Controversial Issues on BBC Documentary

I've been on a bit of a hiatus due to health problems, but I now hope to be back on a regular basis. Anyway, I had something on my mind about the recent documentary aired by BBC where John Sweeney investigates the Mormon Church and Mitt Romney. I know its been a while since it aired but I just saw it tonight on Youtube. However, I would like to give my opinion on it.

I would mainly like to comment on the way Elder Holland answered the questions and held his ground in the midst of the controversial topics. I thought he did a very good job under the circumstances. Rather than break the documentary down step-by-step or accuse someone of not doing a good job, I think I will just stick to the issues at hand and give my opinion of some of the subjects covered:

1. Polygamy: I think it should have been emphasized that polygamy was phased out gradually following the 1890 revelation, and completely banned in 1910 with the exception of existing marriages. Also, more effort should have been taken to show that the FLDS is separate from the urban polygamist groups as well as the mainstream LDS church.

2. Book of Abraham: The issue was way too over-simplified by saying that Egyptologists translated the real document and it doesn't match up, and that the pictures were changed. I think maybe Elder Holland could have pointed the way to Hugh Nibley's research, including the research on the hypocephalus that just came out recently in "One Eternal Round." Theologians in LDS and secular circles alike have argued for a Semitic connection to the Egyptian funeral documents and the work of the scholars should have at least been mentioned.

3. Temple Penalties: I think an explanation about how many traditions mention you should be willing to die for your faith, and if that includes not revealing secrets given to you by God, you should be willing to make any sacrifice. I don't think its fair to say that someone can't be loyal to the government because they are willing to keep sacred covenants with God and not subject those sacred covenants to mockery.

4. Strengthening the Members Committee: Most big corporations have an internal affairs department, this is nothing new or sinister. Most churches also keep files on members and try to get members back if they leave. I was with several churches prior to being LDS and this would not have been strange or unusual in any of them. Investigating to make sure standard doctrine is taught and that members who have strayed know they are welcomed back does not seem like a bad thing.

5. 1826 Glasslooking Trial: This was incorrectly said "con-man" which isn't true. When Joseph Smith was on-trial for glasslooking it was because he was trying to make a living by helping people to find buried treasure on their property by gazing into his seer stone. These people believed in his prophetic abilities and did not feel like they had been taken. However, this was an illegal activity in the state of New York. Most believing LDS would not have a problem knowing that Joseph Smith attempted to use his prophetic abilities to get by in frontier America.

After considering these things, I think more and more that the church should explain more controversial materials in their publications. They have been doing this lately, such as in the "Joseph Smith Papers" books and the Book of Mormon issue of the Ensign. I believe that the more these controversial issues are out on the table, they will actually be less controversial because people will know their true explanation. I think it would serve to make the church stronger in the long run.

Astrological Cults and Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham

For this blog I would like to explain my opinion as to who the five gods are in Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham is the second book of scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, the fourth book in the scripture cannon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are four books recognized as scripture by the church: the King James Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The Pearl of Great Price consists of necessary doctrinal information for Mormons from each of the seven dispensations of time. The Book of Abraham is from Abraham's dispensation.

The picture posted with this blog is Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham. Egyptologists have identified this as being a scene from the Book of Breathings and critics of the church have claimed this proves that Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about when he attributed it to the life of Abraham. However, in later years Hugh Nibley was able to show that similar scenes have since been found that use this very motif in depicting the life of Abraham.

Joseph Smith identified the gods in the picture, which are the Four Sons of Horus, as Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh. Sobek, the crocodile god in the picture, has long been identified with the god of Pharaoh, so I would like to focus on two of the other gods.

I believe that the four gods next to the altar may be astrological, and that this was an astrological cult doing the sacrificing. According to Albert Pike, in the Scottish Rite ritual monitor, Elkamer was the name of the moon god in pre-Islamic Middle Eastern countries. Going back to Abraham's time this name could have originally been Elkenah. "El Kamer," sometimes spelled "Al-Qamar" is a name used for the moon in some dialects even today.

The other god, Korash, bears a similarity to what Albert Pike calls "Korasht" in the Scottish Rite ritual monitor. This is the god of Jupiter that was worshiped the same as Elkamer. Also interesting is the number 4, as in Jupiter's four moons. Some Egyptologists have identified Horus and his four sons with Jupiter and its four moons, so this doesn't sound like much of a stretch. This link has an interesting article on Jupiter worship: http://www.varchive.org/itb/jupiter.htm

Anyway, it makes one wonder if Albert Pike and Joseph Smith could have been exposed to any of the same material, or if these were direct hits and that the people that were going to sacrifice Abraham were practicing an astrological cult.

