Best wishes, 
Daniel Peterson

[SHIELDS note:  This may be a truncated version of this e-mail.]

Mr. Harris:

Do not attempt to deceive yourself.  Do not play games with US.  There is no "reply" to be made on the question of whether Latter-day Saints believe Joseph Smith to be as important as Jesus Christ, other than to concede that your accusation is false and to withdraw it. 

The first of the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

There is no mention of Joseph Smith in the first Article of Faith. 

The fourth of the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says, "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:  first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Please notice what is identified as the first principle of the Gospel.  Then read through the others, and notice that Joseph Smith is not mentioned in the fourth Article of Faith.

Acknowledge your error or your deception -- call it what you choose -- and withdraw it.  That is the only honest course open to you.  If you persist in a despicably and manifestly false claim, you will reap the reputation such unethical behavior deserves.

Daniel Peterson

Response from Harris missing

Mr. Harris:

As we noted in the first and second installments of this discussion, virtually nothing that you have sent to us has the slightest connection with the issue that we are discussing.  That issue, you may remember, is whether Joseph Smith is regarded by the Latter-day Saints as holding an importance equal to the importance of Jesus Christ, or whether their Church teaches them so to regard him.  You say that the Latter-day Saints DO hold Joseph Smith to be as important as Jesus -- or, at least, that this is the teaching of the Church.  On the other hand, the Latter-day Saints themselves deny holding any such belief, they deny that their Church teaches or has taught any such belief, and, what is more, the evidence clearly shows that your allegation is false. 

In justification of your false claim, you sent a long posting containing, thus far, a large number of utter irrelevancies.

Let us now proceed with further examination of your attempt to legitimate your untrue accusation against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

*** PETERSON: In order to save time, I will not summarize or quote all of the things you say, but will merely note the following:
(a) Even were it true that Adam cannot be justifiably termed a “prophet,” and that the Latter-day Saints are mistaken on this minor issue, that would have no relevance whatever, none at all, to the question we are discussing.  And that question is, you may perhaps recall, whether they think Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.
(b) Even if it were true that Adam did not hold the priesthood, and that the Latter-day Saints are mistaken on this quite minor issue, that fact would be irrelevant to the question under consideration here, which is whether they regard Joseph Smith as being of equal importance with Jesus Christ.
(c) Whether or not Joseph Smith was a literal descendant of Aaron, and whether or not that matters, has nothing whatever to do with the question at issue here.  You recall, I hope, what that question is.
(d) Whether John the Baptist held the priesthood or not, and whether Peter, James, and John held the priesthood or not, is of no significance at all with respect to the question we are discussing.
(e) Whatever the relationship between the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods might be, whatever the proper interpretation of the epistle to the Hebrews, whether or not we agree with your view that the Aaronic priesthood is obsolete, none of these matters has any bearing on the question under consideration here, which is -- and I think I had better restate it, so that we don’t lose our focus -- whether your accusation is true that Latter-day Saints hold Joseph Smith to be as important as Jesus Christ.
(f) Whether or not the current First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ is spiritual or not has nothing whatever to do with your claim that we accord equal importance to the Savior and to Joseph Smith.
(g) Whether Brigham Young taught the so-called “Adam-God” doctrine or not, and what that doctrine really means, are interesting and disputed questions.  But they have nothing to do with the issue we are discussing, which is your false and deceptive claim that Latter-day Saints believe Joseph to be as important as Jesus.
(h) Whatever Joseph Smith and Brigham Young may or may not have believed about extraterrestrial biology, and whether or not they claimed to have received revelations on the subject, has nothing whatever to do with the question at issue.  Do you recall what it is?
(i) Alterations in the liturgy of the temple, whether done by revelation or by whim, have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
(j) Past and present views of race have absolutely no connection with the subject of Joseph Smith’s importance relative to Jesus Christ.  (Which is, you remember, the issue we are treating.)
(k) Your debatable assertions about the current status of the Journal of Discourses (which, incidentally, include no sermons by Joseph Smith) have no relevance to the relative importance of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ in Latter-day Saint doctrine.
(l) Your questionable assertions about the current status and reputation of Elder Bruce R. McConkie (who, incidentally, was not Joseph Smith) are of utterly no relevance to the question of whether Latter-day Saints think Joseph Smith was as important as Jesus Christ.
(m) Book of Mormon archaeology, although it is a fascinating topic, says nothing about whether the Church of Jesus Christ exalts Joseph Smith to a status equal to that of the Savior.

Thus, you see, you have continued to spew out irrelevancies that in no way justify your false, deceptive, and misleading charge against the Latter-day Saints.  They take up a lot of space, and they take some time to read, but they have nothing whatever to do with your claim.

*** HARRIS: “I would finally point out the wording of the typical Mormon testimony: ‘I bear you my testimony that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, that a living prophet stands at the head of the church and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church on the earth today.’  This is a testimony about Joseph, not Jesus!”

*** PETERSON: Do you not feel just a bit self-conscious about having yourself fabricated the evidence that you wish to plant against the Latter-day Saints?  At least in American courts of law, such evidence is illegitimate, would subject the person who invented it to criminal charges (e.g., perjury), and would almost certainly result in the acquittal of the defendant.  (We had a famous case here recently, concerning murder accusations against one O. J. Simpson, that unfortunately turned on just that kind of issue.)

