|
Reachout Trust (ROT)
Correspondence between Doug Harris (ROT) and
Travis Clark
Letters 1,
2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13
Updated 7 Dec 1999
(starting at
Letter Four)
Because of the misrepresentations of LDS doctrine
by Reachout Trust (ROT), we present the following correspondence. Mr. Doug
Harris of ROT represented that in LDS doctrine Joseph Smith is of equal
ranking with God and Jesus Christ. Such an idea has never
been a belief of the LDS Church or it's members. The following significant
statements should set the stage for
the correspondence that follows:
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.
(Emphasis ours - SHIELDS)
(D&C 135:3 [written
by John Taylor, an apostle at the time, and later President of the
Church]) |
"....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." (Emphasis ours - SHIELDS)
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:364-365, 31 August 1862)
(Provided courtesy of Danel W. Bachman) |
"I shall bow to
Jesus, my Governor, and under him, to brother Joseph. Though he has gone behind the
vail [sic], and I cannot see him, he is my head, under Jesus Christ and the ancient
Apostles, and I shall go ahead and build up the kingdom." (Emphasis ours -
SHIELDS)
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:41, 31 August 1856.)
(Provided courtesy of Danel W. Bachman) |
Travis Clark read several e-mail exchanges between a
number of LDS and Doug Harris of ROT. Travis felt that Mr. Harris had not satisfactorily
dealt with the points raised by his LDS correspondents. ROT also had not
changed its web site to correct the error concerning LDS beliefs about Joseph Smith and
the judgment. Consequently, Bro. Clark engaged ROT in the following correspondence:
Letter One
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 15:32:12 -0500
To: doug@reachouttrust.org
From: tclark@brynmawr.edu (travis clark)
Subject: Is Joseph Smith the equal of Jesus?
Dear Mr. Harris:
Let me just say that I have been following the on-going conversations
between yourself and Daniel Peterson et al. (They are now posted on
numerous Mormon sites.)
Not to add to your "Mormon Bombardment" but let me just say "bravo."
I have not seen such an incredible display of semantical equivocation since
Celsus used the Gospels to prove that Jesus was a Magician. Wonderful
stuff. It rates right up there with the evangelical charge that
"Catholics are Cannibals" because they believe in the
Trans-substantiation.
Despite the fact that Peterson and Parker and Millet himself have provided
ample references qualifying the statements by Brigham Young and Millet,
demonstrating that your interpretation is completely invalid, you still
doggedly defend your wrested interpretations which no Mormon at any time
has ever believed, without a shred of incredulity.
Magnificent.
Now I know that you think most Mormons are humorless cultists, but I want
you to know that not all Mormons are the same and some truly do appreciate
the incredible force of will and determination it takes to maintain such a
talent of denial. (It is a shame you are a citizen of the UK, we have high
places for people with your skills in our government. Have you considered
emigrating?)
Now I am certain that you are sincere when you say that you believe that
BY --and Millet-- were sincerely saying that Joseph was equal to Jesus.
(Even, despite the fact that the quotes you offered say no such thing and
at most only hint at such a thing if and only if you ignore the context,
look on it in the most uncharitable light and ignore all other statements
on the subject by the same persons, even when they are living and can
testify in your own ears.)
I suppose it is now futile to argue this point further. (Unlike you I do
not have the stamina to redouble my efforts when I have already lost.)
I too like others in this discussion though, have a question.
You seem to have difficulty answering direct questions, even when limited
to a relative simple few (as in the case of Wade Englund for example, you
could not even answer three.) By mathematical reduction then I will not
burden you with anymore than one question.
Setting aside what past Mormons may or may not have thought about the
issue, you state that "many" modern day Mormons do not regard Joseph the
equal of Jesus-- I myself, and I suspect 100% of all Mormons past or
present, are in that camp. This of course implies however that there is a
faction of Mormons out there, large or small, somewhere that do.
This is a very testable piece of data. Now I won't think to ask you what
percentage of Mormons, 10% 20%, 60% DO believe in such a thing, so I will
make the issue even simpler.
Have you ever heard of or met any modern Mormon who believes Joseph is the
equal of Jesus?
I of course expect the answer is no, in which case your implication is
nothing but manufactured evidence.
If the answer is yes, it is only fair that we request verification.
If such verification is forthcoming, then by all means continue your
stand. If not, then it is obvious the implication is baseless and untrue
and should be stopped.
Thank you.
Travis.
PS. I already have copies of all the form-letters ReachOut Trust produces
on this topic so please save the bandwith from the extra bit-burden and
simply state if you have verification or not.
______________________________________________
Travis Clark
Digital Media Specialist & Circulation Manager
Digital Media & Visual Resource Center
Carpenter Library
Bryn Mawr College
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-2899
______________________________________________ |
Letter Two
From: "Doug Harris" <doug@reachouttrust.org>
To: "travis clark" <tclark@brynmawr.edu>
Subject: Re: Is Joseph Smith the equal of Jesus?
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 09:43:24 -0000
I wonder what verification you might need? Apart from the very evidence that
is within your own teachings?
Let me just ask you a couple of simple questions.
