[This letter was written by Mike Parker and sent to Reachout Trust in early August 1996.]

I came across your new web site today, and thought I would take a moment to respond to the information you present on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~reachout/morm.htm].

While I appreciate your attempt to enlighten people on the beliefs and practices of my faith, your two paragraphs do a great disservice by (1) giving incomplete information and (2) giving false information.

Allow me to give a brief response to some points you raise. I would be happy to discuss any of these at greater length individually.

From your site:

-------------------------

"Many people believe Mormons to be just another denomination but this is not the truth."

This statement is a little unclear.  Are Latter-day Saints *more* than "just another denomination" or *less* than one? I recommend you reword this.

-------------------------

"They believe that the Book of Mormon is more reliable than the Bible..."

While essentially correct, this statement does not tell the whole story.  We believe the Bible to be the word of God, but as it has been transcribed and translated many, many times over the last 1900 years, and as we do not have the original manuscripts to examine, we acknowledge that errors and omissions have crept into the text.  This does not destroy or denigrate the Bible as the foundation of our understanding of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  It *does* allow for the fact that there are more truths the God wants us to know than are contained in full between the pages of the Bible.

To some Christians this is heresy. Many claim that the text of the scriptures has been maintained, perfectly, over the multitude of translations and 19 centuries. Unfortunately, even the Bible does not claim this would happen.

There are, for example, about 2 dozen scriptural works which are referred to in the Bible itself, but which are not in our current Bible.  References to a few of these (I'd be happy to provide more on request) are found at Exodus 24:7; Numbers 21:14; Joshua 10:13; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; Ephesians 3:3,4; Colossians 4:16; and 1 Corinthians 5:9.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, was recorded, transcribed, abridged and translated by prophets of God, greatly reducing (but not eliminating) the chance of error.

Latter-day Saints use *both* the KJV Bible and the Book of Mormon together, as companions, and accept both as inspired.

-------------------------

"...Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ..."

This is worse than false.  I don't know your source for this, but they are *clearly* wrong.  Latter-day Saints accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, just as Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Paul and other prophets, but *certainly* nowhere *near* the greatness, glory and majesty of our Lord and Savior.

I would appreciate you providing me the reference to this blatantly untrue claim.

-------------------------

"...and that someone must be baptised for all our dead relations."

This is a twist on a belief we *do* have.  As all must be baptized (John 3:5 and others), and as many who have lived on this earth have not, the Savior has provided the way for them to hear the gospel after they die (1 Peter 3:18-19; 4:6) and then have the ordinance of baptism performed vicariously for them.

-------------------------

"The Bible clearly shows Mormonism to be false."

Clearly it doesn't, as I and millions of other Bible-believing "Mormons" will attest.  If anything, the Bible fails to prove many of the creeds and teachings of "mainstream" Christian religions.  More on this by request.

-------------------------

"There is no way that you can believe in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon..."

My very existence contradicts that statement.  The two very nicely support each other in bearing witness of the divinity of Christ and laying out his gospel.

-------------------------

"...for example, the bible clearly shows that pagans baptise for the dead, not Christians."

"Clearly?" By no means!

The *one* reference to baptism for the dead is found in 1 Corinthians 15:29. In this chapter, as you may be aware, Paul defends the doctrine of the resurrection. He asks the saints at Corinth why they do and believe certain things if there is no resurrection. 15:14 -- "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."

If there is no resurrection, Paul says...
v. 17 -- "your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins."
v. 18 -- "they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished."
v. 19 -- "we are of all men most miserable."
v. 30 -- "why stand we in jeopardy every hour?"

One of the proofs that Paul uses of the folly of *not* believing the resurrection is the fact that the Corinthians were practicing baptism for the dead:

v. 29 -- "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

In other words, "why do they [the Corinthians, believers in Christ] practice baptism for those who have died, if they [those who have died] are not resurrected?  why are they [the Corinthians] baptized for the dead?"

Now, you may have a different interpretation of this verse.  Many have been offered over the centuries.  But *please* don't try to claim that "the bible clearly shows that pagans baptize for the dead, not Christians."  It is anything *but* "clear."

-------------------------

I've only taken a short time to discuss a few points. I'd be happy to cover any of these in more detail.

I *certainly* don't object to you placing information about the LDS church on your web site, I only ask that the information is accurate and fair.

Your brother in Christ,

Mike Parker
Costa Mesa, California, USA

[This letter was written by Mike Parker and sent to Doug Harris of Reachout Trust on 18 January 1997.]

The following is Doug's e-mail to me (in bold italics), and my complete response. Some formatting changes (like the addition of endnotes) have been made to make it easier to read on the Web.

Table of Contents

I appreciate your desire to dialogue on this subject. I do not wish to argue with you, for "contention is not of [Christ], but is of the devil" (Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 11:29). I want to explain where we stand. I hope you will accept what I write as truthful and sincere from someone who is well-versed in LDS doctrine and teachings. Nothing in here is designed to mislead or "cover up" what I believe. 3 Nephi 11:29). I want to explain where we stand. I hope you will accept what I write as truthful and sincere from someone who is well-versed in LDS doctrine and teachings. Nothing in here is designed to mislead or "cover up" what I believe.

A few housekeeping items before I begin:

• Because I am specifically replying to your letter, I have kept your original text in italics, followed by my response.

• When referring to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I will use the term Latter-day Saint or LDS over Mormon. The early believers in Christ called themselves Saints (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1, etc.) while non-believers called them Christians (Acts 11:26). Likewise, the term Mormon was given to us by those outside of our faith. In either case, I understand both terms, but prefer one over the other.

• Please forgive any uniquely American phrasing or word construction, such as Savior over Saviour. The differences between British English and American English grow greater as time passes. There are even several British-American dictionaries on the Internet to help with translation! (A notable one can be found at http://pages.prodigy.com/NY/NYC/britspk/main.html)

That aside, here it is:

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 teaching 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.

