Answers to Anti's

The Catholic website, Catholic Answers, has a section devoted to (quite opinionated) information about non-Catholic groups. In this section, under the heading "non-Christian," is a series of articles devoted to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While it appears that the unnamed author(s) of these articles on Mormonism have done a tad more research than most, the information is still, at best, incomplete. As Joseph Smith stated, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may (AofF 1:11)." Therefore, we would like to overlook the condescending attitude of the author(s) and direct our attention to the specific LDS beliefs and doctrines that are discussed there.

You may wish to read the the original article first.

Introduction

The introductory statements of this article suggest that being a Mormon requires one to "doublethink," which [George Orwell] defined as "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." Coincidentally, the author(s) neglect to point out any manner in which Mormons hold contradictory beliefs. The things they do address are merely ways that Mormon beliefs contradict, or seem to contradict, currently accepted Christian traditions. As in other articles by the same author(s), very few of the claims made have any documentation. This puts one at a handicap in responding to things that may have been said but are being taken out of context, although the general concepts are clarifiable, and all care will be taken to respond as specifically as possible.

The general idea of this section is to say that Joseph Smith taught "polytheism," that he spoke about it in euphemisms in order to "disguise [the doctrine] with unfamiliar terminology," and that he harmed his listeners by confusing them with such teachings. To begin with, "polytheism" is a loaded term. It has several legitimate usages, all somewhat related but with different connotations. For instance, a definition search on Google produced the following results for polytheism:

1. The worship of many gods.
   (Source: www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm)
   
   ---> Worship means to give or show praise, honor, love, and devotion. By this definition, Mormons could theoretically be said to worship "many gods," since they honor and love each member of the Godhead - God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. However, this is a misrepresentation of things. Mormons worship God the Father above all else: "This is the Almighty of whom I stand in awe and reverence. It is He to whom I look in fear and trembling. It is He whom I worship and unto whom I give honor and praise and glory. He is my Heavenly Father, who has invited me to come unto Him in prayer, to speak with Him, with the promised assurance that He will hear and respond (Gordon B. Hinckley, "In These Three I Believe," Liahona, Jul 2006, 2-8)." They honor Christ for his own significant role in God's plan: "He is the Savior and the Redeemer of the world. I believe in Him. I declare His divinity without equivocation or compromise. I love Him. I speak His name in reverence and wonder. I worship Him as I worship His Father, in spirit and in truth (Same source)." They love and honor the Holy Ghost, as God's messenger, and the unique, irrefutable source of faith: "The Holy Ghost stands as the third member of the Godhead, the Comforter promised by the Savior who would teach His followers all things and bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever He had said unto them (see John 14:26) (Same source)."
    
   
2. Belief in a pantheon of many deities.
   (Source: www.religioustolerance.org/tran_imm.htm)
   
   ---> This suggests that one worships a multiplicity of gods, each with different limited powers and purposes. Is this a Mormon doctrine? No.
    
   
3. Believing in the existence of more than one god.
   (Source: www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm)
   
   ---> This could be classified as a Mormon belief, with the stipulation that we believe that all mankind fall into this category as the sons and daughters of God. For evidence, we need only look as far as the Bible itself, which tells us that we are gods (Psalms 82:6, John 10:34-36), and that we are His children, with the ability to inherit His kingdom with Christ (Romans 8:16-17). Just as modern Christians revile Mormons for this offense against the traditions of their fathers, so, the Bible tells us, did the Jews hate Jesus for proclaiming the same doctrine (see John 5:18).
    
   
4. The belief in the existence of multiple deities or godheads, as opposed to monotheism, where only a single god or godhead is revered.
   (Source: www.moonbeamgarden.com/witchscottage/wiccan_pagan_glossary.htm)
   
   ---> According to this definition, Mormonism is both a monotheism, as Mormons worship one Godhead, and a polytheism, in a way, as Mormons believe in the existence of other worlds (Moses 1:30-35), replete with their own gods, but their existence is unrelated to our own salvation and we do not worship them in any way.
    
