Reachout/Barksdale
(FAIR) Correspondence
01
An Official Statement
A testimony was published in the January issue of Apologia, a monthly publication of FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) an unofficial Mormon publication. It is accompanied by an editor's note declaring that "Names and identifiable details of this individual’s testimony have been altered at the author’s request." The testimony can be seen at ftp://www.fair-lds.org/pub/Vol3/January.PDF
It is the story of a lady
who became a Mormon but not before indulging in some less than honest practices
as a so-called "anti-Mormon", things for which she feels considerable
shame and embarrassment and of which she has fully repented. As she mentions
her past association with Reachout Trust we have been contacted by a number of
people who have expressed concern that what was done was done in the name of,
and at the behest of, Reachout Trust. We know the lady involved and have been
in touch with her. While respecting her wish to remain anonymous we have her
full permission to publish the following statement that she has kindly made in
order to clarify the situation.
"If I indicated
that my dishonest and diabolical deeds might have been sanctioned by, or even
KNOWN by, Reachout I wholeheartedly apologise, it was totally unintentional. I
am heartily ashamed of myself, looking back, knowing that I was driven by an
obsessive and unjustified hatred of the Mormons. Reachout do not act through
hatred and I never indicated to them what I was doing. Please do correct this
on my behalf in whatever way is necessary… Since EMFJ [ex-Mormons for Jesus]
are mentioned too perhaps it should also mention that they knew nothing about
it either."
We hope that
this will clarify the position of Reachout Trust in relation to how the work of
witnessing to the cults should be conducted. In our experience the great
majority of discernment ministries operate in an honest and sympathetic fashion
and have the love of the Lord and the eternal welfare of the lost as their
motivation.
Doug Harris
Mike Thomas
Ann Thomas
For Reachout Trust
02
In a message dated 02/09/00
11:17:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.reachout@net.ntl.com
writes:
We hope that this will clarify the position of Reachout Trust in relation to
how the work of witnessing to the cults should be conducted. In our experience
the great majority of discernment ministries operate in an honest and
sympathetic fashion and have the love of the Lord and the eternal welfare of
the lost as their motivation.
Dear Thomas;
I was grateful to receive your e-mail which clarified any misunderstandings
that may have been put forth in the article we recently published. I fully
intend to publish this response in the February issue of Apologia.
Your last paragraph, however, struck me as a bit odd and more than a little disingenuous.
Do you honestly not believe it to be "dishonest" to misrepresent LDS
beliefs, even after being corrected with documented, verifiable evidence which
refutes your statements?
I would be most eager to engage in a dialogue with you regarding these various
misrepresentations, with an eye towards assisting you in maintaining the
highest degree of accuracy possible in your claims. You see, I fully respect
your right to disagree with our doctrine, but I have to believe that you
yourself would insist on at least accurately portraying the official doctrines
of the LDS Church with which you disagree, no?
I will look forward to communicating with you further on this regard.
Sincerely,
D. L. Barksdale
President
Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR)
03
Dear Mr Barksdale
Thank you for your prompt reply to our Email and for offering to publish it in
your newsletter. I welcome also your acknowledgement of our right to disagree
with LDS doctrine and I would be glad to discuss what you perceive as
misrepresentation of that doctrine. I wish you would clarify for me, however,
what exactly is LDS doctrine? I know this must seem an odd question from
someone who so confidently criticises your doctrine, but you see whenever I
think I have a handle on it and begin to question it - it disappears. One
moment my Mormon friends are confidently teaching and vehemently defending
something then, as soon as it begins to lose credibility, it becomes simple
opinion, or worse, aberration.
Investigators begin their journey into Mormonism with the promise that unerring
guidance and prophetic leading is the LDS inheritance only to find that eternal
verities can too easily become provisional policies. Look to the prophet has
addended "but not too closely". Restoration swiftly becomes
Rapprochement, likewise revelation adumbration. "What is LDS
doctrine?" is, then, a reasonable question I believe and I look forward to
receiving your reply.
Sincerely
M Thomas
04
Mr. Thomas;
Barks: Thank you so much for your prompt reply. ;)
Thomas: Thank you for your prompt reply to our Email and for offering to
publish it in your newsletter.
Barks: No problem. It's no
more nor less than a true Christian ought to do.
Thomas: I welcome also your acknowledgement of our right to disagree with LDS
doctrine and I would be glad to discuss what you perceive as misrepresentation
of that doctrine.
Barks: I must admit that I'm a bit confused by this statement... has any LDS
you have encountered denied you the basic right to disagree with LDS doctrine?
If so, they don't know much about our core beliefs. The Articles of Faith
clearly state that we believe in religious freedom, and in allowing anyone to
believe in what they choose.
I'm very grateful that you are willing to discuss the many blatant
misrepresentations of our beliefs included in your writings and on your web
site. That is an unexpected display of integrity that I very much appreciate.
Thomas: I wish you would clarify for me, however, what exactly is LDS doctrine?
I know this must seem an odd question from someone who so confidently
criticises your doctrine, but you see whenever I think I have a handle on it
and begin to question it - it disappears. One moment my Mormon friends are
confidently teaching and vehemently defending something then, as soon as it
begins to lose credibility, it becomes simple opinion, or worse, aberration.
Barks: You'll have to forgive me, but I have a difficult time imagining that
you are unfamiliar with what comprises official LDS doctrine, given the sheer
number of statements from LDS leaders defining it. I also happen to be aware of
a copious amount of correspondence between you and some of my colleagues
wherein this very topic was discussed in detail. Perhaps you could assist me in
understanding where your confusion lies by showing me where in their
correspondence on this issue you found ambiguity?
In any case, since you appear to be confused about this issue, allow me to
present some statements from LDS Prophets on this very topic, in case you've
forgotten, or have never seen them:
"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what
has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it
aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or
low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let
us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the
measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.
You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as
standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in
the standard works." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)
President Harold B. Lee
affirmed this:
"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a
doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the
Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great
Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only
one authorised to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church,
who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so
accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.
And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard
Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not
bound to accept it as truth." (The First Area General Conference for
Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August
24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69)
We accept the 4 standard works and any statement that appears over the
signature of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as authoritative.
Now that I have answered your question and have provided referenced
verification from the writings of not one, but two LDS prophets, I'm assuming
that you will be integrous enough to accept the answer and not be confused on
this issue any longer. :)
Thomas: Investigators begin their journey into Mormonism with the promise that
unerring guidance and prophetic leading is the LDS inheritance only to find
that eternal verities can too easily become provisional policies.
Barks: "Provisional policies"? How do you determine that this is the
case, rather than that the Lord is leading His people dynamically, as opposed
to statically (as modern Christianity believes)? How strange a notion is this!
Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the Lord's instructions to His
people never changes. If you are, I hope you are prepared to discard much of
the Bible. We believe that the Lord leads and guides this Church through living
prophets, and is very much in charge as much today as when He walked the earth.
Does this bother you? Is this in any way unbiblical?
Thomas: Look to the prophet has addended "but not too closely".
Barks: Certainly not to those who truly do understand LDS beliefs. In fact, the
only ones I have *ever* heard echo this sentiment were anti-Mormons, who had a
definite agenda to advance. :)
Thomas: Restoration swiftly becomes Rapprochement, likewise revelation
adumbration.
Barks: So, are you claiming that any change which occurs in the name of the
Lord is automatically false and constitutes de facto evidence of a false belief
system, or are you suggesting that the prophetic office demands infallibility?
Is this (infallibility) a Biblical concept, or is this one that you have
imagined? Were the Biblical prophets and apostles infallible? Did they differ
on points of doctrine? Did they err?