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.¹

(This, of course, includes what I have written here.)

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down unto the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5.)

These steps are generally summarized by Latter-day Saints in the phrase, "read, ponder, and pray."

It is not simply enough to read about the Book of Mormon. The work itself must be read, in faith, looking for its testimony of Christ. That testimony is found on nearly every page.

As Paul said, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21.) How can we prove all things, including scripture? "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God . . . and it shall be given him." (James 1:5.)

How will God tell us if something is of Him? ". . . when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15:26; italics added.) The Holy Ghost brings personal witness from God of His truth. (See also John 14:26; 1 Corinthians 2:11-16; 12:3.)

I have read the Book of Mormon prayerfully and independently, and have found, through the Spirit of God, that it is the word of God. I challenge you to do the same, putting away any other literature (pro- or anti-Mormon), and considering the book itself on face value.

LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie said in October 1983:

If [the Book of Mormon] is what it purports to be—if the original record was revealed by a holy angel; if the translation was made by the power of God and not of man; if Joseph Smith was entertaining angels, seeing visions, and receiving revelations—all of which is an established verity; if the Book of Mormon is true—then the truth and divinity of the Book of Mormon proves the truth of this great latter-day work in which we are engaged.

All of this I explained to . . . two Protestant friends. One of them, a congenial and decent sort of fellow, said somewhat casually that he would read the Book of Mormon. The other minister, manifesting a bitter spirit, said: "I won't read it. We have experts who have read the Book of Mormon, and I have read what our experts have to say about it."

This account dramatizes one of our problems in presenting the message of the Book of Mormon to the world. There are sincere and devout people everywhere who have heard what other people say about this volume of holy writ, and so they do not read it themselves.

Instead of drinking from that fountain from whence clear streams of living water flow, they prefer to go downstream and drink from the oily, muddy, poison-filled streams of the world.

The plain fact is that salvation itself is at stake in this matter. If the Book of Mormon is true—if it is a volume of holy scripture, if it contains the mind and will and voice of the Lord to all men, if it is a divine witness of the prophetic call of Joseph Smith—then to accept it and believe its doctrines is to be saved, and to reject it and walk contrary to its teachings is to be damned.²

Doug, I am sure you accept the Bible as God's word and believe that our acceptance or rejection of that word will have eternal consequences. I believe this as well. I also believe that God has revealed his word in the Book of Mormon too, and you and I are under the same obligation to accept that word, with the same consequences riding on that decision as on our decision about the Bible.

To be clear, the Eighth Article of Faith says:

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

The key words over which we disagree are "as far as it is translated correctly." On this point, Joseph Smith said in 1843:

I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors. As it read, [Genesis 6:6], "It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth;" also, [Numbers 23:19], "God is not a man, that he should lie, neither the Son of man, that he should repent;" which I do not believe [meaning the Genesis quotation]. But it ought to read, "It repented Noah that God made man." This I believe, and then the other quotation stands fair. If any man will prove to me, by one passage of Holy Writ, one item I believe to be false, I will renounce and disclaim it as far as I promulgated it.

The first principles of the Gospel, as I believe, are, faith, repentance, baptism for the remission of sins, with the promise of the Holy Ghost.

Look at [Hebrews 6:1] for contradictions—"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection." If a man leaves the principles of the doctrine of Christ, how can he be saved in the principles? This is a contradiction. I don't believe it. I will render it as it should be—"Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."³

Bold words? Yes. And he has a point, too.

As a Christian and a Latter-day Saint, I love the Bible. I love its teachings about the Savior and about God's plan for us. I have studied the New Testament more than any other scripture, and I accept what has come down to us as God's word.

But I also read it carefully, knowing that, as Joseph Smith pointed out above, there have been some errors in the transmission and translation of the text.

For instance it appears that the Book of Mormon has undergone nearly 4,000 changes since the first 'inspired' edition, over 160 years ago. Examples include 1 Nephi 11:18, where Mary is called the Mother of God instead of the Mother of the Son of God. 1 Nephi 11:21; and 13:40 where the Lamb of God is called the Eternal Father instead of the Son of the Eternal Father.

This charge is a very old anti-Mormon grindstone. Critics think that they are revealing something new and devastating when they make the "over 4,000 changes" statement.

Certainly the Book of Mormon has undergone changes since its first printing. This is true of any book (yes, even the King James Bible has received textual modifications over the last 385 years).

What is important to determine is the nature of these changes. Much research has been done into this, and, to that end, I invite you to read Stan Larson's 1976 article "Changes in Early Texts of The Book of Mormon," which can be found on my web site. The very verses you mention (1 Nephi 11:18, 11:21 and 13:40) are discussed there.

To summarize the article for you:

1. The vast majority of changes are typographical in nature (prophet to prophets, nobler to robber, immorality to immortality, wither to whether, sent to went, etc.), and appeared in the first place because of the limitations of setting type by hand. In these cases the intention of the church has been to return to the original handwritten manuscript of the Book of Mormon, of which we have about one-third. (Parenthetically, some typographical errors persist in the book, even with modern word processing software and laser-set type. For example, on page 293 of the current edition, in the chapter summary for Alma 34, the word "atonement" is spelled atonenent. I found this one myself in 1988.)

2. Some changes in the grammar of the text have been made to improve readability. Joseph Smith, as with any translator of any document, used language common to his experience (which is why he mimicked KJV English, the "language of scripture"). With his limited education, some of his spelling and phrasing needed improvement over time. For example, in the 1830 edition, 1 Nephi 5:6 read ". . . while we journied in the wilderness . . .," which has since been corrected to ". . . while we journeyed in the wilderness . . ." Joseph also had a tendency to use the letter a before verbs, such as in Alma 10:7 (1830): "As I was a journeying to see a very near kindred . . .," which has been corrected (1981) to "As I was journeying to see a very near kindred . . ."