How can you explain and justify that in the Temple ceremony there is a
symbolic veil erected that to get through I need secret passwords and
handshakes. Unless I go through that veil I cannot reach the highest heaven.
Yet Jesus died the veil was torn in two and all men and women not just
Mormons can enter into the highest place the very presence of God.
How also can you say that you alone have received the restored priesthoods
when 1. The Bible shows they could not be restored and 2. The people who
restored them never had them in the first place.
Just a couple of questions to show why I believe that Mormonism is not true
Christianity. I am not trying to interpret all your doctrines but just
taking some basic facts and comparing them with true Christianity.
Doug
REACHOUT TRUST
24 ORMOND ROAD
RICHMOND
SURREY TW10 6TH
ENGLAND |
Letter Three
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:55:17 -0500
To: "Doug Harris" <doug@reachouttrust.org>
From: tclark@brynmawr.edu (travis clark)
Subject: Re: Is Joseph Smith the equal of Jesus?
Dear Mr. Harris:
Thank you for responding so quickly. You are nothing if not prompt and
responsive.
I would like to discuss your response.
> I wonder what verification you might need?
Very simple. How about a name? An address? A living Mormon, (temple worthy
or just in good-standing either one,) who would be willing to say on
record unequivocally that Mormons believe Joseph to be the equivalent to
Jesus. I'd even be willing to accept a signed affidavit, provided of
course we could verify its accuracy. That is all I am asking.
Your site all but directly says that some percentage of Mormons, if not most,
believe that Joseph is as important as Christ. If such an allegation is
true, it shouldn't be very hard to substantiate should it? Is there not
one Mormon who will not come forward to say this? There are quite of few
vocal Mormons as the pages of dialogue, Sunstone and even the e-mail lists
attest. Is there none that will say what you claim? Why are these
Joseph-worshipping Mormons so hard to find? I suspect of course that the
reason is that no such person exists, but I can not prove a negative, so
the burden of proof to back up your assertion lies squarely on your
shoulders.
>Apart from the very evidence that is within your own teachings?
Again, this is another issue. Petersen and others have demonstrated that
what you are doing is proof-texting. Once you abandon your presuppositions
the text can clearly be demonstrated not to say what you are making it
say.
This is manifestly obvious from the numerous quotes from BY and Millet
that clarify the issue. Joseph is clearly not the equal of Christ in
either Millet's or BY's opinion. You are misreading the texts, perhaps
intentionally, perhaps not. Even still, that is another issue.
I am not concerned about what you think BY or even Millet is saying.
I have met Millet and I do not doubt his testimony about this matter and I have no
reason to accept your interpretation of his words over his own. In terms
of testimony, imagine how unfair it would be if I judged your own
testimony in such uncharitable terms and did not allow you the right to
say what you really meant.
At any rate that is besides the point. I have no doubts that I could not
convince you that what BY is saying is something other than "Joseph is the
equal of Christ." You have already made up your mind about that one I
believe, despite the evidence to the contrary. What I am really interested
is testing your hypothesis. If as you say only "many" Mormons believe that
Joseph is the equal of Christ, which implies that many do, and that it is
clearly taught that Joseph is the equal of Christ in Mormon dogma, it
ought to be fairly simple to find at least one Mormon today, in high or
low position, it does not matter, who believes so. This is only logical.
Of course you can not or have not produced such a person.
This is a little like the old adage "All Indians walk single file, or at
least the one I saw did." If in fact Mormons do in fact believe as you
say we do, you should be at least able to demonstrate one Mormon who unequivocally
says so. BY and Millet do not, but that is no matter, it should prove no problem to produce at least one mundane specimen of
Joseph-worshipping Mormon.
To date you have not.
I am still waiting.
>Let me just ask you a couple of simple questions.
I would appreciate an answer to my question before we go down rabbit holes.
>How can you explain and justify that in the Temple ceremony there is
>a symbolic veil erected that to get through I need secret passwords
>and handshakes. Unless I go through that veil I cannot reach the
>highest heaven.
This is irrelevant, but still all are welcome to come unto the Mormon
temples, even you, as long as you exhibit the obedience to God's law.
We do not believe that it is us setting the conditions, but rather that it is
God. You may disagree, still this does nothing to prove that Joseph is
regarded by Mormons to be equal with Jesus.
(BTW- Do you know what the first question is in a Mormon Temple interview?
I will give you a hint, it isn't "Do you believe in Joseph Smith?")
>Yet Jesus died the veil was torn in two and all men and women not
>just Mormons can enter into the highest place the very presence of
>God.
This is your interpretation. The Bible gives no clear exegesis on the
matter discussed in Matt 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45. Your
interpretation is accepted by some, others have theirs and I have my own.
The fact that the rending of the veil was seen by no one other that the
priests of the temple makes me highly suspicious of your interpretation,
since the common everyday person would never had seen the event to know
that the Holy of Holies was thrown open to them. Not only that, but
Christian veneration of the Temple continued after the veil was rent (See
Acts 2:46 for example) and so far as I know, Paul and Peter never once
attempted to storm into the Holy of Holies. Because of this, I highly
doubt this was meant as a sign that Temple were irrelevant. However,
there are two possibilities which I favor.
