FAIR - User contributions [en]

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Summary

2007-03-27T20:15:00Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Summary}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Has the video's stated purpose been accomplished?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The producers undertook their task with a bold and noble purpose:

:''This video has been produced out of love for our Lord Jesus Christ and love for our Mormon and Christian friends. We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

However, we find such declarations of love inconsistent with their disappointing behavior as they revile and demean what Latter-day Saint Christians hold dear and sacred. Perhaps we should be asking <i>how</i> the video's purpose was accomplished rather than if the video's purpose was accomplished. The viewer need only look to their abuse of scripture as we reinstate the apostle Paul's words (in brackets) that they removed in their video presentation.

"God’s word warns: “Do you not know do that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, [nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,] nor thieves, [nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers,] will inherit the kingdom of God." ({{s|1|Corinthians|6|9-10}})

The producers simply removed several words, including "revilers," to avoid implicating themselves in the same condemnation they pronounce on others. This will put the observant viewer on notice that they must carefully research each scripture and claim that this video makes.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "From his fabrication of the First Vision to his reconstruction of the Christian faith and his desire for women it is clear that Joseph centered his life around lust, wealth, and power. Joseph Smith joins a long list of those who have used the name of Christ to enrich themselves."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

We have shown that these claims about the First vision and Joseph's reasons for practicing polygamy are false and rely upon a distorted, twisted, or incomplete reading of the historical record.

Joseph Smith's life demonstrated selflessness, humility, and a desire to serve God and his fellow man. He wasn't without sin, and he never claimed to be. But despite his weaknesses, he was a prophet of God.

Joseph published numerous revelations calling him personally to repent.({{s||DC|3|9-10}}, {{s||DC|5|21}} for example) He was quick to aid the poor, and the early Church had many poor. As members came, leaving homes and family and most of their worldly possessions behind, they were welcomed, fed, and clothed by the Church and by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

In the end, he gave his life for his testimony of Jesus Christ when he could have preserved it by recanting what he claimed to have witnessed.

'''To read more:'''
* {{lds|topic=Character of Joseph Smith|url=http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith/menuitem.da0e1d4eb6d2d87f9c0a33b5f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=934f001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&locale=0}}
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:First Vision|First Vision]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:The %22Occult%22|"occult"]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Polygamy|plural marriage]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:The Translator|translation]]
* [[Template:JosephSmithPortal|Joseph Smith resources]]
* [[Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It’s no coincidence that Joseph was murdered in the Carthage jail. Why was Joseph in jail? He destroyed a small paper press called the ''Nauvoo Expositor'' because he didn’t like what they had written about him in their one and only publication." – Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph Smith was in jail because he went to answer manufactured charges of treason against the state. He voluntarily surrendered to a state official who had guaranteed him and his brother Hyrum protection.

The call for the destruction of the ''Nauvoo Expositor'' was not taken by "Joseph Smith," but by the Nauvoo city council, of which Joseph was a member. The council—which included non-members of the Church—voted to suppress the ''Expositor'' as a public nuisance.

The video will not tell you that some scholars have argued that the city council's action was ''legal'' according to Nauvoo city charter. Nor will they tell you that the council's concern was that the paper was so inflammatory that it might stir up violence.

The viewer also won't be told that Joseph was released by the Nauvoo municipal court on 13 June 1844. Anti-Mormons claimed this court was biased, so Joseph and others again appeared before non-Mormon judge Daniel H. Wells on 17 June, who discharged them (he did not have power to acquit them, so this was deferred).

Governor Ford of Missouri then asked Joseph to appear before the Carthage judge to satisfy the anti-Mormons. Joseph did so, and was freed on bail. Joseph and Hyrum were then ''arrested again'' because of a writ issued by Robert F. Smith, a Methodist minister, justice of the peace, and captain of the Carthage Grays militia.

The DVD will not reveal that Joseph was twice released by legal courts. It will not reveal that he was out on bail awaiting trial in a ''third'' court when he was ''rearrested'' by a religious enemy. Governor Ford broke his promise to protect Joseph and Hyrum, and the Carthage Grays conspired to help murder Joseph.