3. A very small number of editorial changes were made by Joseph Smith himself in the succeeding editions published during his lifetime (1837 and 1840). You mentioned two of them from 1 Nephi. Stan Larson explains:

The phrase "the Son of" was added [in 1 Nephi 11:18] to the printer's manuscript and the 1837 edition as a clarification, possibly to avoid the sectarian phrase "the mother of God" that had been objected to by early critics of the Book of Mormon. "The Son of" was also added to 1 Nephi 11:21, 32 and 13:40 in the 1837 edition. The term "Eternal Father" found in 1 Nephi 11:21 and 13:40 was ambiguous since it could properly refer to either the Father or the Son. For example, Eternal Father refers to God the Father in Moroni 4:3, 5:2, and 10:4, but to God the Son in Mosiah 16:15 and Alma 11:38-39. Although some have claimed that the meaning of the text was altered by these additions, a more plausible explanation is that the addition clarified whom the verse was referring to.

If Joseph Smith (or any LDS leader) was attempting to perpetrate a fraud by "altering" these passages, why did he stop there? Why didn't someone realize that there are scores of other passages in the Book of Mormon that refer to Jesus Christ as "God?" For example:

And the God of our fathers . . . yieldeth himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up . . . and to be crucified . . . and to be buried in a sepulchre . . . (1 Nephi 19:10; italics added.)

. . . he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and . . . that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth . . . (Mosiah 7:27; italics added.)

And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses. (Mosiah 13:28; italics added.)

For behold, did not Moses prophesy unto them concerning the coming of the Messiah, and that God should redeem his people? . . . Have [the prophets] not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth? (Mosiah 13:33-34; italics added.)

. . . I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. (Mosiah 15:1; italics added.)

. . . [Lehi and Nephi] have testified of the coming of Christ, and have looked forward, and have rejoiced in his day which is to come. And behold, he is God, and he is with them, and he did manifest himself unto them, that they were redeemed by him; and they gave unto him glory, because of that which is to come. (Helaman 8:22-23; italics added.)

Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world . . . Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. (3 Nephi 11:10, 14; italics added.)

There are only two conclusions that one can reach after reviewing this evidence: either Joseph Smith legitimately edited those passages in 1 Nephi to clarify (not change) the meaning of the text, or he was smart enough to write the Book of Mormon, but so stupid that he changed only a few "incriminating" passages and not the rest.

. . . [many scholars say that] much of what is recorded in the Bible is at best distorted, and some characters and events are probably totally fictional. Most scholars suspect that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Judaism's traditional founders, never existed; many doubt the tales of slaves in Egypt and the Exodus; and relatively few modern historians believe in Joshua's conquest of Jericho and the rest of the Promised Land. In the most extreme view, all of the above are complete fabrications, invented centuries after the supposed fact.⁴

In reaction to these and other inconsistencies arising from overreliance on the Bible, a second wave of superskeptics emerged over the past five years. At last month's annual meeting in Philadelphia of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion, the pre-eminent conference on Bible scholarship in the world, they were out in force. And while there were differences among what individual scholars believed, radical minimalist John Van Seters of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, summed up many of their commonly held positions. The oldest books of the Old Testament, he declared with Pope-like confidence, weren't written until the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, after 587 B.C. There was no Moses, no crossing of the sea, no revelation on Mount Sinai.⁵

. . . [there is] plenty of room for disagreement [among archaeologists] over parts of the Old Testament where the evidence is contradictory or still absent, including slavery in Egypt, the existence of Moses, the Exodus and Joshua's military conquest of the Holy Land. The Bible's accounts of these people and events are among the most familiar stories in the Old Testament. But even scholars who believe they really happened admit that there's no proof whatsoever that the Exodus took place. No record of this monumental event appears in Egyptian chronicles of the time, and Israeli archaeologists combing the Sinai during intense searches from 1967 to 1982—the years when Israel occupied the peninsula—didn't find a single piece of evidence backing the Israelites' supposed 40-year sojourn in the desert.

The story involves so many miracles—plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, manna from heaven, the giving of the Ten Commandments—that some critics feel the whole story has the flavor of pure myth. A massive exodus that led to the drowning of Pharaoh's army, says Father Anthony Axe, Bible lecturer at Jerusalem's Ecole Biblique, would have reverberated politically and economically through the entire region. And considering that artifacts from as far back as the late Stone Age have turned up in the Sinai, it is perplexing that no evidence of the Israelites' passage has been found. William Dever, a University of Arizona archaeologist, flatly calls Moses a mythical figure. Some scholars even insist the story was a political fabrication, invented to unite the disparate tribes living in Canaan through a falsified heroic past.

Unlike the Exodus, the story of Joshua and the conquest of Canaan can be tested against a rich archaeological record. The scientific consensus: bad news for the biblical account. According to the Book of Joshua, the Israelite leader and his armies swept into Canaan, destroying cities including Jericho, Hazor and Ai, after which the Israelites settled the land.

