively has Joseph presiding over everything for the past two thousand years and however much longer it is before Jesus comes back. It puts a whole new slant on the text that reads the Father…has entrusted all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father (John 5:22-23). Perhaps it should continue and the Son has entrusted all judgement to Joseph, that all may honour Joseph as they honour the Son. Maybe this is a piece of missing scripture! Quick! Where's my Joseph Smith Translation? Forgive me, I am being facetious. But I do wish Mormons would wake up to the implications of what they are saying. I also wish they would say what they mean and mean what they say. "That is your interpretation", they say when you point out to them what is plainly on the page and plainly against all that scripture has to say on the subject. Worse, they say it in an accusatory tone suggesting that you are deliberately misinterpreting or misunderstanding. Such an approach is familiar to all that have honestly tried to share their faith with a Mormon.

I ask Professors Millet and Peterson four very simple questions:

1. Do you believe that Joseph, in any way, achieved more than Jesus? *
2. Do you believe that Joseph's character equals that of Jesus?
3. Who is your judge Joseph or Jesus?
4. Did Joseph's shed blood simply seal his testimony, or did it have the effect of releasing new covenant blessing? And if the former will you repent of implying the latter in the Ensign?

*(I am bound to say, Dan, that your answer to this particular question was contemptuous and quite beneath you.  Have you no self-respect?)

 Interestingly, Dan, I dug out an old Institute manual (I taught Seminary and Institute for many years, as well the Gospel Essentials and Priesthood classes). It is the 1975 course on Acts to Revelation, Ye Shall be Witnesses unto Me, and I looked up Hebrews 9 in the Reading Guide. The Commentary on Hebrews 9:15-17 reads as follows:

What Did Paul Mean by " For Where a Testament Is, There Must Also of Necessity Be the Death of The Testator?

"…In legal usage, a testator is one who leaves a valid testament at his death. The will or testament is the written document wherein the testator provides for the disposition of his property. As used in the gospel sense, a testament is a covenant. Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant or testament, that is of the gospel which came to replace the law of Moses…

"…In other words, Christ had to die to bring salvation. The testament or covenant of salvation came in force because of the atonement worked out in connection with that death. Christ is the Testator. His gift, as would be true of any testator, cannot be inherited until his death. Christ died that salvation might come; without his death, he could not have willed either immortality or eternal life to men." (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp.784-85.)

(Ellipsis and italics in original, bold added)

Here you have a clear and accurate exegesis of the text. Testament means will, testator means the one whose death releases inheritance and, in this case, the inheritance is salvation. Note the phrase, "without his death, he could not have willed [salvation] to men". Clearly McConkie agrees that Heb.9:16 is saying that Jesus had to die in order for us to inherit. What could be simpler? Comparing Joseph with Jesus, and using Heb.9:16 as a proof text, Robert Millet says:

The life of Joseph Smith was in some degree patterned after that of his Master, Jesus Christ. That pattern holds true even when extended to its tragic conclusion. Like his Master, Joseph Smith also shed his blood in order that the final testament, the reestablishment of the new covenant, might be in full effect (see Heb.9:16)" (Emphasis added).

Now he may not have intended to say so, and he may regret having said so, but the plain meaning of the text, whatever the intention of the author, is clear. The blood of Joseph releases the full effect of the final covenant. Any Christian who understands the meaning of Hebrews 9 will read it in this way - not because it's lets bash the Mormons week but because you would have to torture the Ensign text to make it say anything else. Robert has certainly tortured Hebrews 9:16 to make it say testimony. Strangely enough so did the Institute manual:

9:16,17. "Where a Testament is, There Must Also of Necessity Be the Death of the Testator"

Why? We know that Jesus died to atone for our sins, but why must he die in order to make his testimony believable?

(I cannot believe this since McConkie, whom they quote as a reliable authority, has just explained that testament means will, not testimony. But stoically they soldier on)

The answer seems to lie in two directions: (1) If the Son of God, an eternal being, is willing to sacrifice his mortal life for man's redemption, that redemption must have great value, for death is a supreme sacrifice for God or man. (2) When men of God seal their testimony with their lives, that testimony is binding upon all to whom it comes; it is impossible for one to disregard it and still remain intellectually honest. As the Lord himself, speaking of Joseph Smith, said: "Many have marvelled because of his death; but it was needful that he should seal his testimony with his blood, that he might be honored and the wicked might be condemned." (D&C 136:39.) The same is true of Jesus Christ.

(Bold added)

Again, like Robert Millet's, this commentary has no bearing on the text. This thorough emasculation of scripture is useless as a guide to the honest bible student but does serve the purpose of exalting Joseph. "It was needful that he should seal his testimony with his blood, that he might be honored and that the wicked might be condemned". Note the comment "The same is true of Jesus Christ". In other words, as with Jesus so with Joseph! Do you doubt it?

Who is to be honoured? - Joseph.

Whose blood condemns the wicked? - Joseph's.

Whose blood pleads unto heaven? - Joseph's.

Whose blood puts into full effect the final testament? - Joseph's.

Who has more to boast of than any man since Adam? - Joseph.

Whose character is as fair as that of the sinless saviour? - Joseph's.

Whose passport is necessary for entry into the kingdom of God? - Joseph's.

Whose apostle is Brigham? - Joseph's.

To whom is God "my right hand man"? - Joseph.

To whom do Mormons direct their praise? - The man who communed with Jehovah - Joseph.

Who is Jehovah? - The Son of Joseph's "right hand man".

Stop saying "it just ain't so" and deal with this gross distortion of truth.

Mike Thomas
Reachout Trust