1.) Rending garments is a sign of grief or anguish in Hebrew society.
2.) Rending a piece of cloth was a way of making a contractual agreement or
covenant in the Ancient Near East. Just as the cloth can never be made
whole again, the covenant can not be undone.
Both, in my opinion, fit Judaic views better than yours and it is after all, a Jewish book.
At any rate, this is all irrelevant. God imposes many obligations on his
people, from Baptism to Repentance, so if the Mormons believe God requires
the temple it is no different unless you want to impose a blatant
double-standard.
Even then, and this has been said more times than can be counted, what has
this to do with Mormons believing Joseph is the equal of Christ? Because
some groups require a reliance on the Bible and insist on Baptism does
this mean that they regard Peter, Paul, Luke and other authors of the
Bible superior or equal to Christ because they required such things as
Baptism? This is a non-sequitir and has been pointed out to you before.
Please just answer the question.
Can you provide verification for one Mormon you have met who believes that
Joseph is the equal of Christ?
>How also can you say that you alone have received the restored
>priesthoods when 1. The Bible shows they could not be restored and
>2.
The people who restored them never had them in the first place.
This is also just your interpretation, and equally irrelevant.
Please just answer the question.
Do you have any verification for one Mormon you have met who believes that
Joseph is the equal of Christ?
>Just a couple of questions to show why I believe that Mormonism is
>not true Christianity.
Fine, you are entitled to your opinion, I have the same opinion of your
faith, even though there is much good in it no doubt.
Still I don't go around saying you hold Luther or Calvin or whatever
founder you look too as equal to Christ.
If you think we are a false religion, fine. I don't care. But if you put
dogmas into our mouths and doctrines on our lips, I want proof. You have
shown that you are unwilling to accept the truth about BY's and Millet's
statements, choosing to view them in the most uncharitable light.
So I am trying a different tack, asking you to provide evidence that would
be the logical product of your arguments.
Again, I am not surprised that you have produced nothing.
>I am not trying to interpret all your doctrines but just
>taking some basic facts and comparing them with true Christianity.
This is false.
Force-feeding doctrines into the mouths of Mormons is exactly what you are
doing and you have no proof. Your dialogue with Peterson, Parker and others
have made it clear you are misreading historical and modern Mormon
statements on this issue.
I just wanted to explore the other ramifications of your bald assertions
and demonstrate that you likewise have no personal first hand witnesses
either, unless of course you have the name and address of someone who
would say otherwise.
By exhausting your credibility this way I hope to make it clear that what
you are doing is nothing less that pure fabrication.
Again, do you have any verification for one Mormon you have met who
believes that Joseph is the equal of Christ?
If not, then what your are saying is false and anyone can plainly see it.
Thanks again for the prompt reply.
Travis |
Letter Four
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:38:37 -0500
To: doug@reachouttrust.org
From: tclark@brynmawr.edu (travis clark)
Subject: Re: Is Joseph Smith the equal of Jesus?
Dear Mr. Harris:
Not to be too pushy, but I am still awaiting an answer to my original question.
I have replied to your last e-mail and addressed your concerns directly so
please return the courtesy.
Have you ever met or had contact with any Mormon who believes Joseph is
the equal of Jesus?
I also request the courtesy of a name and means of verification, an
address or affidavit.
In all your time of ministering to Mormons in the U.K. and testifying that
they believe Joseph is the equal of Christ, has any confirmed unequivocally
your statement that we do have such a belief?
I see no evidence for any first-hand witness on you site, though you imply
this is common Mormon dogma.
Until you can provide this evidence I suggest you remove the statements
from your website that imply that there are Joseph-worshipping Mormons in
existence.
If you are busy, please respond when you can.
Thank you.
Travis. |
Letter Five
From: "Doug Harris" <doug@reachouttrust.org>
To: "travis clark" <tclark@brynmawr.edu>
Subject: Re: Is Joseph Smith the equal of Jesus?
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:39:52 -0000
Sorry but I am very busy and cannot answer all questions immediately.
You will get an answer which will show that your question is illogical.
Please be patient as I receive requests for help from hundreds of people a month.
Doug
REACHOUT TRUST
24 ORMOND ROAD
RICHMOND
SURREY TW10 6TH
ENGLAND |
Letter Six
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:37:02 -0500
To: "Doug Harris" <doug@reachouttrust.org>
From: tclark@brynmawr.edu (travis clark)
Subject: Re: Is Joseph Smith the equal of Jesus?
Dear Mr. Harris:
Thanks for the prompt reply.
>Sorry but I am very busy and cannot answer all questions immediately.
I understand. I am currently finishing my Master's Thesis and I am
applying for a Doctoral program. Take your time, but I do want an answer,
so if I remind you from time to time, don't take it personally.
>You will get an answer which will show that your question is illogical.
Fascinating. I await your reply. Until then your assertion that my
question is illogical is unfounded. As far as logic goes, if you purport
that Joseph worshipping Mormons are a factual reality then you ought to be
able to provide a living specimen. No one is going to accept the existence
of Big Foot--a popular crypto-zoological specimen in our country much
like the Loch Ness Monster-- until someone actually provides physical
proof. How is requiring proof illogical?