As far as your charge of adumbration, my heavens, even the apostle Paul wrote
that "we see through a glass darkly," and noted that even he was
confused and uncertain regarding certain experiences and visions he had... are
you suggesting that somehow he was misinformed or worse, was deliberately
deceptive? Were the revelations he received adumbrated? Are you willing to hold
the Bible to the same standard you seem to want to hold LDS prophets to? :)
Thomas: "What is LDS doctrine?" is, then, a reasonable question I
believe and I look forward to receiving your reply.
You now have my detailed, documented answer. I'm very eager to see yours. :)
D. L. Barksdale
President, FAIR
05
Dear Mr Barksdale
Thank you again for a
prompt and succinct reply. Perhaps you can clarify a point for me. You sum up
your answer to my question "what is LDS doctrine?" by stating, "We accept the 4 standard works and any
statement that appears over the signature of the First Presidency and Quorum of
the Twelve as authoritative." I think I understand the part
about the standard works, although I feel that even that may not be the clear
and helpful statement it appears to be. In discussions with Mormons I am often
surprised at how even the seemingly most simple statements taken from those
standard works can be subject to "interpretation"; contingent upon
special understanding known only to the "worthy"; brought into the
category of "we don't discuss sacred things" (a most peculiar
statement from an evangelistic religion); even consigned to the area of
"one day we will understand these things". So I confess that, as
apparently ingenuous as your statement appears to be, experience has taught me
to check what is in the poke before I buy it.
The point on which you
might provide clarification is that which refers to "any statement that appears over the signature of the First
Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve". What exactly would fall
into this category? Would Conference talks? How about fireside talks, which are
sometimes reported in the official Ensign
magazine? Would articles from the pens of these men fall into this category?
Does "statement" mean only official policy statement, or would it
include statements given for clarification, for example President Hinckley's
recent declaration that he believes in a different Jesus to the rest of us?
Finally, would such statements be regarded as authoritative if coming from any
one, or any combination of these men, or would it have to come from all fifteen
before it could be deemed official? Perhaps you could provide me with examples
of such statements and give a clear definition.
Sincerely
M Thomas
06
In a message dated 2/12/00
3:49:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.reachout@net.ntl.com
writes:
Thomas: Thank you again for a prompt and succinct reply.
Barks: You're certainly welcome. :)
Thomas: Perhaps you can clarify a point for me.
Barks: I would consider it a pleasure.
Thomas: You sum up your answer to my question "what is LDS doctrine?"
by stating, "We accept the 4 standard works and any statement that appears
over the signature of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as
authoritative."
Barks: That is correct.
Thomas: I think I understand the part about the standard works, although I feel
that even that may not be the clear and helpful statement it appears to be.
Barks: On what grounds did you determine this, especially considering the
several statements from LDS prophets that I provided?
Thomas: In discussions with Mormons I am often surprised at how even the
seemingly most simple statements taken from those standard works can be subject
to "interpretation"; contingent upon special understanding known only
to the "worthy"; brought into the category of "we don't discuss
sacred things" (a most peculiar statement from an evangelistic religion);
even consigned to the area of "one day we will understand these
things".
Barks: Most fascinating. Perhaps you could humor me with some examples of this,
and more importantly, how this ties into the central issue of your last
missive, which was 'what constitutes official LDS doctrine'? Are you truly
implying that because there are different levels of spiritual understanding of
Holy Writ that Holy Writ then cannot possibly be a source of official doctrine?
Shall we apply this to your
own beliefs, Mr. Thomas? Certainly you are aware that there is a huge diversity
of "interpretations" of Biblical passages by those who call
themselves Christians. If there were not, we certainly would not have the
rather staggering number of Christian denominations dotting the globe, would we
not? Is this truly proof positive in your view that the Bible is an
"unworthy source" of Christian doctrine? Or is it your assertion that
the Bible only holds one level of spiritual truth within its pages and does not
hold deeper gems of truth for those more mature in the gospel?
I noticed that you failed to address Paul's remarks about "seeing through
a glass darkly." What do you suppose he was referring to, if not the
incompleteness of our spiritual understanding? I notice that you seemed to
avoid my questions on this matter. Might I ask why?
Thomas: So I confess that, as apparently ingenuous as your statement appears to
be, experience has taught me to check what is in the poke before I buy it.
Barks: It seems to me that you are simply saying, "I don't care what kind
of documented, verifiable evidence you present, I refuse to accept it if it
disagrees with my anti-Mormon agenda." Please share with me, Mr. Thomas,
how this position is congruent with that of a true "Seeker of Truth,"
rather than a mere "defender of dogma"? Have you used this same level
of scrutiny to interrogate your own sacred beliefs?
Thomas: The point on which you might provide clarification is that which refers
to "any statement that appears over the signature of the First Presidency
and Quorum of the Twelve". What exactly would fall into this category?
Barks: I appreciate this question, since it is most easy to answer. This means
exactly what is says. An excellent example of this is found in the Proclamation
to the World on the Family.
Thomas: Would Conference talks?
Barks: By definition? No.
Thomas: How about fireside talks, which are sometimes reported in the official
Ensign magazine?
Barks: By definition? No.
Thomas: Would articles from the pens of these men fall into this category?
Barks: By definition? No.
Thomas: Does "statement" mean only official policy statement, or
would it include statements given for clarification, for example President
Hinckley's recent declaration that he believes in a different Jesus to the rest
of us?
Barks: I'm saddened that you would feel the need to stoop to such an
inflammatory statement as this. I don't believe a true Christian would do this,
as they would surely recognize that this kind of polemic is not "What
Jesus Would Do." Be that as it may, the answer is "no."
Thomas: Finally, would such statements be regarded as authoritative if coming
from any one, or any combination of these men, or would it have to come from
all fifteen before it could be deemed official?
Barks: All 15.
Thomas: Perhaps you could provide me with examples of such statements and give
a clear definition.
Barks: See my statement above regarding the Proclamation to the World on the
Family. And Mr. Thomas, I gave you a very clear definition in my last missive.
What part of it specifically did you find to be ambiguous? If you will share
that with me, I will eagerly attempt to explain in simpler terms if that would
assist you in comprehending it.
In the meantime, I still eagerly await your answers to the questions I raised
in both this, and my last missive. I'm sure you failed to address them
inadvertently, therefore I am eager to hear your response.
I hope this finds you and yours well and happy.
Cheers!
D. L. Barksdale
President, FAIR
07
Dear Mr Barksdale
Thank you again for
attempting to clarify what is LDS doctrine. I do wish to clarify an important
point before going any further and that is that I did not ask you "What is
official LDS doctrine?" My question was, and is, "What is LDS
doctrine?" The difference between the two questions, whilst not
immediately apparent is, nevertheless, quite important.
"Official" LDS
doctrine is that which the LDS church officially wants people to believe and
understand to be the LDS position on any given issue, at any given time.
LDS doctrine, that on which
I seek clarification, is what Mormons believe to be abidingly true on the
fundamentals of the faith. The difference is easily and clearly illustrated.
In its attitude to other
churches the Mormon Church has a distinctive, indeed unique, position. We are
told that it is neither Catholic nor Protestant, or Reformed, but is Restored.
In its relationship to other churches, if I go to the sources given by you as
the only true standard by which to judge, the four "standard works",
then I find the Mormon attitude to other churches, the LDS doctrine, is that
"they were all wrong…all their creeds were an abomination in his [God's]
sight; that those professors were all corrupt: 'they draw near to me with their
lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the
commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power
thereof.'" (JS - History 1:19)
If I go into the Book of
Mormon I discover that "there are save two churches only; the one is the
church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore,
whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great
church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the
earth." (1 Nephi 14:12)
In the Doctrine and Covenants
it is written that "this [LDS] church [is] the only true and living church
upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well
pleased…" (D&C 1:30)
Clearly LDS doctrine, what
Mormons believe, is that the LDS Church is the 'church of the Lamb', the 'only
true and living church upon the face of the whole earth', while all other
churches are an expression of the 'church of the devil'; 'the mother of
abominations'; 'the whore of all the earth'.
