[This letter was written by Mike Parker and sent to Reachout Trust in early August 1996.]

I came across your new web site today, and thought I would take a moment to respond to the information you present on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~reachout/morm.htm].

While I appreciate your attempt to enlighten people on the beliefs and practices of my faith, your two paragraphs do a great disservice by (1) giving incomplete information and (2) giving false information.

Allow me to give a brief response to some points you raise. I would be happy to discuss any of these at greater length individually.

From your site:

-------------------------

"Many people believe Mormons to be just another denomination but this is not the truth."

This statement is a little unclear.  Are Latter-day Saints *more* than "just another denomination" or *less* than one? I recommend you reword this.

-------------------------

"They believe that the Book of Mormon is more reliable than the Bible..."

While essentially correct, this statement does not tell the whole story.  We believe the Bible to be the word of God, but as it has been transcribed and translated many, many times over the last 1900 years, and as we do not have the original manuscripts to examine, we acknowledge that errors and omissions have crept into the text.  This does not destroy or denigrate the Bible as the foundation of our understanding of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  It *does* allow for the fact that there are more truths the God wants us to know than are contained in full between the pages of the Bible.

To some Christians this is heresy. Many claim that the text of the scriptures has been maintained, perfectly, over the multitude of translations and 19 centuries. Unfortunately, even the Bible does not claim this would happen.

There are, for example, about 2 dozen scriptural works which are referred to in the Bible itself, but which are not in our current Bible.  References to a few of these (I'd be happy to provide more on request) are found at Exodus 24:7; Numbers 21:14; Joshua 10:13; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; Ephesians 3:3,4; Colossians 4:16; and 1 Corinthians 5:9.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, was recorded, transcribed, abridged and translated by prophets of God, greatly reducing (but not eliminating) the chance of error.

Latter-day Saints use *both* the KJV Bible and the Book of Mormon together, as companions, and accept both as inspired.

-------------------------

"...Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ..."

This is worse than false.  I don't know your source for this, but they are *clearly* wrong.  Latter-day Saints accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, just as Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Paul and other prophets, but *certainly* nowhere *near* the greatness, glory and majesty of our Lord and Savior.

I would appreciate you providing me the reference to this blatantly untrue claim.

-------------------------

"...and that someone must be baptised for all our dead relations."

This is a twist on a belief we *do* have.  As all must be baptized (John 3:5 and others), and as many who have lived on this earth have not, the Savior has provided the way for them to hear the gospel after they die (1 Peter 3:18-19; 4:6) and then have the ordinance of baptism performed vicariously for them.

-------------------------

"The Bible clearly shows Mormonism to be false."

Clearly it doesn't, as I and millions of other Bible-believing "Mormons" will attest.  If anything, the Bible fails to prove many of the creeds and teachings of "mainstream" Christian religions.  More on this by request.

-------------------------

"There is no way that you can believe in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon..."

My very existence contradicts that statement.  The two very nicely support each other in bearing witness of the divinity of Christ and laying out his gospel.

-------------------------

"...for example, the bible clearly shows that pagans baptise for the dead, not Christians."

"Clearly?" By no means!

The *one* reference to baptism for the dead is found in 1 Corinthians 15:29. In this chapter, as you may be aware, Paul defends the doctrine of the resurrection. He asks the saints at Corinth why they do and believe certain things if there is no resurrection. 15:14 -- "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."

If there is no resurrection, Paul says...
v. 17 -- "your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins."
v. 18 -- "they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished."
v. 19 -- "we are of all men most miserable."
v. 30 -- "why stand we in jeopardy every hour?"

One of the proofs that Paul uses of the folly of *not* believing the resurrection is the fact that the Corinthians were practicing baptism for the dead:

v. 29 -- "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

In other words, "why do they [the Corinthians, believers in Christ] practice baptism for those who have died, if they [those who have died] are not resurrected?  why are they [the Corinthians] baptized for the dead?"

Now, you may have a different interpretation of this verse.  Many have been offered over the centuries.  But *please* don't try to claim that "the bible clearly shows that pagans baptize for the dead, not Christians."  It is anything *but* "clear."

-------------------------

I've only taken a short time to discuss a few points. I'd be happy to cover any of these in more detail.

I *certainly* don't object to you placing information about the LDS church on your web site, I only ask that the information is accurate and fair.

Your brother in Christ,

Mike Parker
Costa Mesa, California, USA

[This letter was written by Mike Parker and sent to Doug Harris of Reachout Trust on 18 January 1997.]

The following is Doug's e-mail to me (in bold italics), and my complete response. Some formatting changes (like the addition of endnotes) have been made to make it easier to read on the Web.

Table of Contents

I appreciate your desire to dialogue on this subject. I do not wish to argue with you, for "contention is not of [Christ], but is of the devil" (Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 11:29). I want to explain where we stand. I hope you will accept what I write as truthful and sincere from someone who is well-versed in LDS doctrine and teachings. Nothing in here is designed to mislead or "cover up" what I believe. 3 Nephi 11:29). I want to explain where we stand. I hope you will accept what I write as truthful and sincere from someone who is well-versed in LDS doctrine and teachings. Nothing in here is designed to mislead or "cover up" what I believe.

A few housekeeping items before I begin:

• Because I am specifically replying to your letter, I have kept your original text in italics, followed by my response.

• When referring to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I will use the term Latter-day Saint or LDS over Mormon. The early believers in Christ called themselves Saints (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1, etc.) while non-believers called them Christians (Acts 11:26). Likewise, the term Mormon was given to us by those outside of our faith. In either case, I understand both terms, but prefer one over the other.

• Please forgive any uniquely American phrasing or word construction, such as Savior over Saviour. The differences between British English and American English grow greater as time passes. There are even several British-American dictionaries on the Internet to help with translation! (A notable one can be found at http://pages.prodigy.com/NY/NYC/britspk/main.html)

That aside, here it is:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.

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.

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.¹

(This, of course, includes what I have written here.)

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down unto the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5.)

These steps are generally summarized by Latter-day Saints in the phrase, "read, ponder, and pray."

It is not simply enough to read about the Book of Mormon. The work itself must be read, in faith, looking for its testimony of Christ. That testimony is found on nearly every page.

As Paul said, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21.) How can we prove all things, including scripture? "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God . . . and it shall be given him." (James 1:5.)

How will God tell us if something is of Him? ". . . when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15:26; italics added.) The Holy Ghost brings personal witness from God of His truth. (See also John 14:26; 1 Corinthians 2:11-16; 12:3.)

I have read the Book of Mormon prayerfully and independently, and have found, through the Spirit of God, that it is the word of God. I challenge you to do the same, putting away any other literature (pro- or anti-Mormon), and considering the book itself on face value.

LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie said in October 1983:

If [the Book of Mormon] is what it purports to be—if the original record was revealed by a holy angel; if the translation was made by the power of God and not of man; if Joseph Smith was entertaining angels, seeing visions, and receiving revelations—all of which is an established verity; if the Book of Mormon is true—then the truth and divinity of the Book of Mormon proves the truth of this great latter-day work in which we are engaged.

All of this I explained to . . . two Protestant friends. One of them, a congenial and decent sort of fellow, said somewhat casually that he would read the Book of Mormon. The other minister, manifesting a bitter spirit, said: "I won't read it. We have experts who have read the Book of Mormon, and I have read what our experts have to say about it."

This account dramatizes one of our problems in presenting the message of the Book of Mormon to the world. There are sincere and devout people everywhere who have heard what other people say about this volume of holy writ, and so they do not read it themselves.

Instead of drinking from that fountain from whence clear streams of living water flow, they prefer to go downstream and drink from the oily, muddy, poison-filled streams of the world.

The plain fact is that salvation itself is at stake in this matter. If the Book of Mormon is true—if it is a volume of holy scripture, if it contains the mind and will and voice of the Lord to all men, if it is a divine witness of the prophetic call of Joseph Smith—then to accept it and believe its doctrines is to be saved, and to reject it and walk contrary to its teachings is to be damned.²

Doug, I am sure you accept the Bible as God's word and believe that our acceptance or rejection of that word will have eternal consequences. I believe this as well. I also believe that God has revealed his word in the Book of Mormon too, and you and I are under the same obligation to accept that word, with the same consequences riding on that decision as on our decision about the Bible.

To be clear, the Eighth Article of Faith says:

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

The key words over which we disagree are "as far as it is translated correctly." On this point, Joseph Smith said in 1843:

I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors. As it read, [Genesis 6:6], "It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth;" also, [Numbers 23:19], "God is not a man, that he should lie, neither the Son of man, that he should repent;" which I do not believe [meaning the Genesis quotation]. But it ought to read, "It repented Noah that God made man." This I believe, and then the other quotation stands fair. If any man will prove to me, by one passage of Holy Writ, one item I believe to be false, I will renounce and disclaim it as far as I promulgated it.

The first principles of the Gospel, as I believe, are, faith, repentance, baptism for the remission of sins, with the promise of the Holy Ghost.

Look at [Hebrews 6:1] for contradictions—"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection." If a man leaves the principles of the doctrine of Christ, how can he be saved in the principles? This is a contradiction. I don't believe it. I will render it as it should be—"Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."³

Bold words? Yes. And he has a point, too.

As a Christian and a Latter-day Saint, I love the Bible. I love its teachings about the Savior and about God's plan for us. I have studied the New Testament more than any other scripture, and I accept what has come down to us as God's word.

But I also read it carefully, knowing that, as Joseph Smith pointed out above, there have been some errors in the transmission and translation of the text.

For instance it appears that the Book of Mormon has undergone nearly 4,000 changes since the first 'inspired' edition, over 160 years ago. Examples include 1 Nephi 11:18, where Mary is called the Mother of God instead of the Mother of the Son of God. 1 Nephi 11:21; and 13:40 where the Lamb of God is called the Eternal Father instead of the Son of the Eternal Father.

This charge is a very old anti-Mormon grindstone. Critics think that they are revealing something new and devastating when they make the "over 4,000 changes" statement.

Certainly the Book of Mormon has undergone changes since its first printing. This is true of any book (yes, even the King James Bible has received textual modifications over the last 385 years).

What is important to determine is the nature of these changes. Much research has been done into this, and, to that end, I invite you to read Stan Larson's 1976 article "Changes in Early Texts of The Book of Mormon," which can be found on my web site. The very verses you mention (1 Nephi 11:18, 11:21 and 13:40) are discussed there.

To summarize the article for you:

1. The vast majority of changes are typographical in nature (prophet to prophets, nobler to robber, immorality to immortality, wither to whether, sent to went, etc.), and appeared in the first place because of the limitations of setting type by hand. In these cases the intention of the church has been to return to the original handwritten manuscript of the Book of Mormon, of which we have about one-third. (Parenthetically, some typographical errors persist in the book, even with modern word processing software and laser-set type. For example, on page 293 of the current edition, in the chapter summary for Alma 34, the word "atonement" is spelled atonenent. I found this one myself in 1988.)

2. Some changes in the grammar of the text have been made to improve readability. Joseph Smith, as with any translator of any document, used language common to his experience (which is why he mimicked KJV English, the "language of scripture"). With his limited education, some of his spelling and phrasing needed improvement over time. For example, in the 1830 edition, 1 Nephi 5:6 read ". . . while we journied in the wilderness . . .," which has since been corrected to ". . . while we journeyed in the wilderness . . ." Joseph also had a tendency to use the letter a before verbs, such as in Alma 10:7 (1830): "As I was a journeying to see a very near kindred . . .," which has been corrected (1981) to "As I was journeying to see a very near kindred . . ."

3. A very small number of editorial changes were made by Joseph Smith himself in the succeeding editions published during his lifetime (1837 and 1840). You mentioned two of them from 1 Nephi. Stan Larson explains:

The phrase "the Son of" was added [in 1 Nephi 11:18] to the printer's manuscript and the 1837 edition as a clarification, possibly to avoid the sectarian phrase "the mother of God" that had been objected to by early critics of the Book of Mormon. "The Son of" was also added to 1 Nephi 11:21, 32 and 13:40 in the 1837 edition. The term "Eternal Father" found in 1 Nephi 11:21 and 13:40 was ambiguous since it could properly refer to either the Father or the Son. For example, Eternal Father refers to God the Father in Moroni 4:3, 5:2, and 10:4, but to God the Son in Mosiah 16:15 and Alma 11:38-39. Although some have claimed that the meaning of the text was altered by these additions, a more plausible explanation is that the addition clarified whom the verse was referring to.

