Dear Mr. Harris:

In visiting your site, I see that you are persisting in your contention that the LDS people place Joseph Smith equal to Jesus Christ, despite all the protest and complaint to the contrary.  Not only does this dismay me, and cause me to question in a friendly way the true truth seeking motivations of your organization, but what troubles me more is that I know for a certainty that well founded rebuttals were given to you of many of the ten points on your present list.  However, in producing the list you give neither indication that there has been a response, nor do you bother to rebut the response.  This would be further evidence for a fair minded person, I believe, to further question your motives and tactics.

For example point number 1 is:

1. Joseph Smith must give his consent to those living in this dispensation to enter the celestial Kingdom of God - Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.289.  [This was written by Brigham Young the second Living Prophet of the Mormon Church.]

But the Bible shows that only Jesus' consent is necessary. - John 3:16

I have correspondence in my possession to the effect that several people provided you with a rather simple answer to this, but I do not recall that you ever provided a satisfactory answer to it.  I raise it again, inasmuch as you persist in your course to insist on something than not one informed Latter-day Saint in the entire Church would agree with.  Here it is......

Following the encounter with the rich young ruler, Peter said, "Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?" (Mt. 19:27)  The Lord answered in the following verse: "...ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Latter-day Saints see no difference between this promise to the Twelve and what is stated by Brigham Young and others about Joseph Smith.  Namely, that he will participate in the judgment as they will.  I will ask only three questions, so I would be obliged if you would please provide answers to each of them specifically.

1. Do you deny the truth of Mt. 19:27 wherein Jesus promised his Twelve they would sit on twelve thrones judging the House of Israel?

2. If not, then are the Twelve also being set up as equal to Jesus Christ?

3. If not, then how is it logical to exonerate the Twelve, but condemn the Saints on this point?

Thank you,
Dan Bachman 

Subject: Re: Joseph Smith and Jesus
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 20:00:01 -0700
From: "Doug Harris" <doug@reachouttrust.org>
To: "Dan Bachman" <bachman@burgoyne.com>

Your reasoning is logical.  Yes Jesus did promise the twelve and yes there is a difference between them, Joseph Smith and indeed everyone else.

The fact is Jesus did promise it to them but no one else! 

Thanks for writing.

> The fact is Jesus did promise it to them but no one else! 

> Thanks for writing.

Well Doug, I can understand if you don't believe that Jesus told Joseph Smith he would be a judge like the Twelve.  But your opinion does not make it false, it only makes it your opinion.  And that cannot constitute grounds on which to claim that the Latter-day Saints elevate Joseph Smith as an equal with Jesus, because the fact remains, and it is one to which you agree, that he did elevate Twelve men to the exalted status of Judges.  It is inconsistent to claim that Mormons are guilty of making Joseph Smith equal with Christ, and Evangelical Christians such as yourself are not guilty of elevating the Twelve to being equal of Jesus.  The truth or falsity of the claims seems to me to be irrelevant at this point.  What is relevant is the double standard of your logic.  And if I might say so, it also seems self serving on your part to make the Latter-day Saints out to believe something that only you can see, based on this double standard.

Look at it this way.  A non-Christian might read the statement in Matthew and accuse you Evangelicals of elevating the Twelve to be equal with Christ.  How would you feel?  Would you agree that he had a point?  If he put it on his anti-Christian website wouldn't you try to explain to him that the whole thing is a figment of his own imagination, because there isn't a well informed, faithful Christian who believes the Twelve are equal with Christ just because he is going to have them assist him in judgment?

I don't have a quarrel with you if you want to say on your website that Christ has already selected his judges and you don't believe that Joseph Smith is one of them and that the Latter-day Saints are foolish for so believing.  Then we could talk about our respective views of revelation, scripture and whether or not God can and does speak to prophets today.  But to charge the Mormons with elevating Joseph Smith as an equal with Jesus on this basis is disingenuous Doug.  It is a false claim. No Mormon believes it or teaches it, despite what you might infer from things some Mormons have said.  They did not intend the  meaning you infer from their words, no Mormon or Mormon leader infers those things from it.  Indeed, any Mormon who overtly taught that Joseph was equal to Jesus would be corrected and disciplined if they persisted in such a teaching.