On the basis of what studies and surveys do you conclude that what you have written -- what YOU have written, note! -- is “the typical Mormon testimony”?  Where is the evidence?  Where are the statistics?  (I note in passing that even if it WERE “the typical Mormon testimony,” it would be impossible to hold such a testimony without at the same time having a testimony of Jesus Christ, for the truth of the Book of Mormon directly implies the divinity and atonement of Jesus, as do the prophethood of Joseph Smith and his successors and the truth of the Church they have directed.)

I deny that what you self-servingly offer is “the typical Mormon testimony.”  Having heard literally hundreds if not thousands of them, having expressed such testimony myself, I can speak with some authority on this subject.  What you have written, what you have created to make us look bad, is a figment of your hostile, anti-Mormon (certainly non-Mormon) imagination.  What would you think if I had invented a fictional “typical fundamentalist Protestant witness” about the truth of the Bible, etc., but had omitted Jesus Christ -- and then pointed to that as proof that fundamentalists worship the Bible rather than God?  You would dismiss it, rather passionately, as a self-serving lie.  And rightly so.  Would you recognize me as able to issue authoritative statements, on my own, with no quotations, with no supporting documentation, of fundamentalist or evangelical belief?  Would you permit me to make statements in the first person, as if I were an evangelical, and then attribute them to real evangelicals?  I don’t think so.  So why should anybody read something of your composition as expressing the Latter-day Saint view?  Why should anybody read your bogus first-person testimony as if it really came from a Latter-day Saint rather than, as it does, from an avowed enemy of Latter-day Saint faith?

I have dealt with this issue of "the typical Mormon testimony" -- and, unlike you, have supplied some real empirical evidence to support my position -- in a review that you can access via the internet at http://farms.byu.edu/free/review/10_1/r10a.asp?content=dcp.  

So, once again, we have nothing but irrelevancies in your argumentation thus far -- except on your claim regarding Latter-day Saint testimony, where we have a form of fraud.

You are wrong.  Have the grace and the integrity to admit it.  Give up your useful, satisfying, wonderfully shocking accusation.  It will weaken your case against the Latter-day Saints, true, but think of the bracing sense of honesty that you will feel when you know you have done the right thing.  Do it now.  Don't delay your repentance.

Sincerely,
Daniel Peterson

Mr. Harris:

As a self-styled Christian apologist you have been corresponding with members of the Church of Jesus Christ on behalf of Reachout Trust for some time, challenging what we do and say, and defiantly posting untruths on your web site.  Sadly, although on first sight your pages look impressive, with citations from serious and interesting sources, you seem willing to post just about any nonsense on your site as long as it shows the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a poor light.  This undermines your credibility enormously.  Your glorying in what can only be called “cheap shots” does you no credit and is simply an attempt to demonize the Latter-day Saints in the eyes of your more gullible readers.  Those of us who have studied Mormonism for many years are familiar with your “don't trouble me with logic or evidence or expert testimony” approach to debate.  Nevertheless, hope springs eternal and it is in that spirit that I have posted this series of replies to some of the points you raise.

(Do you recognize that language?)

Do you remember the topic we have been considering?  It is whether or not Latter-day Saints teach or are taught by their Church that Joseph Smith is equally important with Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God and our Redeemer.

You will recall that, to this point, virtually none of the evidence or arguments you have presented has had the remotest relevance to the question at issue.  And the one or two items that HAVE had some slight discernible relevance have been false or fraudulent.

Keep these two facts in mind as we continue our discussion of your false accusation: (1) We are talking about the status of Joseph Smith within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Is it equal to that of Jesus Christ, or is it not?  (2) You have presented absolutely nothing thus far to legitimate your slander against the Latter-day Saints.

This will be your last tutorial for a couple of days, as I will be away from home.  You would do well to use that period for reflection and moral self-inspection.  When I return, I will have at least one more installment for you to consider.

Let us now proceed to your further argument:

You begin by discussing the topic of “Joseph Smith and the final judgement.”

*** HARRIS: “I have no problem in agreeing with you that in certain circumstances and specific situations mentioned in the Bible there would be those involved in judging others. However, whatever preamble you give to the matter the point in the end is whether Joseph Smith can have the position given to him and whether such claims make Joseph Smith equal with Jesus Christ.”

*** PETERSON: Good.  You grant that, biblically, certain people will be involved in judging others.  I have surveyed some of the other correspondence that has been sent to you from Latter-day Saints, and they have made this case well.  You are right to agree with them.

You then say that “the point in the end is whether Joseph Smith can have the position given to him and whether such claims make Joseph Smith equal with Jesus Christ.”

This is not really true.  At least, no conceivable answer to either of those questions seems likely to validate your false accusation that Latter-day Saints regard Joseph Smith as equal to Jesus Christ.  Permit me to explain why:  You concede that “in certain circumstances and specific situations mentioned in the Bible there would be those involved in judging others.”  I assume that you do not believe that those people, by virtue of that function, are equal to Jesus Christ in importance.  If you do not, there seems no reasonable ground for you to claim that, by according Joseph Smith a similar role, Latter-day Saints exalt him to a status equal with Christ.  That being the case, the question of whether or not Joseph Smith actually deserves such a role is beside the point, for even if we think he does that would not make him equal with Christ.

*** HARRIS: “Now I live in this dispensation and I believe in Jesus Christ and have committed my life to Him.  I serve Him, follow Him and believe that the promise He made that those who follow Him will be with Him where He is.  Even if He hands my judgement to others the BASIS for the judgement does not change.  Whether I stand before Jesus or a representative the same basis will be in operation.  Have I given my life to Him and have I come into the reality of the situation?  Do I know that my sins have been atoned for at Calvary and there is nothing else I can do but receive His free gift via repentance?  I need no other mediator; the representative will not ask me if I accept the Archbishop of Canterbury or John Wesley or Peter or James or John or Joseph Smith but did I accept Jesus - HIM ALONE.”