If Joseph Smith (or any LDS leader) was attempting to perpetrate a fraud by "altering" these passages, why did he stop there? Why didn't someone realize that there are scores of other passages in the Book of Mormon that refer to Jesus Christ as "God?" For example:

And the God of our fathers . . . yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up . . . and to be crucified . . . and to be buried in a sepulchre . . . (1 Nephi 19:10; italics added.)

. . . he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and . . . that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth . . . (Mosiah 7:27; italics added.)

And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses. (Mosiah 13:28; italics added.)

For behold, did not Moses prophesy unto them concerning the coming of the Messiah, and that God should redeem his people? . . . Have [the prophets] not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth? (Mosiah 13:33-34; italics added.)

. . . I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. (Mosiah 15:1; italics added.)

. . . [Lehi and Nephi] have testified of the coming of Christ, and have looked forward, and have rejoiced in his day which is to come. And behold, he is God, and he is with them, and he did manifest himself unto them, that they were redeemed by him; and they gave unto him glory, because of that which is to come. (Helaman 8:22-23; italics added.)

Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world . . . Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. (3 Nephi 11:10, 14; italics added.)

There are only two conclusions that one can reach after reviewing this evidence: either Joseph Smith legitimately edited those passages in 1 Nephi to clarify (not change) the meaning of the text, or he was smart enough to write the Book of Mormon, but so stupid that he changed only a few "incriminating" passages and not the rest.

. . . [many scholars say that] much of what is recorded in the Bible is at best distorted, and some characters and events are probably totally fictional. Most scholars suspect that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Judaism's traditional founders, never existed; many doubt the tales of slaves in Egypt and the Exodus; and relatively few modern historians believe in Joshua's conquest of Jericho and the rest of the Promised Land. In the most extreme view, all of the above are complete fabrications, invented centuries after the supposed fact.⁴

In reaction to these and other inconsistencies arising from overreliance on the Bible, a second wave of superskeptics emerged over the past five years. At last month's annual meeting in Philadelphia of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion, the pre-eminent conference on Bible scholarship in the world, they were out in force. And while there were differences among what individual scholars believed, radical minimalist John Van Seters of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, summed up many of their commonly held positions. The oldest books of the Old Testament, he declared with Pope-like confidence, weren't written until the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, after 587 B.C. There was no Moses, no crossing of the sea, no revelation on Mount Sinai.⁵

. . . [there is] plenty of room for disagreement [among archaeologists] over parts of the Old Testament where the evidence is contradictory or still absent, including slavery in Egypt, the existence of Moses, the Exodus and Joshua's military conquest of the Holy Land. The Bible's accounts of these people and events are among the most familiar stories in the Old Testament. But even scholars who believe they really happened admit that there's no proof whatsoever that the Exodus took place. No record of this monumental event appears in Egyptian chronicles of the time, and Israeli archaeologists combing the Sinai during intense searches from 1967 to 1982—the years when Israel occupied the peninsula—didn't find a single piece of evidence backing the Israelites' supposed 40-year sojourn in the desert.

The story involves so many miracles—plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, manna from heaven, the giving of the Ten Commandments—that some critics feel the whole story has the flavor of pure myth. A massive exodus that led to the drowning of Pharaoh's army, says Father Anthony Axe, Bible lecturer at Jerusalem's Ecole Biblique, would have reverberated politically and economically through the entire region. And considering that artifacts from as far back as the late Stone Age have turned up in the Sinai, it is perplexing that no evidence of the Israelites' passage has been found. William Dever, a University of Arizona archaeologist, flatly calls Moses a mythical figure. Some scholars even insist the story was a political fabrication, invented to unite the disparate tribes living in Canaan through a falsified heroic past.

Unlike the Exodus, the story of Joshua and the conquest of Canaan can be tested against a rich archaeological record. The scientific consensus: bad news for the biblical account. According to the Book of Joshua, the Israelite leader and his armies swept into Canaan, destroying cities including Jericho, Hazor and Ai, after which the Israelites settled the land.

Archaeology tells a more complicated tale. Historians generally agree that Joshua's conquest would have taken place in the 13th century B.C. But British researcher Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated at Jericho for six years, found no evidence of destruction at that time. Indeed, says Dead Sea Scrolls curator emeritus [Magen] Broshi, "the city was deserted from the beginning of the 15th century until the 11th century B.C." So was Ai, say Broshi and others. And so, according to archaeological surveys, was most of the land surrounding the cities. Says Broshi: "The central hill regions of Judea and Samaria were practically uninhabited. The Israelites didn't have to kill and burn to settle."⁶

Another archaeologist has written:

In the final analysis the most certain identifications [of biblical place names] are still those dependent upon preservation of the ancient name, albeit with careful examination of written sources and archaeological data. Out of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only about 262 have been identified with any degree of certainty, i.e., 55 per cent. Of these 190 are based upon preservation of the name, viz. 40 per cent of the over-all total. . . . Only 72 places (15 per cent of the over-all total) have been identified in situations where the ancient name is not to be found somewhere in the vicinity, of which only about half carry a degree of certainty, the remainder being more or less conjectural.⁷

Please understand, I don't quote these to weaken your faith in the Bible. I firmly believe the events in the Bible took place, including a literal Garden of Eden and a Great Flood.

But to say that "the Bible is also shown to be reliable by the recovery of items mentioned in the Scriptures" is a gross overstatement.

Even if all of the people, cities, and artifacts described in the Bible could be archaeologically proven, it would still not prove the Bible to be true. The Bible, as scripture, is not an historical or archeological work—it is a spiritual work, one that explains God's plan for us and describes the miracles that have taken place in furtherance of that plan. Archaeological proof of Jesus Christ's existence does not prove that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, who was resurrected three days after his brutal crucifixion.

Just like the Bible, the message of the Book of Mormon is a spiritual one, and cannot be wholly proved by archaeology.

Book of Mormon archaeology is, admittedly, not nearly as developed as Biblical archaeology. The main reason for this is that the LDS culture has produced very few people who are both competent archaeologists and experts on the Book of Mormon.

Dr. John L. Sorenson, professor emeritus of Anthropology at Brigham Young University, is quite possibly the best Book of Mormon archaeologist currently living. His landmark book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985) sets forth the most comprehensive theory of Book of Mormon geography and archeology.

The latest in Book of Mormon archaeology is available through FARMS, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. They publish Insights, a semi-monthly newsletter, and the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, a semi-annual journal, both of which are quite good and relatively inexpensive. You can look at some back issues of these and contact the Foundation through the FARMS web site: http://www.farmsresearch.com.

For a more accessible overview of some of the challenges of Book of Mormon vs. Biblical archaeology, I highly recommend William J. Hamblin's essay, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," available on the World Wide Web at http://www.farmsresearch.com/critic/critic04.htm.

The word "coin" does not appear in the Book of Mormon. The Nephite monetary system described in Alma 11:4-19 is a system of weights and measures:

Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah. (Alma 11:4, italics added.)

Like most pre-coin societies, the Nephites would measure grain against a standard weight. (See Deuteronomy 25:13-16 for the Lord's law regarding honesty in weights and measures.) The "different pieces of their gold, and of their silver" are standard weights.

The reference to "coinage" in the chapter heading for Alma 11 is in error. (Yes, even Latter-day Saints have misinterpreted this passage.)

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.⁸

By "most correct" Joseph meant doctrinally. Because the Book of Mormon writings were handed down and translated by prophets, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, less doctrinal errors have crept into its text than any other book's, including the Bible. The Book of Mormon lays out God's plan of salvation more clearly and succinctly than any other work. This does not denigrate the Bible; it merely clarifies and enhances the Bible's teachings.

Foreign-language editions of the Book of Mormon are carefully supervised by the First Presidency, the three-member top leadership of the church. The translators are carefully chosen and assigned for their task. Translation work is done under the influence of the Spirit.

If I had a choice, however, I would certainly want to read from the English edition, it being the closest to the source. Similarly, I would one day like to learn Greek so I could read the New Testament in its original language.

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deuteronomy 12:32.)

For we [the Christian Saints] are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. (2 Corinthians 2:17; italics added.)

. . . our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16.)

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of this prophecy of this book [of Revelation], If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19.)

Nowhere in the Bible is the promise made that any of its writings would be preserved, word for word, down through history.

I, for one, am curious what happened to the Biblical texts in those hundreds of years between the original writing and the transcribing of the copies we now have.

And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. (Mormon 9:32; italics added. Note that "reformed" is not capitalized.)

This is similar to other societies which have used Egyptian as a "base alphabet" and modified it for common use, Demotic being one example.

Hebrews 7:11 The Aaronic priesthood passed away because it lacked and it was replaced by the 'better' Melchizedek priesthood. We do not need to restore that which is lacking.

7:3 & 5:6 The Melchizedek priesthood never passed away and so how can it be restored?

There appears to be no authority here at all.

Let me preface my reply here by saying I find it interesting that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only Christian church I am aware of that teaches and practices ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood. Most other churches simply ignore the issue of priesthood, or do not use the name Melchizedek.

First the background: Latter-day Saints believe that the formal authority to act in the name of God is called priesthood. To receive the priesthood . . .

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. (Fifth Article of Faith.)

As the Savior told his apostles, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you . . ." (John 15:16.) Authority to preach God's word does not come from reading the Bible or from feeling that one has been "called" by God, because "no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4.) Aaron, the first priest of Israel, was directly chosen by God through his appointed servant, Moses. (Exodus 28:1.)

The LDS view of the priesthood is most comprehensively explained in the Doctrine & Covenants, a volume of scripture containing, among other things, revelations to Joseph Smith. In this volume, many doctrines which are only touched upon briefly in the Bible and the Book of Mormon are discussed in detail.

From it we learn that the priesthood has "two divisions or grand heads—one is the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the other is the Aaronic, or Levitical, Priesthood." (D&C 107:6.)

The greater, or Melchizedek, priesthood "administeth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God." (D&C 84:19.) This is the same priesthood held by Jesus Christ, who is the "high priest after the order of Melchisedec" (Hebrews 5:5-10.), and the head of his church and all those who hold this priesthood.

The lesser, or Aaronic, priesthood is to ". . . administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (D&C 107:20) as well as supervise the temporal affairs of the church (D&C 20:46-59).

Both priesthoods existed from the beginning of the world until Moses, who:

. . . sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;

But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.

Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy [Melchizedek] Priesthood also;

And the lesser priesthood continued . . . with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel. . . . (D&C 84:23-27.)

The Aaronic Priesthood was in effect among the Jews during the life of the Lord Jesus (Luke 1:5-10). One of the acts of the Savior was to restore the higher Melchizedek Priesthood among his disciples.

Now, to your question. The Book of Hebrews was written by Paul to Jews who had converted from Judaism to Christianity. The main purpose of the epistle was to fully convince these Jewish converts that [1] Jesus is the Messiah, "made so much better than the angels" (1:4), [2] Jesus came to suffer death and make reconciliation for the sins of all men, [3] Jesus Christ is a "high priest after the order of Melchisedec" (5:10), [4] the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Aaronic priesthood, just as Jesus' sacrifice is superior to the Mosaic sacrifice of animals. (There are many other themes in the book, but I believe these are the main ones.)

During the discussion of point 4 (above), Paul writes:

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (Hebrews 7:11-12.)

In other words, Paul asks rhetorically: If perfection [which I believe means eternal salvation] was available under the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood, why do we need Christ, a priest of the higher, Melchizedek priesthood? Just as the Law of Moses is subordinated to Christ's new covenant, the Aaronic priesthood is subordinated to the Melchizedek.

I honestly don't see in that passage anything about the Aaronic priesthood "passing away." It serves a purpose, but in and of itself it cannot bring salvation.

You also mention Hebrews 7:3 and 5:6. The former teaches us that the Melchizedek priesthood is "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but [Melchizedek—the person—was] made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." The latter tells us that God the Father "saith also in another place, Thou [Jesus Christ] art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."

I honestly fail to see how this means "the Melchizedek priesthood never passed away and so how can it be restored?" Certainly the Melchizedek priesthood has existed from the beginning of time and will continue to exist forever. But mankind, in rejecting Christ, can have the priesthood taken out of their midst, just as happened following Moses' death. It was later restored through Christ, lost again following the death of his apostles and apostasy of his church (as I will discuss next), and was restored again in these last days.

In fact, Jesus was not preaching anything new, he simply restored the truth. The Jews had originally received the full message of God's salvation, but, because of their hardheartedness and unbelief, they had were unable to accept it, and instead were given the Law of Moses, a "schoolmaster to bring them to Christ." (Galatians 3:23-25) But even that they changed and misinterpreted (Isaiah 24:5), so God restored the full truth, this time through his Son, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Following Christ's ascension into heaven, his Apostles struggled valiantly to preach his message throughout the world, as they were commanded (Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8). They were quite successful, and Christianity spread throughout the Mediterranean area despite religious and state persecution.