Book Review: One Eternal Round by Nibley and Rhodes

For my next blog I thought I would write a review of Hugh Nibley's final book "One Eternal Round." I bought the book for $48 at Deseret Book, and did not mind paying that since the book was over 600 pages long and was Nibley's final work on the Book of Abraham that many said would finally silence the critics. So, I went into this book with high expectations. However, I also approached the book knowing that it was an unfinished work that was edited and finished by posthumous author Michael D. Rhodes. That, coupled with Nibley's already difficult writing style that tends to go off on tangents before tying together several topics in what some have termed "parallelomania," I knew I was in for an unusual apologetic work.

The chapters do a good job presenting the evidence, but I found them very lacking in terms of a conclusion. It was obvious Nibley intended on editing this before publishing and that much of the material would have been different had Nibley lived. So, what you basically have is a smattering of evidence promoting Joseph Smith's interpretation of the Book of Abraham, but the reader is left to tie them together to a conclusion. Now, for a breakdown of the chapters:

The first chapter is a 28 page introduction giving the reader some background on the Book of Abraham controversy and the various attacks against it, such as the Tanners. The chapter only skims the surface of the attacks so I strongly recommend reading FAIR-wiki to get the history of this issue, but you are left with a sufficient background to the objections against Joseph Smith's translations.

Chapters 2 through 5 offer a very technical background of Egyptology and Abraham, showing paralells with the Book of Abraham with other ancient works and archaeology. It attempts to show that the Book of Abraham is an ancient document by showing us evidence of similar works throughout history. While interesting, it can be some very tedious reading.

Chapters 6 through 8 interpret the hypocephalus (Facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham) in light of what the Egyptologists say it means and it compares the interpretation with Joseph Smith's. Some of the parallels drawn here will only make sense to those that have read the Book of Abraham and been through the Temple Endowment, and the book is very careful where the temple is concerned to only mention the paralell but not tell you where or if its found in the Endowment. So, if you're preparing for the temple you may want to re-read these chapters after going through the Endowment because you will notice a few "ah-ha" moments when you read the interpretations, particularly the items in Facsimile 2 that are "had only in the temple of the Lord" or "not to be revealed at this time." In this respect, the book takes the risk of losing its audience here, and it doesn't really leave you with a conclusion about the interpretations. So, you will have to do a lot of thinking after reading these chapters to sort out the paralells, since most aren't that apparent.

Chapter 9 provides us with a comparison of the Book of Abraham with other ascension documents throughout history. Nibley has done this well in the past, and its nice to have them all right here in one chapter. These ascension texts do a good job validating both the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses.

Chapters 10 and 11 go into hermeticism, the foundation of masonic doctrine. Hermeticism was mostly in fashion in the middle ages, but its sources stretch back in time to the ancient Egyptians. The paralells between Mormonism and Hermeticism will become apparent after reading these chapters and Nibley does a good job of presenting the evidence here.

Chapter 12 gives an introduction to the Kabbalah with a discussions of similarities between the Book of Abraham and Sefer Yetzirah, as well as similarities between the Hypocephalus and the Tree of Life. This was probably my favorite chapter since I have learned much about the Kabbalah in the Scottish Rite and this chapter does a good job tying in the Book of Abraham with ancient Judaism. While one could argue that Joseph Smith got the parallels from his own masonic background, it is still fun to consider the ancient parallels. Also, much of this kabbalistic material was not available to Smith during the 1800s and the highest masonic degree he could have received was the Royal Arch, so the probability he could have known many of these concepts is very slim.

Chapters 13 and 14 were in my opinion disappointing. They attempted to tie in a paralell between Sheshanq, the owner of the Hypocephalus, and Alexander the Great and Nimrod. The book itself says that these conclusions can't be proven. I think Nibley's intention here was to open up the way for future research, and I hope something comes out of it.

Chapter 15 was very fascinating and appealed to the math teacher in me. It is called "Geometry" and uses the ancient mathamatical constructions to show relationships in the Hypocephalus, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, Golden Ratio, etc. I think it will open the way to much research on Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham.