Archaeology tells a more complicated tale. Historians generally agree that Joshua's conquest would have taken place in the 13th century B.C. But British researcher Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated at Jericho for six years, found no evidence of destruction at that time. Indeed, says Dead Sea Scrolls curator emeritus [Magen] Broshi, "the city was deserted from the beginning of the 15th century until the 11th century B.C." So was Ai, say Broshi and others. And so, according to archaeological surveys, was most of the land surrounding the cities. Says Broshi: "The central hill regions of Judea and Samaria were practically uninhabited. The Israelites didn't have to kill and burn to settle."⁶

Another archaeologist has written:

In the final analysis the most certain identifications [of biblical place names] are still those dependent upon preservation of the ancient name, albeit with careful examination of written sources and archaeological data. Out of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only about 262 have been identified with any degree of certainty, i.e., 55 per cent. Of these 190 are based upon preservation of the name, viz. 40 per cent of the over-all total. . . . Only 72 places (15 per cent of the over-all total) have been identified in situations where the ancient name is not to be found somewhere in the vicinity, of which only about half carry a degree of certainty, the remainder being more or less conjectural.⁷

Please understand, I don't quote these to weaken your faith in the Bible. I firmly believe the events in the Bible took place, including a literal Garden of Eden and a Great Flood.

But to say that "the Bible is also shown to be reliable by the recovery of items mentioned in the Scriptures" is a gross overstatement.

Even if all of the people, cities, and artifacts described in the Bible could be archaeologically proven, it would still not prove the Bible to be true. The Bible, as scripture, is not an historical or archeological work—it is a spiritual work, one that explains God's plan for us and describes the miracles that have taken place in furtherance of that plan. Archaeological proof of Jesus Christ's existence does not prove that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, who was resurrected three days after his brutal crucifixion.

Just like the Bible, the message of the Book of Mormon is a spiritual one, and cannot be wholly proved by archaeology.

Book of Mormon archaeology is, admittedly, not nearly as developed as Biblical archaeology. The main reason for this is that the LDS culture has produced very few people who are both competent archaeologists and experts on the Book of Mormon.

Dr. John L. Sorenson, professor emeritus of Anthropology at Brigham Young University, is quite possibly the best Book of Mormon archaeologist currently living. His landmark book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985) sets forth the most comprehensive theory of Book of Mormon geography and archeology.

The latest in Book of Mormon archaeology is available through FARMS, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. They publish Insights, a semi-monthly newsletter, and the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, a semi-annual journal, both of which are quite good and relatively inexpensive. You can look at some back issues of these and contact the Foundation through the FARMS web site: http://www.farmsresearch.com.

For a more accessible overview of some of the challenges of Book of Mormon vs. Biblical archaeology, I highly recommend William J. Hamblin's essay, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," available on the World Wide Web at http://www.farmsresearch.com/critic/critic04.htm.

The word "coin" does not appear in the Book of Mormon. The Nephite monetary system described in Alma 11:4-19 is a system of weights and measures:

Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah. (Alma 11:4, italics added.)

Like most pre-coin societies, the Nephites would measure grain against a standard weight. (See Deuteronomy 25:13-16 for the Lord's law regarding honesty in weights and measures.) The "different pieces of their gold, and of their silver" are standard weights.

The reference to "coinage" in the chapter heading for Alma 11 is in error. (Yes, even Latter-day Saints have misinterpreted this passage.)

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.⁸

By "most correct" Joseph meant doctrinally. Because the Book of Mormon writings were handed down and translated by prophets, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, less doctrinal errors have crept into its text than any other book's, including the Bible. The Book of Mormon lays out God's plan of salvation more clearly and succinctly than any other work. This does not denigrate the Bible; it merely clarifies and enhances the Bible's teachings.

Foreign-language editions of the Book of Mormon are carefully supervised by the First Presidency, the three-member top leadership of the church. The translators are carefully chosen and assigned for their task. Translation work is done under the influence of the Spirit.

If I had a choice, however, I would certainly want to read from the English edition, it being the closest to the source. Similarly, I would one day like to learn Greek so I could read the New Testament in its original language.

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deuteronomy 12:32.)

For we [the Christian Saints] are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. (2 Corinthians 2:17; italics added.)

. . . our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16.)

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of this prophecy of this book [of Revelation], If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19.)

Nowhere in the Bible is the promise made that any of its writings would be preserved, word for word, down through history.

I, for one, am curious what happened to the Biblical texts in those hundreds of years between the original writing and the transcribing of the copies we now have.

And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. (Mormon 9:32; italics added. Note that "reformed" is not capitalized.)

This is similar to other societies which have used Egyptian as a "base alphabet" and modified it for common use, Demotic being one example.

Hebrews 7:11 The Aaronic priesthood passed away because it lacked and it was replaced by the 'better' Melchizedek priesthood. We do not need to restore that which is lacking.

7:3 & 5:6 The Melchizedek priesthood never passed away and so how can it be restored?

There appears to be no authority here at all.

Let me preface my reply here by saying I find it interesting that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only Christian church I am aware of that teaches and practices ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood. Most other churches simply ignore the issue of priesthood, or do not use the name Melchizedek.

First the background: Latter-day Saints believe that the formal authority to act in the name of God is called priesthood. To receive the priesthood . . .

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. (Fifth Article of Faith.)

As the Savior told his apostles, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you . . ." (John 15:16.) Authority to preach God's word does not come from reading the Bible or from feeling that one has been "called" by God, because "no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4.) Aaron, the first priest of Israel, was directly chosen by God through his appointed servant, Moses. (Exodus 28:1.)

The LDS view of the priesthood is most comprehensively explained in the Doctrine & Covenants, a volume of scripture containing, among other things, revelations to Joseph Smith. In this volume, many doctrines which are only touched upon briefly in the Bible and the Book of Mormon are discussed in detail.

From it we learn that the priesthood has "two divisions or grand heads—one is the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the other is the Aaronic, or Levitical, Priesthood." (D&C 107:6.)

The greater, or Melchizedek, priesthood "administeth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God." (D&C 84:19.) This is the same priesthood held by Jesus Christ, who is the "high priest after the order of Melchisedec" (Hebrews 5:5-10.), and the head of his church and all those who hold this priesthood.

The lesser, or Aaronic, priesthood is to ". . . administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (D&C 107:20) as well as supervise the temporal affairs of the church (D&C 20:46-59).