After the death of the Apostles, however, things began to go downhill. Without the divine revelation that had lead the church, many people were left to their own to interpret the scriptures as best they could. The leaders of Christ's church began to fight for political power. Eventually, the church itself became part of the power structure of the decaying Roman Empire. Pagan beliefs mixed with Christianity, confusion and disagreement reigned, and creeds were written (many in direct conflict with scripture) that changed the face of Christian belief forever. The true meaning of Christ's teaching and gospel was lost once again.

What is so sad is that all this was prophesied by Christ and his Apostles (Matthew 24:4-13; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 1:3-4). This "Great Apostasy" lasted for over 1,500 years.

But, just as had happened many times before, the Lord restored his full gospel and truth to the earth through prophets. This restoration, like others before it, had been prophesied (Acts 3:20-21, among others). The first prophet of this last restoration was Joseph Smith.

Doug, the claim that Latter-day saints believe in a "different Jesus" and a "different gospel" is a unique but not very helpful way of describing the differences between our faiths. In fact, the "Mormon Jesus" is not different than the Biblical Jesus, he is just different than "Doug's Jesus." This comes from both of us reading the same scripture and interpreting it differently.

Most Christian denominations have differing views of Jesus—this is the reason why there are so many different denominations in the first place. Consider the following:

• In the Methodist church, the bread and wine of communion symbolize the body and blood of Christ.

• In the Catholic church, the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ (a doctrine known as transubstantiation).

Do Catholics and Methodists worship "a different Jesus?" No, they simply have interpreted his teachings differently.

• Catholics and Lutherans baptize infants.

• Baptists and Latter-day Saints only baptize those old enough to choose to accept Christ.

• Many evangelical Christians do not baptize at all.

All of these religions teach that their view of baptism is the one taught by Jesus. Do they all worship a "different Jesus?" No, they simply have interpreted his teachings differently.

Is "being born again and knowing Jesus Christ as a personal savior" enough for one to attain the highest degree of salvation? This is a very popular interpretation, particularly among evangelical Christians. My reading of the scriptures leads me to believe that it is not.

In page after page, the Bible teaches us that faith, while essential, is only a first step. Receiving Jesus Christ and being born again is crucial (the Book of Mormon goes into this in detail in Alma, chapter 5), but just doing that and stopping will not bring salvation. From the Sermon on the Mount to his final commission to his Apostles, Jesus preached a gospel of action, of love and service and devotion to God.

Christ prayed, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3.) Eternal life is found in knowing God, and "hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." (1 John 2:3; italics added.) "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." (1 John 3:23.) "He that loveth not knoweth not God . . ." (1 John 4:8.)

How do we show that love? In Matthew 25, the Savior taught that those who are found on the right hand of God, who are blessed of the Father, who inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world, are those of whom Christ shall say the following:

For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? Or naked, and clothed thee?

Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and come unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (25:35-40.)

Those, however, who have not done these things "shall go away into everlasting punishment." (25:46.)

As the Book of Mormon's king Benjamin said so eloquently, ". . . how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?" (Mosiah 5:13.)

In the end, it is Christ's grace that saves us, but receiving that grace requires more than just a confession of faith. Christ's gospel is a gospel of doing (James 1:22-25). I find it quite significant that the fifth book of the New Testament is not "The Faith of the Apostles," or "The Belief of the Apostles," but "The Acts of the Apostles."

I look forward to hearing from you again. I will assure you that I will answer although it may sometimes take a few weeks due to my workload.⁹

Trust all is well and that our discussions can help us to find the truth.

Doug

The Jewish author and lecturer Dennis Prager has said, with much insight, "the greatest differences are not between religions but within religions."

Daniel C. Peterson, associate professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University has written,

In Cairo some years ago, I spoke at length with a Muslim chemistry professor at the University of Cairo. He was astonished when he learned that I was a Christian. "Do you really," he asked, incredulously, "believe that God had a Son, and that he allowed that Son to be murdered in order to buy himself off?" After expressing some reservations about how he had expressed the doctrine of the atonement, I replied that, yes, I did believe precisely that. "Oh!" he exclaimed. "How can any intelligent person believe in such nonsense?" Well, the fact is that highly intelligent people have accepted Christianity. (Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, and Kierkegaard are among those who come immediately to mind.) But it was thought-provoking to find that my most sacred beliefs seemed insanely ludicrous to a highly educated outsider. It was enlightening to find Christianity, for once, in the minority, and Christian assumptions questioned as less than self-evident. How many times have I heard people say things like, "How can any intelligent person believe in Islam?" or "How can any intelligent person be a Catholic?" Yet people like al-Ghazali and Iqbal and Ibn Khaldun have been Muslims, and the Catholic Church has claimed the loyalty of such people as Cardinal Newman and G. K. Chesterton and Jacques Maritain. Reflecting on this, and on my own experience as an Islamicist, I have come to formulate what might be termed Peterson's First Rule for the Study of Other Religions: If a substantial number of sane and intelligent people believe something that seems to you utterly without sense, the problem probably lies with you, for not grasping what it is about that belief that a lucid and reasonable person might find plausible and satisfying.¹⁰

What disturbs me most about web sites such as "Reachout Trust" is that they seek to accuse and denounce, rather than to promote understanding. Many of these sites contain information that is just plain wrong.

It seems that many people are frightened by things that are different, and especially by differences in religion. Brutal wars have been fought in the past over such differences.

Toward those who are different, the Savior taught:

And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. (Luke 9:49-50.)

I pray that, instead of condemning, you will try to understand my faith. To this end, I am willing to share what I believe with you.

God be with you,

Mike

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

2. "What Think Ye of the Book of Mormon?" in Conference Report, October 1983; italics added.

3. Smith, Joseph Fielding, ed. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Press, 1938, p.327-28.

4. "Are the Bible's Stories True?", Time, December 18, 1995, p. 65. The complete text is available on Time's website here. For a good, brief overview of the Biblical archaeological debate (and how that debate relates to the Book of Mormon), see this essay from the October 1997 FARMS newsletter.

5. Ibid, p. 67.

6. Ibid, p. 68.

7. Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, trans. A. F. Rainey, 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979, p.128-29.

8. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.194.

9. On March 4, 1998, I received an e-mail from Doug. He explained that he had not received this response, and was unaware that I had posted it on the web. The mix-up probably occurred when I changed Internet service providers in early 1997. I apologize to him, and welcome any further discussion with him.

10. "Chattanooga Cheapshot, or The Gall of Bitterness," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5 [1993]. Provo, Utah: FARMS. p.26.

[This letter was written by Doug Harris of Reachout Trust, and received by Mike Parker on 6 March 1998. The long break since the last letter was due to a miscommunication because I switched ISPs.]

Dear Mike,

I have finally managed to get round to answering part of your e-mail.  Not all points are finalised yet but I think there is enough for me to send you.

I would like to start at the end when you said,

I pray that, instead of condemning, you will try to understand my faith.  To this end, I am willing to share what I believe with you.

I am not condemning.  Condemning is where you judge someone and write them off.  I do not believe I have the right to do that because Jesus did not come to condemn, [John 3:17].  Jesus however did show the truth and we are encouraged in Scripture to test all things.  When our eternal life is at stake I believe we have a God given responsibility to show up what we believe are wrong things.  You have the choice to accept or reject but I believe I will have done what I should do.

I know many people who are Mormons and very nice people.  But it is not 'being nice' that brings us eternal salvation.  Nor is it belonging to any one group whoever they are.  We can also not 'move the goalposts'.  If God has said, 'This is the way', then that is the way we need to go.  Does the Mormon offer of salvation meet the original and only way that God has opened for us.  Our future lives are at stake here and we need to answer this question very carefully.  I believe that the Mormon gospel is very suspect and needs to be looked at with scrutiny to ensure that it can deliver what it has promised for life after death.

Having, I hope, shown you my attitude I would like to answer some of the points raised.

[You wrote:] What specific literature are you talking about?  Which works did you use?  More specifically, which LDS writer has claimed that we believe "Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ," as your web site states?

Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days.  I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them--something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them--namely, that 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 that 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--I with you and you with me.  I cannot go there without his consent.  He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation--the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit-world.  He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven.  Many will exclaim--"Oh, that is very disagreeable!  It is preposterous!  We cannot bear the thought!"  But it is true. - Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, Pg.289, Brigham Young, October 9, 1859

Your argument may be that this is not one of the Standard Works.  However, this is a message given by the second Living Prophet of the Mormon Church.  All those that heard that message in Brigham Young's day believed it.  I have also never seen any retraction from this message in any publication of the Church.

So in the words of Brigham Young, if you want to get into the part of the Kingdom where Jesus is - you must have the permission of Joseph Smith.  The Bible shows us that Jesus holds the keys - Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith holds the keys - In Young's eyes Smith was at least as important as Jesus Christ.  This fact is underlined for us in the following publication too:

NO SALVATION WITHOUT ACCEPTING JOSEPH SMITH.  If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth when he said that he stood in the presence of angels sent from the Lord, and obtained keys of authority, and the commandment to organize the Church of Jesus Christ once again on the earth, then this knowledge is of the most vital importance to the entire world.  No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of god.  It is, therefore, the duty of every man to investigate that he may weigh this matter carefully and know the truth. - Doctrine of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Vol.1. pp.189-190.

There are other quotes too in Mormon publications.

One excellent idea that was advanced this morning, I will venture to carry out a little further. The time was when the test of a Christian was his confession of Christ.  In the first Epistle of John it is written, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God, and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God.  And this is that spirit of anti-christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is in the world."  This is no test to this generation, for all men of the Christian world confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.  This generation, however, is not left without a test.  I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ.  All who confess that Joseph Smith is sent of God in the latter days, to lay the foundation of his everlasting kingdom no more to be thrown down, and will continue to keep his commandments, are born of God.  All those who believe in their hearts and confess with their mouths that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet, at the same time trying with their might to live the holy principles Joseph the Prophet has revealed, are in possession of the Holy Spirit of God and are entitled to a fullness.  When such men go into the world to preach the Gospel though they know not a letter in a book, they will do more real good to erring man than the great and wise can possibly do, though aided by all their learning and worldly influence in the absence of the gift of the Holy Ghost.  When the spirit of the preacher is embued with the Spirit and power of God, his words enter the understandings of the honest, who discern the truth and at once embrace it to their eternal advantage. Journal of Discourses, Vol.9, Pg.312, Brigham Young, July 13, 1862

Once again Brigham Young adds to Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith. Smith becomes as important as Jesus.

If you argue that we can only accept what is in the authoritative works and official pronouncements from the First Presidency holds true then there must be many Mormons that are not living true Mormonism and have no hope of entering into the Celestial Kingdom - Brigham Young being the biggest culprit it would seem.  If a man as high up in the Church as Bruce McConkie or indeed Brigham Young doesn't know the truth, what hope do you or any other Mormon really have?

Take again what is said in the 'official' History of the Church, Vol.6, pp.408.

God is in the still small voice.  In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption.  Come on!  ye prosecutors!  ye false swearers!  All hell, boil over!  Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last.  I have more to boast of than ever any man had.  I am the only man that has ever 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 it.  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.  You know my daily walk and conversation.  I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people.  How I do love to hear the wolves howl!  When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go.  For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ; they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me.  They have got wonderful things in the land of Ham.  I think the grand jury have strained at a gnat and swallowed the camel.

I believe all those quotes above give us clear justification for saying that high up officials within the Mormon Church believe that Joseph Smith was as important as Jesus Christ.

Coming out of the whole question of the Standard works you quoted Joseph Fielding Smith,

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.  My words, and the teaching of any other Member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them.  Let us have this matter clear.  We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.

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.

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes.  If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every Member of the Church is duty bound to reject it.  If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.  (Doctrines of Salvation, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956, pp..203-4.)

If this is true and I would accept it to be then I would have to say that we need to reject the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young among others because they are in conflict with what the Lord revealed in Scripture.  However, this is of course leads us onto deeper matters.  I have read, pondered and prayed over the Book of Mormon but I always come back to the fact that the Bible is far more reliable than the Book of Mormon and both books cannot be from the same God because of several major contradictions.

You challenge me,

I have read the Book of Mormon prayerfully and independently, and have found, through the Spirit of God, that it is the word of God.  I challenge you to do the same, putting away any other literature (pro- or anti-Mormon), and considering the book itself on face value.