I would encourage you to remove that argument, if for no other reason than that you appear to reasonably informed Bible readers to be hypocritically holding a double standard.  I urge you to take this falsehood from your site.  Attack us all you want for what we do believe, what we do practice, but please don't set yourself up for the charge of sensational slander just to score points.  The only people who will fall for this are the ignorant and prejudiced--it won't be the kind of people you would want to influence, especially if your goal is to keep prospective converts from joining with the Saints, or to persuade the Saints themselves to give up their faith.  If these are your goals, this is not the issue that will bring them about.  Why?  Because it is a falsehood.  Wise old Cicero once said, "There is never a proper ending to reasoning which proceeds on a false foundation."

Doug, I believe you know this to be a falsehood.  You have had a number of very well informed, experienced Mormons tell you, some have even testified to you, that it is false.  Through our brief  correspondence here and from a couple of exchanges before, I sense you are a truth seeker.  Perhaps some of the previous exchanges with others were a little strong and you reacted to those.  But I've also seen when people try to reason with you calmly, you try to be fair.  Again, I implore you to take us on where it really counts--on the things we really believe, the things we really teach, the things we really do--not on something you or other anti-Mormons may infer about what we believe, teach or do.

Thanks for writing--and reading, Doug!

Thanks for your kind words in the last paragraph and I believe I do try to be fair.  I see no point in me saying things that are not true.  Because of that I have to disagree with the first sentence of the last paragraph - I do not know this to be a falsehood in fact just the opposite.

I suppose this may be one of those cases where we take the same set of facts but I look at them differently to you. Let me try and take you through my understanding again.

Yes the twelve men are different because Jesus spoke directly to them and them alone. He did not say and to others. Therefore Jesus said clearly in Matthew 19:28 that:

1. He was speaking to a specific number of people 12.
2. It was for a specific point in time.
3. They would judge certain people.

In these words it was not open for others to be involved in this judging and for them to judge a whole dispensation. This did not make them equal to Jesus because they were under Him to do a specific job.

Here in these words Joseph Smith was not appointed to be judge of this dispensation and I find it nowhere within the Bible which as we know from the Introduction to the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel. I must therefore conclude that if Joseph Smith sets himself up to judge and he is not appointed by Jesus Christ then he is taking a position that is not his y right and he is making himself equal to Jesus because he has not been appointed.

This explanation also deals with your second paragraph because the argument would not be with the evangelicals but with the Bible the Word of God and therefore with God Himself.

It may be true now that Mormons do not want to rock the boat so much and I can believe that many of them are genuine in what they say but the Mormons who wrote these things in the early days that set the Mormons apart from every other Christian group were the founders of the religion. It is still true that the Mormons teach that I cannot get into the highest heaven and receive the full reward without accepting Mormonism. This is claiming something that no other true Christian group wants to claim.

I hope this helps you to understand how genuine I am seeking to be in what I am saying and our longing for all Mormons to have a true relationship with the person of Jesus Christ and not just the LDS Church.

My best wishes for the Christmas period and I hope 1999 will be a blessed one for you.

Doug

REACHOUT TRUST
24 ORMOND ROAD
RICHMOND
SURREY TW10 6TH
ENGLAND

Here is my reply to your last note to me, just before Christmas.  As you may guess, family and holidays have prevented me from an answer sooner.  We had a great time together.  I trust your Christmas was a good one. 

>Dan,

>Thanks for your kind words in the last paragraph and I believe I do try
>to be fair.  I see no point in me saying things that are not true. >Because of that I have to disagree with the first sentence of the last 
>paragraph - I do not know this to be a falsehood in fact just the 
>opposite.

>I suppose this may be one of those cases where we take the same
>set of facts but I look at them differently to you.  Let me try and take
>you through my understanding again.

DWB:
This is an important point.  We are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.  The problem, Doug, is that you are drawing inferences and developing interpretations and opinions from those facts that _no Mormon_ for 168 years has ever drawn.  Nor has any well informed Mormon ever taught it during that time.  That alone should give you pause about the validity of your interpretation and opinion.  You see, an anti-Mormon inference about Mormon theology without proof that Mormons really do teach, believe and practice what anti-Mormons infer, is irrelevant at the least and a misrepresentation at the worst.  Now, I understand that you think you have that evidence, but if you will carefully examine all your premises you will discover that they are _your_ inferences from what you read.  I repeat, you cannot find well informed Mormons who teach or believe these things.  Nor can you find proof of it in our worship or practices.  So your inferences and the interpretations and opinions based on those inferences, however sincere, are still erroneous and cannot be laid at the feet of either Joseph Smith or his followers.