   
5. The belief in more than one God, for example Hinduism or the religion of the Ancient Greeks or Romans.
   (Source: www.elliotcross.com/glossary.html)
   
   ---> This hearkens back to the "pantheon" discussion above. This is probably the most common definition or understanding of the term "polytheism," which is one reason why anti-Mormons use it - because it suggests paganism/heathenism/etc.
    
   

Not to let the discussion of "doublethink" escape us too quickly, can you find contradictory beliefs in these tenets of the Athanasian Creed, "one of the four authoritative Creeds of the Catholic Church?" (Source: http://www.creeds.net/ancient/Quicumque.html. Note: The Athanasian Creed is also known as "Quicumque vult.")

1. "There is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit," but "there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being."
   
   ---> Note also that later it says Christ "ascended into heaven, [and] sits at the right hand of God the Father," even though they are "one being."
    
   
2. "Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, there are not three gods, but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. However, there as not three lords, but one Lord."
   
   ---> Note the next passage: "For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords (emphasis added)." Christian truth tells us each one is a God individually ("singly"), but the catholic religion forbids us to phrase it that way.
    
   
3. "The Son is uncreated... The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone... As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time."
   
   ---> What does begotten mean, then? According to scriptural use, it means to come forth from, or be born to, someone, and always as a child. (View instances of the words beget, begot, and begotten in the scriptures.)
    
   
4. "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty," and "[Christ] is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity."

The point of a name is identity, to set something apart from something else. One individual cannot be three individuals simultaneously, and if these are merely names for different aspects of the same individual, as some believe, why are they referred to as individuals all throughout the scriptures? If God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are "not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being," as the Athanasian Creed dictates, then how did one piece come to earth, pray to another piece, and promise to send the third after he had left? In John 14, the Jesus part of this "one boundless being" promises that the Father part will send the Holy Ghost part of the "one boundless being." I suppose this is where we call it a mystery, and call it a day... This, of course, gets into a discussion of Catholic doctrines, so let us continue the discussion of Mormonism already in progress.

To say that Joseph Smith "spoke about [what is being referred to here as "polytheism"] in euphemisms in order to "disguise [the doctrine] with unfamiliar terminology," and that he harmed his listeners by confusing them with his teachings, would both require the ability to read minds to authoritatively determine. One need only take a small step back in this article to find "unfamiliar terminology" ("Trinity" is not in the Bible, nor the parts of its definition that we are given) and confusing circular language (things both are and aren't the same) in the Athanasian Creed, which, we are told, "Everyone must believe [in], firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved."

The terminology that Mormons use to describe what they believe is selected for its ability to convey what they believe in, in the most correct manner. Just as in the "polytheism" example above, words can have different meanings to different people, and different words that have similar meanings (ie, wisdom/knowledge) actually have technical differences that set them apart as different words. Thus, the terms "eternal progression" and "exaltation" are used precisely because of the connotations that they carry: 1) that our existence does not end at death, and that we will be doing more than just harp-playing when we get to Heaven, and 2) that God's purpose is to exalt His children. (For both topics, see Gal. 4:7, 2 Cor. 3:18, Rev. 3:21, Philippians 2:5-9, 1 Peter 5:4, Isa. 64:4, 1 Cor. 2:9.)

Further reading:

• William O. Nelson, "Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?," Ensign, Jul 1987, 56

Progressive Revelation To Smith

The gist of this section is that Joseph Smith "crafted and modified his doctrines" over the years, although several other things are implied that are worthy of reproof.

First of all, to say that Joseph Smith was killed in a gunbattle, as the author(s) do, is to suggest to the reader images of "shootouts at the OK Corral," and the like, which could not be further from the truth. Joseph Smith was murdered by armed men, who had painted their faces black to hide their identity, while he sat in jail for the umpteenth time, awaiting trial on false charges. (See Reed Blake, "Martyrdom at Carthage," Ensign, Jun 1994, 30, and JosephSmith.net.)