However I would have to answer that this is just not possible.  First the Book of Mormon is called 'Another Testament of Jesus Christ' which means here is a first one that needs to be considered.  Second when the Book of Mormon is talking about salvation, and the way to know the reality of God e must look back to the original to see what Jesus said.

The Mormon Church is said to have come into being because of the complete apostasy of the church on earth, but who failed God or the people.   It is obvious that it is the people and as such there did not need to be a new way but repentance to go back to God's original way.  The Mormon church presents a new way and a different gospel and so we must be very careful in what we believe.

You quote the verse from 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Prove all things and hold fast that which is good.  That must be applied to the book of Mormon not just the Bible.  I have proved the Bible to be true over 30+ years.  A quick glance at the Book of Mormon shows that I cannot prove it to be good and therefore God tells me not to hold on to it.  You talk about having to accept the Book of Mormon otherwise face the eternal consequences.  But the God of the Bible, the only true God of creation says we must only hold fast that which is good and yet the Book of Mormon is not proven.  It has changed the teachings of Scripture and when you add the other standard works you find teachings about salvation entering in that contradict scripture.

I find it very difficult to understand how you can accept Joseph Smith's word that 'ignorant translators etc ' and that he can at a stroke change the eternal word of God with no proof other than his own thinking.  No man is allowed to do that.  Such a man we are told in Scripture we should have nothing to do with.

I will not continue at the moment because I would like you to consider this point.  The Book of Mormon is not proven as the Bible.  The only way we can accept the Book of Mormon and the other standard works is to put the Bible aside.  The belief that the Book of Mormon is prophesied in Ezekiel 37 is very hard for me to understand.  I cannot put the Bible aside for the Book of Mormon translated by someone who is prepared to rewrite the Bible without a scrap of evidence.

I am not trying to paint a bad picture of Joseph Smith but it is clear from Doctrines of Salvation that if he is a fraud then there is no foundation for the Mormon Church.  He has lifted himself on to a level with Jesus.  He has rewritten the Word of God.  He has demanded that we turn aside from the original teaching of Jesus.  This is a serious matter.

Mike could you take this and test it out and hold fast that which is good.

Sincerely

Doug

[This letter was written by Mike Parker and sent to Doug Harris of Reachout Trust on 6 April 1998.] 

Table of Contents

Introduction Context is everything Is Joseph Smith equal to Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ: Our Lord and Savior The role of prophets Joseph Smith and the final judgment What is "official" LDS doctrine? The Bible and the Book of Mormon Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible? Has the Bible been altered? Can a person accept both the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Some final thoughts Endnotes

 Dear Doug,

I appreciate this chance to respond to your letter of 6 March 1998. I believe it is critical that people of different beliefs come together and discuss the great issues of faith. In any true, open dialogue, participants invariably come away with new understanding and respect for each other's beliefs. This is the sort of dialogue to which I am committed, and I pray that you are as well. I do not expect to convert you to my religion, but I hope that, at the end of this letter, you will have a better understanding and appreciation for the Latter-day Saint faith.

Allow me to apologize in advance for the length of this reply. I intend to fully examine the issues you raised, and I promise I will attempt to take my wife's repeated advice and "get to the point."

You raised several issues, many of which appeared and reappeared throughout your letter. I have outlined below what I see as the basic points of discussion:

• Do Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph Smith is equal to Jesus Christ?

• What constitutes "official" LDS doctrine?

• Is it possible to believe both the Book of Mormon and the Bible?

Context is everything

It is critical to our discussion that proper context is given to every quote and every reference used to back up every allegation. It is very easy to claim "Mormons believe X," and then produce a quote that seems to support that contention. When the citation used to support a charge is given out of context, it results in a false charge.

For example, an anti-Christian could claim "Christians believe in cannibalism," and produce John 6:53 in support of his thesis:

    Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Such an argument would be false, of course, because the anti-Christian is not taking into account the entire doctrine of Christ's redemption. He must use other scriptures to give a full and complete disclosure of Christian belief.¹

The cannibalism charge sounds silly to those who understand the details of Christianity, but the reader born and raised in a community of Muslims or Confucianists, who has never met a Christian, may actually believe it. Similarly, there are many people who are not aware of the particulars of Latter-day Saint belief, and it does a disservice to them to use quotations out of context.

Context includes taking into account information immediately before and after a quote, as well as examining what else the author and his associates have said on the subject.

As I will demonstrate, the quotes you used were not considered in their proper context and background, and because of this you used them to support a faulty thesis.

Jesus Christ: Our Lord and Savior

Let me state unequivocally that Latter-day Saints believe and accept the ultimate authority of and salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh, and the only Being through whom we can be saved:

    Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
    This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
    Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10-12; emphasis added.²)

The Book of Mormon echoes the message of the Bible, urging us to:

    . . . remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ . . . (Helaman 5:9.)

And reminding us that:

    . . . we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. (2 Nephi 25:26.)

On page after page, the Book of Mormon testifies of the divinity and completeness of the atonement of Jesus Christ. As Boyd K. Packer, Acting President of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, recently said,

    Christ dominates [the Book of Mormon]. . . . He is referred to in 3,925 verses, more than half of the 6,607 verse in the book. Beginning with the title page, where the purpose of the book is given as "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God," he is referred to as the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, the Only Begotten of the Father, and nearly a hundred other titles. In the last phrase of the last sentence of the last verse, verse 6,607, the Savior is referred to as "the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge."³

Joseph Smith's later revelations confirmed and reemphasized Christ's central and overriding position in our doctrine:

    And we [Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, in a vision on 16 February 1832] beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness;
    And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever.
    And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all which we give of him: That he lives!
    For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father. (Doctrine and Covenants 76:20-23.⁴)

Joseph Smith himself, in response to the question "What are the fundamental principles of your religion?" answered:

    The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.⁵

This is the principal and primary message of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and our scriptures and the words of our leaders and members proclaim it loudly! While a selective reading from antagonistic sources might make it seem otherwise, an honest and complete reading of Latter-day Saint literature cannot help but bear this out.

The role of prophets

As I just stated, the Savior is preeminent in our faith. Latter-day Saints also accept the witness and authority of prophets sent by Christ.

All men and women must accept the testimony of the prophets to receive salvation. Why? Christ himself left no written testimony—we only have information about him through the word of the prophets and apostles.

The scriptures testify that accepting the testimonies of the prophets is the first step to accepting Christ. The Savior declared to his apostles:

    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. (John 13:20, emphasis added.⁶)

He also warned of the grave consequences of rejecting the apostles' testimony:

    He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. (Luke 10:16, emphasis added.)

The apostle Peter, recalling his experience at the Mount of Transfiguration,⁷ wrote:

    For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
    For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
    And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
    We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. (2 Peter 1:16-19, emphasis added.)

Peter's testimony is critical to our understanding of the divinity of Jesus Christ, because it is through him that we learn about the marvelous event on that mountain where the Father bore record of the Son. Likewise, John the Beloved is our primary source of majestic teachings of Jesus at the Last Supper, including the incomparable Great Intercessory Prayer.⁸

Amos taught the importance of prophets by declaring that:

    Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but [i.e., except] he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7.)

Joseph Smith explained:

    . . . the kingdom of God was set up on the earth from the days of Adam to the present time, whenever there has been a righteous man on earth unto whom God revealed His word and gave power and authority to administer in His name. And where there is a priest of God—a minister who has power and authority from God to administer in the ordinances of the gospel and officiate in the priesthood of God—there is the kingdom of God. And, in consequence of rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Prophets whom God hath sent, the judgments of God have rested upon people, cities, and nations, in various ages of the world, which was the case with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, that were destroyed for rejecting the Prophets.⁹

Following this teaching, Latter-day Saints believe that the history of the world has been marked by one gospel dispensation after another. In this pattern, the Lord reveals his will to a prophet (or prophets), who then share their witness with the people. If the people listen to and heed the prophet's message, the Lord then establishes his covenant with them—he will be their God and they will be his people.¹⁰ The prophets are given the "keys," or authority, to administer this covenant and its ordinances to the people.¹¹

Invariably throughout history, though, God's people eventually fall away, breaking their covenant with him and pursuing false teachings and ideologies. Isaiah described the condition of Israel thus:

    The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. (Isaiah 24:5.)

Fortunately the Lord is merciful, and after a periods of apostasy he has always reestablished his covenant. He promised Jeremiah:

    Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
    Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
    But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33.)

This cycle of restoration-apostasy-restoration has been at work since the beginning of time. The Lord revealed his will to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others, each of whom headed up their own respective dispensation of the gospel.

During his mortal ministry, Jesus Christ established the "new covenant" prophesied by Jeremiah,¹² which opened a new and great dispensation.¹³ Paul called this era "the dispensation of the grace of God" (Ephesians 3:2), and declared that he was a minister of it (Colossians 1:25).

Paul also prophesied that there would be a final dispensation, one to come after the time of the New Testament church. This would be the "dispensation of the fulness of times" during which the Lord would "gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him" (Ephesians 1:10).¹⁴

Peter called this last dispensation "the times of restitution of all things," following which the Lord himself would return (Acts 3:20-21).

Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph Smith was the prophet chosen by the Lord to usher in this last dispensation. As with former prophets, Joseph was given the "keys," or authority, to administer God's covenant and ordinances, to reveal the will of the Lord, and to reestablish Christ's church.

Joseph Smith was the last in a long succession of prophets who received a dispensation of the gospel. Down through time, each of these prophets was commissioned by Christ, each of them holding the keys to exercise the authority of God for their dispensation. Adam, the first prophet, presides over all the dispensations under authority from Christ (D&C 107:55). Joseph Smith described this "chain of command":

    This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood; every [prophet] holding the Presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the Presidency of them all, even Adam; and Adam receiving his Presidency and authority from the Lord, but cannot receive a fullness until Christ shall present the Kingdom to the Father, which shall be at the end of the last dispensation.¹⁵

But while each prophet holds the keys for his respective dispensation, only one Person holds all the keys of all dispensations—the Lord Jesus Christ:

    And when I [John] saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
    I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Revelation 1:17-18, emphasis added.)

Joseph Smith clearly taught:

    Jesus Christ is the heir of this Kingdom—the Only Begotten of the Father according to the flesh, and holds the keys over all this world.¹⁶

With this background in mind, let us proceed to the subject you raised.

Joseph Smith and the final judgment

Both the Bible and other Latter-day Saint scriptures testify that all people will one day stand before Christ to be judged.¹⁷

However the scriptures also speak of Christ giving others the authority to execute judgment at this Last Day:

    I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
    Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. (Daniel 7:21-22, emphasis added.)

     Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have¹⁸ therefore?
    And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27-28, emphasis added.¹⁹)

    And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
    That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:29-30, emphasis added.)

    Dare any of you, having a matter²⁰ against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
    Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
    Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? (1 Corinthians 6:1-3, emphasis added.)

    And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (Revelation 20:4, emphasis added.)

From these verses we learn that Christ's twelve apostles will "sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Even beyond that, we are told that "judgment [is] given to the saints of the most High"—Christ's covenant people—and that the saints "shall judge the world," and not just the world but angels also.

So in regard to the great and final judgment, the scriptures make plain the fact that others, under authority from Christ the Lord, will exercise judgment upon all mankind and angels.

When Christ visited the people of the Book of Mormon after his resurrection, he called twelve Nephite disciples to lead and teach the people. Previous to this, around 600 B.C., the prophet Nephi was shown a vision of these twelve and also the twelve apostles who would minister in Jerusalem:

    And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the twelve [Nephite] disciples of the Lamb, who are chosen to minister unto thy seed.
    And he said unto me: Thou rememberest the twelve apostles of the Lamb [in Jerusalem]? Behold they are they who shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel; wherefore, the twelve ministers of thy seed shall be judged of them; for ye are of the house of Israel.
    And these twelve [Nephite] ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they [the Nephite twelve] are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood. (1 Nephi 12:8-10.)