*** PETERSON: No Latter-day Saint is likely to grant your implication here that, with Joseph Smith, the basis for judgment has changed.  That is YOUR notion, and, as I mentioned in a previous posting to you, you should not assault us for your ideas, nor should you plant evidence on the scene and then try to convict us because of your fabricated "clues."

Suppose, though, that someone comes to the judgment bar and says, “Yes, I believe in Jesus.  But I am not beholden to Peter or James or John.  I just invent my own notions of Jesus, occasionally based on the Aquarian Gospel and the URANTIA Volume, mixed with a little Edgar Cayce, but usually just spun out of my own imagination.”  Do you think that, if we wish to be saved, we can simply ignore God’s revelation to us?  That we can set scripture aside?  (If so, on what basis can you possibly criticize the Latter-day Saints even if, for the sake of argument, our views are unbiblical?  After all, as you put it, we aren’t going to be asked if we accept Peter or James or John, just Jesus.  And Latter-day Saints do accept Jesus.)

*** HARRIS: “Now let us come to the scenario that Brigham Young put forward.  As I am in this last dispensation to get into the celestial kingdom and be with Christ forever I will not be judged by Jesus Christ but by Joseph Smith who Jesus has given the authority to.”

*** PETERSON: Even assuming that your sketch of “the scenario that Brigham Young put forward” is accurate, doesn’t it strike you as significant that, as you yourself put it, it is “Jesus [who] has given the authority to” Joseph Smith, and not the other way around?  Doesn’t that seem to imply inequality in status?  Doesn't it clearly make Jesus superior to Joseph?

*** HARRIS:

“What will He ask me to ensure I can go through?
“JS. ‘Do you believe in the atoning work of Jesus Christ?’
“ME. ‘Yes I do can I do in please?’
“JS. ‘Not yet there is one more question - do you believe in the testimony that I wrote concerning Christ?’
“ME. ‘No because it contradicted what I read in the Bible - can I go in please?’
“JS. ‘No I will not sign your passport.’
“ME. ‘But the Bible tells me that the only judgement for entering the best Kingdom with Jesus is to believe in His atonement surely then I can go in.’
“JS. ‘No, Christ gave the keys to me and I have added some of my own conditions!’”

*** PETERSON: Very convincing.  I suppose that you claim this is based on Brigham Young’s statement in Journal of Discourses 14:203. 

But it is not.  It is fiction.  It is pure projection of your hostile misreading of Latter-day Saint doctrine onto the Latter-day Saints.  It is yet another instance of evidence-tampering, very much of a piece with your fraudulent, forged “typical Mormon testimony.”

Notice, by the way, that even in your spurious bit of pseudo-evidence “Christ gave the keys to [Joseph Smith],” and not the other way around.  Even when you are busy forging misleading and fraudulent “evidence” against him, even YOU know that Joseph Smith is not, in Latter-day Saint understanding, on the same level of importance with the Savior.

But there is another, crucial, problem with your manufactured proof:  No informed Latter-day Saint would agree to your claim that Joseph Smith simply, whimsically, “added some of [his] own conditions” for salvation.  Yet that is the crucial part of the passage for your argument, such as it is, and you have invented it and attempted to stick it in the mouth of Joseph Smith.  Having thus introduced your bogus evidence, you then triumphantly conclude, from that evidence, that your bogus claim is true:

*** HARRIS: “Joseph Smith is making himself equal to Christ because he is changing the BASIS of the judgement that Christ laid down.”

*** PETERSON: No, Doug Harris is unethically attempting to portray Joseph Smith as equal to Christ in Latter-day Saint doctrine by inventing non-existent statements and fraudulently placing them on the lips of the Prophet.  “That is a very serious matter.”

*** HARRIS: “I can reject the testimony of Joseph Smith because it disagrees with the testimony and foundation of Jesus Christ.”

*** PETERSON: That may well be your opinion, but you have no right to invent fictitious evidence in order to buttress your notions and thereby convince the uninformed.  Besides, even if Joseph Smith’s teachings did disagree with those of the Savior, it would not prove that his followers regarded him as of equal importance with Jesus.  (And that, you may perhaps remember, is the question under discussion here.)

*** HARRIS: “The ETERNAL word of God is for all dispensations including mine.  But now I am told that confessing Christ is not enough for this generation I also have to confess Joseph Smith and if I do not do this then I am not of God but ‘anti-christ.’”

*** PETERSON: Again I ask you: If someone were to say, “I believe in Jesus but I reject the New Testament and I hold the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in contempt because they disagree with the Old Testament, would that person be a Christian?  Would that person be saved?  Do you really believe that it is possible to be saved while rejecting God’s revelation and God’s scripture?

Obviously, I am well aware that you do not accept the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price as scripture.  But that is a secondary issue.  If they are scripture, can you ignore them?  Can you, with impunity, tell God to go take a hike?

The ancient Christian heretical sect known as the Marcionites accepted only the gospel of Luke, and rejected the other three gospels.  They also rejected the Old Testament, and vilified Jehovah or Yahweh as a lesser, evil god.  But they accepted Jesus.  Do you think they were saved?  If you do, why cannot the Latter-day Saints also be saved?  Their deviations from your version of Christianity are no more serious than were the Marcionites’.  If you do not, why not?  Could it be that you are adding conditions to salvation?