Overall, I would highly recommend this book, but only if a person already has a good background on the Book of Abraham issues. I don't think it will convince a person either way. If you are LDS it will confirm your testimony, while if you are non-LDS it may seem the paralells stretch different directions without a conclusion. For someone that is both Mormon and Mason you will definitely find things to confirm the ancient origin of both, and I think in the proper hands this book could help equip the person to argue that what we follow has an ancient origin and wasn't dreamed up in the 1800s. I highly recommend putting this book, Nibley's other works on this topic, and Hidden Treasures of Knowledge by Stephen Morgan together and see what you can come up with for each drawing on Facsimile 2. You will see "One Eternal Round" does its job adding to the plethora of evidence. Will it shut-up the critics permanently? I don't think so, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

Consecration and the Book of Acts

In this post I'd like to go over a passage in Acts that is problematic to many free-grace thinkers, and that is Acts 4:34 to 5:11. This is the story of Ananias and Sapphira, a husband and wife pair that sold their possessions but didn't give the proceeds to the church, so they were both struck dead by the Lord.

It is apparent from verse 34 that Christians at the time were living in a communal living arrangement similar to what early Mormons termed "the Law of Consecration" and were required to give all their possessions to the church, and in return the church would take care of them. The idea being that all belongs to God and we are only stewards of the possessions. Also, there are no poor because everyone has an equal amount as well as an equal work-load.

Ananais and Sapphira in this passage keep a portion of the proceeds for themselves and lay the rest at the apostle's feet, thinking that since nobody knows about it they will go unpunished. Anytime we lie to the Lord or disobey his commandments we miss out on a blessing. In this case, they missed out on their chance to live out a full life. We don't hear anything about them being unsaved, just that they lost their lives for their disobedience.

I have heard various explanations for this passage, some of which try to say that they both had a heart condition and died of natural causes. These are mostly the free-grace thinkers that like to teach that no tithing or consecration is expected of the believer once the Law of Moses was fulfilled, since the atonement of Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. Others have believed that God changed the commandment once the church was established and no longer living as a community. Many have found it a challenge to fit this passage into their theology.

However, consecration (a forerunner to today's tithing) has always been required by God of His followers, even before the Law of Moses, and its clear that after the Law of Moses was fulfilled He still had a requirement. Instead of a 10% tithe the requirement here is 100%. Even today we should be expected to give our 100% in following God.

While God's procedures are currently more lax than they were then, in that we don't see anyone being struck dead on the spot for not paying their tithing, God still requires us to at least be willing to give our all, including our time and talents, as well as a 10% tithe, in building up the Kingdom of God on the Earth. I think this passage is a good justification for having tithing in our day and is a good defense for the Mormon doctrine of Consecration.

Mormons and Masons are familiar with these concepts as we make covenants. Mormons make covenants with God at baptism, confirmation, sacrament, and in the Temple. We agree to follow God and take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. Masons also make promises to God during their obligations that bind them to honor their vows to support their lodge and be loyal to its teachings.

Commandments such as these that are mentioned from the Book of Acts are not meant to be drudgery, but are for our benefit. They result in blessings when followed. We see one benefit in verse 34, "Neither was there any among them that lacked..." There are many other intangible spiritual benefits that are greater than anyone can describe when we keep these commandments. Obeying God always results in happiness and more freedom.

Review of Ray Comfort Antimormon Video

Well, I thought for my first critique of Protestant Antimormonism that I would review a video that has shown up on some apologetics sites where Protestant author Ray Comfort interviews a Mormon in an attempt to show that Mormons do not believe in what he terms "Biblical Christianity."

To see the video you can copy and paste this link: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121726

Sorry, for some reason they aren't letting me post activated links.

First of all, the man he interviews as representative of Mormonism only says he was "raised Mormon" and does not necessarily identify himself as active or inactive. Comfort goes on to ask the man a series of questions in an effort to determine whether or not he was "saved." Comfort's conclusion is that the man is a thief, adulterer, liar, blasphemer, etc. and is in trouble on judgment day. The man responds throughout the attack by saying that he regrets doing those things (which demonstrates repentance), that only God judges the heart, that Jesus took his sins upon Himself, he does his best and He (Jesus) does the rest, and quotes from James 2 that "Faith without works is dead."

Comfort counters the man by saying that if the believer has to do anything it is considered a payment and no longer grace, thus contradicting the Bible, that salvation cannot be earned. He uses Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved...not of works, lest any man should boast." He told the man that we show our repentance by our works or fruits. The man countered that we have to make ourselves deserving of God's love and trust. Comfort acted shocked at this and said it contradicted the Ephesians passage in the Bible and that his eternal salvation depends on having the correct view.

Now, before we cover the two Scriptures used in this encounter, I would like to point out that Comfort is employing a classic antimormon twist on semantics here. The term "salvation" means something different in Protestant and Mormon theologies. Mormonism takes the term "salvation" to refer to exaltation, or receiving the maximum amount of rewards in the next life for following God's plan of salvation, and that some who do not receive salvation will still be in one of the lower heavens, having receved less rewards for doing less works or being less valiant in the Gospel. This explains why Jesus Christ mentions that some will be greater in the Kingdom of Heaven, and why Paul says we are rewarded according to our works.