It almost sounds as if the video is endorsing what happened to Joseph, or saying he "deserved it." Such an attitude shows contempt for the law and Christian ethics.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]
* [[Nauvoo city charter]]
* [[Joseph Smith as a martyr|Murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith]]
* Dallin H. Oaks, “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” ''Utah Law Review'' 9 (1965):874.
* {{CarthageConspiracy1 |start=y}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But this was not the first time Joseph was arrested. He had been arrested many times throughout his adult life for things like defrauding people while he was using his glass-looking techniques and creating an illegal bank in Kirtland, Ohio, and fleeing with its monies." – Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph was arrested many times. John the Baptist was arrested. Peter and the apostles were arrested. The apostle Paul was arrested many times. Even Jesus was arrested. (Ironically, two of this video's contributors have been arrested.) Does this mean that John, Peter, Paul, and Jesus are to be condemned? Did they "deserve" what happened to them? Should the producers of this video repudiate the ministries of two of their contributors (Joel Kramer and Chip Thompson) because they have been arrested for exercising what they viewed as their religious rights?

The video carefully avoids mentioning that Joseph was never found guilty by any court of the charges for which he was arrested. But, for the DVD producers, the mere fact of being arrested and charged with a crime is adequate—Joseph Smith is "guilty until proven innocent."

As previously discussed, Joseph was not found guilty in the matter of the "glass-looking," and the person he had supposedly "defrauded" testified in his behalf and joined the Church. (Review treatment of this issue [[Search for the Truth DVD:Polygamy|here]].)

The Kirtland Safety Society is not an example of Joseph "defrauding" people. Joseph put more of his own money into the bank than any other person, save one. He paid more for his stock than 85% of the other owners. The bank failed, as did hundreds of other banks, because of a nation-wide banking panic.

Joseph did not "flee...with its monies"—he went further into debt trying to save the bank, and owed over $100,000 when it finally failed. Joseph had enough goods and lands to meet that debt, but converting these into cash was difficult in the early 19th-century economy following the collapse.

Joseph continued to pay his creditors after fleeing for his life. In 1843 he was far away, safe in Nauvoo, and yet continued to settle his debts from the Kirtland period. These are not the actions of a man trying to "get rich quick" or swindle others.

Once again, the DVD has distorted historical facts and omitted all information that conflicts with their conclusions.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph Smith's 1826 glasslooking trial|1826 'glass-looking' hearing]]
* [[Kirtland Safety Society]]
* [[Joseph Smith and legal trials]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "So why do so many people follow this man? Because they don’t know the truth about the character of Joseph Smith." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The DVD producers would profit by asking members of the Church why they follow Joseph Smith. They would learn that they follow Joseph's teachings because:
* Joseph's teachings are consistent with the Holy Bible.
* Joseph's teachings bring them closer to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
* The power of the Holy Spirit has witnessed to their minds and hearts that Joseph is a Prophet and disciple of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon stands with the Bible as a witness to the word of God.

The Saints accept that Joseph was imperfect—all men have weaknesses. But it is the doctrine of Christ which Joseph taught, and the influence of the Holy Spirit which Joseph brought, which members cherish and follow.

Brigham Young described an encounter with the 19th-century version of the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD:

:''I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. ''

:''I said, hold on, Brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can.''

:''As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, ''for I never embrace any man in my faith.''

:''But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it.''
::<small>—{{JoD4|author=Brigham Young|title=The Gospel Like a Net Cast Into the Sea, Etc.|date=9 November 1856|start=77|end=78}} (paragraph breaks added) {{ea}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "As a Mormon, you cannot question the Church on issues such as these because you run the risk of excommunication." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is complete nonsense.

The DVD wants its viewers to trust only its sources—they know that if viewers ask knowledgeable LDS members or leaders about these issues, they will receive information that shows the DVD to be dishonest and inaccurate.

The Church has a lay clergy—this means that its leaders do not spend time in seminaries and degree programs. They come from many occupations and social backgrounds. Many leaders—like many members—are not experts in matters of early Mormon history.

Some leaders, like some members, may be unaware of the historical details which are so regularly distorted by the DVD. If a leader is unable to provide an answer to a sincere question, this does not mean that an answer does not exist. No one knows everything.

FAIR exists to fill any such "knowledge gaps" by providing accurate, well-researched information about LDS history and doctrine. Anti-Mormon attacks are repetitive; most were asked and answered decades ago.

No one will be excommunicated for asking questions. Excommunication occurs only for cases of severe unrepentant sin, or in cases where a member is guilty of ''apostasy''. Apostasy is the public teaching of doctrines believed to be false by the Church, even after being corrected by Church leaders.

If one were to repeatedly preach the nonsense taught by the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD, one could conceivably be excommunicated for apostasy. But despite anti-Mormon claims to the contrary, Latter-day Saints are not disciplined merely for not believing Church doctrine nor for believing things contrary to Church teachings.