> Yes the twelve men are different because Jesus spoke directly to
> them and them alone. He did not say and to others.  Therefore 
> Jesus said clearly in Matthew 19:28 that:

>1. He was speaking to a specific number of people 12.
>2. It was for a specific point in time.
>3. They would judge certain people.

> In these words it was not open for others to be involved in this
> judging and for them to judge a whole dispensation. This did not 
> make them equal to Jesus because they were under Him to do a >specific job.

> Here in these words Joseph Smith was not appointed to be judge of
> this dispensation and I find it nowhere within the Bible which as 
> we know from the Introduction to the Book of Mormon contains the
> fullness of the everlasting gospel.  I must therefore conclude that if
> Joseph Smith sets himself up to judge and he is not appointed by
> Jesus Christ then he is taking a position that is not his y right and
> he is making himself equal to Jesus because he has not been
> appointed.

DWB:
Several assumptions underlay the view expressed above.  First, if it isn't said in the Bible it isn't permitted.  Second, the Bible is the sole source of authority, and again if it isn't specifically authorized in the Bible then it isn't permitted.  Third, the Bible is complete and inerrant, therefore if it isn't stated there it cannot be accepted.  Those are fairly standard evangelical views, which no LDS will grant.  We differ fundamentally and substantially on those issues.

But let me take a little closer look at the implications of those views as they pertain to the issue of whether Mormons (or Joseph himself) make Joseph Smith equal to Jesus.  You argue that Joseph and the Twelve of the early Church are different because Jesus spoke directly to them and in doing so he did not allow for others to have the same authority or assignment.  It is simply a matter of opinion to you that Jesus did not speak to Joseph Smith in a similar fashion.  Belief that God spoke to either the Twelve or to the Twelve and Joseph Smith are subjective positions that cannot be proven.  So all we are left to do is to argue on the basis of the authority of scripture and theology whether it was likely or possible.  The only way we know that Jesus so told the Twelve, is from the account of Matthew, one of the Twelve.  How can you argue a difference by saying that we only have Joseph's word that God told him he too would be a judge?  There is no difference, only in your belief that God didn't speak to Joseph Smith.  But Joseph Smith is doing nothing fundamentally different from what Matthew did--that is, report the content of a revelation.  Therefore, to say that Joseph Smith set himself above Christ and Matthew did not is a logical fallacy, based on opinion not fact.

You exclude Joseph because he wasn't mentioned in the Bible, or because Jesus did not seem to give provision for others to join the Twelve in their assignment.  But it is an argument of silence--i.e., what isn't stated isn't permitted.  But if you will look carefully he didn't say there would not be others invited to help judge.  That is also an argument from silence.  So whose silence is more convincing?  Lets consider another matter.

You are arguing that there is no precedent for Joseph to be a judge.  But there was no precedent for the Twelve before Jesus told them.  Any time something is said for the first time, there is no precedent.  And unless specifically prohibited, that then becomes the precedent.

You pointed out that Jesus spoke to a specific group at a specific time to judge certain people.  That is the point I would agree with.  One could argue then, that if God can still speak and does not change, that he could permit the same things to others, for a specific time and place.  Indeed, one might argue that if God is changeless, the example of what happened with the Twelve would be an excellent precedent for what will happen elsewhere with other people.  That is what we assert happened in the Book of Mormon when Jesus told the Nephite Twelve that they would also sit as Judges of the Nephites.  (See Mormon 3:18-20, compare D&C 29:12).  And it is no different for Joseph Smith and this 
dispensation.