I have before me a copy of
the "official" media pack for the opening of the Mormon temple in
Chorley, Lancashire, the Preston England temple. Under the deceptively
disarming title of "Facts" the list of the church's beliefs, official
LDS doctrine, begins with the statement:
"The Church of
Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is a Christian denomination, wholly committed
to the New Testament account of the birth, life, crucifixion and resurrection
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Saviour of mankind."
What Mormons believe, LDS
doctrine, is that they alone have the truth and on that basis stand apart from
all other churches as unique.
"Official" LDS
doctrine is that the Mormon Church is "a Christian denomination".
I cannot help but observe
that this is, what was the word you used to describe the contents of our web
pages? Disingenuous? Yes, disingenuous. You accuse Reachout Trust of
misrepresenting LDS beliefs but it is the Mormon Church itself that is at the
very least economical with the truth as it tries to present a politically
correct image to an unsuspecting public. You hasten to emphasise those points
you raise that I have failed to answer, yet you have singularly failed to
address this point that I raised which sees the Mormon Church moving from the
unique position of Restorationist to this position of apparent Rapprochement.
I am prompted to ask the question, who exactly wants who for dinner?
You ask if any LDS has ever
denied me the right to disagree with LDS doctrine. My answer is an unequivocal
Yes! Every Mormon I meet seems to feel it an affront to question his faith,
ascribes to me the basest motives of mischief and destructiveness, and readily
demonises me as an "anti-Mormon"1, thus dismissing me in
the classic ad hominem fashion so common amongst your fellow church
members. Even from the top there is a warning sounded against rooting out and
telling the truth. No less an authority than Boyd K Packer had the following to
say in attacking even professionals as they attempt to achieve impartiality in
telling the truth about Mormonism.
"There
is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell
everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that
are true are not very useful."
Note that it is not lies about
which Packer is concerned, but the truth. Given the history of your church I
can well see how "some things that are true are not very useful".
Clearly the message here is that there are things about the church's history
that cannot bear close scrutiny without potentially damaging the faith of its
members. I am grateful to Boyd Packer for confirming what we have said for some
time. The church's test, then, of whether to tell the story of Mormonism is
whether what you tell promotes the Mormon faith and engenders faith amongst
it's members. If the truth does not promote faith then it is best to protect
people from it. The clear implication here is that the obverse is also true,
i.e. if a lie promotes faith then there is no harm in telling it. This is an inference
that was clearly taken to heart by the late Mormon leader Paul H Dunn whose Early
Life and War Experiences proved to be less than scrupulous.
Even today it seems that
what church leaders say is sometimes too embarrassing to repeat or discuss. I
asked what seemed to me a clear and honest question, i.e.
"Does
"statement" mean only official policy statement, or would it include
statements given for clarification, for example President Hinckley's recent
declaration that he believes in a different Jesus to the rest of us?"
Your reply I found most
revealing.
"I'm saddened that you would feel the need to stoop to such an
inflammatory statement as this. I don't believe a true Christian would do this,
as they would surely recognize that this kind of polemic is not 'What Jesus
Would Do.' Be that as it may, the answer is 'no.'"
How, pray tell, is this
stooping, inflammatory, polemic and so contrary to what Jesus would do? I have
this picture in my mind of Jesus challenging the Jewish authorities,
"John's baptism, was it from heaven, or from men?" You will recall
that the Jewish leaders reasoned amongst themselves that if they answered that
it was from heaven then Jesus would ask them why they did not recognise it as
such, but if they answered that it was from men then they would risk the wrath
of the crowd, because John was very popular. The answer, then, to the question
"what would Jesus do?" is that he would ask you an awkward question
designed to put you on the spot. I am glad to discover that I have followed my
Lord's example so faithfully.
Of course, you say that
this is not an "official" statement, although that in itself is
strange since he was acting in his official capacity as the representative of
the church to the world's press. The question remains, however, did what he
say, whether official or otherwise, represent LDS doctrine, what Mormons
believe about Jesus, i.e. that the Mormon Jesus is different to the Jesus of
the Christian Churches? I would be glad of an unequivocal answer.
So far as my question
regarding "official statements", whilst I acknowledge that you have
given an answer of sorts, I confess that I find it unsatisfactory. Your
definition of an official statement, i.e. "any statement that appears over
the signature of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve", and your
further clarification, i.e. that "all 15" would have to be
signatories to make it official raises other questions. How many times did Joseph Smith seek the
approval of his underlings before giving a revelation or doctrine? If Brigham
Young, Gordon B Hinckley, and everyone else claims the same office of authority
that Joseph Smith had, why is such a precaution necessary? On that note, I
can't remember reading where Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or any other biblical
prophet for that matter, had to seek out signatures in order to make a
declaration to the people.
Where in the standard works
does it list all of the qualifications you list? Where in the Standard Works
does it say all 15 have to sign a statement in order to decree true doctrine?
For that matter, where in the Standard Works does it say that a prophet is only
a prophet
when he is acting as such? I thought the History of the Church (where that
quote is found) is outside the realm of doctrinal truth.
Your qualifications certainly
go against the grain of D&C 21:4-5: "Wherefore, meaning the
church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall
give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his
word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and
faith." The prophet's commands are to be received as "he
receiveth them" not as the quorum of the 12 receives them.
I would further observe
that your example of an official statement is quite inadequate. The Proclamation
to the World on the Family, whilst no doubt containing commendable Christian
sentiments, and representing the LDS view, nevertheless hardly qualifies as an
example of Mormons being unerringly led by a prophet of God in matters of
correct doctrine and conduct. Don’t forget that my original question concerned
LDS doctrine, not simple and safe policy statements that straddle the Christian
centre right of American thinking. I suppose your answer can be said to be
begging the question "where is the revelation in the Mormon Church?"
So far we have settled on the 4 Standard Works but, outside of those, where can
a person go to find accurate doctrine, accurate understanding of what is in the
heart of a Mormon when he believes? I am afraid your answers, whilst no doubt
well intended, have been too vague.
I wish to address your
point about "seeing through a glass darkly". The reference is 1
Corinthians 13:9 and you seem to be using it to excuse the adumbration to which
I originally referred. This text, however, is a reference to knowledge of
Christ, which is now partial but will be complete. The "perfect" of
verse 10 is a reference to fulfilment, completeness or maturity and a contrast
is being made between the partial and the complete knowledge of Him. It is nothing
to do with puzzling over vague prophecies, or adumbrated pronouncements.
Furthermore, that you
should use this text at all in this way is most peculiar. Your church has
always despised Christian churches for "seeing through a glass
darkly", declaring that our knowledge is, at best, incomplete, at worst,
corrupt. The promise of Mormonism is clarity of vision and confidence in
guidance. Do you wish to work by our standards, as you see them, or by yours,
as declared by church leaders? You cannot have the penny and the bun.
I am struck by your
insistence that different levels of truth and understanding alone can account
for the plethora of contradictions, anomalies, and vagaries in LDS doctrine.
What deep spiritual insight can make sense of the apparent contradiction
between Alma 34:36 and D&C 130:3? Can a deeper understanding help me make
sense of the contradiction between Jacob 2:24 and D&C 132:1? Before you
answer that question you should know that no less and authority than Legrand
Richards said of this last mentioned contradiction:
"I am afraid I
can't adequately reconcile these two statements. If the one in the Doctrine and
Covenants had omitted the names of David and Solomon, then I think I could
reconcile the two statements."