'''To read more:'''
* Do Mormons Believe in Blind Obedience? {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Do_Mormons_Believe_in_Blind_Obedience.html}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php Click here] to ask questions of FAIR. You will receive one or more e-mail replies, with additional references shortly, usually within less than 24 hours.

|-
! <div id="leaders"><h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "This video has been sent to Mormon leaders knowing that they will try to destroy and discredit its message but this will not change the fact that the content within is true." – Pamela Robertson</h2></div>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This statement presents a clear problem for the producers of this video. Contrast the statement with another statement made in the [[Search for the Truth DVD:letter|letter that accompanied the DVD]], sent to recipients before the video was released:

:''CAUTION: This video is to be viewed by CHRISTIANS ONLY until AFTER the nation-wide distribution which is scheduled for March 25, 2007. In-other-words, DO NOT ALLOW ANY MORMON PEOPLE to view the video or learn of our intended evangelistic outreach until after March 25, 2007.''

:''Why such extreme caution? If the leadership of the Mormon cult learns of our plans, they will publicly instruct their people not to watch the video and many Mormons will blindly obey.''

The clear problem? Either it is true that the DVD was sent to LDS leaders, or it is true that it was kept from LDS leadership for fear they would instruct members not to watch the video. It would seem that both statements cannot be true. Rather than accuse the producers of the DVD of lying—which would be assigning intent to these incompatible statements—it seems more prudent to say that this is a clear case of them misleading either one their hosts (Pam Robertson) or their recipients (of the pre-release letter).

Fortunately, the DVD's message discredits itself rather well, and all members need do is to continue doing what we've always done: share the truth.

And the only ones being asked to "blindly obey" are those asked to distribute the DVD on doorknobs across the country and those being asked to believe the DVD's version of LDS doctrine and history.

'''''Note:''''' FAIR is not owned, affiliated with, or controlled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These replies were not prepared at the behest of the Church, and do not represent official statements. They are the opinions only of the authors, who are believing and committed members of the Church.

'''To read more:'''
* {{Offenders1| start=1}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Do not trust your eternity to a burning in the bosom which can be felt by simply watching a Hollywood movie. Even terrorists believe and are willing to die for something which is not of the Lord."– Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Comparing Latter-day Saint convictions to those of "terrorists" is inflammatory and absurd. Terrorists lie to achieve their goals; does that mean that the DVD producers should be compared to terrorists?

It is strange that sectarian critics fault appeals to a "burning in the bosom."

'''Would they reject a witness of Jesus?'''

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other, "We should have known it was Jesus because of his scriptural teaching." Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart ''burn within us'', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom"? Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional rush of a Hollywood film?

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates another important point: a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

'''Mind and heart'''

LDS scripture understands a spiritual witness as always consisting of these two things: mind and heart unified:

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier.

This matches a later description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

'''Following Jesus' command to ask'''

Because the video's producers haven't experienced the testimony of the Spirit, they want you to ignore it. But what did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, not ignore them. Instead, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread (see {{s||Matthew|7|9}}).

And then we have the admonition of James:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Burning in the bosom]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus alone is without sin, as we read in 1 John 3:5—'And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.' Only Jesus could live a sinless life."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The DVD wants you to believe that this description of Christ is different from LDS beliefs of Christ. Once again, this is false—hardly an act of love. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ was the only sinless person to ever live and that his sinlessness was one of the attributes that allowed him to make an atonement for all mankind.

'''To read more:'''

''The Book of Mormon''
* [http://www.mormon.org/freeoffers/1,17785,2071-1-1,00.html?src=tv Click here] for free copy of the Book of Mormon:Another Testament of Jesus Christ, with no obligation
* [http://www.lds.org/mp3/display/0,18692,5297-41,00.html?src=tv# Click here] to listen to or download Book of Mormon in audio format (no charge)
* [http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents Click here] for an on-line searchable Book of Mormon (no charge)

''Other resources''
* {{lds|url=http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,802-1,00.html|topic=Jesus Christ}}
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is Jesus%3F|Jesus Christ]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Eternal Life|Beliefs about salvation]]
* [[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines|Book of Mormon doctrines about Jesus Christ]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "If someone today would model their life after Joseph Smith they would have to be an adulterer, a thief, a fraud and a liar.... You must choose to follow Joseph or follow Jesus but you cannot follow both."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
More verbal tar and feathers for the prophet Joseph.