Both priesthoods existed from the beginning of the world until Moses, who:

. . . sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;

But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.

Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy [Melchizedek] Priesthood also;

And the lesser priesthood continued . . . with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel. . . . (D&C 84:23-27.)

The Aaronic Priesthood was in effect among the Jews during the life of the Lord Jesus (Luke 1:5-10). One of the acts of the Savior was to restore the higher Melchizedek Priesthood among his disciples.

Now, to your question. The Book of Hebrews was written by Paul to Jews who had converted from Judaism to Christianity. The main purpose of the epistle was to fully convince these Jewish converts that [1] Jesus is the Messiah, "made so much better than the angels" (1:4), [2] Jesus came to suffer death and make reconciliation for the sins of all men, [3] Jesus Christ is a "high priest after the order of Melchisedec" (5:10), [4] the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Aaronic priesthood, just as Jesus' sacrifice is superior to the Mosaic sacrifice of animals. (There are many other themes in the book, but I believe these are the main ones.)

During the discussion of point 4 (above), Paul writes:

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (Hebrews 7:11-12.)

In other words, Paul asks rhetorically: If perfection [which I believe means eternal salvation] was available under the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood, why do we need Christ, a priest of the higher, Melchizedek priesthood? Just as the Law of Moses is subordinated to Christ's new covenant, the Aaronic priesthood is subordinated to the Melchizedek.

I honestly don't see in that passage anything about the Aaronic priesthood "passing away." It serves a purpose, but in and of itself it cannot bring salvation.

You also mention Hebrews 7:3 and 5:6. The former teaches us that the Melchizedek priesthood is "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but [Melchizedek—the person—was] made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." The latter tells us that God the Father "saith also in another place, Thou [Jesus Christ] art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."

I honestly fail to see how this means "the Melchizedek priesthood never passed away and so how can it be restored?" Certainly the Melchizedek priesthood has existed from the beginning of time and will continue to exist forever. But mankind, in rejecting Christ, can have the priesthood taken out of their midst, just as happened following Moses' death. It was later restored through Christ, lost again following the death of his apostles and apostasy of his church (as I will discuss next), and was restored again in these last days.

In fact, Jesus was not preaching anything new, he simply restored the truth. The Jews had originally received the full message of God's salvation, but, because of their hardheartedness and unbelief, they had were unable to accept it, and instead were given the Law of Moses, a "schoolmaster to bring them to Christ." (Galatians 3:23-25) But even that they changed and misinterpreted (Isaiah 24:5), so God restored the full truth, this time through his Son, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Following Christ's ascension into heaven, his Apostles struggled valiantly to preach his message throughout the world, as they were commanded (Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8). They were quite successful, and Christianity spread throughout the Mediterranean area despite religious and state persecution.

After the death of the Apostles, however, things began to go downhill. Without the divine revelation that had lead the church, many people were left to their own to interpret the scriptures as best they could. The leaders of Christ's church began to fight for political power. Eventually, the church itself became part of the power structure of the decaying Roman Empire. Pagan beliefs mixed with Christianity, confusion and disagreement reigned, and creeds were written (many in direct conflict with scripture) that changed the face of Christian belief forever. The true meaning of Christ's teaching and gospel was lost once again.

What is so sad is that all this was prophesied by Christ and his Apostles (Matthew 24:4-13; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 1:3-4). This "Great Apostasy" lasted for over 1,500 years.

But, just as had happened many times before, the Lord restored his full gospel and truth to the earth through prophets. This restoration, like others before it, had been prophesied (Acts 3:20-21, among others). The first prophet of this last restoration was Joseph Smith.

Doug, the claim that Latter-day saints believe in a "different Jesus" and a "different gospel" is a unique but not very helpful way of describing the differences between our faiths. In fact, the "Mormon Jesus" is not different than the Biblical Jesus, he is just different than "Doug's Jesus." This comes from both of us reading the same scripture and interpreting it differently.

Most Christian denominations have differing views of Jesus—this is the reason why there are so many different denominations in the first place. Consider the following:

• In the Methodist church, the bread and wine of communion symbolize the body and blood of Christ.

• In the Catholic church, the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ (a doctrine known as transubstantiation).

Do Catholics and Methodists worship "a different Jesus?" No, they simply have interpreted his teachings differently.

• Catholics and Lutherans baptize infants.

• Baptists and Latter-day Saints only baptize those old enough to choose to accept Christ.

• Many evangelical Christians do not baptize at all.

All of these religions teach that their view of baptism is the one taught by Jesus. Do they all worship a "different Jesus?" No, they simply have interpreted his teachings differently.

Is "being born again and knowing Jesus Christ as a personal savior" enough for one to attain the highest degree of salvation? This is a very popular interpretation, particularly among evangelical Christians. My reading of the scriptures leads me to believe that it is not.

In page after page, the Bible teaches us that faith, while essential, is only a first step. Receiving Jesus Christ and being born again is crucial (the Book of Mormon goes into this in detail in Alma, chapter 5), but just doing that and stopping will not bring salvation. From the Sermon on the Mount to his final commission to his Apostles, Jesus preached a gospel of action, of love and service and devotion to God.

Christ prayed, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3.) Eternal life is found in knowing God, and "hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." (1 John 2:3; italics added.) "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." (1 John 3:23.) "He that loveth not knoweth not God . . ." (1 John 4:8.)

How do we show that love? In Matthew 25, the Savior taught that those who are found on the right hand of God, who are blessed of the Father, who inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world, are those of whom Christ shall say the following:

For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? Or naked, and clothed thee?

Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and come unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (25:35-40.)

Those, however, who have not done these things "shall go away into everlasting punishment." (25:46.)