Of course I am not suggesting
that there are not different levels of understanding and insight, and yes I do
apply exacting standards to my own faith and to the Bible, God's word, in which
I trust. Neither do I pretend that I have nothing to learn. But neither do I
excuse my relative ignorance and occasional misunderstandings by claiming that
when you get to my level you will see as I do. Furthermore, the standards which
I apply to LDS doctrine and practice is the standard the Mormon Church invites
me to apply. Having made a claim to unerringly and consistently lead the Saints
I expect unerring and consistent leadership. When I do not see it, when I find
the opposite, I feel I have the right to point it out and call to account those
who have made and broken such promises. To paraphrase one Christian
commentator, such men do not deserve the devotion of their followers.
I would be glad if you
could, then, settle for me this issue of LDS doctrine. Is it only in the 4
Standard Works? Are these supplemented by living prophets and, if so, where can
I find this "further revelation"? If talks, writings, pronouncements
and interpretations by church leaders are merely speculation and opinion on
their part, may a Mormon safely ignore them confident of remaining in good
standing with the church?
Sincerely
M Thomas
08
Mr. Thomas;
I apologize profusely for
the time it has taken me to reply to your last message. It seems like a tidal
wave of different time-consuming tasks has washed over me lately, leaving me very
little time for recreational correspondence.
Please allow me to simply
"dig in," however, and address the issues you raised.
Thomas: Thank you again for
attempting to clarify what is LDS doctrine. I do wish to clarify an important
point before going any further and that is that I did not ask you "What is
official LDS doctrine?" My question was, and is, "What is LDS
doctrine?" The difference between the two questions, whilst not
immediately apparent is, nevertheless, quite important.
Barks: I would have to
agree that there are several levels of "doctrine" that are taught in
nearly ALL Churches and denominations, aside from the official sources
that each claim to be authoritative, whether that be a creed, the Bible, or any
other source. The LDS Church is no different. Individuals love to speculate on
the mysteries in our fold as well as in others.
Your interest not in what
the LDS Church embraces as official doctrine, but in the unofficial and often
spurious "everything else," is quite disappointingly revealing. You
obviously have no interest in understanding what Latter-day Saints truly
believe, but are simply rooting around in the refuse dump of religious
speculation for whatever stray bits of filth or contaminated rot you may find
to hold up as "representative" of that faith, even though such
samplings are clearly not.
Are you aware of how
utterly dishonest and deceitful that effort is, Mr. Thomas? Would it please you
for us to hold up the rather "interesting" teachings of Martin Luther
regarding his belief that evil spirits could be exorcized by a "mighty
blast of flatulence" as representative of the collective
"doctrine" of all denominations that sprang forth from Luther’s
influence? Or would it be fair to ascribe his rabid anti-Semitism to all of
those same denominations simply because Luther quite openly taught hostility
towards the Jews? Or would it be more honest and even-handed to accept what
those denominations claimed to be their authoritative source of doctrine in
order to really understand their true theology?
Or shall we, in yet another
example, carefully examine the teachings of those who currently profess to be
Evangelical, "Christian" pastors and teachers who advocate some very
"odd" doctrines on their television programs, such as Kenneth Copeland,
Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, those involved in the "Brownsville
Movement," and many others who are currently being broadcast? Surely their
teachings are "Christian Doctrine," by your definition, are they not?
Does the fact that in many cases these individual (and quite erroneous)
teachings vary wildly from the Biblical account mean that we can safely embrace
them as a solid indicator of what YOU "really believe," seeing that
YOU also claim the title of "Christian"? Or would you perhaps ask us
to examine what you felt were more authoritative creeds and scripture to define
your theology?
Or, better yet, shall we
accept the rabid racism that permeated the "Christian" Church
throughout the last 200+ years here in America? Are you truly aware of how
intense, hateful, and vicious these "Christian doctrines" were… and
even today are, in some areas? Surely, if I understand you correctly, you won’t
have any problem if we soundly condemn you by association on the basis of these
extremist "doctrines," correct? After all, it is not what you REALLY
believe that we would be searching for, by your definition, but what
"Christian" doctrine "is," in whatever form, and however
specious.
An integrous man, Mr.
Thomas, would seem to be one who had the intellectual, moral, and ethical
acumen to honestly examine the views that a differing sect officially embraces
as their doctrine, from sources they consider authoritative, instead of the
spurious machinations of individuals members of its rolls, would it not? Or is
your preferred method how we shall, from here on out, judge your own sacred
beliefs and that of the rest of collective modern Christianity?
Thomas:
"Official" LDS doctrine is that which the LDS church officially wants
people to believe and understand to be the LDS position on any given issue, at
any given time.
Barks: I note with some
disappointment your retreat from a tone of civility and respect, to a more
polemical one. Your statement here smacks of snide insinuation. Shall we say the
same of your beliefs? Obviously, that which you claim to be a sacred,
authoritative declaration of doctrine must be no more nor less than that which
the official governing body of your denomination, whether it be synod, council,
diocese, or convention, "officially wants people to believe and
understand" to be your position on any given issue, at any given time,
with the insinuation being that your real beliefs are something else
entirely. Is this a fair assessment, Mr. Thomas?
Thomas: LDS doctrine, that
on which I seek clarification, is what Mormons believe to be abidingly true on
the fundamentals of the faith. The difference is easily and clearly illustrated.
Barks: While I shall look
forward to your "clear and easy" illustration, I must again take exception
to your definition here. It seems as though you are attempting to erect a straw
man of immense proportion in order to hack away at for no other purpose than
self-congratulatory back-patting on your "victory" as a good little
Christian soldier. Why not instead take on the truth, Mr. Thomas? Does it
intimidate you that much?
For your information, Mr.
Thomas, as a life-long Mormon and returned missionary, as one who HAS taught
LDS doctrine for many, many years, I can tell you authoritatively that Mormons
believe our official doctrinal sources to be the only abidingly true
sources of doctrine on the fundamentals of our faith.
Thomas: In its attitude to
other churches the Mormon Church has a distinctive, indeed unique, position. We
are told that it is neither Catholic nor Protestant, or Reformed, but is
Restored. In its relationship to other churches, if I go to the sources given
by you as the only true standard by which to judge, the four "standard
works", then I find the Mormon attitude to other churches, the LDS
doctrine, is that "they were all wrong…all their creeds were an
abomination in his [God's] sight; that those professors were all corrupt: 'they
draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach
for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they
deny the power thereof.'" (JS - History 1:19)
Barks: That is correct.
This was stated by Jesus Christ Himself, in answer to Joseph Smith’s question
about which Church to join. Later, JS clearly taught that all churches had a
portion of the truth, but did not have the fullness of the Gospel, which had
been lost through apostacy many years before. Does this idea trouble you, Mr.
Thomas? Does it seem far-fetched and beyond belief that a good "Christian"
could embrace such a view? Are you aware that the Great Reformers, as well as
many other notable clerics through the centuries all remarked on this event,
not the least of which was the founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger
Williams? My heavens, even Martin Luther wrote that Christianity had completely
"ceased to exist" by HIS day. Is it so great a stretch to acknowledge
that same event, and the same state of Christianity today?
Thomas: If I go into the
Book of Mormon I discover that "there are save two churches only; the one
is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil;
wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to
that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of
all the earth." (1 Nephi 14:12)
Barks: That also is
correct. Please also take note that this passage is paramount to declaring the
basic difference between good and evil. There are two groups of people on
earth... those who are honest, and sincere people who love God and seek to do
His will, and there are those who are evil and seek to tear down anything good.
Thomas: In the Doctrine and
Covenants it is written that "this [LDS] church [is] the only true and
living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well
pleased…" (D&C 1:30)
Barks: Again, this is
correct. Christ established one church, not 2000. Does this fact bother you,
Mr. Thomas?
Thomas: Clearly LDS
doctrine, what Mormons believe, is that the LDS Church is the 'church of the
Lamb', the 'only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth',
while all other churches are an expression of the 'church of the devil'; 'the
mother of abominations'; 'the whore of all the earth'.