Of course, Latter-day Saints do not strive to "model their lives" on Joseph Smith, but on the sinless, perfect life of the Lord Jesus Christ. They imitate Joseph only to the extent that Joseph was a faithful disciple of Christ.

Throughout his life, Joseph had to endure the slurs and allegations of creedal religionists—things certainly haven't changed after more than 150 years.

Was Joseph dragged into jail many times on religiously-motivated charges? Yes, and so was Peter, so was Paul, and so even was Christ Himself.

Christ was murdered by those who hated Him, and Joseph Smith—like others persecuted for their beliefs about Christ—eventually followed the Master into violent death at the hands of those who hated his message.

Those who attack the faith of others, especially through dishonesty and misrepresentation, should remember Christ's denunciation of those who fought His message in His day:

:Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
:Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
:And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
:Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
:Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
:Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
:Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city. ({{s||Matthew|23|28-34}})

If one wants to ''Search for the Truth'' about Joseph Smith, one will need to look much further than the superficial slogans, distortions, and untruths presented in this DVD.

As President Boyd K. Packer remarked:

:''There has been no end to opposition. There are misinterpretations and misrepresentations of us and of our history, some of it mean-spirited and certainly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His gospel. Sometimes clergy, even ministerial organizations, oppose us. They do what we would never do. We do not attack or criticize or oppose others as they do us.... Strangest of all, otherwise intelligent people claim we are not Christian. This shows that they know little or nothing about us. It is a true principle that you cannot lift yourself by putting others down.''
::<small>—{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=A Defense and a Refuge|date=November 2006|start=85|end=88}} {{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff120d034ceae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus Christ...Joseph Smith...Choose!"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It should be clear by now that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not have to choose between Jesus and Joseph.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"If you don’t believe the things stated in this program look them up for yourself." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

At last, something with which we can agree. If you have questions, you ''should'' get the facts—all the facts.

But, you won't get them from this DVD or the ministries that support anti-Mormon propaganda.

|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/The Priesthood

2007-03-24T17:51:40Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: The Priesthood?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"We are priests. In two different sections of scripture God calls every believer a priest." - Floyd McElveen (Author and Lifetime Evangelist) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen is here claiming that the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers" is Biblical. This Biblical interpretation holds that there is no special priesthood authority, but that the authority to act in God's name is given to all faithful Christians.

Mr. McElveen wishes to prove that the LDS claim to a restored priesthood authority is unnecessary.

However, the Bible paints a quite different picture.

* In Old Testament times, the authority to act in a religious capacity did not belong to everyone. Even kings could not act as priests of the Lord without authority. ({{s|1|Samuel|13|11-14}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|26|18}})

* Critics may claim that this changed in New Testament times, but Hebrews teaches that the same principle applies:
:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.({{s||Hebrews|5|4}})

How was Aaron chosen? By direct revelation from God to a prophet:

:And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.({{s||Exodus|28|1}}).

Jesus also called apostles, set them apart, and made certain it was clear who had authority (see {{s||Mark|13|34}}, {{s||Matthew|16|18}}). Following Judas' suicide, the remaining apostles met and sought God's will regarding a replacement, demonstrating that this authority was meant to persist, and needed to be conferred upon someone, not just assumed to exist because they believed ({{s||Acts|1|21-25}}).

The apostles called others to assist them, and gave them authority by laying on hands (see {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}). Paul and Barnabas were called and given authority in the same way ({{s||Acts|13|2-3}}). Bestowing the Holy Ghost was viewed as requiring the laying on of hands, and not something that every believer could accomplish—those with authority had to come and do so ({{s||Acts|8|18-23}}, {{s||Acts|19|1-6}}).

Jesus insisted that others did not choose to wield His authority—He chose them, and made it clear who was chosen by ordination:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.({{s||John|15|16}})

Clearly, the conferral and proper transfer of authority is of key importance within the Old and New Testaments. One must accept one of two positions: either this authority continued, unbroken, through the Church of the Middle Ages down to the present day, or the authority was lost and a restoration was necessary.