As the Book of Mormon's king Benjamin said so eloquently, ". . . how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?" (Mosiah 5:13.)

In the end, it is Christ's grace that saves us, but receiving that grace requires more than just a confession of faith. Christ's gospel is a gospel of doing (James 1:22-25). I find it quite significant that the fifth book of the New Testament is not "The Faith of the Apostles," or "The Belief of the Apostles," but "The Acts of the Apostles."

I look forward to hearing from you again. I will assure you that I will answer although it may sometimes take a few weeks due to my workload.⁹

Trust all is well and that our discussions can help us to find the truth.

Doug

The Jewish author and lecturer Dennis Prager has said, with much insight, "the greatest differences are not between religions but within religions."

Daniel C. Peterson, associate professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University has written,

In Cairo some years ago, I spoke at length with a Muslim chemistry professor at the University of Cairo. He was astonished when he learned that I was a Christian. "Do you really," he asked, incredulously, "believe that God had a Son, and that he allowed that Son to be murdered in order to buy himself off?" After expressing some reservations about how he had expressed the doctrine of the atonement, I replied that, yes, I did believe precisely that. "Oh!" he exclaimed. "How can any intelligent person believe in such nonsense?" Well, the fact is that highly intelligent people have accepted Christianity. (Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, and Kierkegaard are among those who come immediately to mind.) But it was thought-provoking to find that my most sacred beliefs seemed insanely ludicrous to a highly educated outsider. It was enlightening to find Christianity, for once, in the minority, and Christian assumptions questioned as less than self-evident. How many times have I heard people say things like, "How can any intelligent person believe in Islam?" or "How can any intelligent person be a Catholic?" Yet people like al-Ghazali and Iqbal and Ibn Khaldun have been Muslims, and the Catholic Church has claimed the loyalty of such people as Cardinal Newman and G. K. Chesterton and Jacques Maritain. Reflecting on this, and on my own experience as an Islamicist, I have come to formulate what might be termed Peterson's First Rule for the Study of Other Religions: If a substantial number of sane and intelligent people believe something that seems to you utterly without sense, the problem probably lies with you, for not grasping what it is about that belief that a lucid and reasonable person might find plausible and satisfying.¹⁰

What disturbs me most about web sites such as "Reachout Trust" is that they seek to accuse and denounce, rather than to promote understanding. Many of these sites contain information that is just plain wrong.

It seems that many people are frightened by things that are different, and especially by differences in religion. Brutal wars have been fought in the past over such differences.

Toward those who are different, the Savior taught:

And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. (Luke 9:49-50.)

I pray that, instead of condemning, you will try to understand my faith. To this end, I am willing to share what I believe with you.

God be with you,

Mike

1. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, ed. by Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft), 1956, 3:203-4.

2. "What Think Ye of the Book of Mormon?" in Conference Report, October 1983; italics added.

3. Smith, Joseph Fielding, ed. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Press, 1938, p.327-28.

4. "Are the Bible's Stories True?", Time, December 18, 1995, p. 65. The complete text is available on Time's website here. For a good, brief overview of the Biblical archaeological debate (and how that debate relates to the Book of Mormon), see this essay from the October 1997 FARMS newsletter.

5. Ibid, p. 67.

6. Ibid, p. 68.

7. Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, trans. A. F. Rainey, 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979, p.128-29.

8. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.194.

9. On March 4, 1998, I received an e-mail from Doug. He explained that he had not received this response, and was unaware that I had posted it on the web. The mix-up probably occurred when I changed Internet service providers in early 1997. I apologize to him, and welcome any further discussion with him.

10. "Chattanooga Cheapshot, or The Gall of Bitterness," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5 [1993]. Provo, Utah: FARMS. p.26.

[This letter was written by Doug Harris of Reachout Trust, and received by Mike Parker on 6 March 1998. The long break since the last letter was due to a miscommunication because I switched ISPs.]

Dear Mike,

I have finally managed to get round to answering part of your e-mail.  Not all points are finalised yet but I think there is enough for me to send you.

I would like to start at the end when you said,

I pray that, instead of condemning, you will try to understand my faith.  To this end, I am willing to share what I believe with you.

I am not condemning.  Condemning is where you judge someone and write them off.  I do not believe I have the right to do that because Jesus did not come to condemn, [John 3:17].  Jesus however did show the truth and we are encouraged in Scripture to test all things.  When our eternal life is at stake I believe we have a God given responsibility to show up what we believe are wrong things.  You have the choice to accept or reject but I believe I will have done what I should do.

I know many people who are Mormons and very nice people.  But it is not 'being nice' that brings us eternal salvation.  Nor is it belonging to any one group whoever they are.  We can also not 'move the goalposts'.  If God has said, 'This is the way', then that is the way we need to go.  Does the Mormon offer of salvation meet the original and only way that God has opened for us.  Our future lives are at stake here and we need to answer this question very carefully.  I believe that the Mormon gospel is very suspect and needs to be looked at with scrutiny to ensure that it can deliver what it has promised for life after death.

Having, I hope, shown you my attitude I would like to answer some of the points raised.

[You wrote:] What specific literature are you talking about?  Which works did you use?  More specifically, which LDS writer has claimed that we believe "Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ," as your web site states?

Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days.  I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them--something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them--namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.  From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are--I with you and you with me.  I cannot go there without his consent.  He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation--the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit-world.  He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven.  Many will exclaim--"Oh, that is very disagreeable!  It is preposterous!  We cannot bear the thought!"  But it is true. - Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, Pg.289, Brigham Young, October 9, 1859

Your argument may be that this is not one of the Standard Works.  However, this is a message given by the second Living Prophet of the Mormon Church.  All those that heard that message in Brigham Young's day believed it.  I have also never seen any retraction from this message in any publication of the Church.