Barks: Mr. Thomas, I must
say you have a most fertile imagination. You have just given us a textbook
example of the logical fallacy of "begging the question." Your
conclusions are based upon the premise you have given, which you have not
justified at all. None of the passages you quoted said that "everyone
else" than the Mormon Church is the "Church of the Devil." Not
one. And you have failed to cite, most interestingly, the many statements by JS
and other LDS leaders which directly contradict this notion. Their position was
that while Christianity as a whole had unfortunately inherited the dreadful
heritage of the Great Apostasy, that there were many truths within those
denominations that had survived.
Thomas: What Mormons
believe, LDS doctrine, is that they alone have the truth and on that basis stand
apart from all other churches as unique.
Barks: Yes, and another
most important facet is that it is the Lord Himself who declared it so, and who
initiated the restoration of His gospel, which was foretold in the New
Testament.
Thomas:
"Official" LDS doctrine is that the Mormon Church is "a
Christian denomination".
Barks: Yes, because it
clearly is.
Thomas: I cannot help but
observe that this is, what was the word you used to describe the contents of
our web pages? Disingenuous? Yes, disingenuous.
Barks: I am very sorry that
this clear and plain statement of belief seems "disingenuous" to you.
Could you please explain how articulately and accurately stated the facts are
"disingenuous"?
Thomas: You accuse Reachout
Trust of misrepresenting LDS beliefs but it is the Mormon Church itself that is
at the very least economical with the truth as it tries to present a
politically correct image to an unsuspecting public.
Barks: This is a ludicrous statement.
Reachout Trust is correctly criticized for blatantly, knowingly, and
persistently misrepresenting LDS doctrine even after being corrected and shown
documented evidence that proves its error. To accuse us of being
"economical with the truth" over clearly and explicitly stating our
beliefs is, in itself, beyond belief.
Thomas: You hasten to
emphasise those points you raise that I have failed to answer, yet you have
singularly failed to address this point that I raised which sees the Mormon
Church moving from the unique position of Restorationist to this position of
apparent Rapprochement. I am prompted to ask the question, who exactly
wants who for dinner?
Barks: I hasten to
emphasize those point I previously raised which you have failed to answer because
they are emminently germane to the issue here. And you have still, to this
writing, not answered them, have you? Why is that, Mr. Thomas? Why are those
question so difficult for you to address? As far as accusing me of not
addressing your issue, please point out where I have not done so. The example
you cite here is the first time in our correspondence that I even remember it
being raised.
Thomas: You ask if any LDS
has ever denied me the right to disagree with LDS doctrine. My answer is an
unequivocal Yes!
Barks: Who has denied you
the right to disagree? Such would be against the most basic tenets of the
truths we hold dear. The 11th Article of Faith states, "We
claim the privilege of worshipping 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." Who, may I ask, is the insidious creature who
denies you this most basic right? Report them at once to their Bishop!
Thomas: Every Mormon I meet
seems to feel it an affront to question his faith, ascribes to me the basest
motives of mischief and destructiveness, and readily demonises [sic] me as an
"anti-Mormon"1, thus dismissing me in the classic ad
hominem fashion so common amongst your fellow church members.
Barks: Based on what you
have expressed above, no one is denying you the right to disagree. What we have
done is deny you the right to dictate what we ‘really believe,’ when such
declarations are contradictory to that which we embrace as official sources for
our doctrine, practice, and belief.
As far as
"demonis[ing]"[sic] you as an "anti-Mormon," one could ask
you a couple of revealing questions. Are you in opposition to Mormon doctrine?
Have you not established an entire "ministry" for the purpose of
"exposing" or "witnessing" against the doctrines of the LDS
Church? Does that not, in fact, make you an "anti-Mormon" in the same
sense that such activities, directed against Jewish people, for instance, would
make one "anti-Semitic"? If you do not like the title, Mr. Thomas, a
very pertinent question to ponder might be, "Why do I do those things that
quite appropriately earn me that title"?
And no, Mr. Thomas,
correctly identifying you as an "anti-Mormon" is not the classic
"ad hominem" argument. It is a valid statement of fact, which
I would love to see you address.
Thomas: Even from the top
there is a warning sounded against rooting out and telling the truth. No less
an authority than Boyd K Packer had the following to say in attacking even
professionals as they attempt to achieve impartiality in telling the truth
about Mormonism. "There is a temptation for the writer or the
teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or
faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."
Barks: I had to read this
through several times before I realized that you weren’t joking. Elder Packer’s
statement is quite timely and very wise. There is no ‘hidden agenda’ in his
words nor any counsel to hide anything from the membership of the Church at
large, or from the public. Are you even remotely familiar with who the audience
of this address was, or what the context was? This was taken from an address by
Elder Packer to the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators'
Symposium, on the 22nd of August, 1981. This was an address to
counsel teachers of our youth.
Elder Packer went on in
this address to explain;
"Some things that are
true are not very useful.
Historians seem to take
great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a
weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason,
historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living
person it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading
as gossip and much more difficult—often impossible—to verify." (Boyd K.
Packer, Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled, p. 106)
The question that lingers
in my mind in reading your accusation above, Mr. Thomas, is whether you are
being patently hypocritical in raising this issue at all. Tell me. Are you
teaching your youth that they can get rid of evil spirits by a "mighty
blast of flatulence," and that they should hate and murder Jews? Why not?
That clearly is your doctrine (by your standards of determining such, that is),
and to withhold these ‘truths’ from them is very sinister and evil, is it not?
Withholding these facts surely doesn’t teach your tender youth ALL of the
documented history of their faith, does it? Why are you not teaching them the
Christian motives behind the witch-hunts of the 17th and 18th
centuries, Mr. Thomas? The Inquisition? Sale of Indulgences? Why not? Could it
possibly be that even though these events are a true part of history, that they
are not very valuable in building the faith of these young men and women? What
say you, Mr. Thomas?
Thomas: Note that it is not
lies about which Packer is concerned, but the truth. Given the history of your
church I can well see how "some things that are true are not very
useful".
Barks: As with Christianity
in general, as I pointed out above. The real question is, Mr. Thomas, "Are
you willing to hold your own faith to the same standards you demand of
ours"?
Thomas: Clearly the message
here is that there are things about the church's history that cannot bear close
scrutiny without potentially damaging the faith of its members.
Barks: Can we not make the
same statement in relation to Modern Christianity?
Thomas: I am grateful to
Boyd Packer for confirming what we have said for some time.
Barks: You are grateful to
Elder Packer to stating the obvious? Does this mean by implication that you DO
teach your youth all of the sordid details of every dark shadow and stain in
the history of the Christian faith in order to make "full disclosure"
to them? Please elaborate on this and provide us some evidence of this practice
in the form of some current Sunday School manuals and teaching guides. I am
most interested in your Sunday School curriculum.
Thomas: The church's test,
then, of whether to tell the story of Mormonism is whether what you tell
promotes the Mormon faith and engenders faith amongst it's members. If the
truth does not promote faith then it is best to protect people from it. The
clear implication here is that the obverse is also true ,i.e. if a lie promotes
faith then there is no harm in telling it. This is an inference that was
clearly taken to heart by the late Mormon leader Paul H Dunn whose Early
Life and War Experiences proved to be less than scrupulous.
Barks: Let me see if I
understand you correctly. You are saying then, by extension, that it is wrong
for Evangelical Christianity to determine whether to tell the true and complete
story of Christian History to its youth based on whether what it tells promotes
the Christian faith and engenders faith amongst it's members. Is that your
position? You are claiming in your statement that it is incorrect that
if the truth does not promote faith then it is best to protect people from it.
Is that right? You also note that the clear implication here is that the
obverse is also true ,i.e. if a lie promotes faith then there is no harm in
telling it. Based on fact nad actual practice, this indeed seems to be the
position of Evangelical Christianity, I must agree. After all, this certainly
was an inference that was clearly taken to heart by the late Christian
apologist Walter Martin, whose Kingdom of the Cults and The Maze of
Mormonism proved to be less than scrupulous and entirely less than honest.