So far, you have none. Are there sightings and footprints left behind by
Joseph-Worshipping Mormons in your region? How about any fuzzy or blurred
photos? Do people set up souvenir shacks where they can have their
pictures taken with cartoon cardboard cut-outs of Joseph Worshipping
Mormons?
Of course you never claimed those things so forgive me for being silly and
farcical. However, you did claim that some and maybe most Mormons regard
Joseph as equal to Jesus. This is something which is not farcical at all
and very serious slander indeed, unless of course you have proof.
>Please be patient as I receive
>requests for help from hundreds of people a month.
I understand. Please take your time, but I will give you gentle reminders
from time to time.
Please respond when you can.
Just for the record, I have never met a Joseph-worshipping Mormon.
I do not worship Joseph Smith or even regard him the equal of Christ in any
way. Neither does any Mormon who has corresponded with you and neither
have any of the Mormons that any of us have known, which includes a lot of
Mormons. (For that matter, neither have you, because I assume that if you
had, you would be parading him around like a Prom Queen on a high school
float.) If you are keeping this Joseph-worshipping Mormon a secret please
bring him forward, he is in serious error and needs to be corrected.
If he is a myth as I suspect he is, then you are in serious error and in need of
correction as well.
One last thing. I admire Joseph dearly and do not feel it a shame to heap
praise on him for what he has accomplished, either in song or testimony,
any more than I would feel shame to heap praise on Moses, Elijah, John the
Baptist, Peter or Paul. They are all great men, but Christ is my savior,
my PERSONAL savior, the Son of God, and Joseph is not his equal in any
Mormon's opinion.
I feel that the others have demonstrated this definitively in terms of the
statements by BY and others, and you have not backed down. Now it appears
you are unwilling to back down on your other assertions as well, but I
shall reserve judgment until you have the opportunity to provide proof
once you are less busy.
Thank you.
Travis. |
Letter Seven
From: "Doug Harris" <doug@reachouttrust.org>
To: <tclark@brynmawr.edu>
Subject: Joseph Smith and Jesus
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 15:42:29 -0000
Dear Travis
This is a very interesting subject and you know as well as I do that no
living Mormon will say such a statement because it is out of fashion.
BUT is it what we say or do that determines our belief? For instance I can
claim as much as I want that I am American. However when someone goes back
and checks the original documents they will find that I am British by
birth. It is not what I say but what the facts determine.
I don't know if you have also noticed the double standards in your
argument. Take a very clear phrase spoken by a Living Prophet of your
Church which to me and many others is very obvious what was meant you will
say NO it does not mean that and you have no right to say so. However in
the same way when you take a clear Scripture which again can only have one
meaning you say "Your interpretation is accepted by some, others have
theirs and I have my own." Come on Travis you cannot have it both ways and
always be right! We and many others have very clear reasons for accepting
the words of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young meant very clearly what we
say. If I am expected to accept your interpretation on God's Word in the
book that according to the Book of Mormon contains the FULLNESS of the
EVERLASTING gospel then you have to accept that our interpretation on the
words of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
I want [sic] bore you with the items that are clearly argued and explained on
our web site and which we have not received satisfactory answers too.
Including your attempt at the veil in the Temple. I cannot go into the
Mormon temple unless I am a Mormon in good standing accepted by two Mormon
authorities. And where please did God set the special passwords and
handshakes to get into His Kingdom. Nowhere in my Bible containing the
FULLNESS of the EVERLASTING gospel!
Have you also thought of the fact that when a Mormon bears their testimony
it is to do with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon not Jesus Christ and
the Bible. Indeed isn't that what the missionaries are taught to home in
on when they visit the homes? Why is there more about Joseph Smith than
Jesus Christ in the "flip chart" presentation. All of this is clear
indication as to what the Mormon Church considers more important.
If the Bible contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel why has the
Mormon Doctrine so changed the Jesus revealed in the Bible. Born of
heavenly parents ion [sic] the same way as any other man - not by the Holy
Spirit. [sic] married with children. Why did the second prophet of your church
claim that Joseph had done more than even Jesus.[sic]
Travis I am sorry but just denying these words with your mouth will not
alter the facts as they are investigated.
Please check into your beliefs with an open mind not with pre determined ideas.
Thanks for the opportunity to again explain our position and I am sorry it
has taken so long.
Doug
REACHOUT TRUST
24 ORMOND ROAD
RICHMOND
SURREY TW10 6TH
ENGLAND |
Letter Eight
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:18:41 -0500
To: "Doug Harris" <doug@reachouttrust.org>
From: tclark@brynmawr.edu (travis clark)
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith and Jesus
Dear Mr. Harris:
Thanks for the reply. As I am sure you would suspect, I have some comments.
*************************************************
>Dear Travis
>This is a very interesting subject and you know as well as I do that no
>living Mormon will say such a statement because it is out of fashion.
*************************************************
This is of course what we call in America a cop-out, and a convenient one
to boot. Of course it is out of fashion now, the point is it always was.