So in the words of Brigham Young, if you want to get into the part of the Kingdom where Jesus is - you must have the permission of Joseph Smith.  The Bible shows us that Jesus holds the keys - Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith holds the keys - In Young's eyes Smith was at least as important as Jesus Christ.  This fact is underlined for us in the following publication too:

NO SALVATION WITHOUT ACCEPTING JOSEPH SMITH.  If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth when he said that he stood in the presence of angels sent from the Lord, and obtained keys of authority, and the commandment to organize the Church of Jesus Christ once again on the earth, then this knowledge is of the most vital importance to the entire world.  No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of god.  It is, therefore, the duty of every man to investigate that he may weigh this matter carefully and know the truth. - Doctrine of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Vol.1. pp.189-190.

There are other quotes too in Mormon publications.

One excellent idea that was advanced this morning, I will venture to carry out a little further. The time was when the test of a Christian was his confession of Christ.  In the first Epistle of John it is written, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God, and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God.  And this is that spirit of anti-christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is in the world."  This is no test to this generation, for all men of the Christian world confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.  This generation, however, is not left without a test.  I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ.  All who confess that Joseph Smith is sent of God in the latter days, to lay the foundation of his everlasting kingdom no more to be thrown down, and will continue to keep his commandments, are born of God.  All those who believe in their hearts and confess with their mouths that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet, at the same time trying with their might to live the holy principles Joseph the Prophet has revealed, are in possession of the Holy Spirit of God and are entitled to a fullness.  When such men go into the world to preach the Gospel though they know not a letter in a book, they will do more real good to erring man than the great and wise can possibly do, though aided by all their learning and worldly influence in the absence of the gift of the Holy Ghost.  When the spirit of the preacher is embued with the Spirit and power of God, his words enter the understandings of the honest, who discern the truth and at once embrace it to their eternal advantage. Journal of Discourses, Vol.9, Pg.312, Brigham Young, July 13, 1862

Once again Brigham Young adds to Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith. Smith becomes as important as Jesus.

If you argue that we can only accept what is in the authoritative works and official pronouncements from the First Presidency holds true then there must be many Mormons that are not living true Mormonism and have no hope of entering into the Celestial Kingdom - Brigham Young being the biggest culprit it would seem.  If a man as high up in the Church as Bruce McConkie or indeed Brigham Young doesn't know the truth, what hope do you or any other Mormon really have?

Take again what is said in the 'official' History of the Church, Vol.6, pp.408.

God is in the still small voice.  In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption.  Come on!  ye prosecutors!  ye false swearers!  All hell, boil over!  Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last.  I have more to boast of than ever any man had.  I am the only man that has ever 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 it.  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.  You know my daily walk and conversation.  I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people.  How I do love to hear the wolves howl!  When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go.  For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ; they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me.  They have got wonderful things in the land of Ham.  I think the grand jury have strained at a gnat and swallowed the camel.

I believe all those quotes above give us clear justification for saying that high up officials within the Mormon Church believe that Joseph Smith was as important as Jesus Christ.

Coming out of the whole question of the Standard works you quoted Joseph Fielding Smith,

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 teaching 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.

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes.  If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every Member of the Church is duty bound to reject it.  If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.  (Doctrines of Salvation, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956, pp..203-4.)

If this is true and I would accept it to be then I would have to say that we need to reject the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young among others because they are in conflict with what the Lord revealed in Scripture.  However, this is of course leads us onto deeper matters.  I have read, pondered and prayed over the Book of Mormon but I always come back to the fact that the Bible is far more reliable than the Book of Mormon and both books cannot be from the same God because of several major contradictions.

You challenge me,

I have read the Book of Mormon prayerfully and independently, and have found, through the Spirit of God, that it is the word of God.  I challenge you to do the same, putting away any other literature (pro- or anti-Mormon), and considering the book itself on face value.

However I would have to answer that this is just not possible.  First the Book of Mormon is called 'Another Testament of Jesus Christ' which means here is a first one that needs to be considered.  Second when the Book of Mormon is talking about salvation, and the way to know the reality of God e must look back to the original to see what Jesus said.

The Mormon Church is said to have come into being because of the complete apostasy of the church on earth, but who failed God or the people.   It is obvious that it is the people and as such there did not need to be a new way but repentance to go back to God's original way.  The Mormon church presents a new way and a different gospel and so we must be very careful in what we believe.

You quote the verse from 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Prove all things and hold fast that which is good.  That must be applied to the book of Mormon not just the Bible.  I have proved the Bible to be true over 30+ years.  A quick glance at the Book of Mormon shows that I cannot prove it to be good and therefore God tells me not to hold on to it.  You talk about having to accept the Book of Mormon otherwise face the eternal consequences.  But the God of the Bible, the only true God of creation says we must only hold fast that which is good and yet the Book of Mormon is not proven.  It has changed the teachings of Scripture and when you add the other standard works you find teachings about salvation entering in that contradict scripture.

I find it very difficult to understand how you can accept Joseph Smith's word that 'ignorant translators etc ' and that he can at a stroke change the eternal word of God with no proof other than his own thinking.  No man is allowed to do that.  Such a man we are told in Scripture we should have nothing to do with.

I will not continue at the moment because I would like you to consider this point.  The Book of Mormon is not proven as the Bible.  The only way we can accept the Book of Mormon and the other standard works is to put the Bible aside.  The belief that the Book of Mormon is prophesied in Ezekiel 37 is very hard for me to understand.  I cannot put the Bible aside for the Book of Mormon translated by someone who is prepared to rewrite the Bible without a scrap of evidence.

I am not trying to paint a bad picture of Joseph Smith but it is clear from Doctrines of Salvation that if he is a fraud then there is no foundation for the Mormon Church.  He has lifted himself on to a level with Jesus.  He has rewritten the Word of God.  He has demanded that we turn aside from the original teaching of Jesus.  This is a serious matter.