To say that Joseph's "doctrines weren't "revealed" to his church all at once or in their present state" is absolutely correct, and perfectly in line with God's established practice. Just as Jehovah taught "precept upon precept; line upon line (Isa. 28:9-10)," just as the child Jesus "increased in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:40, 52)," and just as Jesus, Himself, spent three years expounding upon His doctrines, so did God restore His church in the latter days - one step at a time. As Paul told the Corinthians, "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it (1 Cor. 3:2)." We cannot bear all things at once, we must receive them according to our ability.

Of course, the intent of the author(s) here is to provide evidence that Joseph Smith simply made it all up: "Early in his career as "prophet, seer, and revelator" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Smith wrote the Book of Mormon." Somehow, the author(s) believe that they have the definitive proof that Joseph Smith was a fraud - proof that has eluded scholars for 175 years. If Joseph Smith did, indeed, write the Book of Mormon, instead of simply translating ancient documents as he claimed, then it is simply amazing - even downright miraculous - that a vast majority of his teachings have popped up in ancient documents all over the world, after the Book of Mormon was presented to the world, and after the death of Joseph himself! Vast amounts of evidence that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon are currently available, including many works by Hugh Nibley, a noted professor of ancient scripture, that are available for free online here at the BYU website.

Next, the author(s) propose citing two verses from the Book of Mormon "the next time you speak with Mormon missionaries:" Moroni 8:18 and Mormon 9:9-10, which both mention that God does not change. This is apparently supposed to put the poor Mormons at a loss for words because it seems to contradict the "law of eternal progression."

The verse in Moroni occurs during a discussion of baptism; the prophet Mormon is writing to his son on the subject. He says that there have been "disputations," or arguments, over the necessity of baptism for little children. As a prophet, Mormon tells us:

And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying: Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. (Mor. 8:7-8)

When he says that God is unchangeable, he is referring, in this instance, to the fact that God has never required the baptism of infants, and He has not changed to require that now. The footnotes in this verse confirm this interpretation, by referring us to a definition of God's unchangeability given by the prophet Alma:

[God] cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong (Alma 7:20).

Had Adam's sin brought about the damnation of little children, the effects would have been from the very beginning - but we only hear of the possibility of the practice of baptizing little children coming about many years after the death of Christ and His Apostles!

Jordan Bajis, in his well-written article, Infant Baptism, on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website, gives several anecdotal evidences that little children may have been baptized anciently. However, most of the same evidences provided by him also leave equal room for the possibility that there was no such practice! An excellent example is the following quotation from Peter, in Acts 2:38-39:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Indeed, Peter could have meant that they should be baptized, along with their children, immediately. Or, he could have meant that the promise of remission of sins through baptism was there for them to partake in now, for their children to partake in later, when the time came, and "to all that are afar off" whenever they received the Gospel (ie. when "God shall call them"). Furthermore, it could also be that Peter intended that only those of the "age of accountability" be baptized along with their parents, as the term "children" could be both inclusive and exclusive of infants, depending on the intentions of the speaker.

With such rationale, it could equally be said that Christ proves the perfect and innocent state of children, when He said:

Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein (Mark 10:14-15, emphasis added; see also Luke 18:15-17, and Matt. 18:1-4).

Likewise, the other verse that is quoted by the author(s), Mormon 9:9-10, presents God's unchangeable nature in exactly the same way, by stating that if you deny "revelations, ... prophecies, ... gifts, ... healing, [or] speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues," then you either haven't read the scriptures, or you don't understand them, because the scriptures plainly demonstrate that this is the way God has done things since the beginning of time (ie, the beginning of this earth). This definition of unchanging is reflected in what is known today as "patternism."