Something that is never in fashion can hardly be in fashion today can it?
(Furthermore, I somewhat resent the implications of the term
"fashion." Policies may change, bureaucracies rise and fall, this is the same of every
religion, but when you start equating dogma with "fashion" this seems to
me an attempt to undermine the validity of a church's dogma. One might
note that there are many doctrinal 'fads' once espoused by Protestants
that are no longer in vogue. However, I will give you the benefit of the
doubt and assume you were just employing a common form of speech.)
*************************************************
>BUT is it what we say or do that determines our belief? For instance
>I can claim as much as I want that I am American. However when
>someone goes back and checks the original documents they will find
>that I am British by birth. It is not what I say but what the facts
>determine.
*************************************************
I of course couldn't agree more. Your opinion on whether you are an
American, or whether Joseph is regarded as the equal to Christ in Mormon
dogma are of equivalent worth-IMO. Neither is based in fact and you have
failed to provide any fact other than the contortions you have provided to
others. I have no interest in re-hashing the incredible contorted limits
to which you will extend yourself in order to make Millet's words say
something other than what they plainly say or what he says they mean.
I have no interest in re-hashing that argument, others have demonstrated
soundly that you are not operating in good faith.
What I was principally interested in was knowing if you had some proof to
back up an assertion YOU made on YOUR website.
Let us examine the particular quote in detail.
You state...
1.) "They (The Mormons) believe that...Joseph Smith is as important as
Jesus Christ, .... Many Mormons will disagree with these statements
especially that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus."
This is your best attempt at a "fair" statement and disclaimer. Of course,
the tacit implication is that while many Mormons will disagree with these
statements, many will not.
The logical conclusion then is to provide evidence of this statement.
Show me one Joseph-worshipping Mormon and the verification of such a person's
existence, that was all I asked, a very simple question.
You of course refused to or couldn't answer. Then you stated this in your
most recent letter.
2.) "...you know as well as I do that no living Mormon will say such a
statement because it is out of fashion."
What a fascinating admission. Of course 2 contradicts 1. One makes a
statement as if fact, and the other admits there is no proof. Using such
similar standards of evidence, I could say that (Insert any religious
group's name here) drink blood and sacrifice goats to demonic entities.
Of course, I would conveniently have no proof, since no living (Insert any
religious group's name here) would admit to such as it is "out of
fashion." This is the same as saying at the very least, "I don't need proof to say
what I feel to be right" and at the worst it is implying, "You can't trust
those (Insert any religious group's name here) they would never tell you
the truth about what they really believe."
Mr. Harris. I am currently writing my Graduate thesis. I am making an
argument about St. Simeon Stylites of Late Antique fame. I am trying to
make the argument, along the lines of Derek Krueger, that Simeon was
intensely popular precisely because he was viewed by his generation in the
same sense as the Prophets of the OT and the Apostles of the New. Now
employing your methodology I would not have to employ any textual
evidence. I could simply argue from the unknown stating that it was so,
and that no comment in the primary source literature to the affirmative
existed because it was "simply out of fashion" to say so. What a boon to
academia!! And to think I spent all those long hours pouring over his
Hagiographies when I could have used this tactic!!
Of course, my committee would never accept it.
Why should I accept your statements on my own religion?
Do you see you specious and ridiculous your self-contradictory comments are?
This is almost silly.
Just admit you have no evidence and desist from asserting your opinions as
fact.
*************************************************
>I don't know if you have also noticed the double standards in your
>argument.
*************************************************
I have no doubt that you will now inform me.
*************************************************
>Take a very clear phrase spoken by a Living Prophet of your Church
> which to me and many others is very obvious what was meant you
>will say NO it does not mean that and you have no right to say so.
>However in the same way when you take a clear Scripture which
>again can only have one meaning you say "Your interpretation is
>accepted by some, others have theirs and I have my own." Come on
>Travis you cannot have it both ways and always be right! We and
>many others have very clear reasons for accepting the words of
>Joseph Smith and Brigham Young meant very clearly what we say. If
>I am expected to accept your interpretation on God's Word in the
>book that according to the Book of Mormon contains the FULLNESS
>of the EVERLASTING gospel then you have to accept that our
>interpretation on the words of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
*************************************************
Mr. Harris, your logic here is as contorted and unfair as any I have ever seen.
First, this is apples and oranges. In many instances regarding Holy Writ,
we do not have the contextual information that would allow full exegesis.
If so, we would certainly have more consensus on dogma than we now do, or
do you believe in the Catholic concept of trans-substantiation? There is
nothing in the verses pertaining to the rending of the veil which make
clear the scriptural interpretation. In fact, there is nothing that
indicates that there is any meaning at all, although I believe there is.
It is reported as an event, not as a teaching. Now feel free to impose
you theology on it, I am a very liberal person, I don't care, you have
that right, but so do I and I can reason as well as for myself as you can
your yourself. So multiple interpretations in this example are entirely
fair and reasonable.