For that matter, I and millions of other Latter-day Saints confess Christ, accept him as Savior, believe that he atoned for our sins and rose again from the tomb on the third day.  If that is not enough for salvation, aren’t you adding to the requirements and setting yourself up as equal to the Savior?  And if that IS enough, why are you campaigning against the Latter-day Saints and spreading untruths about them?

*** HARRIS: “Whatever you try to say to the contrary for the millions of Christians in this world that want to enter God's kingdom and receive the reward they have been promised Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.”

*** PETERSON: This may be the key statement in your entire catalog of irrelevancies, frauds, and misinterpretations.  Whatever we try to say to the contrary, your mind is made up.  No evidence will convince you.  No quantity of denials, however sincere, will sway you from your determined course.  You know more about our faith than we do.  And you hate it.  And you will stop at nothing to depict it as evil and alien.  And you are restrained by no considerations of honesty or charity in your holy crusade.  (It certainly is an attractive picture of Christianity in action, Mr. Harris!)

*** HARRIS: “The Mormon canon of scripture is not a complete canon but a founding canon, clearly identified as the “standard works” of the church, but the whole canon is not fixed since it is purported to include further revelations and announcements up to the present day.  Hence the statement, “The most important prophet, so far as we are concerned, is the one living in our day and age.”  This makes Gordon Hinckley and the rest of the ‘general authorities’ of the church more important to current church members than Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Peter James and John, or even Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  ‘Watch the prophet’ is the phrase sometimes used.”

*** PETERSON: This is somewhat distorted.  But even if it were true, it would prove nothing concerning your claim that Joseph Smith, in Latter-day Saint opinion, is as important as the Son of God.  It is, as so very, very much of your "evidence" has been, completely irrelevant and beside the point.

*** HARRIS: “Where are we to look then when we wish to know ‘what Mormons believe’?  Perhaps the writings of apologists like Dr. Stephen E Robinson of Brigham Young University might help us.  He is certainly the flavour of the month as author of Are Mormons Christians? and co-author of How wide the Divide?  No help here I am afraid.  In the first mentioned volume he writes in the preface, “It should be understood that I do not speak officially for the LDS church or for Brigham Young University.”  Perhaps we can look to Mike Parker for some authoritative teaching on Mormonism?  No luck here either I am afraid.  A similar disclaimer is found on the Mike Parker LDS Library, ‘Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its presiding authorities.’”

*** PETERSON: Talk about “flavor of the month”!  This claim of doctrinal chaos among the Latter-day Saints is very much in vogue these days among anti-Mormons such as yourself.  (And, yes, I have read your claim that “anti-Mormons” don’t exist.  Nice try.)  But it is the anti-Mormons who see it, not the Latter-day Saints.  I am quite comfortable with the remarkable degree of doctrinal consensus that exists across the Church (at least on the four continents where I have held Church membership and leadership positions).  Once again, we seem to have manufactured and self-serving “evidence” being advanced by our critics.

But here’s a question for you:  I know that Michael Parker has told you that your claim of equality in status between Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ is false.  But what about Stephen Robinson?  Does HE admit that Jesus and Joseph are of equal importance?  Can you find that teaching in his writing?  What do you think he would say, if he were asked about it?  (I would be happy to ask him.  He is a friend of mine.  I know full well what he would say about the accusation, and about someone like you who advanced it.  Dr. Robinson can be withering.)

*** HARRIS: “So you see, when a Mormon jumps up and declares ‘but I don't believe that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus,’ he must of course be believed.  We must also believe, however, that he does not speak for the church and therefore is only an authority on what is both Mr Robinson's and Mr Parker's favourite subject – ‘what I believe.’  He is not an authority on ‘what Mormons believe.’  That honour is claimed and jealously guarded by a group of elderly gentlemen in Salt Lake City.  We will then continue to quote them, and their predecessors, and show the world ‘what a tangled web [they] weave.’”

*** PETERSON: I am rather surprised that you would cite the line about the tangled webs people weave when they practice to deceive, since it so accurately characterizes what you have attempted to do with your false accusation against the Latter-day Saints.

Do you REALLY think that you are a greater authority on “what Mormons believe” than the Mormons are?  What incredible anti-Mormon chutzpah!

*** HARRIS: “Meanwhile it should be categorically understood that many [Latter-day Saints] do not believe that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.”

*** PETERSON:  Many?  What a laugh.  Your statement here is true, but misleading.  It is as if I were to say that most British evangelicals are not serial murderers.  It falsely implies, but does not come right out and culpably say, that a substantial number of British evangelicals ARE serial murderers.  It is a method of suggesting an untruth without actually stating it and being held accountable for it.  In your case, it is more subtle than your brazen falsehood on the relative importance of Jesus and Joseph in Latter-day Saint thinking, but, ethically, it is not really much superior.

*** HARRIS: “Furthermore, it is the opinion of some that no Mormon of his acquaintance believes it and he further believes, in his own opinion, that should any Mormon subscribe to and teach it then they would be in danger of excommunication from the church.”

*** PETERSON: That is my firm opinion.  Indeed, I know it for a fact to be true.  You have offered not a shred of contrary evidence, except a few easily detected frauds.  I guess I am supposed to bow before your superior knowledge of Latter-day Saint doctrine and practice? 

Well, I suppose that is enough for now.  You have still offered nothing that would justify your libel against the Latter-day Saints, nothing that would legitimate your false accusation, nothing that would remove the guilty stain of unethical behavior that now mars you and your "ministry," nothing that would excuse your unchristian behavior in this matter.  Your mischaracterization of “the typical Mormon testimony” was an irresponsible slander against a people who have done you no wrong, and who do not deserve your false witness against them.