Since Mr. McElveen's denomination is of recent origin, it is not surprising that he would want to dispense with the idea of an ordained line of priesthood authority. But, the Bible clearly teaches another view.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Yes it has been said that the Mormon Church does believe that there is a special priesthood that is separate from other individuals in the Church and it’s interesting that Peter goes on to tell us, now Peter was the one who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven; he wasn’t the first Pope or anything but, he was given the gospel, he could tell people how to get into heaven..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

While one could debate whether Peter was the first Pope (an issue that Rev. Gallatin should take up with the Catholic Church), it seems that he’s overly quick to denigrate Peter’s importance as one of the first Twelve Apostles. We need only look at Matthew 16:15-19 to see that Jesus Christ put him into a preeminent role:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

These verses indicate that Peter clearly could do much more than “tell people how to get into heaven.” They declare that Jesus Christ will “give unto (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” To the membership of the Church—to say nothing of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches—the “keys” in question are representative of the authority necessary to act in the name of God. Indeed, once Peter received the promised keys, he could, and did, do far more than “tell people how to get into heaven: he altered Church practices through new revelation, led the apostles in decision-making, and exercised judgment over Church members.

The priesthood keys in the early church were:

'''''Given in turn by Peter and the other apostles to those who were called and ordained''''':

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||John|15|16}}
* {{s||Acts|1|22}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22-23}}
* {{s||Acts|15|32}}
* {{s||Ephesians|2|20}}

||
* {{s||Ephesians|4|11-12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-13}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|5|17}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|1|9}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
* {{s||Titus|1|5}}
|-
|}

'''''Given by the laying on of hands
{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}
*{{s||Acts|8|18}}

||
*{{s||Acts|13|1-3}}
|-
|}

'''''These priesthood holders, referred to as:'''''

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
:''Elders, or the "presbytery"''
*{{s||Acts|15|2}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22}}
||
* {{s||Acts|15|23}}
* {{s||Acts|16|4}}
* {{s||Acts|20|17}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|4|14}}
|-
|
:''Bishops''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-2}}
||
* {{s||Titus|1|7}}
* {{s|1|Peter|2|20}}
|-
|
:''Deacons''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|8}}
*{{s|1|Timothy|3|10}}

||
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|13}}
* {{s||Philippians|1|1}}
|-
|
:''Evangelists''
*{{s||Acts|21|8}}
||
*{{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
|-
|}

'''''These leaders''':
* performed healings - {{s||James|5|14-15}}
* accomplished other miracles - {{s||Mark|16|17-18}}
* led the Church - {{s||Acts|15|2-6}}

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
* {{s||Matthew|16||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: [Peter] "didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints do not believe that holding the priesthood makes anyone "better than another person." Priesthood is a call to service from God; it is not an office to which one aspires because of perks or social prestige.

As Jesus told his apostles:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ''ordained you'' ({{s||John|15|16}}.) {{ea}}

He further instructed them:

:...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it ''shall not be so among you'': but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, ''but to minister''....({{s||Matthew|20|25-28}}){{ea}}

'''To read more:'''
* {{s||DC|121||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...in 1 Peter 2:9, he said, “...you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood” and he didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person, he wrote it to all of us in the Church because we have been given the responsibility as priests—all of us in the body of Christ to represent Christ—and that’s really what a priest, or a pastor, should do. And so, Peter wrote to everybody in the body of Christ to be a good representative of Christ as a royal priest." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin is determined to defend the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers," and so does not mention all the scriptures from the New Testament (discussed above) that clearly demonstrate that priesthood was held by specific members, and that this authority was conferred, not assumed.

He here invokes a single verse as a proof text for the idea of a priesthood of all believers. A closer look in context demonstrates that this is a misinterpretation.

:If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious...({{s|1|Peter|2|3-4}})

Peter begins by speaking about Jesus as "a living stone," to whom the Christians are to come.

:Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.({{s|1|Peter|2|5}})

Peter then compares the members to living or "lively stones" (miniature imitations of Christ, filled with His life and power, as it were). These lively stones are built into a "spiritual house" with the "living stone" (Christ) as the cornerstone.

Peter here invokes temple imagery—the members are compared to the building blocks of the Jewish temple, in which a holy priesthood officiates, and where sacrifices are offered (though here the sacrifices are "spiritual"—a broken heart, and a contrite spirit, etc., rather than animal).

The point which Pastor Gallatin overlooks is that this is a ''metaphor'' or ''allegory''. Are we really to believe that Peter saw Jesus as a ''literal'' stone? Or, that the members were ''literal'' rocks, or actually constituted a physical building? Of course not.

Peter goes on in his allegory, and compares Jesus to:
* "the chief cornerstone" to those who believe (again invoking the temple building)
* "the stone which the builders disallowed" to those who rejected him
* "the head of the corner"
* "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense" to the disobedient (see {{s|1|Peter|6|8}}.)