Based on these and other scriptures, LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie summarized:

    Christ is the great judge of all the earth. "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." (John 5:22.) In due course, every living soul shall stand before his judgment bar, be judged according to his own works, and awarded a place in the mansions that are prepared. (Mormon 3:20.)
    Under Christ a great hierarchy of judges will operate, each functioning in his assigned sphere . . . [He then quotes many of the scriptures listed above] . . . . No doubt there will be many others of many dispensations who will sit in judgment upon the peoples of their days and generations—all judging according to the judgment which Christ shall give them, "which shall be just." (3 Nephi 27:27.)²¹

A very precise treatment of this subject came from John Taylor, the third president of LDS Church:

    When we reflect upon the statement of creatures [human beings] being judged without law [Romans 2:12-16], the question arises as to who are to be their judges. We may here state that Christ is called the judge of the quick and the dead, the judge of all the earth. We further read that the Twelve Apostles who ministered in Jerusalem "shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19:28.) Also the following: [He quotes D&C 29:12; 1 Nephi 12:8-10.]
    This exhibits a principle of adjudication of judgment in the hands, firstly, of the Great High Priest and King, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God; secondly, in the hands of the Twelve Apostles on the continent of Asia, bestowed by Jesus Himself; thirdly, in the Twelve Disciples [of the Book of Mormon] on this continent, to their peoples, who it appears are under the presidency of the Twelve Apostles who ministered at Jerusalem. . . . It is also further stated that the Saints shall judge the world. Thus Christ is at the head, His Apostles and disciples seem to take the next prominent part; then comes the action of the Saints, or other branches of the Priesthood, who it is stated shall judge the world. This combined Priesthood, it would appear, will hold the destiny of the human family in their hands and adjudicate in all matters pertaining to their affairs; and it would seem to be quite reasonable, if the Twelve Apostles in Jerusalem are to be the judges of the Twelve Tribes, and the Twelve Disciples on this continent are to be the judges of the descendants of Nephi, then that the brother of Jared and Jared should be the judges of the Jaredites, their descendants; and, further, that the First Presidency and Twelve who have officiated in our age, should operate in regard to mankind in this dispensation, and also in regard to all matters connected with them, whether they relate to the past, present, or future, as the aforementioned have done in regard to their several peoples. . . .²²

President Taylor describes an organized structure, set up by Jesus Christ for the purpose of carrying out the final judgment. Note how he says that the authority and final decision is "in the hands, firstly, of the Great High Priest and King, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God," after which each group holding the keys of their own dispensation will judge those who lived in their dispensation. He concludes, "it would seem to be quite reasonable . . . that the First Presidency and Twelve who have officiated in our age, should operate in regard to mankind in this dispensation."²³

Now to the statements from Brigham Young you used. You claim that "in Young's eyes [Joseph] Smith was at least as important as Jesus Christ."²⁴ Let's review Brigham's words, keeping in mind the doctrine of judgment being given to the saints.

In this first example, I will also include the preceding paragraph, as it throws added light on the subject:

    Much has been said about the power of the Latter-day Saints. Is it the people called Latter-day Saints that have this power, or is it the Priesthood? It is the Priesthood; and if they live according to that Priesthood, they can commence their work here and gain many victories, and be prepared to receive glory, immortality, and eternal life, that when they go into the spirit-world, their work will far surpass that of any other man or being that has not been blessed with the keys of the Priesthood here.
    Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them—something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them—namely, that 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 that 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—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation—the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit-world. He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—"Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!" But it is true.²⁵

Note very carefully Brigham's language in this statement. Does he teach that Joseph Smith is at least as important as Jesus Christ is? No, nor does even imply it.

You claim that "the Bible shows us that Jesus holds the keys" [with which I agree] but "Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith holds the keys."²⁶ According to Brigham, what keys does Joseph hold?

• "He holds the keys of this last dispensation."

• "He holds the keys of that [the celestial] kingdom for the last dispensation."

You claim that "in the words of Brigham Young, if you want to get into the part of the Kingdom where Jesus is—you must have the permission of Joseph Smith."²⁷ That depends on who the "you" is to whom you refer:

• ". . . no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith [specifically those who lived from] the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things . . ."

As I discussed at the beginning of this letter, Doug, context is everything. Once the doctrine of judgment being given to the saints is understood, Brigham's statement falls right in line with scripture. You may not believe that Joseph Smith will be given the authority at the final judgment, but if you believe the Bible you certainly must believe that judgment will be given to Christ's followers. Brigham Young is merely extending that doctrine to include Joseph Smith, whom Brigham accepted as a follower of Christ and a prophet to whom was given a dispensation of the gospel.

You also quoted Joseph Fielding Smith to support your thesis:

No Salvation Without Accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth when he said that he stood in the presence of angels sent from the Lord, and obtained keys of authority, and the commandment to organize the Church of Jesus Christ once again on the earth, then this knowledge is of the most vital importance to the entire world. No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God. It is, therefore, the duty of every man to investigate that he may weigh this matter carefully and know the truth.²⁸

I don't understand how this could be taken to mean, "Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ." Joseph Fielding is merely stating a fact that even you should accept as a hypothetical—that if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God then we are required by God to believe his testimony.

Let me rephrase this last quote in a way that may help you understand its importance:

No Salvation Without Accepting Simon Peter. If Simon (son of Jona, called "Peter" by the Lord) was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth when he said that he stood in the presence of angels sent from the Lord (Acts 12:5-11), and obtained keys of authority (Matthew 16:18-19), and the commandment to organize the Church of Jesus Christ once again on the earth (Matthew 16:18; 28:18-20), then this knowledge is of the most vital importance to the entire world. No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God. It is, therefore, the duty of every man to investigate that he may weigh this matter carefully and know the truth.

As I discussed above, the testimony of the prophets is critical to our belief in Christ. If Peter was an apostle of the Lord, then our faith in Christ rests partly in his witness, as described by himself in his epistles²⁹ and by the authors of the Gospels. If we reject Peter's testimony, we reject the Lord who said that Peter gained that testimony by revelation from the Father (Luke 10:16; Matthew 16:15-17).

You also use another statement of Brigham Young:

    One excellent idea that was advanced this morning, I will venture to carry out a little further. The time was when the test of a Christian was his confession of Christ. In the first Epistle of John it is written, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God, and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God. And this is that spirit of anti-christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is in the world." This is no test to this generation, for all men of the Christian world confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. This generation, however, is not left without a test. I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ. All who confess that Joseph Smith is sent of God in the latter days, to lay the foundation of his everlasting kingdom no more to be thrown down, and will continue to keep his commandments, are born of God. All those who believe in their hearts and confess with their mouths that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet, at the same time trying with their might to live the holy principles Joseph the Prophet has revealed, are in possession of the Holy Spirit of God and are entitled to a fullness. When such men go into the world to preach the Gospel though they know not a letter in a book, they will do more real good to erring man than the great and wise can possibly do, though aided by all their learning and worldly influence in the absence of the gift of the Holy Ghost. When the spirit of the preacher is embued with the Spirit and power of God, his words enter the understandings of the honest, who discern the truth and at once embrace it to their eternal advantage.³⁰

First, note that Brigham sets straight the relationship between Jesus and Joseph: "Jesus is the Christ and . . . Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation . . ." Joseph Smith is not placed on the same level as Christ—he is clearly defined as subordinate.³¹

Regarding the statement as a whole, perhaps I would choose different words, but I fully accept the premise. To accept Christ we must accept what his prophets have said about him. (Remember "He that receiveth [you] receiveth me" but "he that despiseth you despiseth me"?) We cannot believe Christ without believing Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Since Christians already accept these testimonies, the next step is to accept the testimony of Joseph Smith—Jesus Christ's prophet in the last days.

Finally, you use Joseph Smith's own words against himself:

    God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil—all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever 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 it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him;³² but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go. For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ; they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me. They have got wonderful things in the land of Ham. I think the grand jury have strained at a gnat and swallowed the camel.³³

I will be first in line to admit that Joseph was perhaps getting a little worked up.³⁴ But is it true? Is it possible that Joseph, in keeping the church together, had done a greater work than even Jesus Christ had? Jesus himself promised:

    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater³⁵ works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. (John 14:12, emphasis added.)

Whether or not Joseph had done a greater work is a matter of opinion. Joseph seemed to believe it, and Jesus' own words declare it could be done.

This does not mean that Joseph Smith is equal or superior to Jesus Christ! As I demonstrated earlier, we can only be saved through the holy name and atoning blood of Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father.

Doug, as I have just demonstrated, Latter-day Saints from Joseph Smith to the present day worship and revere Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer. We teach and preach that there is "no other way nor means whereby man can be saved" (Helaman 5:9). We witness that he is utterly incomparable in who He is and what He has accomplished.

In an attempt to prove otherwise you have abused your sources and have borne false witness against the Latter-day Saints.

What is "official" LDS doctrine?

Your letter displayed other fundamental misunderstandings of Latter-day Saint teachings. In connection with the statements of LDS authorities you wrote:

    If you argue that we can only accept what is in the authoritative works and official pronouncements from the First Presidency holds true then there must be many Mormons that are not living true Mormonism and have no hope of entering into the Celestial Kingdom - Brigham Young being the biggest culprit it would seem. If a man as high up in the Church as Bruce McConkie or indeed Brigham Young doesn't know the truth, what hope do you or any other Mormon really have?³⁶

First of all, I did not say that Bruce R. McConkie or Brigham Young "didn't know the truth." What I did say was:

    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. . . .
    The point is this: 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.³⁷

Notice the difference—I said that there are correct teachings in many LDS books as well as incorrect teachings. Because of the potential for human error and misinterpretation, the only authoritative works, those that are binding upon Latter-day Saints, are the four volumes of scripture and official statements of the three-member First Presidency. Allow me to explain.

On 8 February 1843 Joseph Smith wrote in his journal:

    This morning I . . . visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that "a prophet is always a prophet;" but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.³⁸

Latter-day Saints do not believe that those who are called by the Lord to lead his church are walking, talking fountains of inerrant inspiration. While these men do have unique access to revelation from the Holy Spirit, they are also human beings like you and me, and are liable to make the same mistakes as every other man. Even Peter, the one to whom was given "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" thrice denied knowing his Lord. Fortunately, true to his calling, he repented of this error and went on to be a powerful witness of the name of Jesus Christ.

B.H. Roberts³⁹ wrote:

    . . . [it has] been given to the Christ alone to present to the world the one perfect character, and live the one sinless, and perfect life; and that the Christ was not merely man but was super-man; he was not only divine but Deity; and one great purpose of his earth-mission was to reveal Deity to the world, and hence, indeed, through him, "God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Timothy 2:6).
    It is but just also to the Prophet [Joseph Smith] to say that he made no claim for himself of either impeccability or infallibility. "Where is the man that is free from vanity?" he asked on one occasion. "None ever was perfect but Jesus," he continued; "and why was he perfect? Because he was the Son of God, and had the fulness of the Spirit, and was greater than any man" (HC 6:358-360).
    Referring to this subject upon another occasion he [Joseph Smith] said:
     "I do not think there have been many good men on the earth since the days of Adam; but there was one good man, and his name was Jesus. Many persons think a prophet must be a great deal better than any one else. Suppose I would condescend—yes, I will call it condescend!—to be a great deal better than any one of you, I would be raised up to the highest heaven; and who should I have to accompany me? I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm yet deals justice to his neighbors, and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the long, smooth-faced hypocrite. I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not" (HC 5:401).
    The sentence "many persons think a prophet must be a great deal better than anybody else," will bear further consideration. President Smith relates that once when he was in conversation with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that "a prophet is always a prophet," he told them to the contrary. "But I told them," are his words, "that a prophet was only a prophet when acting as such" (HC 5:265).
    These two remarks linked together, disclaim for the Prophet impeccability; and limit his words and actions to which sanctity and inerrancy are to be attributed, to his official or ex cathedra actions and utterances.⁴⁰

In other words, we do not consider Joseph Smith or any other leader of this Church to be infallible, but we do consider their words when uttered or written in an official capacity and submitted to and sustained by the members of the Church to be authoritative.

This raises some very important questions, which B.H. Roberts addresses:

    For a long time the Church has announced over and over again that her standard works in which the word of God is to be found, and for which alone she stands, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. All else is commentary, and of a secondary character as to its authority, containing much that is good, much that illustrates the doctrines of the Church, and yet liable to have error in it for which the Church does not stand.
    "Well," says one, "do you propose to repudiate the works of men holding your priesthood, and who are supposed to speak and act under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Do you not destroy the effectiveness of your Church ministry when you take this attitude?" Not at all. We merely make what is a proper distinction. It would be a glorious thing for a man to so live that his life would touch the very life and Spirit of God, so that his spirit would blend with God's Spirit, under which circumstances there would be no error in his life or in his utterances at all. That is a splendid thing to contemplate, but when you take into account human weaknesses, imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias, it is too much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk linked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking sometimes under the influence of prejudice and pre-conceived notions, and the utterances of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, and having the requisite authority, and holding the requisite position, may, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre-conception, and stand ready and anxious to receive the divine impression of God's Spirit that shall plead, 'Father, thy will and thy word be made known now to thy people through the channel thou hast appointed.' There is a wide difference between men coming with the word of God thus obtained, and their ordinary speech every day and on all kinds of occasions.
    In thus insisting that only the word of God, spoken by inspiration, shall live and be binding upon the Church, we are but following the illustrious example of the ancient Church of Christ. You do not have today all the Christian documents of the first Christian centuries. These books that you have bound up, and that you call the word of God, Holy Bible, were sifted out by a consensus of opinion in the churches running through several hundred years. They endured the test of time. But the great bulk of that which was uttered and written, even by apostles and prominent servants of God in the primitive Christian Church, the Church rejected, and out of the mass of chaff preserved these Scriptures—the New Testament. The Christian world up to this time is not quite decided as to all that should be accepted and all that should be rejected. You Protestant gentlemen repudiate several books called Apocrypha which the Catholic church accepts as of equal authority with the rest of the books of the Old and New Testament. And so I say in this procedure of ours, in refusing to accept only that which time and the inspiration of God shall demonstrate to be absolutely true, we are but following the example of the ancient Church of Christ.⁴¹

The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been good men, men inspired by God, men who have a unique calling and unique access to inspiration and revelation. But Latter-day Saints do not believe that God has directed every word that comes from their mouths. Like all the rest of us, they have had and do have their own opinions, interpretations, and beliefs.