Repent.  Now.  Cleanse your soul of falsehood.  Tell the truth, or at least stop telling lies.  If you intend to persist in such foul behavior, please do not do so any longer in the sacred name of Jesus of Nazareth.

Sincerely,
Daniel Peterson

"Dear Dan:

"I remember writing the piece for the ENSIGN that you sent to me.   Obviously I never intended anyone to suppose that I meant that Joseph Smith's blood was shed for the remission of sins, or that Latter-day Saints esteem Brother Joseph to be other than a prophet-leader, the head of the final dispensation.  Moses stood in a mediational role with ancient Israel, not in the sense that he was their Savior or Redeemer, but rather in the sense that God had called him as a covenant spokesman, someone to speak to the people on his behalf.  So it was with Joseph Smith.  He was a man, a mortal man, but a man called and empowered of God.  We do not worship Joseph Smith, but we do admire him, love him, and deeply appreciate him for what God made known through him and for the fact that he sealed his testimony of the Savior with his own blood.  That blood was not shed to ransom or redeem anyone, for that power is found only in the precious blood of Christ.  Joseph Smith's blood reminds us of the price that must occasionally be paid by the Lord's chosen servants to declare the truth.

"I hope these brief comments help to clarify our position toward Joseph Smith.

"Robert L. Millet"

So here you have Robert Millet, one of the specific victims of your slander, expressly denying that Joseph Smith is equal to Jesus Christ.  You cannot quibble with me about my interpretation of Professor Millet's remarks, for it is not mine; he has given it to you himself.

If you are serious about "“allowing Joseph Smith's followers to explain what they think of him,” you will remove your unethical misrepresentation of Dr. Millet from your web page.  You will drop it from your argument to us, from your vain endeavor to justify your deceptive accusation against the Latter-day Saints.

Indeed, if you are serious about "“allowing Joseph Smith's followers to explain what they think of him,” you will no longer claim that they believe him to be equal to Jesus Christ.  You have no evidence to support that malicious charge.  You have no justification for persisting in it.  You are engaging in character assassination.  Stop it.  Repent now.

Sincerely,
Daniel Peterson

Original Attachment File:
BYU Takes up Cudgels1.doc

Finally I bear you my testimony that there is but one God, eternal, unchangeable, and that Jesus is who the Bible says he is, Emmanuel, God with us. That all men, Joseph included will stand before this righteous God and judge and give an account of all they have claimed and done, even in his name. At that time no amount of tithing, temple work, faithful church attendance or sacrifice will count. Only by throwing ourselves on his mercy, and relying on the blood of His Son shed for sinners at Calvary, can we be saved and counted "worthy". Only those who have built with silver and gold, who have declared, "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness" will enter the celestial kingdom of God. All who have built with the wood and straw of good works and righteous acts, depended upon vain genealogies and secret rites, and sought to "earn" blessings by attempting to keep the laws upon which they are "predicated", will swiftly know the folly of their ways. Not for them a lower "degree of glory", or lesser "reward". For those who truly know him will be with him while those who reject him will be rejected of him and spend eternity with their father, the devil. I say these things in true earnest, with a sincere heart, understanding the grave nature of the issues we are addressing, and in the name of the one true God and his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Mr. Harris:

I had intended to conclude our tutorial with this posting, but your recent form letter will prolong this series by at least one message.

I note with interest, too, your suggestion that I not be “so aggressive.”  I am not “aggressive.”  You attack my faith; I do not attack yours, nor do I even know precisely what your faith is, nor do I care.  I do not run a web site or a ministry devoted to assaulting your religious beliefs.  I do not picket or pass out leaflets at the dedication of new fundamentalist Protestant buildings.  I do not make demonstrably false allegations about fundamentalist Protestant dogma, and stick to them against protest and evidence.

As we have discussed in our previous installments, your allegation that the Church of Jesus Christ holds Joseph Smith to be as important as the Savior is, simply and beyond reasonable dispute, false.  (And that, you will recall, is the issue we are discussing.  Not Joseph’s allegedly false prophecies, not questions about the priesthood, not tiny and disputable matters of biblical interpretation, and not even the many other false, misleading, and distorted claims of your web site.)  “We allow his followers to explain what they think of him,” your web site disingenuously says, while obstinately refusing to do anything of the kind.  If you really allowed members of the Church of Jesus Christ to explain what they think of Joseph Smith, you would not be making the deceptive, insulting allegations that you do.

Let us now proceed to a scrutiny of some more of the arguments you advance to legitimate your false witness against the Latter-day Saints:

*** HARRIS: “So we come back again to the question ‘which LDS writer has claimed that the Mormon Church believes Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ?’”

*** PETERSON: The correct answer, of course, is that this is merely a trick question, since NO Latter-day Saint writer has ever claimed that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ. 

In one of your web site’s honest moments, after a rather lengthy exhibition of irrelevancies and excursions that generate much confusion but little light, it admits “we did not quote any source as saying it.”  That, of course, is a very important confession.  It ought to caution you that what you are doing is dishonest.  Unfortunately, though, you are determined to persist in what must be one of the most gratifyingly damaging accusations you have been able to invent against the faith of the Latter-day Saints, and you ignore your own revealing confession.