Multiple interpretations of BY and Millet are not. Why? First, they are
not Holy Writ or canon, so they do not carry the same weight or inherent
qualities. I am sure you are informed to the fact that these sources are
not regarded as the equivalent of doctrine in Mormon Circles as much as
our critics say to the contrary. I and you are responsible for the verse
that describe the rending of the veil as we both accept it as
authoritative. You think the verses from BY and others are equally
authoritative. They are not.
Secondly, we understand the context in which those statements regarding
Joseph where made MUCH better than we understand the context of the first
century AD apostles and gospel writers. The 19th C is after all far less
removed from our era and culture than the 1st C AD.
Third, we have a great deal MORE corroborating evidence in regard to what
BY said. The original statements you use to demonstrate Joseph is the
equal of Christ are not clear-worded and unambiguous as you state, and we
have many statements by BY that are clear-worded and unambiguous that
state that JS is NOT the equal of Christ.
Now if I had more context on the rending of the veil then I might be
forced to accept your interpretation. We do not, but if we did, I would
concede, that is only fair. BUT, we do have more context regarding BY's
opinion on JS, AND we even have the living testimony of Robert Millet
himself regarding his own words. Logic would dictate that you concede to
the larger picture of information. But you don't, this is unfair.
Instead you cling doggedly to your manufactured belief based on a few isolated
wrested quotations. I am not employing a double-standard to my benefit.
If you could provide the additional writings of Luke, Matt, Mark and
others as to what the particular significance of the meaning of the
rending of the veil was, then I would have to concede. Of course, no such
writings exist and your interpretation remains that: your interpretation
and not absolute.
On the other hand, many persons have added multiple witnesses and writings
that demonstrate that what you are saying, namely that JS is the equal of
Christ in Mormon doctrine, is false. Yet you continue to disregard all
other contextual information, even when it is provided by the person who
made the original statement in the first place.
This is denial.
When you say..."We and many others have very clear reasons for accepting
the words of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young meant very clearly what we
say."
You can only say that if and only if you ignore all other contexts.
Even if the quotes of BY and others you employ said that Joseph was Christ's
equal, which they don't, the practice of textual criticism requires us to
examine the whole picture. If we formed our opinion of the Early
Christians based solely on what the Romans said of them, we get quite a
different picture then what we know to be true. (Remember my comment
regarding Celsus's view of Christ?) Your picture is entirely biased and
prejudicial.
You have conveniently manufactured a 'fact', conveniently ignored the
context and larger picture of the statements that 'fact' were based on.
Conveniently placed in the minds of your followers through implication
that such 'fact' is unchallenged by 'some' in the church, and then
conveniently manufactured a reason --"out of fashion"-- as to why no
evidence for such an implication exists.
This is bearing false witness at worst and hearsay at best, and it is
prohibited by the courts of man and God.
*************************************************
>I want [sic] bore you with the items that are clearly argued and
>explained on our web site and which we have not received
>satisfactory answers too.
*************************************************
Please re-read the posts with Daniel Petersen, Mike Parker et al. They
answered them all, you must have skipped/ignored them.
*************************************************
>Including your attempt at the veil in the Temple. I cannot go into the
>Mormon temple unless I am a Mormon in good standing accepted by
>two Mormon authorities. And where please did God set the special
>passwords and handshakes to get into His Kingdom. Nowhere in my
>Bible containing the FULLNESS of the EVERLASTING gospel!
*************************************************
Irrelevant side-track not worth noting. This has already been dealt with
and you have provided NO evidence that suggests that your exegesis of this
'event' is the only doctrinal reading that can be made even if it was
meant to imply any doctrine at all. It may just be reporting on Mark's
part, it may not have a point other than corroborating the other
catastrophes that happened during Christ's death, the three hours of
darkness, trembling earth, etc. Now I do believe it does have a point and
I shared it with you. You did not respond to any of those possibilities.
I am not surprised, you respond to so little.
*************************************************
>Have you also thought of the fact that when a Mormon bears their
>testimony it is to do with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon not
>Jesus Christ and the Bible. Indeed isn't that what the missionaries
>are taught to home in on when they visit the homes? Why is there
>more about Joseph Smith than Jesus Christ in the "flip chart"
>presentation. All of this is clear indication as to what the Mormon
>Church considers more important.
*************************************************
Balderdash. I bear my testimony all the time, and it is Christ-centered.
I'll do it here. Jesus is my Savior, my personal savior, he lifts me,
guides me, bears my iniquity, gives me strength and all my hopes are in
him. He is the son of God, born of Mary a virgin, died on the Cross and
raised the third day. Through him I have hope in the resurrection and
eternal life. (Honestly, how many Mormon testimony meetings have you been in?)
Even then the fact that you would debase yourself to this level of
argument shows how completely you have missed the point. If I bore my
testimony of Moses, does that mean I worship some other god like Ba'al for
example? Does it mean I worship Moses? Because it is called the 'Mosaic
law' does that mean Jews follow Moses, not God?
This is just silly. The servant is not greater than the Master, Mr.
Harris. When people bear their testimony of Joseph Smith it is because
they know he was a prophet OF God, not that he was GOD himself. It bears
witness to God through his servants. The relationship is hardly equal.