Mike could you take this and test it out and hold fast that which is good.

Sincerely

Doug

[This letter was written by Mike Parker and sent to Doug Harris of Reachout Trust on 6 April 1998.] 

Table of Contents

Introduction Context is everything Is Joseph Smith equal to Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ: Our Lord and Savior The role of prophets Joseph Smith and the final judgment What is "official" LDS doctrine? The Bible and the Book of Mormon Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible? Has the Bible been altered? Can a person accept both the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Some final thoughts Endnotes

 Dear Doug,

I appreciate this chance to respond to your letter of 6 March 1998. I believe it is critical that people of different beliefs come together and discuss the great issues of faith. In any true, open dialogue, participants invariably come away with new understanding and respect for each other's beliefs. This is the sort of dialogue to which I am committed, and I pray that you are as well. I do not expect to convert you to my religion, but I hope that, at the end of this letter, you will have a better understanding and appreciation for the Latter-day Saint faith.

Allow me to apologize in advance for the length of this reply. I intend to fully examine the issues you raised, and I promise I will attempt to take my wife's repeated advice and "get to the point."

You raised several issues, many of which appeared and reappeared throughout your letter. I have outlined below what I see as the basic points of discussion:

• Do Latter-day Saints believe that Joseph Smith is equal to Jesus Christ?

• What constitutes "official" LDS doctrine?

• Is it possible to believe both the Book of Mormon and the Bible?

Context is everything

It is critical to our discussion that proper context is given to every quote and every reference used to back up every allegation. It is very easy to claim "Mormons believe X," and then produce a quote that seems to support that contention. When the citation used to support a charge is given out of context, it results in a false charge.

For example, an anti-Christian could claim "Christians believe in cannibalism," and produce John 6:53 in support of his thesis:

    Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Such an argument would be false, of course, because the anti-Christian is not taking into account the entire doctrine of Christ's redemption. He must use other scriptures to give a full and complete disclosure of Christian belief.¹

The cannibalism charge sounds silly to those who understand the details of Christianity, but the reader born and raised in a community of Muslims or Confucianists, who has never met a Christian, may actually believe it. Similarly, there are many people who are not aware of the particulars of Latter-day Saint belief, and it does a disservice to them to use quotations out of context.

Context includes taking into account information immediately before and after a quote, as well as examining what else the author and his associates have said on the subject.

As I will demonstrate, the quotes you used were not considered in their proper context and background, and because of this you used them to support a faulty thesis.

Jesus Christ: Our Lord and Savior

Let me state unequivocally that Latter-day Saints believe and accept the ultimate authority of and salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh, and the only Being through whom we can be saved:

    Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
    This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
    Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10-12; emphasis added.²)

The Book of Mormon echoes the message of the Bible, urging us to:

    . . . remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ . . . (Helaman 5:9.)

And reminding us that:

    . . . we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. (2 Nephi 25:26.)

On page after page, the Book of Mormon testifies of the divinity and completeness of the atonement of Jesus Christ. As Boyd K. Packer, Acting President of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, recently said,

    Christ dominates [the Book of Mormon]. . . . He is referred to in 3,925 verses, more than half of the 6,607 verse in the book. Beginning with the title page, where the purpose of the book is given as "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God," he is referred to as the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, the Only Begotten of the Father, and nearly a hundred other titles. In the last phrase of the last sentence of the last verse, verse 6,607, the Savior is referred to as "the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge."³

Joseph Smith's later revelations confirmed and reemphasized Christ's central and overriding position in our doctrine:

    And we [Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, in a vision on 16 February 1832] beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness;
    And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever.
    And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all which we give of him: That he lives!
    For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father. (Doctrine and Covenants 76:20-23.⁴)

Joseph Smith himself, in response to the question "What are the fundamental principles of your religion?" answered:

    The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.⁵

This is the principal and primary message of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and our scriptures and the words of our leaders and members proclaim it loudly! While a selective reading from antagonistic sources might make it seem otherwise, an honest and complete reading of Latter-day Saint literature cannot help but bear this out.

The role of prophets

As I just stated, the Savior is preeminent in our faith. Latter-day Saints also accept the witness and authority of prophets sent by Christ.

All men and women must accept the testimony of the prophets to receive salvation. Why? Christ himself left no written testimony—we only have information about him through the word of the prophets and apostles.

The scriptures testify that accepting the testimonies of the prophets is the first step to accepting Christ. The Savior declared to his apostles:

    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. (John 13:20, emphasis added.⁶)

He also warned of the grave consequences of rejecting the apostles' testimony:

    He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. (Luke 10:16, emphasis added.)

The apostle Peter, recalling his experience at the Mount of Transfiguration,⁷ wrote:

    For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
    For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
    And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
    We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. (2 Peter 1:16-19, emphasis added.)

Peter's testimony is critical to our understanding of the divinity of Jesus Christ, because it is through him that we learn about the marvelous event on that mountain where the Father bore record of the Son. Likewise, John the Beloved is our primary source of majestic teachings of Jesus at the Last Supper, including the incomparable Great Intercessory Prayer.⁸

Amos taught the importance of prophets by declaring that:

    Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but [i.e., except] he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7.)

Joseph Smith explained:

    . . . the kingdom of God was set up on the earth from the days of Adam to the present time, whenever there has been a righteous man on earth unto whom God revealed His word and gave power and authority to administer in His name. And where there is a priest of God—a minister who has power and authority from God to administer in the ordinances of the gospel and officiate in the priesthood of God—there is the kingdom of God. And, in consequence of rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Prophets whom God hath sent, the judgments of God have rested upon people, cities, and nations, in various ages of the world, which was the case with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, that were destroyed for rejecting the P