Indeed, you imply previously that Joseph Smith himself said it, although you can muster no statement -- not a single one! -- where he did.  We shall now examine the quotations that you marshal in support of your calumny against the Latter-day Saints:

* “I combat the errors of the ages; I meet the violence of the mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth diamond-truth; and God is my ‘right hand man’”  - History of the Church vol.5, p.467.

*** PETERSON: This apparently boastful comment is largely irrelevant to the question at issue, which is (you may recall) whether the Church of Jesus Christ regards Joseph Smith as being equal to Jesus Christ.  For a claim to fight error does not make one equal with Christ.  (Presumably that is what you think YOU are doing, it is not?  Does that make you equal with the Savior?  Does it mean that you claim such equality?  I think not.)  Nor does an assertion that one has to deal with anti-Mormon mob violence make one equal with Christ, nor imply any claim to be such.  Nor does an ability to deal with judicial tyranny or abuses of police power have anything to do with being, or claiming to be, equal with Christ.  Cutting “the gordian knot of powers” is admittedly rather vague, but does not seem translatable, even loosely, into “I am equal with Jesus Christ.”  Mathematical expertise is a good thing, and presumably God is fairly good at mathematics, but, once again, it doesn’t seem to say that Joseph is of equal stature with the Redeemer.

Finally, however, we reach a statement where Joseph could be seen as exalting himself to a status of rough equality with the Savior, when he says that God is his “right hand man.”

It seems a rather strong statement -- although it should be pointed out, as your web site acknowledges, that it does not actually say that Joseph is as important as Jesus.  A friend, aware of your use of this passage, asks a significant question:  If it could be shown that a biblical figure made a similar statement, would that indicate that he was claiming equality with God?  This is not merely a hypothetical inquiry.  In Psalm 16:8, David says: “I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.”  And my friend also reports seeing, as I have, automobile bumper stickers here in the United States, on vehicles presumably owned and driven by evangelical Protestants, proclaiming “God is my co-pilot.”

If such statements indicate that these evangelical Protestants believe themselves to be equal with God, I would suggest that you retire from anti-Mormonism and devote yourself to cleaning up your own back yard, where there seems to be a problem of immense and blasphemous proportions.

Here is another statement from the Prophet that you want to use to demonstrate that the Church of Jesus Christ proclaims Joseph Smith to be as important as the Savior:

* “If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster; I shall always beat them... I have more to boast of than any man had.  I am the only man that has been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam.  A large majority of the whole have stood by me.  Neither Paul, John, Peter nor Jesus ever did. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I.  The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day saints never ran away from me yet.”  (History of the Church vol.6, pp.408-9.)

*** PETERSON: While this statement may seem vain and boastful, it cannot, even if it is taken at face value or in its most obnoxious sense, conceivably demonstrate that Latter-day Saints believe Joseph Smith to be of equal importance with Jesus Christ.

What Joseph Smith seems to be saying here is that among the various heads of dispensations -- who, as heads of dispensations, occupy positions of equal status under the Lord, just as department heads enjoy equal status under the overall boss -- he was more successful in keeping a church going than any other.  Note the limited character of the claim:  He does not say that he has atoned for anybody’s sin.  He does not claim to be a mediator.  He does not say that he is the overall boss.  He does not say that he is to be worshiped.  He does not say that he is the divine Son and Savior.  Keeping a church together is a nice achievement, but it does not, by itself, save.  If there were no atonement, keeping a church together would have no value or purpose whatever.  Whose Church was it, after all?  It was and is the Church of Jesus Christ, never the Church of Joseph Smith.  And isn’t part of the credit for the church’s staying together, as Joseph expresses it, really due to his followers, rather than to him?

But there is something more to be said about the apparent boastfulness manifested in this quotation.  Even in the History of the Church (where it occurs at 6:408-409), the passage is described as resting upon a “synopsis” by Thomas Bullock.  So is it a primary source?  Probably not.  The date of the sermon is 26 May 1844.  A month later, the Prophet was dead.  Did he supervise this entry?  No.  The last years -- YEARS, mind you! -- of his entries in the History of the Church were actually made by others after his death in an attempt, consistent with the historiographical practices of the day, to complete the narrative.  I find it consistently amusing that the very same people who vehemently reject the History of the Church as an unreliable source when it seems to support the LDS position clutch it to their bosoms as an unparalleled historical treasure when they think they can use it as a weapon against the alleged errors of Mormonism.  This point is vitally important to keep in mind when trying to assess the character of Joseph Smith, his moral and spiritual quality, through the so-called “Documentary History.”  Dean Jessee's “Preface” to his collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith -- Jessee is the leading living authority on the autographic writings of the Prophet -- specifically addresses the issue of the seeming egotism that enters into Joseph's later statements as edited by well-meaning others -- which is, he says, quite foreign to Joseph Smith himself.  You should read Prof. Jessee's remarks.

The impression I myself get of Joseph Smith from reading his authenticated statements is of a humble and sincere man, struggling to do the will of God as he understood it.  (Read Jessee's collection, to see what I mean.)  However, even if a note of proud defiance HAD crept into Joseph's tone during a speech in Nauvoo -- at a time when both city and Church were under pressure from gangs of unprincipled anti-Mormon bigots who would shortly murder him and his brother, grievously wound a close friend, and drive his people into the wilderness during the dead of winter -- I for one would not have blamed him.

On the general reliability of the History of the Church, by the way, I think it worth saying that, in view of the way the text was put together, it is not in the overall thrust or narrative where we are likely to find mistakes, but in the nuances, the tone, the details.  This is precisely the opposite problem from that which you and other anti-Mormons would have us see in it:  You think the overall story of the History incorrect (e.g. divine intervention, revelation, Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, etc.), but you want us to accept its details of tone and mood -- at least when those details seem to put the Prophet in a bad light.  It won’t wash, however.  Your approach is, at the best, arbitrary, whimsical, and comically self-serving. 