I return to your question: "If a man as high up in the Church as Bruce McConkie or indeed Brigham Young doesn't know the truth, what hope do you or any other Mormon really have [of entering into the Celestial Kingdom]?"⁴²

On fundamental doctrines, I agree wholeheartedly with Brigham Young and McConkie: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, my Savior, and the Savior of the world. I also agree with many other principals that they taught, while disagreeing with some. Outside of the fundamental, core doctrines, Latter-day Saints are not required to pass a doctrinal litmus test—we all may (and often do) have differences of opinion on the finer details of our theology. But in the end, we all agree on what really matters: Atonement through Jesus Christ, revelation through his prophets, and His authority, covenant, and ordinances restored in these last days.

So when a general authority of our church speaks, how do we know which words to follow and which words to ignore? How then do we know if one of our leaders is speaking or writing from inspiration? Brigham Young himself addressed this question on many occasions:

    It is our privilege and duty to live so that you know when the word of the Lord is spoken to you and when the mind of the Lord is revealed to you. I say it is your duty to live so as to know and understand all these things. Suppose I were to teach you a false doctrine, how are you to know it if you do not possess the Spirit of God? As it is written, "The things of God knoweth no man but by the Spirit of God."⁴³

    I say to you . . . brethren and sisters, be faithful, live so that the Spirit of the Lord will abide within you, then you can judge for yourselves. I have often said to the Latter-day Saints—"Live so that you will know whether I teach you truth or not." Suppose you are careless and unconcerned, and give way to the spirit of the world, and I am led, likewise, to preach the things of this world and to accept things that are not of God, how easy it would be for me to lead you astray! But I say to you, live so that you will know for yourselves whether I tell the truth or not. That is the way we want all Saints to live. Will you do it? Yes, I hope you will, every one of you.⁴⁴

    The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.⁴⁵

Other Latter-day Saints and I sustain and support our leaders and we look to them for guidance based on wisdom, experience and inspiration. But we do not blindly follow them—we take the counsel of John literally and "try the spirits whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1). If the Holy Ghost testifies to me that something said or written by someone in authority is of God, I am obligated to follow it. If not, I am not. As one writer put it:

    Because Church members are entitled to divine confirmation of prophetic declarations, there is no teaching among Latter-day Saints of "prophetic infallibility". . . . Prophets have personal and private opinions, and they are "subject to like passions," as all people are (see James 5:17; Mosiah 2:10-11). However, when acting under the influence of the Holy Spirit in the prophetic role, "whatsoever they shall speak . . . shall be the will of the Lord" (D&C 68:3-4).⁴⁶

Brigham Young revealed an additional way to establish the truth of a doctrine or teaching:

    In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith, and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice—the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. . . . Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true.⁴⁷

Latter-day Saints rely on the witness of the Spirit and look to the scriptures and the unanimous voice of the leaders of the Church to establish doctrine. On the other hand, Stephen E. Robinson points out that:

    . . . those who would misrepresent the LDS Church . . . continue to insist on the unofficial speculations of nineteenth-century members rather than on the official views of the church then or now.⁴⁸

Finally, you wrote:

    . . . I would have to say that we need to reject the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young among others because they are in conflict with what the Lord revealed in Scripture.⁴⁹

Many Jews would say the same thing about the New Testament: "We must reject it because it is in conflict with what the Lord revealed in scripture" (speaking of Jewish scripture—what we call the Old Testament). My point here is that the authoritative doctrines and teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young do not conflict with the Bible—they merely conflict with Doug Harris' interpretation of the Bible. And this is the subject to which I turn next.

The Bible and Book of Mormon

Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

In your letter you wrote:

    You quote the verse from 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Prove all things and hold fast that which is good. That must be applied to the book [sic] of Mormon not just the Bible. I have proved the Bible to be true over 30+ years. A quick glance at the Book of Mormon shows that I cannot prove it to be good and therefore God tells me not to hold on to it. You talk about having to accept the Book of Mormon otherwise face the eternal consequences. But the God of the Bible, the only true God of creation says we must only hold fast that which is good and yet the Book of Mormon is not proven. It has changed the teachings of Scripture and when you add the other standard works you find teachings about salvation entering in that contradict scripture.⁵⁰

First, just for the record, I accept the Bible and every word in it as scripture "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). There are no parts of the Bible where I say, "Gee, that doesn't fit in with my view of God; I guess I'll just consider that part uninspired." The vast majority of other Latter-day Saints would agree with me on this part.

What I do not accept is the theological straightjacket imposed upon the Bible by orthodox Christianity and its creeds.

To put it bluntly, Doug, many of the Evangelical Christian views of scripture have come out of eighteen hundred years of philosophical wrestling by uninspired scholars. The Evangelical belief in the nature of the Godhead, for example, stems from the creeds of the third and fourth centuries, not from any Biblical passage. When the Evangelical Christian reads verses like "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30), he mentally turns to the Athenasian and other early creeds to interpret what Jesus meant:

    That we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son; another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.⁵¹

Likewise, Jesus or Peter or Paul did not teach the doctrine of sola scriptura; Martin Luther created this doctrine in his crusade against the Catholic reliance on tradition.

All of this doesn't necessary bother me—we Latter-day Saints "claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may" (Article of Faith 11). But while Evangelical Christians interpret the Bible based on the creeds and philosophies of men, Latter-day Saints interpret it based on revelation from God, given in the last days through His prophets.

Regarding the Book of Mormon supposedly contradicting the Bible: Since you didn't provide any specific references of how it does so, I cannot respond directly to this issue; I can only say that I have not found any contradictions. Quite the contrary, in fact—I find the Book of Mormon to be a splendid companion to the Bible. Doctrines the Bible only hints at are expounded in beauty and clarity in the Book of Mormon.⁵² It fills in many of the theological "gaps" in the Bible that the creeds have tried in vain to close.

Consider this an invitation to examine any so-called "contradictions" between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Has the Bible been altered?

You also wrote:

     I find it very difficult to understand how you can accept Joseph Smith's word that 'ignorant translators etc ' and that he can at a stroke change the eternal word of God with no proof other than his own thinking. No man is allowed to do that. Such a man we are told in Scripture we should have nothing to do with.⁵³

Let's first take a look at Joseph's complete statement:

    I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.⁵⁴

I'm sorry to burst your bubble on this one, Doug, but only hard-line Evangelical Christians still believe that the books of Bible have come down to our day untouched and uncorrupted as the day they were written. Even a cursory examination of the scholarly evidence on this subject shows that many minor (and some major) changes, additions, and deletions have affected the Biblical text.

Let's examine this issue: Was Joseph Smith correct about "ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests"?

Donald W. Parry, a member of the international Dead Sea Scrolls editing team,⁵⁵ and assistant professor of Hebrew language and literature at Brigham Young University, has written:

    Although the [Dead Sea Scroll] biblical texts bring us one thousand years closer to the original words of the prophets, we still do not have the so-called autograph texts, that is, those which were penned by the prophets (or the scribes of the prophets) themselves. We possess copies of the apograph texts, which were created several hundred years after the autograph texts. Throughout the history of the various biblical texts, both the Old and New Testaments, various errors have crept in—a fact that scholars have been aware of for centuries. The Jewish Talmud, which dates to the fifth century A.D., lists eighteen occasions when the scribes intentionally altered the Old Testament because they thought certain ideas showed disrespect for God, or because certain ideas disagreed with the scribes' theological notion of who or what God is. These textual changes, called the tiqqune sopherim (errors of the scribes) may be found in the following verses: Genesis 18:22; Numbers 11:15; 12:12; 1 Samuel 3:13; 2 Samuel 16:12; 20:1; 1 Kings 12:16; Jeremiah 2:11; Ezekiel 8:17; Hosea 4:7; Habakkuk 1:12; Zechariah 2:12; Malachi 1:13; Psalm 106:20; Job 7:20; 32:3; 2 Chronicles 10:16; and Lamentations 3:20.
    In this same light, James C. VanderKam notes that the Samaritan Pentateuch (the Samaritan version of the five books of Moses) "differs from the Masoretic Text [the source of the KJV] in some six thousand readings; most of these are minor matters such as different spellings of words." A few variant readings in the Samaritan Pentateuch are not minor; rather, they represent intentional theological changes dealing the temple and temple worship.⁵⁶

Perry brings in other non-Mormon scholars to support this position:

    The New Testament, like the Old, was contaminated through long centuries of transmission. "There are over 5,200 Greek New Testament manuscripts, no two of which are alike. They come from different areas and communities in antiquity and that accounts for some differences." Bart D. Ehrman points out in his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture that John Mill's critical apparatus of the Greek New Testament makes reference to approximately 100 Greek manuscripts and shows "some 30,000 variant readings." As Ehrman demonstrates, many of the variant readings are intentional theological changes.⁵⁷

Regarding "careless transcribers," Parry quotes William Hugh Brownlee:

    There are numerous examples of the interchange of letters which are similar in appearance or in sound: the former are errors of the eye; the latter, errors of the ear. These errors in a manuscript might be cumulative from a series of copyists. On the other hand, both kinds of error might occur all in the same process. Thus a scribe in copying a manuscript directly by himself might misread certain words because of the their similar appearance. If he read as much as a whole sentence to himself before transcribing it, it would be possible for him to make a few mistakes of "hearing," due to his habit of thinking orally rather than visually. Similarly, if a manuscript were being read aloud by a reader in a scriptorium, with scribes gathered about a table, each of them copying by the ear, errors of seeing and hearing could both be made. The reader might sometimes misread; and the scribes might not always understand the words, especially if the reader did not enunciate clearly. . . .
    There were also mechanical errors of inverting the order of letters (metathesis); of copying letters or words twice (errors of dittography); of transcribing letters or words only once which should occur twice (haplography); of omitting one of two phrases which began similarly (homoioarchton) or ended similarly (homoioteleuton), the eye accidentally skipping from the first occurrence of the initial or final word to its second occurrence.⁵⁸

Parry adds to this:

    Another scribal error results from the incorrect division of letters and words. For example, [in English] the letters Godisnowhere, designed to be read, "God is now here," may be misread as "God is nowhere."⁵⁹

Regarding "designing and corrupt priests," Parry writes:

    Scholars have produced evidence that textual changes [in the Bible] were made based on a specific theological stance or agenda held by scribes or others who have had control of various biblical texts at one point or another in history. P. Kyle McCarter's Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible discusses a number of theological changes, including euphemistic insertions, euphemistic substitutions, harmonizing substitutions, and suppressed readings. For a thorough examination of theological variant reading in the New Testament, see Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, cited above. Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible lists several examples of variant readings [between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts] that relate to God's appearance to humans:

    "I shall never see the Lord" (Isaiah 38:11) (MT)
    "I shall never see the salvation of God" (LXX)

    "the Lord met him" (Exodus 4:24) (MT)
    the angel of the Lord met him" (LXX)

    "and Moses went up to God" (Exodus 19:3) (MT)
    "and Moses went up to the mountain of God" (LXX)

    "and they saw the God of Israel" (Exodus 24:10) (MT)
    "and they saw the place where the God of Israel stood" (LXX)

    "and he beholds the likeness of the LORD" (Num. 12:8) (MT)
    "and he beholds the glory of the LORD" (LXX)

    In every instance above, the LXX [Septuagint] presents a different picture than the MT [Masoretic text]. The words of the MT indicate that humans can access and even see God, while the text of the LXX never directly states the notion that humans are able to behold God. Tov points out "anti-polytheistic alterations" that have taken place at some point in the transmission of the Bible.⁶⁰

Note that Parry isn't just a rogue LDS scholar making up these assertions—he carefully produces evidence from several prominent non-Mormon scholars.