If there is a reason why Joseph Smith is more discussed in the flip charts
than Christ it is simply because that is the thrust of our Church's
narrative, but Christ is still the central message. Likewise Moses is more
often discussed in Exodus than God. Is this a slam on the part of Moses
against God? Is Moses, the author of Exodus "dissing" God in favor of
himself? Hardly. The truth is, the narrative follows Moses and how God
work's through Moses. That makes Moses the main character, it does not
make Moses equal with God however. In the same way, the narrative of our
church, how it got started, how it got founded, follows Joseph, but that
does not make him in any way "equal" to Christ.
This is rather like your lame arguments regarding "Praise to the Man" that
you shared with Mr. Parker. How can you so horribly miss the point of this
hymn and your native tongue?
"Praise to the man"
Why do we praise him?
"...who communed with Jehovah."
We praise him for no intrinsic value, but rather for the fact that he
communed with JEHOVAH! Notice that we do not worship Jesus because he
communed with Joseph. Joseph's role is clearly secondary. He only has
value, and the song only makes sense, IF Jesus is superior to Joseph.
"Jesus anointed that prophet and seer."
Who anointed whom? Who is superior and who is inferior? The song only
makes sense if Joseph IS NOT the equal of Christ, but is his servant.
Otherwise, we have Joseph (The secret Mormon God in your opinion) anointed
and empowered by ...his inferior? Does this make any sense?
As far as Joseph's blood goes, the song makes no attempt to equate
Joseph's shed blood with the Savior's atoning blood. It does however make
the case that his blood is the blood of a Martyr and cries for the Justice
of God. Who is blood pleading too? You imply it is pleading FOR us.
This is clearly wrong. It is obviously pleading TO God. Does the blood of a
superior plead to an inferior? Clearly not. Joseph and Joseph's blood here
are clearly acting in the capacity described in Revelation 6:
[9] When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of
those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had
borne;
[10] they cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true,
how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell
upon the earth?"
(RSV)
Are each of these Martyrs the equivalent of Jesus also? Certainly not.
The song simply makes no sense, either doctrinally or in terms of English
grammar, if it means what you say it means. The same is also true of many
of the quotes you have used or rather miss-used regarding this issue.
For the record, I offer my testimony of Joseph now. Joseph is not the
equal of Christ, but he is God's Prophet and as Amos says, the word of God
comes from his Prophets. Now whether you think he IS God's prophet or not
is up to you, and I don't care if you don't. But venerating Joseph as
God's Prophet does not make him God.
BTW - I asked you if you knew which question was FIRST in the Temple
Interview. You did not respond.
*************************************************
>If the Bible contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel why has the
>Mormon Doctrine so changed the Jesus revealed in the Bible.
*************************************************
It hasn't, except in your opinion. That's fine. Worship as you please, but
don't put words in our mouths.
*************************************************
>Born of heavenly parents ion the same way as any other man - not by
>the Holy Spirit. married with children.
*************************************************
More Red Herrings. Some of these precepts are not even Mormon doctrine --
and one is a deliberate sick twisting of Mormon belief regarding the
immaculate conception. At best the others are possibilities and
speculations, not doctrine, some even shared by Protestants. Some
Protestants have even argued that Christ was married. Are you infuriated
by them also?
*************************************************
>Why did the second prophet of your church claim that Joseph had >done more
than even Jesus.
*************************************************
Now you are dangerously close to crossing the line from fabricating
evidence to evidence tampering. Does your misguided behavior know no upper
limit? BY makes it clear that Joseph did more for mankind SAVE Jesus
only. You are dangerously close here to making me pity you for your
obvious prejudice against Mormons. You hate us so much you are willing
to lie to 'save' us. This is beyond silly and approaching pathetic.
*************************************************
>Travis I am sorry but just denying these words with your mouth will
>not alter the facts as they are investigated.
*************************************************
I have denied nothing. How could I? There is nothing to deny other than
your manufactured evidence.
*************************************************
>Please check into your beliefs with an open mind not with pre >determined
ideas.
*************************************************
Ditto.
*************************************************
>Thanks for the opportunity to again explain our position and I am
>sorry it has taken so long.
*************************************************
Don't worry about the time, I wasn't worried, I just wanted a response.
If more time will produce a real and thoughtful response, please take it and
do so. This response hardly qualifies.
Your own posts undermine your own position. It is clear you do not have
any evidence and you continually have to manufacture reasons as to why
your position is so baseless. I suspect you will resort to something more
desperate than "Out of fashion" in the near future.
Logically, your website is as substantiated as Bigfoot and other Urban
legends, but I fear your audience will not be aware of that. Fortunately
many correspondences with you are now available for others to view and
they can make their own determination.
Simply put, you have no proof, your comparisons are invalid, and your
means of testing evidence is shoddy at best.
I would love to hear a genuine response or have you provide the actual
address of a real Mormon who believes as you say we should. Until then,
your site is nothing but a bunch of manufactured assertions and baseless
implications.
You know it, and I know it. Now's the time to do the right thing and give
it up. This is hardly Christ-like behavior. Take your time with a real
response, or if you wish you may terminate the conversation.