Thomas: How, pray tell, is
this stooping, inflammatory, polemic and so contrary to what Jesus would do?
Barks: Very simple. Christ
would not misrepresent the substance and content of someone else’s remarks for
the purpose of "digging a pit" for him to trap him in his words and
condemn him unjustly because of them. But thank you for allowing me to teach
you about the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I count it a privilege to do so
with every opportunity I get.
Thomas: I have this picture
in my mind of Jesus challenging the Jewish authorities, "John's baptism,
was it from heaven, or from men?" You will recall that the Jewish leaders
reasoned amongst themselves that if they answered that it was from heaven then
Jesus would ask them why they did not recognize [sic] it as such, but if they
answered that it was from men then they would risk the wrath of the crowd,
because John was very popular. The answer, then, to the question "what
would Jesus do?" is that he would ask you an awkward question designed to
put you on the spot. I am glad to discover that I have followed my Lord's
example so faithfully.
Barks: A few noteworthy
points to observe here. 1) You are not Jesus. 2) We are not the Jewish
authorities, nor do we seek to slay Him. 3) Your entire example misses the
point. I must assume, intentionally.
Thomas: Of course, you say
that this is not an "official" statement, although that in itself is
strange since he was acting in his official capacity as the representative of
the church to the world's press.
Barks: Please elaborate on
why this would be "strange." Are statements made in interviews by
leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention here in America to the press
"official statements of doctrine" accepted by all Baptists, simply
because they are acting in an "official capacity"? Are they
considered the same weight as scripture? Why the hypocrisy here, Mr. Thomas?
Again, you are quite noticeably erecting a huge straw man that has no basis in
reality.
Thomas: The question remains,
however, did what he say, whether official or otherwise, represent LDS
doctrine, what Mormons believe about Jesus, i.e. that the Mormon Jesus is
different to the Jesus of the Christian Churches? I would be glad of an
unequivocal answer.
Barks: President Hinckley
was alluding to the fact that our respective understandings of who Jesus was,
and is, vary greatly. In a very significant way, we do believe in a
"different Jesus" than does modern Christianity. We believe in the
Jesus who created this earth, who is the Only Begotten Son of Almighty God, who
was born of a virgin, and was the only sinless one to walk the face of the
earth. We believe in the Jesus who died for our sins, and paid the price for us
to return to His presence some day. We believe in the Jesus who was literally
resurrected, and was the firstborn of creation. We believe in the Jesus who
will stand as the judge over all at the end. I believe, and President Hinckley
correctly stated, that modern Christianity believes in a much different Jesus
than the Bible teaches. And both Protestant and Catholic scholars alike join
him and making that clear distinction. The Trinitarian Jesus of modern
Christianity has no basis in Biblical truth.
Thomas: So far as my
question regarding "official statements", whilst I acknowledge that
you have given an answer of sorts
Barks: I am truly sorry if
I have been obscure in any way. Please point out for me where my answer has
been less than clear, concise, articulate, and very easy to understand.
Thomas: I confess that I
find it unsatisfactory.
Barks: I confess that I
find your finding completely irrelevant and meaningless.
Thomas: Your definition of
an official statement, i.e. "any statement that appears over the signature
of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve", and your further
clarification, i.e. that "all 15" would have to be signatories to
make it official raises other questions.
Barks: Considering the
difficulty you have had in answering the clear, plain questions that I have
already posed to you, I find it no stretch of the imagination that you would
have difficulty comprehending this very simple matter.
The policies and procedures
of the Church have evolved quite significantly since the prophet Joseph
organized the Church in 1830. Back then, the structure and organization of the
Church was in its infancy. It was refined and crafted by the Lord, as the
Church grew, by revelation through his living prophets, as can be seen
throughout the Doctrine and Covenants. To make the claim that because the Church
practices a policy now that it once didn’t, you are opening up yourself to a
veritable tidal wave of accusation when considering the practices and policies
of modern Christianity.
<< How many times did
Joseph Smith seek the approval of his underlings before giving a revelation or
doctrine? If Brigham Young, Gordon B Hinckley, and everyone else claims the
same office of authority that Joseph Smith had, why is such a precaution
necessary? >>
The Lord explained that it
was because His house was not a house of confusion, but a house of order. I
think the result of what you describe and the resulting aftermath can be
readily seen in the abysmal lack of unity among modern Christian sects.
Thomas: On that note, I
can't remember reading where Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or any other biblical
prophet for that matter, had to seek out signatures in order to make a
declaration to the people.
Barks: Gosh, on that note,
I can't remember reading where Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or any other biblical
prophet for that matter, embraced or taught the Nicene Trinitarian dogma, ex-nihilo
creation, sola scriptura, sola fidianism, original sin, or any of
the myriad of other non-Biblical doctrines that modern Christianity has
invented. What exactly is your point?
Thomas: Where in the
standard works does it list all of the qualifications you list? Where in the
Standard Works does it say all 15 have to sign a statement in order to decree
true doctrine?
Barks: Where in the Bible
is the Nicene Trinitarian dogma, ex-nihilo creation, sola scriptura,
sola fidianism, or original sin presented and taught? Again, what is
your point?
Thomas: Your qualifications
certainly go against the grain of D&C 21:4-5: "Wherefore,
meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which
he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and
faith." The prophet's commands are to be received as "he
receiveth them" not as the quorum of the 12 receives them.
Barks: Still erecting the
straw man, I see. Where did I suggest that the 12 received the revelation? The
prophet receives the revelation, and the 12 are entitled to a confirmation of
that revelation, as was the case with the Priesthood revelation in 1979. They,
as a quorum, attest to, and confirm, the reality of and the accuracy of, the
revelation or truth being presented to the Church for confirmation.
Thomas: I would further
observe that your example of an official statement is quite inadequate.
Barks: I am quite sorry. I
will try and use small words next time.
Thomas: The Proclamation to
the World on the Family, whilst no doubt containing commendable Christian
sentiments, and representing the LDS view, nevertheless hardly qualifies as an
example of Mormons being unerringly led by a prophet of God in matters of
correct doctrine and conduct.
Barks: How so? Who said
that prophets were infallible and "unerring"? What straw man standard
are you erecting NOW?
Thomas: Don’t forget that
my original question concerned LDS doctrine, not simple and safe policy
statements that straddle the Christian center right of American thinking.
Barks: Oh, I see. So, in
order for prophesy to be prophesy, or any communication for the Lord to be
authentic then, it must meet your standards of "uniqueness" and must
not be a clear, forthright statement or position. Got it. Where in the Bible is
this found again? Chapter and verse, if you don’t mind. I’m sure you’ll keep us
apprised of your work in removing a large portion of the Bible then as well,
since it is hardly "unique," and many parts of it (Proverbs spring to
mind) are "simple and safe policy statements that straddle the Christian
center right of American thinking." Please let us know which books and
passages make the "final cut" in your editing efforts, OK?
Thomas: I suppose your
answer can be said to be begging the question "where is the revelation in
the Mormon Church?" So far we have settled on the 4 Standard Works but,
outside of those, where can a person go to find accurate doctrine, accurate
understanding of what is in the heart of a Mormon when he believes? I am afraid
your answers, whilst no doubt well intended, have been too vague.
Barks: I’m afraid that
"vagueness" is in the eye of the beholder. When your entire mission
and purpose is to dredge up lies and misrepresentations about someone else’s
sacred beliefs, it should come as no shock to anyone that the truth would seem
"too vague." It is very difficult to revile against the truth in its
plainness and simplicity, as the widespread and dreadful failure of
anti-Mormons en masse is ample evidence of.