Protestant theology, on the other hand, teaches that salvation is being saved from hell. This theology allows for no middle ground, if you are saved you don't burn for eternity, if you are lost you are condemned to burn in the lake of fire for eternity. Therefore, Mormons who do not know this are naturally going to answer questions in the context of what they believe salvation is. This explains why the man in the video responded that he wasn't sure if he would receive salvation, but moments later said he would be moving "upward" when he died.

To sum it up, Mormonism teaches saved by grace, exalted by works. Protestantism teaches saved by grace, show evidence of being saved by works. Was Ray Comfort aware of this difference when he interviewed the man? I'm not sure, since this is a common misconception among protestants, who don't fully understand Mormon theology. In Mormonism, emphasis is placed on working toward exaltation, not showing evidence of initial conversion. I feel Ray Comfort is wrong in presenting Mormonism out of context, and claiming we are not Christians when we clearly depend on the Atonement of Christ and His death on the cross. The man in the video clearly demonstrated repentance and belief in Christ.

Now, let's take a look at the two Scriptures used in this video, and see if they were used in their proper contexts. James 2:26, "...faith without works is dead." To understand this passage we should look at the context in which James uses it. Earlier in chapter 2 James tells us about those that transgress the law of love given by Christ, that love is the fulfillment of the law. It answers in verse 13, "For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment." This is what sparks the discussion of the relationship of faith and works.

Verse 14 says, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith and have not works? Can faith save him?" We are given an example of telling a hungry person to be warmed and filled without giving them something, which is like having faith without works. The chapter also uses the example of Abraham offering Isaac on the altar and Rahab the harlot sending the messengers out without divulging their location, which are acts that took great faith in God.

Verses 17 and 18 remind us, "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." This verse shows us that works are very much apart of faith. You cannot have faith without works.

Verse 26 reinforces this, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." So, just as when we die and no spirit is in the body, there is no person there, if works are not in faith, there is no faith there. Faith is more than simply "believing." I believe the bay bridge is in San Francisco, is safe because it gets thousands of cars across the ocean each day, but that doesn't mean I have enough faith to drive across, since I'm scared of heights. Therefore, believe in the bridge, but do not put my faith in it. Putting your fath into something requires a total commitment, which includes action on the part of the believer.

This brings us to the next passage, the one used by Ray Comfort to supposedly refute Mormonism. Placing Eph. 2:8-9 in the proper context reveals that the purpose of chapter 2 of Ephesians is to refute the idea that Jew and Gentile are saved separately, and is to prove that the blood of Jesus Christ unites both Jew and Gentile. If we back up to verse 1 we get a very dim picture of the Gentiles: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."

So, we see that these Gentiles did not follow God's laws and were rebellious. They are also described as lustful and children of wrath. You would think this group would be damned, but in verse 4 we are given hope, "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace are ye saved) and hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." Now, keep in mind that in verse 2 it uses the phrase "in times past," meaning we are talking about two different times here. Once these people repented they were no longer walking in these sins.

Verse 8, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." So, putting the verse in context, we see that this is a people that have repented, received a free gift of God, and are now to walk in good works that have been ordained of them. This puts this passage in an entirely different light than Comfort puts it. If you read on in the chapter we see in verses 13-16 that he abolished the law and united us in the Gospel, so that Jew and Gentile can now be one people. This one I will discuss in another post.

If you keep reading in Ephesians, after we learn what we have in Christ, Paul tells us in 4:1 to "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called." This to me sums up nicely what the Mormon man in the video was trying to say. However, instead of deserving, I think he should have used the term "worthy."

I feel that this shows that Comfort was using scripture out of context, distorting the beliefs of Mormonism, condemning Mormons to hell under a false standard, quoting his doctrine as scripture, and accusing Mormons of teaching a works salvation when he himself says we must show evidence of our repentance by works and fruits. Aside from the exaltation belief, there really doesn't seem to be that much difference from Comfort's works salvation and Mormonism's.

To add to the insult a Kirk Cameron cameo is tacked on the front and end of the video talking about some problematic Mormon doctrines for shock value, such as polygamy, Jesus/Satan spirit brothers, and Joseph Smith. Without giving the Mormon defense of these items the video seemed to have the purpose of "poisoning the well" for potential Mormon converts instead of converting Mormons.

In short, I definitely do not recommend this video to anyone wanting to know more about Mormons, whether protestant or otherwise.