So was Joseph Smith right? "Ignorant translators"?—yes. "Careless transcribers"?—certainly. "Designing and corrupt priests"?—most definitely. And the Evangelical position is shown for what it is: Wishful thinking by those who desperately cling to Biblical inerrancy rather than a God who continues to "[reveal] his secret unto his servants the prophets."⁶¹

Please understand: I don't rejoice in this information. I actually find it rather disturbing. But it points out the absolute need for additional, inspired, prophet witnesses of Jesus Christ's divinity and atonement. If the Bible has been altered, it brings into question the truth of its message. I thank God that He has given us the Book of Mormon, because it confirms the Biblical message that:

    . . . nothing can save [us] save it be repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, who [came] into the world, and [suffered] many things and [was] slain for his people. (Helaman 13:6.)

Can a person accept both the Bible and the Book of Mormon?

From your letter:

    . . . I would like you to consider this point. The Book of Mormon is not proven as the Bible. The only way we can accept the Book of Mormon and the other standard works is to put the Bible aside.⁶²

Doug, I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "proven." If you mean scientific proof, The Diary of Anne Frank is more "proven" than the Bible—we have living witnesses who knew Anne, and can confirm the dates and places she describes. We can do neither of these for the Bible, especially with stories like a flood that covered the whole earth and destroyed everything except a ship of eight humans and at least two representatives of every species of animal. Does this mean the Bible is not true? Of course not, it just has a higher burden of proof.

My point, of course, is that just because "the Book of Mormon is not proven as the Bible" doesn't mean it's not true.

In any case, I don't think that any amount of evidence could "prove" either the Book of Mormon or the Bible. Compelling evidence can make belief in the Book of Mormon plausible (which I believe has happened), but ultimate proof lies in the heart of the reader as the Holy Spirit witnesses to him.

Doug, your statement, "the only way we can accept the Book of Mormon . . . is to put the Bible aside" is just simply false. Not only is it possible to believe both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, it is impossible to accept the Book of Mormon and not accept the Bible!

The Book of Mormon testifies of the truth of the Biblical message:

    And I, Nephi, beheld [in vision, a book]; and [the angel] said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles. (1 Nephi 13:23, emphasis added.)

    [The Lord told Joseph, son of Israel:] Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write [the Book of Mormon]; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write [the Bible]; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord. (2 Nephi 3:12, emphasis added.)

    Therefore repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus, and lay hold upon the gospel of Christ, which shall be set before you, not only in this record [the Book of Mormon] but also in the record which shall come unto the Gentiles from the Jews [the Bible], which record shall come from the Gentiles unto you.
    For behold, this [the Book of Mormon] is written for the intent that ye may believe that [the Bible]; and if ye believe that ye will believe this also; and if ye believe this ye will know concerning your fathers, and also the marvelous works which were wrought by the power of God among them. (Mormon 7:8-9, emphasis added)

Millions of Latter-day Saints, including myself, witness that we can accept the Book of Mormon without "putting the Bible aside." It is one thing to say that you do not accept the Book of Mormon; it is another thing entirely to say that no one who believes the Bible can accept the Book of Mormon. The facts simply state otherwise.

Some final thoughts

Doug, your letter disturbs me. I'm disturbed because you demonstrate a lack of serious research into Latter-day Saint doctrine and thinking. I'm disturbed because you make unsupportable assertions. I'm disturbed because you have to twist your sources to defame "Mormonism." I'm disturbed because you seem unwilling to do the reading necessary to truly understand what we believe and why we believe it. I'm disturbed because there are many people in Britain and elsewhere who are turning to you for reliable, truthful information . . . and they're not getting it.

I'm not disturbed when you don't accept my faith. I am disturbed when you misrepresent my faith.

I encourage you, with all the energy I have, to look at what Latter-day Saints really do believe. The best place to start is by reading the Book of Mormon and other restoration scriptures. For a comprehensive look at our doctrine and history, I also recommend The Encyclopedia of Mormonism⁶³—you'll get more factual information from these books than from any anti-Mormon book or tract.

May the Spirit of God guide you into all truth (John 16:13).

Mike

Endnotes

1. Especially Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:14-20.

2. Cf. 2 Nephi 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; 5:8.

3. Boyd K. Packer, "The Peaceable Followers of Christ," address given at Brigham Young University, 1 February 1998, see Ensign, vol. 28, no. 4 (April 1998), p. 65-66. Packer cites Susan Ward Easton, "Names of Christ in the Book of Mormon," Ensign, vol. 8, no. 7 (July 1978), p. 60-61.

4. Hereafter cited as D&C.

5. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Press, 1938), p. 121 (emphasis added; hereafter cited as Teachings). Joseph Smith said that he "published the foregoing [answer] to save myself the trouble of repeating the same a thousand times over and over again." (Ibid.)

6. Cf. Matthew 10:40; Luke 9:48; D&C 39:5; D&C 84:36-38, 89; 99:2; 112:20.

7. Matthew 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-10; Luke 9:28-36.

8. John 13-17.

9. Teachings, p. 271; see also History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, edited by B. H. Roberts. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1980), 5:256-57 (hereafter cited as HC).

10. See, for example, Leviticus 26:12; Jeremiah 7:23; Ezekiel 36:28; 1 Nephi 17:40; D&C 42:9.

11. Matthew 16:18-19.

12. The word testament in Matthew 26:28 literally means "covenant."

13. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days [i.e., recently] spoken unto us by his Son . . ." (Hebrews 1:1-2.)

14. Cf. D&C 27:12-13.

15. Teachings, p. 169; cf. Daniel 7:9-14. Joseph also said, "The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority" (Teachings, p. 157), meaning, of course, Adam's authority under Christ.

16. Teachings, p. 323 (emphasis added).

17. See, for example: John 5:22, 27; Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:12; 1 Nephi 15:32-33; Alma 11:41; Mormon 3:20; D&C 76:68; 133:50.

18. esomai, future first person singular of "to be." Compare NIV: "Peter answered him, 'We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?'"

19. Cf. D&C 29:12.

20. pragma, a matter at law, a case or lawsuit. Compare NIV: "If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?"

21. Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), vol. 1, pp. 558-59. As I will discuss later, McConkie's writing is not authoritative, but it does fairly summarize the general LDS viewpoint on this doctrine.

22. John Taylor, The Mediation and Atonement of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Company, 1882), pp. 155-57 (emphasis added).

23. On the issue of whether this concept is "official" LDS doctrine, note President Taylor's words: "who it appears are under the presidency," "seem to take the next prominent part," "This combined Priesthood, it would appear," "it would seem to be quite reasonable." It strikes me that he is couching his language very carefully so that the reader understands that this is his (Taylor's) belief as far as he understands it, and not a subject on which he has personally received direct revelation. As promised, I will deal with the subject of "official" doctrine later.

24. Doug Harris, letter to Mike Parker, 6 March 1998.

25. Journal of Discourses, 7:288-89 (emphasis added; hereafter cited as JD.) I find the last two sentences intriguing in light of our present dialogue.

26. Harris, 6 March 1998.

27. Ibid.

28. Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, compiled by Bruce R. McConkie. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), 1:189-90 (emphasis in the original). You miscapitalized "kingdom of god" [sic] in your letter, an error transmitted from your source—Infobases' LDS Collector's Edition CD-ROM.

29. See also Peter's testimony, preached in power and recorded by Luke in Acts 2-3. (Acts 2:32—"This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.")

30. JD 9:312.

31. Brigham Young said on another occasion, "It is his [Joseph Smith's] mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption" of Jesus Christ (JD 7:289). Notice again the clear subordination of Joseph to Jesus Christ.

32. Which is true—John 6:66.

33. HC 6:408; see also The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph, edited by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook. (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Company), p. 373-74.

34. In his defense, this sermon was delivered in Nauvoo on 26 May 1844, one month before he was killed by an angry mob of over 150 anti-Mormons. At this time he and the Latter-day Saints were being constantly attacked by mobs and indicted by false accusers.

35. In your polemic against Jehovah's Witnesses you claim the meaning of greater in this verse is "quantity although not quality." Unfortunately your analysis of the Greek is flawed.
    The Greek word here is meizona, which is the adjectival, pronominal, comparative, accusative, neuter, plural form of the root word meizwn (the w representing omega or long o), which means "greater works." It represents a comparative number of things greater in value or in hierarchy than what is being compared—i.e., quality of works, not quantity. The word is used most often to compare relative greatness of things or persons compared to other persons or things. See Matthew 11:11; 12:6; Mark 4:32; 12:31; Luke 7:28; John 10:29; 13:16; 14:28; 15:20; where "greater" (meizona) is used in this fashion.
    You might have had a stronger case if the Greek word been based upon the root perissoteros. The Greek perissoteros is never used to indicate a greater quality of persons or things in the Bible—instead, it indicates more abundance of a thing or attribute rather than expressing a qualitative concept. See 2 Corinthians 1:12; 2:4; 7:13; 7:15; 11:23; 12:15; Galatians 1:14; 1 Thessalonians 2:17; Hebrews 2:1 for examples of this usage.
    Since the Greek meizwn, rather than perissoteros, is used in the Greek text of John 14:12, this fact lends more support to the position that the works referred to by Jesus would be greater in quality, rather than more abundant in a numerical sense.
    (My thanks for D. Charles Pyle for his assistance with this analysis.)

36. Harris, 6 March 1998.

37. Mike Parker, letter to Doug Harris, 10 December 1996.

38. Teachings, p. 278; HC 5:265.

39. Brigham H. Roberts (1857-1933) was a President of the Church's First Council of Seventy. On a side note, in an earlier e-mail to me, you argued that B.H. Roberts had lost his testimony of the Book of Mormon in his later years. This contention is false, and I would be happy to discuss the issue with you.

40. B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 6 vols., 2:356-57 (emphasis added).

41. B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1912), 2:295-96 (emphasis added).

42. Harris, 6 March 1998.

43. JD 18:72. I am indebted to D. Charles Pyle for pointing out these references to me.

44. JD 18:248.

45. JD 6:100.

46. Mark L. McConkie, "Following the Brethren," in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Daniel H. Ludlow, ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1992, 4 vols.), 2:520.

47. JD 9:91-92.

48. Stephen Robinson, in Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation. (Downers Grove, IL: InverVarsity Press, 1997), pp. 135-36 (emphasis in the original). This excellent book is co-authored by Blomberg, an evangelical professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, and Robinson, who is LDS and a professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University. Their combined work does an outstanding job of framing the debate between Evangelicals and Mormons, and I highly recommend it.

49. Harris, 6 March 1998.

50. Ibid.

51. The following "reinterpretation" of Matthew 16:13-16 (shared with me by Barry Bickmore) points out the silliness of creeds like this:
    Jesus said, "Whom do men say that I am?"
    And his disciples answered and said, "Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets."
    And Jesus answered and said, "But whom do you say that I am?"
    Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."
    And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

52. One example: On the nature of justice vs. mercy in the salvation and judgment of mankind, see Alma 34.

53. Harris, 6 March 1998.

54. Teachings, p. 327. Do not take this to mean that Joseph Smith demeaned and discarded the Bible. Far from it—his recorded sermons show that he relied much more heavily on the Bible than any other LDS scripture. He once remarked that one can "see God's own handwriting in the sacred volume: and he who reads it oftenest will like it best." (Teachings, p. 56.)

55. Parry joined the team in January 1994 at the invitation of Emanuel Tov, editor in chief of Discoveries in the Judean Desert, the multi-volume series published by Oxford University Press that is the official publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Parry is assisting Frank M. Cross, emeritus professor at Harvard University, with work on two Samuel scrolls from Cave 4 at Qumran.

56. Donald W. Parry, "The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Biblical Understanding," in LDS Perspectives on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Donald W. Parry and Dana M. Pike. (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1997), pp. 54-55. Perry cites James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 123.

57. Ibid., pp. 55-56. Here Parry cites James B. Sanders, "Understanding the Development of the Biblical Text," in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Forty Years, ed. Hershel Shanks et. al. (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991), p. 61; and Bart. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 43 n. 108. You can find an excellent review of Ehrman's book on Kerry Shirts' web site.

58. William Hugh Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible: With Special Attention to the Book of Isaiah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. 156-57; quoted by Parry, pp. 57-58.

59. Parry, p. 58.

60. Parry, pp. 61-62. He cites P. Kyle McCarter Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), p. 58; and Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 127-28 and 267-69.