Thomas: I wish to address
your point about "seeing through a glass darkly". The reference is 1
Corinthians 13:9 and you seem to be using it to excuse the adumbration to which
I originally referred. This text, however, is a reference to knowledge of
Christ, which is now partial but will be complete. The "perfect" of
verse 10 is a reference to fulfillment, completeness or maturity and a contrast
is being made between the partial and the complete knowledge of Him. It is
nothing to do with puzzling over vague prophecies, or adumbrated pronouncements.
Barks: I can see that you
are as much a stranger to proper hermeneutics as you are to sound reason and
logic. 1 Cor 13:9 means exactly what I represented it to mean in context.
"Whether there be
knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be
done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For
now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part;
but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Cor 13:8-12)
There is no such
restriction contained in the context of this passage such as you ascribe to it
in your desperation to avoid its condemning stare. You still have not
adequately or "satisfactorily" addressed this issue. You have simply
attempted to sidestep it without giving even one valid reason for your
avoidance. This passage clearly does not speak ONLY of a knowledge of Christ,
but of knowledge in general.
Thomas: Furthermore, that
you should use this text at all in this way is most peculiar. Your church has
always despised Christian churches for "seeing through a glass
darkly", declaring that our knowledge is, at best, incomplete, at worst,
corrupt. The promise of Mormonism is clarity of vision and confidence in
guidance. Do you wish to work by our standards, as you see them, or by yours,
as declared by church leaders? You cannot have the penny and the bun.
Barks: Peculiar? Not at
all. Our Church has never "despised" other denominations. That is an
outright lie. We have despised the actions and behavior of those who used their
faith as a rationalization for their own evil behavior, and we have denounced
the corruption of the pure, simple doctrines of Christ taught in the Bible by
those who have another agenda. But as I reminded you previously, Joseph Smith
and many, many others, including Gordon B. Hinckley in his last general
conference address, had very positive things to say about honest Christians in
other denominations, and about those denominations themselves.
There is clarity of vision
and confidence in guidance in the LDS Church. There is very little, if any, of
the insidious and incessant bickering, backbiting, politicking and jockeying
for position within the LDS Church that exists in modern Christianity. That you
could with a straight face, compare the two is most remarkable. I think a
better question to ponder than the one you posed is "Do you wish to
second-guess God Himself and cling to your blatant hypocrisy in judging spiritual
matters, or are you willing to humble yourself and seek the truth wherever it
may be found"?
Thomas: I am struck by your
insistence that different levels of truth and understanding alone can account
for the plethora of contradictions, anomalies, and vagaries in LDS doctrine.
What deep spiritual insight can make sense of the apparent contradiction
between Alma 34:36 and D&C 130:3? Can a deeper understanding help me make
sense of the contradiction between Jacob 2:24 and D&C 132:1?
Barks: I’m afraid the
"insight" doesn’t have to be particularly deep to reconcile these
passages. David and Solomon had many wives and concubines that were given to
them from the Lord. Their sin was in seeking more, which the Lord did not give
them. For that, they were found guilty before God. What is your confusion in
this most simple example? Need I tutor you in this specific instance? I will,
if you wish. Let me know.
Thomas: Before you answer
that question you should know that no less and authority than Legrand Richards
said of this last mentioned contradiction:
"I am afraid I
can't adequately reconcile these two statements. If the one in the Doctrine and
Covenants had omitted the names of David and Solomon, then I think I could
reconcile the two statements."
Barks: As one who knew Bro.
Richards personally, I can authoritatively say, "Who cares?" And he
would undoubtedly agree. What does his lack of understanding of this issue have
to do with anything?
Thomas: Of course I am not
suggesting that there are not different levels of understanding and insight,
and yes I do apply exacting standards to my own faith and to the Bible, God's
word, in which I trust.
Barks: Good. Then I am most
interested in your answers to the many questions I have posed to date which you
have not answered.
Thomas: Neither do I
pretend that I have nothing to learn.
Barks: Baloney. Your
arrogant tone suggests exactly that.
Thomas: But neither do I
excuse my relative ignorance and occasional misunderstandings by claiming that
when you get to my level you will see as I do.
Barks: Is that truly the
inference that I made, or are you putting words in my mouth?
Thomas: Furthermore, the
standards which I apply to LDS doctrine and practice is the standard the Mormon
Church invites me to apply.
Barks: Is that how you rationalize
hypocrisy nowadays? Interesting. Very insightful.
Thomas: Having made a claim
to unerringly and consistently lead the Saints I expect unerring and consistent
leadership. When I do not see it, when I find the opposite, I feel I have the
right to point it out and call to account those who have made and broken such
promises. To paraphrase one Christian commentator, such men do not deserve the
devotion of their followers.
Barks: Nor, judging by your
profound lack of A) knowledge of the Bible, B) knowledge of sound logic and
reason, C) knowledge of Christian History, and D) knowledge of LDS Doctrine, do
you deserve the devotion of your followers, it seems.
Thomas: I would be glad if
you could, then, settle for me this issue of LDS doctrine.
Barks: I will certainly try.
Thomas: Is it only in the 4
Standard Works? >>
Barks: No, nor did I say
so. Go back and reread my previous answer.
Thomas: Are these
supplemented by living prophets and, if so, where can I find this "further
revelation"?
Barks: In statements signed
by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, which are then confirmed by
sustaining vote of the membership of the Church.
Thomas: If talks, writings,
pronouncements and interpretations by church leaders are merely speculation and
opinion on their part, may a Mormon safely ignore them confident of remaining
in good standing with the church?
Barks: Again, the straw
man. Do you never tire of logical fallacy? You are attempting to equate apples
and oranges here. For one to remain in "good standing" with the
church involves standards of personal worthiness of conduct, and acceptance and
support of the Brethren in their callings. It has nothing whatsoever to do with
the status of the Brethren’s statements in relation to whether they represent
official doctrine. One can certainly disagree with what they hear from the
writings of the general authority and remain a member in good standing. One
cannot, on the other hand, reject the official doctrine of the Church and be a
member in good standing.
Now. Shall we discuss, in
detail, the many, many contradictions and failed prophesies, and other errors
found in the Bible, and its subsequent implied impact on modern Christianity?
Please allow me to remind you… we are still waiting for your answers to my previous
questions. Please find the time to address them in detail. I would be most
grateful.
Sincerely,
D. L. Barksdale
President, FAIR
09
Dear Mr Barksdale
Let’s Get a Couple of Things Straight
Unique or United?
- "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not see itself as one Christian denomination among many, but rather as God's latter-day restoration of the fulness of Christian faith and practice. Thus, from its earliest days LDS Christians sought to distinguish themselves from Christians of other traditions. Other forms of Christianity, while bearing much truth and doing much good under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are viewed as incomplete, lacking the authority of the priesthood of God, the temple ordinances, the comprehensive understanding of the Plan of Salvation, and the nonparadoxical understanding of the Godhead. Therefore, the designation "saint" reflects attachment to the New Testament church, and also designates a difference from Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity in the current dispensation."
Of Course we Trust the Bible - Sort of…
1 Nephi 14:10
"What
is the church of the devil in our day, and where is the seat of her
power? ...It is all of the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that
perverted the pure and perfect gospel ...It is communism; it is Islam; it is
Buddhism;
it is modern Christianity in all its parts"
(Millennial Messiah,
pp.54-55).
"Possibly
the best single witness of the apostasy of New Testament Christianity is the
New Testament itself. The New Testament writers prophesied that the apostasy
would take place in the Church and that the Church in fact would be overcome
by it."(NB. An interesting interpretation in light of Matt.16:18.
Surely a more stark contradiction of Scripture would be difficult to find.)