One final point.  In your last paragraph above, Doug, you argue that because Joseph wasn't appointed in the Bible, he must have set himself up as a judge.  If you think about it from your evangelical perspective, that can and does work against every evangelical preacher, or operator of a web site, because not one of them have been authorized in that Book to speak on behalf of God, to explain his teachings, to interpret his word, to judge the acts of others, to operate ministries or set up web sites.  Yet, Doug, you have presumed those very prerogatives.  Using your logic, wouldn't I therefore be justified in rejecting you because I can find nowhere in the teaching of Jesus where he authorized anyone (let alone anyone named Doug) to start a web site and attack other 
faiths?

> This explanation also deals with your second paragraph because the
> argument would not be with the evangelicals but with the Bible the
> Word of God and therefore with God Himself.

DWB:
Underlying the above statement is your assumption that your evangelical interpretation of the Bible (as I pointed out above) and what the Bible say are one and the same, therefore my argument is not with you, but with the Bible.  I simply disagree.  Your interpretation of the Bible is not the only one; it is not even a logical one, because it is an argument by silence, and nowhere did Jesus say, "What cannot be found in the Bible, is not true, nor allowed."  That is Christian dogma not based on revelation.  Further-more, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary--that is, that God wanted, encouraged, and the Bible holds out the expectation that inspiration would continue and men were and would continue to be authorized to speak for God.  But that is a topic for another thread; one that is much more relevant that the one we have been arguing about for several months now.

> It may be true now that Mormons do not want to rock the boat so
> much and I can believe that many of them are genuine in what they 
> say but the Mormons who wrote these things in the early days that
> set the Mormons apart from every other Christian group were the
> founders of the religion.

DWB:
If I read this correctly, you seem to be implying that early Mormons really believed Joseph Smith was equal to Christ, and you have evidence of that, but today we modern Mormons would like to keep that concealed and not rock the boat as you put it.  This is another commonly held view of anti-Mormons, that we LDS have a changing theology and are deceptive--not wanting the world to know what we really believe.  But Doug, I again invite you to come up with one statement from an authorized Mormon who taught overtly, directly, unmistakably, unequivocally, unambiguously and without qualification, what you are asserting.  And again I invite you to reexamine all your arguments and you will see that they are inferences you place on our teachings.  Again, I assert that for over 160 years no knowledgeable Mormon has ever understood any of those things the way you do.  It is your twist on them, not ours.  We aren't changing our theology on the issue.  We aren't covering up any statements on the subject.  You and your friend have been forced to scour the Journal of Discourses, the History of the Church and the LDS scriptures for the most miniscule evidence to support your contention.  And you haven't been able to come up with a single unambiguous, unqualified statement from any Mormon that we believe Joseph is the equal of Jesus.

Since all this is really your interpretation of what we believe, and since you have repeatedly been informed that your interpretations are in error, I once again call on you in the spirit of not only fairness and good sense, but also in the spirit of honesty and truth seeking to eliminate this charge from your web site.

BTW, I should say again that my persistence in thus urging you to do so, is not out of fear of the results of this being on your web site, because I suspect very few LDS or investigators of Mormonism will ever see it.  I urge you to do it because you claim you are fair and honest and sincere.  I along with others have provided you with evidence and testimony that you are in error.  You steadfastly deny this, trusting in _your_ interpretation of what we believe.  I'm beginning to believe that it is a matter of pride with you not to admit to the fallacy you have given way to.

Again in the spirit of true truth seeking I implore you to take Mormonism on, on the basis of what it truly believes, teaches and practices.  Surely there should be something there you can argue with, without resorting to asserting that we believe things we don't.

> It is still true that the Mormons teach that I cannot get into the
> highest heaven and receive the full reward without accepting 
> Mormonism.  This is claiming something that no other true Christian
> group wants to claim.

DWB:
I don't think this generalization can stand scrutiny.  Certainly the evangelicals I've been acquainted with say that if I as a Mormon don't believe the Bible the way they do, I'm lost.  Isn't that the implication of the paragraph below?

> I hope this helps you to understand how genuine I am seeking to be
> in what I am saying and our longing for all Mormons to have a true
> relationship with the person of Jesus Christ and not just the LDS 
> Church.

> My best wishes for the Christmas period and I hope 1999 will be a
> blessed one for you.
>
> Doug

> REACHOUT TRUST
> 24 ORMOND ROAD
> RICHMOND
> SURREY TW10 6TH
> ENGLAND

DWB:  Happy New Year.