It was not until 1930 that a number of people at Cambridge who had been working in different areas decided to compare notes and compare the rituals of a dozen different cultures at the earliest times, and lo and behold! they were all the same ordinances and same rites. So they gave it a name; they called it "Patternism." (The Early Christian Church in the Light of Some Newly Discovered Papyri from Egypt, By Hugh W. Nibley, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, . P. N/A )

Historically, we understand that God has revealed changes to His people from time to time, but of practice and not of doctrine. (See Matt. 5:17.) Does the constancy of God, His unchanging righteousness, His loyalty to the plan of salvation, mean that He never learned anything at any time? While opinions may vary on the subject, there is nothing in scripture, once again, that would not allow for such an interpretation. (For more on this subject, please see Russell M. Nelson, "Constancy amid Change," Ensign, Nov 1993, 33.)

Contradictory Views

This short section merely gives a quotation from the King Follett Discourse, a talk given by Joseph Smith at a funeral in 1844, expounding on the concept that God was once a man, and the author(s) again insist that "he contradicts his earlier writings with this sermon." As we have shown, it is more than likely that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon, and the rest of this argument is merely a matter of scriptural interpretation. (See Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign, Jan 1989, 27.)

The Missionary's "Testimony"

In this section, the author(s) demean a Mormon's "testimony" with a flick of the wrist, and show once again just how easy it is to prove Mormonism is false. "If Mormons couldn't believe two contradictory doctrines at once" the author(s) tell us, "they'd be forced to throw up their hands in bewilderment. They can't believe that God is at once immutable and changing, that from all eternity he was as he now is, yet he evolved from a mere man. To Mormons this theological contradiction poses no problem because they don't think through the ramifications of such a position."

To begin with, the entire point of a testimony is that it is a spiritual confirmation which ignites a person's faith (Luke 24:32). It is a confirmation through the Holy Spirit that a thing is true, no matter the evidence otherwise (Hebrews 11:1). By definition, faith is to be diligent to one's testimony despite not having all the answers (See 1 Peter 1:7). As Peter reminded us earlier, we first receive milk, and then meat. We are first given one principle, and then, if we prove true and faithful to it, we are given more (and then only if God desires to give us more).

On any matter, we can only speak as far as what has been revealed by the Lord. We don't attempt to expound on the subject of God's own history, because we have been given only enough to help us understand our own existence. Speculation would be just that. Obviously, I am quivering as I write this, because, as a Mormon, I have never "[thought] through the ramifications of such a position." Can you tell? Mormons accept that there are limitations to the knowledge of mankind, and that there are certain things which are not essential to our salvation that will be revealed in the own due time of the Lord. We do not engage in "doublethink," (which some might term "Catholic-think," in light of the creeds). Instead, we accept all that the Lord has revealed, try not to be too speculative about the things He has not revealed, and live our lives with the notion that we cannot expect to know everything.

In rounding out this section, the author(s) make a passing comparison between Mormonism and Pelagianism. Point by point, here is how they compare in reality (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism):

1. Pelagianism holds the belief that original sin did not taint human nature.
   
   ---> Mormonism holds that "Since there is no such thing as original sin, as that expression is used in modern Christendom, it follows that children are not conceived in sin. They do not come into the world with any taint of impurity whatever. When our scriptures say that "children are conceived in sin," they are using words in an entirely different way than when the same language is recited in the creeds of the world. The scriptural meaning is that they are born into a world of sin so that "when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good." (Moses 6:55.)" (Bruce R. McConkie, "The Salvation of Little Children," Ensign, Apr 1977, 3) In the same sense, "the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam (Mosiah 3:19)," the natural man being those who fall into temptation. Whether or not Pelagianism and Mormonism agree here will depend on your interpretation.
    
   
2. Pelagianism holds the belief that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid.
   
   ---> On this point, Pelagianism and Mormonism are in only partial agreement, as 2 Nephi 2:27-28 illustrates:

   Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men [Jesus], or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil.

   
    
   
3. Pelagianists believe that since humanity is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of will, Jesus' sacrifice is devoid of its redemptive quality.
   
   ---> The above scripture makes it abundantly clear that the sacrifice of Jesus is absolutely essential for salvation. Mormons also believe, as all Christians do, that God's grace is essential for salvation (See 2 Ne. 2:8, 2 Ne. 10:24, and 2 Ne. 25:23).