You next direct our attention to a quotation from Brigham Young, hoping that it will persuade us to let you off the hook for flagrant defamation and slander.  It won’t.  You claim that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ.  However, as your own web site admits, “we did not quote any source as saying it.”

* “Well now,” said Brigham Young, “examine the character of the Savior, and examine the characters of those who have written the Old and New Testaments; and then compare them with the character of Joseph Smith, the founder of this work - the man whom God called and to whom he gave the keys of Priesthood, and through whom he has established his Church and kingdom for the last time, and you will find that his character stands as fair as any man's mentioned in the Bible.” (Journal of Discourses, vol.14.p.203.)

*** PETERSON: You may possibly recall that the subject we are discussing is whether or not Latter-day Saints believe, or are encouraged to believe, or have ever been encouraged to believe, that Joseph Smith is as centrally important to their salvation as Jesus Christ.  We are not talking about any other subject than that.

Keeping our eye on the issue in question, we can easily see that there is no support in this citation from Brigham Young for your libelous accusation against the Latter-day Saints.

Indeed, it is scandalous that you overlook the damage this quotation does to your deceptive claim.  For, if God called Joseph Smith, if God gave Joseph Smith the priesthood, and if God used Joseph Smith as an instrument to re-establish God's church and kingdom, there can hardly be any question here of God and Joseph Smith being on an even level.  The superiority of master to servant is clear beyond cavil.

What is really going on in this passage?  Brigham Young is paying tribute to the character of his dear friend, Joseph Smith, who had been murdered some years before by an anti-Mormon mob, and whose character anti-Mormons like yourself have endeavored to assassinate ever since.  He says nothing here about Joseph being as important as Jesus, nor about Joseph being a savior or mediator.  He merely says that Joseph was as good a man as ever lived.  That is quite a distinct proposition from the one that you are unethically attempting to shove into his mouth.  “We allow his followers to explain what they think of him,” you falsely declare, and then proceed to explain, yourselves, what his followers think of him -- even though you acknowledge that you could not “quote any source as saying it.”

I am certain that you don’t like Brigham Young saying that Joseph was a good man, even though Brigham knew Joseph somewhat better than you do.  What must surely bother you most, though, is Brigham’s apparent claim that Joseph was as good a man as Jesus.

Now, even if Brigham really meant to say that, it would not mean that Joseph was as IMPORTANT as Jesus.  Those are two quite different ideas.  But does Brigham Young mean to say that Joseph Smith was as morally perfect a man as the sinless Son of God?  I doubt it.  Note what Brigham said on another occasion, when that same subject was on his mind:

“Who can justly say aught against Joseph Smith?  I was as well acquainted with him, as any man.  I do not believe that his father and mother knew him any better than I did.  I do not think that a man lives on the earth that knew him any better than I did; and I am bold to say that, JESUS CHRIST EXCEPTED, no better man ever lived or does live upon this earth.  I am his witness. He was persecuted for the same reason that any other righteous person has been or is persecuted at the present day.”  (Journal of Discourses 9:332 [August 3, 1862], emphasis mine; compare 10:319 [July 31, 1864].)

I suspect that Brigham Young did not intend to include the divine Savior in his comparison to Joseph Smith when he spoke of the men “mentioned in the Bible.”  (Remember, these were spontaneous oral discourses.  Have you ever spoken imprecisely?  And remember that they are transcriptions of spontaneous oral discourses.)

You may respond that I am trying to excuse what Brigham Young said.  I am not.  I am trying to EXPLAIN and UNDERSTAND what he said.  If he really were claiming that Joseph Smith was sinless like the Savior, it would be inconsistent with every other teaching of the Church and everything else Brigham Young ever said on the subject.  If, on the other hand, he was NOT claiming moral equivalency between the Redeemer and the Prophet, that would be entirely consistent with his teachings, with the teachings of the Church, and with the passage that I just quoted to you above.  Of the two explanations of his meaning, mine is clearly far superior to yours.

By taking one passage of Brigham Young, and giving it an unjustifiably negative and anomalous reading, are you not attempting to make him an “offender for a word,” just as Isaiah complained regarding the wicked of his day?  Is this charitable?  Is this loving?  Is it consistent with 1 Corinthians 13?  Is it the sort of thing that Christians should be doing? Since it doesn’t even make intellectual sense, shouldn’t you abandon it?

“We allow his followers to explain what they think of him,” you say.  Really?  Then LET them do it!

You next quote another remark of Brigham Young, in which that great prophet speaks of the genealogy of Joseph Smith:

* “The Lord had his eye upon him, and upon his father, and upon his father's father, and upon his progenitors clear back to Abraham, and from Abraham to the flood, from the flood to Enoch, and from Enoch to Adam.  He has watched that family and that blood as it has circulated from its fountain to the birth of that man.”  (Discourses of Brigham Young.)

*** PETERSON: Nothing, absolutely nothing, in this passage would suggest to anybody not animated by irrational bias that Latter-day Saints regard Joseph Smith as being of importance equal to the Savior.  All it says is that the omniscient eye of providence was upon the family line leading up to the Prophet Joseph Smith.  This is scarcely unusual doctrine.  Since the Bible says that God has his eye upon the birds of the air and the grass of the field (Matthew 6:25-30) and that the very hairs of everybody’s head are numbered to him and that a sparrow cannot fall upon the ground without God’s knowing it (Matthew 10:29-31), and since you claim to be a believer in the Bible, it is difficult to see why this would bother you.