Later
the same writer portrays "Satan [sitting] in the place of God in
Christianity after the time of the Apostles…"
"We
talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense…Myself and
hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and
what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol [sic]; it is as
corrupt as hell and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his
work." (Journal of Discourses, vol.6, p.167)
Rot? You May Have a Point
"Your
interest not in what the LDS Church embraces as official doctrine, but in the
unofficial and often spurious "everything else," is quite
disappointingly revealing. You obviously have no interest in understanding what
Latter-day Saints truly believe, but are simply rooting around in the refuse
dump of religious speculation for whatever stray bits of filth or contaminated
rot you may find to hold up as "representative" of that faith,
even though such samplings are clearly not."
"The
subject being taught in the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums and Relief Societies
of the church during the second and third Sundays of each month is the
Teachings of the Presidents of the Church. During the last two years we have
studied the teachings of President Brigham Young. For the next two years we will
be studying the teachings of President Joseph F. Smith, the 6th LDS President.
Prophet, Seer, Revelator?
"We
have large amounts of written historical material available to us, including
sermons of early Church leaders. These give us background that helps us
understand the early events of the Restoration…"
"There
are wonderful continuity and agreement of these teachings and those of the
current prophets."
Follow the Leader, or Follow the Lord?
"Would
it please you for us to hold up the rather "interesting" teachings of
Martin Luther regarding his belief that evil spirits could be exorcized by a
"mighty blast of flatulence" as representative of the collective
"doctrine" of all denominations that sprang forth from Luther’s
influence? Or would it be fair to ascribe his rabid anti-Semitism to all of
those same denominations simply because Luther quite openly taught hostility towards
the Jews? Or would it be more honest and even-handed to accept what those
denominations claimed to be their authoritative source of doctrine in order to
really understand their true theology?"
Racism? Do you Really Want to go There?
Is there any reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life
is not a reflection of the worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent
life?...We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our
pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as
Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments... (Mark E. Petersen, Race Problems-As
They Affect The Church)
Though he was a rebel and an associate of Lucifer in pre-existence, and
though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain managed
to attain the privilege of mortal birth... he came out in open rebellion,
fought God, worshipped Lucifer, and slew Abel...
And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced
upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that
seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the
devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God. (JOD. vol.22. p.304)
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the
white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain,
the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. (JOD, vol.10, p.110)
Would
it please you for us to hold up the rather "interesting" teachings of
Martin Luther regarding his belief that evil spirits could be exorcized by a
"mighty blast of flatulence" as representative of the collective
"doctrine" of all denominations that sprang forth from Luther’s
influence? Or would it be fair to ascribe his rabid anti-Semitism to all of
those same denominations simply because Luther quite openly taught hostility
towards the Jews? Or would it be more honest and even-handed to accept what
those denominations claimed to be their authoritative source of doctrine in
order to really understand their true theology?
Anti-Mormon?
As
far as "demonis[ing]"[sic] you as an "anti-Mormon," one
could ask you a couple of revealing questions. Are you in opposition to Mormon
doctrine? Have you not established an entire "ministry" for the
purpose of "exposing" or "witnessing" against the doctrines
of the LDS Church? Does that not, in fact, make you an "anti-Mormon"
in the same sense that such activities, directed against Jewish people, for
instance, would make one "anti-Semitic"? If you do not like the
title, Mr. Thomas, a very pertinent question to ponder might be, "Why do I
do those things that quite appropriately earn me that title"?
"We
talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense…it is as corrupt
as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than
the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (Journal of Discourses,
vol.6, p.167)
"…all
other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God…Both the
Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the
Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the
earth by their fornications and wickednesses." (The Seer, pg.255)
"[Nephi]
designated the Catholic Church as 'the mother of harlots' (1 Nephi 13:34;
14:15-17), a title which means that the protestant churches, the harlot
daughters which broke off from the great and abominable church, would
themselves be apostate churches." (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, pp 314-15)
Anti-Christian?
"Are
you in opposition to Mormon doctrine? Have you not established an entire
"ministry" for the purpose of "exposing" or
"witnessing" against the doctrines of the LDS Church? Does that not,
in fact, make you an "anti-Mormon" in the same sense that such activities,
directed against Jewish people, for instance, would make one
"anti-Semitic"? If you do not like the title, Mr. Thomas, a very
pertinent question to ponder might be, "Why do I do those things that
quite appropriately earn me that title"?"
History or Revisionism?
"Some
things that are true are not very useful.
Historians
seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates
a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason,
historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living
person it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading
as gossip and much more difficult—often impossible—to verify." (Boyd K.
Packer, Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled, p. 106)
"The
question that lingers in my mind in reading your accusation above, Mr. Thomas,
is whether you are being patently hypocritical in raising this issue at all.
Tell me. Are you teaching your youth that they can get rid of evil spirits by a
"mighty blast of flatulence," and that they should hate and murder
Jews? Why not? That clearly is your doctrine (by your standards of determining
such, that is), and to withhold these ‘truths’ from them is very sinister and
evil, is it not? Withholding these facts surely doesn’t teach your tender youth
ALL of the documented history of their faith, does it? Why are you not teaching
them the Christian motives behind the witch-hunts of the 17th and 18th
centuries, Mr. Thomas? The Inquisition? Sale of Indulgences? Why not? Could it
possibly be that even though these events are a true part of history that they
are not very valuable in building the faith of these young men and women? What
say you, Mr. Thomas?"
History or Gossip?
Thomas:-The
[Mormon] church's test, then, of whether to tell the story of Mormonism is
whether what you tell promotes the Mormon faith and engenders faith amongst
it's members. If the truth does not promote faith then it is best to protect
people from it. The clear implication here is that the obverse is also true,
i.e. if a lie promotes faith then there is no harm in telling it. This is an
inference that was clearly taken to heart by the late Mormon leader Paul H Dunn
whose Early Life and War Experiences proved to be less than scrupulous.
How Dare You Say that we Worship a Different Jesus
When Everyone Knows That we Do!
"Please
elaborate on why this would be "strange." Are statements made in
interviews by leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention here in America to the
press "official statements of doctrine" accepted by all Baptists,
simply because they are acting in an "official capacity"? Are they
considered the same weight as scripture? Why the hypocrisy here, Mr. Thomas?
Again, you are quite noticeably erecting a huge straw man that has no basis in
reality."
I Believe in…Uhm…?
This is Official - and Safe
"The
Proclamation to the World on the Family, whilst no doubt containing commendable
Christian sentiments, and representing the LDS view, nevertheless hardly
qualifies as an example of Mormons being unerringly led by a prophet of God in
matters of correct doctrine and conduct."
"How
so? Who said that prophets were infallible and "unerring"? What straw
man standard are you erecting NOW?"
"Since
that Momentous day in 1820, additional scripture has continued to come,
including the numerous and vital revelations flowing in a never-ending stream
from God to his prophets on the earth…
"Certainly
not to those who truly do understand LDS beliefs. In fact, the
only ones I have *ever* heard echo this sentiment were anti-Mormons, who had a
definite agenda to advance. :)"
Perhaps
you have changed your mind?
Prophets Ain’t What They Used to Be
"Since
that Momentous day in 1820, additional scripture has continued to
come, including the numerous and vital revelations flowing in a never-ending
stream from God to his prophets on the earth…revelation continues
and that the vaults and files of the Church contain these revelations which
come month to month and day to day. We testify also that there is, since 1830
when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, and will
continue to be, so long as time shall last, a prophet, recognized of God and
his people, who will continue to interpret the mind and will of the Lord"
(See above)?
"The
policies and procedures of the Church have evolved quite significantly since
the prophet Joseph organized the Church in 1830. Back then, the structure and
organization of the Church was in its infancy. It was refined and crafted by
the Lord, as the Church grew, by revelation through his living prophets, as
can be seen throughout the Doctrine and Covenants."
Through a Glass Darkly?
Sincerely
M Thomas
The Reachout Story
is a
short biographical piece on the Reachout Trust.