Jesus Christ

We begin this next section with a brief, though mostly accurate, portrayal of the Council in Heaven, and the subsequent rebellion of Satan and his followers (Rev. 12:7-12, D&C 29:36). This is followed by a series of severe misrepresentations of Mormon beliefs, and a recapitulation of mainline anti-Mormon sentiments.

To begin with, the author(s) inform us that "Mormons believe... Heavenly Father came to earth and had physical, sexual intercourse with the Virgin Mary... Mormons believe Christ was conceived by the Father, and not by the Holy Spirit. (Journal of Discourses 2:268.)" The Journal of Discourses is frequently referenced by anti-Mormons, and always out of context. In all actuality, Mormons believe that Mary was a virgin, and that the Holy Ghost did come over her (Alma 7:10). However, the scriptures state that Jesus is the "Son of the Father" (2 Jn. 1:3) and not the son of the Holy Ghost. While Mormon leaders, such as Ezra Taft Benson, declare that "the body in which [Jesus] performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God (Ezra Taft Benson, "Five Marks of the Divinity of Jesus Christ," Ensign, Dec 2001, 8)," we also do not pretend to understand the exact method by which this was accomplished.

Next, we learn that "Mormons teach that Christ is a secondary, inferior god. He does not exist from all eternity. (Nor, for that matter, does his Father.) ... Through carnal relations with her Heavenly Father, the Virgin became pregnant with this lesser god." It would be interesting to know when any Mormon at any time ever referred to the Savior as "secondary, inferior," or "lesser." When discussing the beliefs of others, it seems best to use their own words, and not one's personal opinions. And, as if such slanderings weren't enough, the author(s) begin the next paragraph by telling us that "Mormons now believe that Christ's divinity is virtually equal to that of his Father's." Well, which is it? Do Mormons believe that Christ is lesser or equal?!? You can't have it both ways! Of course, you could *cough*ask a Mormon*cough*, but then they might tell you that they believe the scriptures that tell us that He sits at the right hand of the Father, exalted (Acts 2:33), and that He is "equal with God (John 5:18)". But then you might just realize that Mormons aren't that bad after all, and we can't have that, now can we?

Since the "carnal relations" accusation has already been overturned, we now turn our attention to the eternal nature of God and Christ. Now, let's not kid ourselves here - this is treading some pretty deep water, about which little has been revealed. We do not want to speculate, and this definitely falls into the previously mentioned category of things that are not relevant to our salvation and which we cannot yet comprehend. There are, however, a few things that should be said in response to the accusations set forth.

Mormons do believe that God is eternal, and Jesus, as well. In 1830, the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith exactly what this means:

4. And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.
5. Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.
6. Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
7. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name's glory.
8. Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.
9. I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.
10. For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore-
11. Eternal punishment is God's punishment.
12. Endless punishment is God's punishment. (D&C 19:4-12)

Thus, we learn that Endless and Eternal are some of God's names, and thereby also names of Christ since He is God's representative to us (John 5:43, 7:16, 7:29). These are appropriate titles, since they will not cease to be ("Endless"), and since their bodies are incorruptible ("Eternal").

As early as 1831, Joseph Smith introduced a startling doctrine: that both intelligence and matter (energy) are eternal, having always existed, and are destined to endure forever. "For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy. (D&C 93:33-34)" (William E. Berrett, "Unique Teachings from the Doctrine and Covenants," Ensign, Sep 1978, 62)

It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith, who was 25 years old at the time of this revelation, had only a third grade education (not common for farmfolk of his day). And yet, this revelation is verified by science: "[The] law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation (or the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law), states that... matter changes form, but cannot be created nor destroyed (Conservation of Mass, Wikipedia)."