You next profess to be offended by alleged Latter-day Saint belief in Joseph Smith as a mediator.  You cite Robert Millet to this effect:

* “The life of Joseph Smith was in some degree patterned after that of his Master, Jesus Christ.  That pattern holds true even when extended to its tragic conclusion.  Like his Master, Joseph Smith also shed his blood in order that the final testament, the reestablishment of the new covenant, might be in full effect (see Heb.9:16).”

*** PETERSON: You grievously abuse Professor Millet when claiming that he believes Joseph Smith to be a mediator like Jesus.

I have already shared with you what Dr. Millet has to say on this subject.  However, I shall add a few comments to his:
(a) Nothing in this passage says that Joseph is mediator, as Jesus Christ is a mediator.  You have no justification for misreading it as you do.
(b) Dr. Millet’s statement that Joseph’s life was “patterned after” that of Jesus clearly indicates Dr. Millet’s sense that Joseph is subordinate to, not equal with, the Savior.  You have no excuse for failing to notice this.
(c) Professor Millet’s reference to the Savior as Joseph Smith’s “Master, Jesus Christ,” unmistakably indicates the unequal relationship between Joseph and Jesus.  Master and servant are not equal.  You have no extenuation for attempting to obsure that fact.
(d) Isn’t a Christian’s life SUPPOSED to be patterned after that of his Savior?  I am astonished that you would forget so elementary a principle of Christian living.

Finally, you claim to be offended that Brigham Young taught that Joseph Smith would have a role in the last judgment:

* “No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.14, p. 203.)

Others attempting to help you have already pointed out biblical evidence that the twelve apostles in Palestine, as well as others, were to be given a role in the last judgment.  There is no purpose in repeating what you already know, even if (or, perhaps, especially if) you refuse to see its implications.  But since the notion that selected human beings -- prophets and/or apostles -- will have a role in the judgment is clearly, unmistakably, indisputably biblical, and since that notion presumably does not suggest to anybody whatever that those persons are of equal importance with the Savior, there seems no justification at all for your apparent attempt to impose a double standard on the Latter-day Saints in the eager hope of condemning them for asserting very much what the Bible does.

You are quite accurate when you confess that you “did not quote any source as saying” what you libelously allege the Latter-day Saints to say about Joseph Smith.  Your allegation is false.  It is slanderously, deceptively, damnably false and untrue.  Stop telling lies about what the Latter-day Saints believe concerning Joseph.  Give some substance to your now-hollow boast that “We allow his followers to explain what they think of him.”

Mr. Harris, I have spent considerable time writing and sending these messages to you.  I have not done it because I have any great expectation that you will repent and begin to tell the truth, although a Christian like myself is supposed to live in hope.  I have too much experience with anti-Mormonism to expect integrity from you.  Rather, I have been discharging my duty to warn you of your folly and your sin.  If you do not change your ways, I will be a witness against you . And I will exert considerable effort to ensure that my testimony against you and your dishonest operation is widely heard.

Sincerely,
Daniel Peterson

Doug Harris responds. Well, in a manner of speaking.

dcp

[missing Mr. Harris' response.]

Mr. Harris:

Don't worry.  This brief posting will not count as the final installment of your free tutorial.  It is an extra or bonus posting, inspired by the latest declaration of your unapologetic insistence on slandering the Latter-day Saints.

*** HARRIS: "I guess I could say the same about you and your ministry."

*** PETERSON: I do not HAVE a "ministry."  And I am most definitely not in the religious bigotry business.

*** HARRIS: "I trust you [sic] exploits do not bring you into conflict with the living God.  In the final judgement day we will know who is right - I hope it is not too late for you."

*** PETERSON: I'm feeling rather serene about the matter.  After all, it is not I who have been caught in an obvious untruth.  It is not I who persist in it, grimly refusing to repent.  It appears, astonishingly, that you really are going to fail the integrity test.  How sad!

Daniel Peterson

Mr. Harris:

This final session of our tutorial will allow us not only to cover the issues you raised in your most recent unrepentant form letter, but will permit us to review some of what we have previously said about the irrelevance and weakness of your vain attempt at self-justification. 

As we have seen, you have offered no evidence whatever to validate the false witness you bear against the Latter-day Saints.  We have learned, to our considerable amazement, that you intend to continue to proclaim that “it is as clear as crystal that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ” among Latter-day Saints, despite your self-admitted inability to “quote any source as saying it. ” We have discovered that your professed intention to “allow his followers to explain what they think of him” is at best a tongue-in-cheek joke.

Now let us look at the specific elements of your last form letter:

*** HARRIS: “I am not anti-Mormon but I am pro Christian.”

*** PETERSON: I only know you through your web site and your messages to me and to friends of mine.  From these, you seem far less interested in affirmatively teaching your message than in assaulting my faith.  “Anti-Mormon” is a precisely, clinically, accurate term for describing what you do and what you seem to be.  It is understandable that an anti-Mormon would tend to resort to lies and distortion to damage the object of his wrath; a real Christian would not do such a thing.  A real Christian would be ashamed to soil the name of Jesus with such a sin, purportedly committed to honor him.

*** HARRIS: “I know you are frustrated but I do not want to be your enemy but we feel we must stand for truth.”

*** PETERSON: Then please DO so for a change!  So long as you tell deliberate lies about me, my family, my fri