We have entered the Holiday Season here and so I am very busy. If you
don't hear from me, that will be the reason. In that Spirit, I wish you a
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Travis Clark |
Letter Nine
From: "Doug Harris" <doug@reachouttrust.org>
To: "travis clark" <tclark@brynmawr.edu>
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith and Jesus
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 09:04:56 -0000
Travis
As you seem incapable of understanding a logical argument but have already
determined the answer I doubt if we will get anywhere.
Doug
REACHOUT TRUST
24 ORMOND ROAD
RICHMOND
SURREY TW10 6TH
ENGLAND |
Letter Ten
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:53:54 -0500
To: "Doug Harris" <doug@reachouttrust.org>
From: tclark@brynmawr.edu (travis clark)
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith and Jesus
Mr. Harris:
Thanks again for the reply. It's terseness of course allows for an equally
terse response. For this I thank you.
>Travis
>
>As you seem incapable of understanding a logical argument but have
>already determined the answer I doubt if we will get anywhere.
I too doubt if we can get anywhere either, but I must inform you that the
above is not an argument, it is an assertion. It is the moral equivalent
of a school yard taunt, not an argument from logic. You should at least
have the courage to call me "too stupid to ever understand" to my face in
less oblique terms for that is in fact what you are doing.
I have given several explanations as to why I believe you are not
operating on sound logical principles or in good faith.
I responded to your arguments regarding the temple veil, the flip charts,
the Mormon testimony and many other points as well, demonstrating why I
believe your contentions are specious and best and deceitful at worse.
I even pointed out how most of these are entirely irrelevant to the actual
question.
You have provided no response other than the rather flaccid attempt at
accusing me of a double standard on what really are "apples and oranges".
The best you have to offer are pithy statements like the above and
comments that say that proof is non-existent because it is simply "out of
fashion."
Again, this is not a thoughtful response, it is not logical argument.
It is a school yard level response at best.
Perhaps my statements are illogical, but it remains up to you to prove it,
not just assert it as you have again here today.
All of this and you still have not answered the initial question!
Have you ever met or heard of a modern living Mormon who believes that
Joseph is the equal of Christ and can you provide verification of that
person's existence?
Your website implies you can.
Your statements here so far admit you can not.
This is a conundrum, in fact it is a conflict, (or dare I say error?) and
needs to be resolved if you are to continue to call yourself a person with
integrity and a Christian.
You are either making false witness against my church or you are secretly
hiding the evidence. Now's the time to shut me up once and for all.
Answer the question and I will relent.
Have you ever met or heard of a modern living Mormon who believes that
Joseph is the equal of Christ and can you provide verification of that
person's existence?
I will continue to ask this question until you either correct your website
and you admit your lack of evidence or your denial and deception in this
matter is beyond doubt to anyone.
Thank You.
Travis. |
Letter Eleven
From: "Doug Harris" <doug@reachouttrust.org>
To: "travis clark" <tclark@brynmawr.edu>
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith and Jesus
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:41:48 -0000
I will digest your last two emails and see if there is space for a
worthwhile dialogue on anything. If there is I will be back.
If your reply was terse I would hate a verbose one!
Have a blessed Christmas if I do not get back to you before - may you see
the real Jesus .
Doug
REACHOUT TRUST
24 ORMOND ROAD
RICHMOND
SURREY TW10 6TH
ENGLAND |
Letter Twelve
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 12:09:18 -0500
To: "Doug Harris" <doug@reachouttrust.org>
From: tclark@brynmawr.edu (travis clark)
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith and Jesus
>I will digest your last two emails and see if there is space for a
>worthwhile dialogue on anything. If there is I will be back. If your reply
>was terse I would hate a verbose one!
Ha! That's funny. Of course I was being ironic.
>Have a blessed Christmas if I do not get back to you before - may
>you see the real Jesus .
As far as seeing the real Jesus, I have never seen him literally (Have
you? Are you announcing your own first vision?), but I know very well who
he is, thank you all the same.
Thanks again for the reply and may you and yours have a Merry Christmas too.
Travis.
BTW-Joseph Smith's birthday is on the 23rd I believe. The reason I don't
know for sure is that there has never been any celebrations of any of the
significant dates in Joseph's life in my memory. Not once. It passes
usually without notice. The same is true for the date of his Martyrdom.
If we worship Joseph as you say we do this is a horrible oversight.
Perhaps you could mention it to someone? |
Letter Thirteen
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 11:45:36 -0500
To: "Doug Harris" <doug@reachouttrust.org>
From: tclark@brynmawr.edu (travis clark)
Subject: Re: Joseph Smith and Jesus
Mr. Harris.
I am sending copies of our correspondences to Stan Barker who runs the
Mormon apologetic site SHIELDS, where he is posting our letters along with
others.
I believe I may have inadvertently sent a CC of one of these to you.
I apologize for the inconvenience. If you have a problem with any of this,
let me know.
Please do get around to answering my question when you get the time.
Until then, have a merry Christmas and a happy Joseph Smith's Birthday.
(I checked it is on the 23rd.)
BTW- a new documentary called "The American Prophet" is airing in America,
I hope you get a chance to see it.
Travis. |
* The context of the usage of the word
"save" here means "except."
|