In the author(s) words: "Jesus Christ merely joins the end of a long line of gods who have preceded him, an infinite "regression" of divine beings whose origin Mormons cannot explain. (Nor, for that matter, can they explain its end, as we will see when we discuss the doctrine of men becoming gods.)" This is an interesting accusation, since traditional Christianity has long held that God somehow existed before there was anything else (which they cannot explain), that He created everything out of nothing (which they cannot explain), and that when we die we go either to Heaven (the actual purpose of which they cannot explain), or to Hell, which is presented as a literal, physical location that a loving Father sends His children to roast forever and ever, amen (which they cannot explain). I'm sorry... what was the problem? That Mormons can't explain everything? Hmm, sounds familiar. The Mormons' only "crime" is in believing that we are not mere creations of God, clay puppets no higher than the rocks, but His children (Psalms 82:6), on earth for a reason and a purpose! And that there is a higher reason and purpose to our eternal existence, but that for now we are to focus on this phase of our progress and the rest will be given us when it is appropriate. If you imagine that this earth and its life are the whole of God's purpose and existence, then you have imagined a limited God, indeed!

The Holy Ghost

"The LDS church teaches that all men must pass through mortality in human bodies before they can reach godhood," we are told in this next section. "Yet their third, separate god, called the Holy Ghost, has not yet received a mortal body, even though he is considered to be another god. Mormon theology typically does not address this contradiction." Those Mormons! It's so typical of them not to address all their contadictions!

"... there are three," says John the Beloved, "that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 Jn. 5:7), signifying, of course, they are one in understanding and purpose. Of them the Prophet Joseph said:

"... these three are one; or, in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things; by whom all things were created and made ... and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one." (Quoted in Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., Bookcraft, Inc., 1966, p. 320.) (Source: Marion G. Romney, "The Holy Ghost," Ensign, May 1974, 90)

As a member of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost is of equal authority to Jesus Christ and God the Father. In the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord tells us that the reason the Holy Ghost does not have a body is that if he did, "the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." The fact that he does not presently have a body allows him to fulfill the extremely important functions that are his. Furthermore, nowhere does LDS theology describe the necessity of receiving a body prior to obtaining godhood, only that it is necessary at some point in our progression. (See Ask the Apologist, at www.fairlds.org)

Next, the author(s) show disdain for the Mormon belief that "the Holy Ghost... can be in only one place at once (in this he's no different from his two superiors in the Mormon "Godhead.")" The interesting thing here is that there is no scriptural basis for a belief that God or Jesus can be in more than one place at any time, either. Christ appeared in His resurrected form to many people, at different times (Luke 24:36-43, John 20:26-28, 1 Cor. 15:5-8, Acts 1:9-11), but never in more than one place at the same time. The scriptures do, however, teach that God is omniscient, which precludes the necessity of being in more than one place at a time, especially since He rules over the kingdom of Heaven, and has countless servants (i.e., angels, etc.) to do His bidding for Him.

It should also be noted here that:

As the light of Christ "proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space" (D&C 88:12), so the influence, power, and gifts of the Holy Ghost may be manifest everywhere at the same time. Statements in the scriptures such as "the Holy Ghost fell on [him]" (Acts 11:15), "filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke 1:15), "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38), "receive ... the Holy Ghost" (John 20:22), baptized by "fire and the Holy Ghost" (D&C 20:41) do not always refer to his person, but to his power, influence, and gifts. (Marion G. Romney, "The Holy Ghost," Ensign, May 1974, 90)

Next, we read that "Joseph Smith originally acknowledged only two divine personages, referring to the Holy Ghost merely as the "mind" of the two." This is a gross misrepresentation. Mormons believe that the Holy Ghost serves the sole purpose of testifying to the truthfulness of all that God has revealed to us through Christ. This means that he (the Holy Ghost) does not, and will not, act outside of this role. Therefore, though he is an individual, he can definitely be referred to as "the mind of the two," since that is his function.

The remainder of this section has already been addressed elsewhere.

Further reading:

• Section 7: As God Now Is, Man May Become. NOT ON SCURRILOUS TALES, BUT ON FACTS: A response to the Nov. 8th, 1995 Awake! articles on "Mormonism," by Rod Klingler, 2001.