61. Amos 3:7.

62. Harris, 6 March 1998.

63. Cited above. I believe you already have the LDS Collector's Library CD-ROM from Infobases; it contains a complete copy of this work.

Mike and Ann Thomas are former Latter-day Saints who write an occasional newsletter for Reachout Trust called "Truth Restored."

On 24 June 1998, I received an e-mail from an individual in Great Britain who knows Mike and Ann Thomas and is acquainted with their anti-Mormon activities.  He accused Mike Thomas of accosting people who were given copies of Book of Mormon and of being primarily motivated by money.

The following is a complete transcript of the e-mail exchanges Doug and I had over this issue. (None of the messages have been edited -- all grammatical and spelling errors are in the originals.)

On 8 July 1998, Doug Harris sent me the following e-mail:

----------ORIGINAL MESSAGE----------

TO: MIKE PARKER 
FROM: DOUG HARRIS <doug@reachouttrust.org>
SUBJECT: Re. One More Thing...

I thought you were a man of integrity but you have blown your cover.  How can you put an anonymous email on your web site that no one can check up?  An email which is full of slander and if we had the inclination we could sue you and all those involved with it.

The information contained within is most inaccurate.  Please let me know Who sent it as we had a letter from someone in the area before and had to write very strongly to the person concerned.

I expect this to be taken off your site immediately and a full public apology made to Mike and Ann and Reachout.

Mike [Thomas] has not made one penny from the books he writes, he was not at the dedication of the Temple and has not been to three churches.  I will not even lower myself to deal with the other remarks.

I await your immediate action as this in the end will ruin your reputation as a man of integrity.

------------END MESSAGE------------

This was followed by another message on 14 July 1998, in which Doug warned: "I must have your response or I will need to consider what other steps I must take to show Mike's innocence on these anonymous charges."

I have contacted the author of the original letter and asked him to verify his claims.  Unfortunately there is no way to do so other than a written affidavit, which would involve revealing the author's identity and potentially exposing him to harrassment from representatives of Reachout Trust.

Although I believe the letter's author, I am not able to conclusively prove his accusations, and have therefore removed the e-mail from my site.

I informed Doug of this by e-mail on 15 July 1998:

----------ORIGINAL MESSAGE----------

TO: DOUG HARRIS <doug@reachouttrust.org>
FROM: MIKE PARKER 
SUBJECT: The Thomases

Doug,

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you on this issue.  Since your initial e-mail on 8 July, I have been attempting to substantiate the information I received about the Thomases.

I have contacted the author of the original letter and asked him to verify his claims.  Unfortunately there is no way to do so other than a written affidavit, which would involve revealing the author's identity and potentially exposing him to harrassment from representatives of Reachout Trust.

Although I believe the letter's author, I am not able to conclusively prove his accusations, and have therefore removed the e-mail from my site.

Doug, you astound me with your claim that posting this e-mail "will ruin [my] reputation as a man of integrity."  Let's review the facts here:

1) I posted a web page with statements regarding the activities of the Thomases.  You claimed the information was false.  I attempted to verify the information.  Being unable to do so, I removed the page from my web site.

2) You posted a web page claiming Latter-day Saints believe that "Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ."  I claimed that information is false and BACKED UP my assertions with NINE PAGES of documentation rebutting your charges.  Instead of answering my rebuttal, however, you responded by ignoring the facts I put forward and simply replied with more twisting and distorting of the truth.

This charge against the Latter-day Saints would be amusing if it wasn't so calumniatory.  Who has integrity here, Doug?

Joseph Smith is referred to by the Lord as "MY SERVANT Joseph" NINETY-FOUR times in the Doctrine and Covenants.  The Savior himself said,

"The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16).

Since you use Brigham Young to substantiate your claim that we believe "Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ," let me share with you a statement from Brigham Young on this very subject:

Joseph told us that Jesus was the Christ, the Mediator between God and man, and the Saviour 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.  (Journal of Discourses 9:365; emphasis added)

NO OTHER NAME, Doug.  Not Joseph Smith's name.  Jesus Christ's name alone has power to save, as testified by LDS scriptures and by Joseph Smith himself (2 Nephi 31:21; 25:30; Mosiah 3:17, 5:8; D&C 18:23, 109:4; Moses 6:52; TPJS p.266)

LDS Apostle John Young publicly proclaimed, "I teach the people that Joseph Smith was greater than any other Prophet that ever lived, EXCEPT Jesus Christ." Brigham Young, sitting behind him, called out, "That is true.  How can it be otherwise?"  (JD 6:231-32; emphasis added)

At the end of every prayer uttered by a Latter-day Saint, the name of JESUS CHRIST is uttered, not Joseph Smith's.

Every LDS baptism is performed "in the name of the Father, AND OF THE SON, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19; D&C 20:73).  No Joseph Smith here.

The name of the Church is the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints.  Why not "the Church of Joseph Smith," if he is the key figure in our theology?

Joseph Smith's name is not mentioned in any LDS temple ordinance, but the Savior's name is invoked thoughout the temple ceremonies.

LDS Apostle Rey L. Pratt(*) taught:

I maintain, my brethren and sisters, that Joseph Smith, as a prophet raised up of God, NOT EQUAL OF COURSE TO JESUS CHRIST IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD, but in the Same spirit, came into the world to bear witness of the truth today, through a restoration of it, just the same as Jesus Christ came into the world to bear witness of the truth when he came; and in all essential points his witness concurs with the witness of Jesus Christ. (General Conference, October 1930; emphasis added)

And the current President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley has said:

We do not worship the Prophet [Joseph Smith].  We worship God our Eternal Father, and the risen Lord Jesus Christ.  But we acknowledge him, we proclaim him, we respect him, we reverence him as an instrument in the hands of the Almighty in restoring to the earth the ancient truths of the divine gospel, together with the priesthood through which the authority of God is exercised in the affairs of his church and for the blessing of his people.  (General Conference, April 1977)

Finally, our own scriptures, the source of our doctrine, state:

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.  (D&C 135:3; emphasis added)

In my letter of 5 April 1998, I wrote that "you demonstrate a lack of serious research into Latter-day Saint doctrine and thinking."  The proof is in the pudding, Doug -- you've either FAILED TO READ or PURPOSELY IGNORED all the above quotes, and THAT, my friend, "demonstrates a lack of serious research" or purposefully suppression of the facts.

THE GLOVES COME OFF:  Considering the lies (yes, LIES) and distortions on your website, I shudder to think what you tell people in person on during speaking engagements.  I sternly warn you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that LIARS do not inherit the kingdom of God:

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, AND ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.  (Revelation 21:8; emphasis added)

This is the sticking point, Doug.  Unless you remove from your website the claim that Latter-day Saints believe Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ, unless you refrain from claiming this at speaking engagements, unless you remove this claim from any of your printed material, I'm afraid our discussions can go no further.  I have answers to the other charges in your last letter, but if you cannot accept this most basic of truths, I sincerely doubt you will listen to anything else I have to say.

I don't expect you to run right out and become a "Mormon," Doug.  But I do expect you to speak the truth ... and so does the Lord.

Speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15),

Michael B. Parker

(* NOTE: After I sent the message I discovered that Rey Pratt was a Seventy, not an Apostle.)

------------END MESSAGE------------

On 16 July 1998, Doug responded:

----------ORIGINAL MESSAGE----------

TO: MIKE PARKER 
FROM: DOUG HARRIS <doug@reachouttrust.org>
SUBJECT: Re. The Thomases

Thanks Mike by the way representatives of Reachout Trust do not harass.  If anyone has something against one of us let them come to us in the right way.  As Mormons you believe you are Christian and therefore our brothers why not then make a Biblical and brotherly contact showing the deep concern for a fellow brother and ask us face to face to deal with it in a Christian spirit. Posting anonymous emails we facts that are clearly false as mentioned is not Christian.

I am always open to meet people on this basis.

I'll deal with the rest of the email when I have time.

------------END MESSAGE------------

To which I immediately replied:

----------ORIGINAL MESSAGE----------

TO: DOUG HARRIS <doug@reachouttrust.org>
FROM: MIKE PARKER
SUBJECT: The Thomases

You wrote:

>Posting anonymous emails we [sic] facts that are clearly false as
>mentioned is not Christian.

Neither are posting malicious lies about other faiths.  Wake up and smell reality, Doug.

In Christ,

Michael B. Parker

------------END MESSAGE------------

Doug then addressed the issue of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ in another e-mail on 16 July 1998:

----------ORIGINAL MESSAGE----------

TO: MIKE PARKER 
FROM: DOUG HARRIS <doug@reachouttrust.org>
SUBJECT: Integrity

I guess that we are both astounded but then we do see things from a different perspective.  Can I come back to the matter of integrity first Mike.  You post an anonymous email that we cannot check out.  It contains at least three clearly provable errors that I tell you about.  The person is not prepared to back up their statement and yet you still believe them.  Why?  Because you want to.  You think that Mike and Ann are those sort of people and you prefer to believe the unprovable statements.  That is not integrity Mike.  But I understand that is where you are coming from.

You then try and dismiss my detailed answer to you with a statement "you responded by ignoring the facts I put forward and simply replied with more twisting and distorting the truth".  That cannot be your studied answer surely.  I put much time and clear thinking into the answer.  I know you do not like it but do give me some credit for the time and effort.

Some further comments on your email.

You said:

"Joseph Smith is referred to by the Lord as "MY SERVANT Joseph" NINETY-FOUR times in the Doctrine and Covenants. The Savior himself said, "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16)."

But Joseph Smith wrote D&C that is no proof.

YOU SAID:

"Since you use Brigham Young to substantiate your claim that we believe "Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ," let me share with you a statement from Brigham Young on this very subject:

Joseph told us that Jesus was the Christ, the Mediator | between God and man, and the Saviour 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.  (Journal of Discourses 9:365; emphasis added)"

I do not dispute he said that but you just cannot ignore the other statements I highlighted.  At best we have confusion and we could say that at times the teaching was that Joseph Smith was as important as Jesus Christ and on other days it was not.

I have no desire to argue with the 'gloves off' that is not my style.  You are entitled to be a Mormon but we are entitled to emphasise some of the quotes that prove our point we make.

I agree entirely that LIARS will not enter the Kingdom nor will false prophets or those who are not relying on Grace alone to enter the ONE heaven that there is.  Let us both be careful with our own lives.

Mike I have shown clearly in my correspondence which you have not attempted to answer that there are clear teachings in the Mormon church that Joseph Smith is equal with Jesus Christ - why should I remove a statement that is true.

I am sorry that we cannot correspond anymore but please be assured that I hold no hate or animosity towards you and will always be glad to hear from you.

------------END MESSAGE------------

Well, I decided to give it one more try.  On 16 July 1998, I sent to Doug:

----------ORIGINAL MESSAGE----------

TO: DOUG HARRIS <doug@reachouttrust.org>
FROM: MIKE PARKER 
SUBJECT: One more try.

Dear Doug,

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fear not, this e-mail will be a short one.  I have, for the most part, given up on convincing you that you are either a grand deceiver or are, yourself, massively deceived.  Perhaps this is the electronic equivalent of "shaking the dust off my feet" (Mark 6:11).

I merely ask you to consider the following:

You claim Latter-day Saints believe Joseph Smith is equal to Jesus Christ. As evidence you cite several quotations from Brigham Young which do NOT say "Joseph Smith is equal to Jesus Christ," but which you interpret to mean so.

Why have no Latter-day Saints interpreted Brigham Young's words the same way you have?  I am not aware of any book, pamphlet, or sermon by ANY Latter-day Saint EVER who has come to the same conclusion you have.

Why have no objective non-Mormon scholars interpreted Brigham Young's words the same way you have?  There are quite a few non-LDS observers of "Mormonism" (such as Jan Shipps), and I am not aware of ANY one of them who has come to the same conclusion you have.

Why have no other anti-Mormons interpreted Brigham Young's words the same way you have?  Thousands of tracts, books and sermons against "Mormonism" have been produced over the last 180 years, and yet, to the best of my knowledge, no critic of the LDS Church has come to the same conclusion you have (with perhaps the exception of the "wacko" fringe of anti-Mormonism, led by Ed Decker, Bill Schnoebelen, and Loftes Tryk). 

Is this a case of "everyone's out of step but Doug"?  Is Doug Harris the only one who's caught onto the Great Secret, a secret SO SECRETIVE that even the Latter-day Saints haven't clued in on it?  Is Doug Harris the Grand Discoverer of the mystery of Mormonism?

Hoping for an intelligible answer but expecting only more simple gainsaying,

Michael B. Parker