Smith-And All Men-To Be Gods

The crux of this short section is that, once again, it is "simple, really" to prove Mormonism wrong. "Just show them how the Book of Mormon conflicts with Smith's later teachings," the author(s) tell us. Of course, as we have shown, none of the Prophet's teachings are contradictory, except in a superficial way to those who are limited in their understanding of Mormon doctrine. At this point (well, at a much earlier point, I assure you), one must ask where the author(s) received their credentials to address Mormon theology.

On the subject of "becoming Gods," I present the following:

About ten years before his death, while serving as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, President Snow [who became President of the Church in 1898] incorporated his original couplet into a longer poem. He addressed the poem to the Apostle Paul, who had written the following to the Philippian Saints:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (Philip. 2:5-6.)

Part of the poem reads:

The boy, like to his father grown,
Has but attained unto his own;
To grow to sire from state of son,
Is not 'gainst Nature's course to run.

A son of God, like God to be,
Would not be robbing Deity.

(From Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement-"As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be"-accepted as official doctrine by the Church? Gerald N. Lund, "I Have a Question," Ensign, Feb. 1982, 39-40)

Don't Aim to Win an Argument

"Be forewarned that your first discussion about the nature of God won't produce any visible change in your Mormon acquaintance," our charitable author(s) warn us. "He's unlikely to admit the cogency and simplicity of your argument." Yes, an argument so simplistic and "powerfully persuasive" that it has been refuted here with relatively little effort! If your argument fails to "produce any visible change in your Mormon acquaintance" (for, of course, they couldn't be anything more than an acquaintance), could it perhaps be that your argument doesn't hold any water? Of course not. It must be because "psychologically you're at a disadvantage, since he wants to maintain his faith as he's known it."

To be honest, many Mormons who were asked the questions that are proposed here would be at a loss for words, not because they have no answer, but because there is no short answer! Plus, anyone attempting to assault their Mormon friends acquaintances with such things is most assuredly doing so with motives other than to simply discuss theology in an open, friendly manner, and Mormons believe that "contention is of the devil (3 Ne. 11:29)."

In order to discuss such things with Mormons, "you need patience that's sustained by charity," we are told. Indeed, a charity that is apparent in the writings of the author(s), sarcasm intended.

"What the Catholic apologist offers isn't just sound logic, or a preponderance of Bible quotations, or even the blunders Joseph Smith made. No, what he offers is the truth of the Catholic faith." Though the author(s) present us with this hopeful, kindly edict, it seems that we have been presented here with nothing but the supposed "blunders of Joseph Smith." Whence the "sound logic," the "preponderance of Biblical quotations," the "truth of the Catholic faith?"

The author(s) parting advice includes the following: "you... need sound logic, buttressed by thorough homework... You need to do some homework first... We recommend reading... in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Fr. John Hardon's Catholic Catechism, and Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity... You should also have on hand, a copy of the Book of Mormon and of the King Follett Discourse. If you have your references already marked in these books, you'll be ready the next time a Mormon missionary comes to your door."

Personally, we would suggest that before you delve into the theological ramblings of others, you first read the Bible, and then instead of simply marking a few passages that have been presented to you out of context, also read the Book of Mormon! The Bible and Book of Mormon both contain similar promises to the reader: James 1:5 tells us that if we lack wisdom we can ask God, and He will answer us; Moroni 10:3-5 tells us that "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things," and concerning the Book of Mormon, it specifically tells us that we must read it first, then give it a lot of consideration, and finally, to ask God if it is true. Don't take my word for it, and don't take Father So-and-so's word for it. Take God's word for it. When the missionaries come, they will tell you the same thing.

Get a free copy of the Bible (King James Version) here, or read it online here.

Get a free copy of the Book of Mormon here, or read it online here.

Purchase the King Follett Discourse here for under $5, and/or read The King Follett Discourse in the Light of Ancient and Medieval Jewish and Christian Beliefs by John A. Tvedtnes. Other discussions of this discourse may be found here at the FAIR website.