Now we get to the verse which Pastor Gallatin has quoted:

:But ye are a chosen generation, a <font color="red">royal priesthood</font>, an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>, a <font color="green">peculiar people</font>;{{s|1|Peter|2|9}}

This a clear allusion to the Old Testament, in which God tells Israel:

:Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a <font color="green">peculiar treasure</font> unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a <font color="red">kingdom of priests</font>, and an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.({{s||Exodus|19|5-6}})

Even though Israel is a "kingdom of priests," and God here addresses all of Israel, that does not mean that every Israelite held the priesthood. Clearly, only Levites held priesthood in Israel.

Thus, Peter's remarks in 1 Peter 2 are allegorical comparisons, in which the Christian believers are compared to the temple, in which a holy priesthood officiated to give offerings to God. That priesthood and the people with whom it worked were the Israelites, who were discussed in the same terms. But, this does not mean that every member of the community in which that priesthood operated were priesthood holders.

This is made extremely clear by Peter's reaction to Simon Magus' attempts to use priesthood power.

Simon was a convert, and a ''believer'':

:Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.({{s||Acts|8|13}})

If the doctrine of a priesthood of all believers was true, then Simon ought to have had the priesthood authority to heal, work miracles, and lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. But, Simon clearly ''was not taught this doctrine'' because he realized he didn't have the power, and wanted it. He attempted to buy it, and was rebuked by Peter.

There would have been no need to offer to buy the priesthood power if Simon had been taught that all believers held the priesthood. But, Peter clearly did not believe this doctrine, and did not teach it in 1 Peter 2.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/The Priesthood

2007-03-24T17:27:54Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: The Priesthood?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"We are priests. In two different sections of scripture God calls every believer a priest." - Floyd McElveen (Author and Lifetime Evangelist) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen is here claiming that the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers" is Biblical. This Biblical interpretation holds that there is no special priesthood authority, but that the authority to act in God's name is given to all faithful Christians.

Mr. McElveen wishes to prove that the LDS claim to a restored priesthood authority is unnecessary.

However, the Bible paints a quite different picture.

* In Old Testament times, the authority to act in a religious capacity did not belong to everyone. Even kings could not act as priests of the Lord without authority. ({{s|1|Samuel|13|11-14}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|26|18}})

* Critics may claim that this changed in New Testament times, but Hebrews teaches that the same principle applies:
:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.({{s||Hebrews|5|4}})

How was Aaron chosen? By direct revelation from God to a prophet:

:And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.({{s||Exodus|28|1}}).

Jesus also called apostles, set them apart, and made certain it was clear who had authority (see {{s||Mark|13|34}}, {{s||Matthew|16|18}}). Following Judas' suicide, the remaining apostles met and sought God's will regarding a replacement, demonstrating that this authority was meant to persist, and needed to be conferred upon someone, not just assumed to exist because they believed ({{s||Acts|1|21-25}}).

The apostles called others to assist them, and gave them authority by laying on hands (see {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}). Paul and Barnabas were called and given authority in the same way ({{s||Acts|13|2-3}}). Bestowing the Holy Ghost was viewed as requiring the laying on of hands, and not something that every believer could accomplish—those with authority had to come and do so ({{s||Acts|8|18-23}}, {{s||Acts|19|1-6}}).

Jesus insisted that others did not choose to wield His authority—He chose them, and made it clear who was chosen by ordination:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.({{s||John|15|16}})

On the other hand, the Bible is extremely clear regarding those who take the priesthood unto themselves. After witnessing the miracles of Paul, the seven sons of Sceva, who fancied themselves as exorcists with the power to cast out evil spirits, were soundly taught otherwise. The evil spirt recognized Jesus and Paul but not them, causing them to flee out of the house naked and wounded. ({{scripture||Acts|19|11-16}}) Certainly the Bible teaches us that the authority of God is reserved for those whom He chooses.

Clearly, the conferral and proper transfer of authority is of key importance within the Old and New Testaments. One must accept one of two positions: either this authority continued, unbroken, through the Church of the Middle Ages down to the present day, or the authority was lost and a restoration was necessary.

Since Mr. McElveen's denomination is of recent origin, it is not surprising that he would want to dispense with the idea of an ordained line of priesthood authority. But, the Bible clearly teaches another view.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Yes it has been said that the Mormon Church does believe that there is a special priesthood that is separate from other individuals in the Church and it’s interesting that Peter goes on to tell us, now Peter was the one who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven; he wasn’t the first Pope or anything but, he was given the gospel, he could tell people how to get into heaven..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

While one could debate whether Peter was the first Pope (an issue that Rev. Gallatin should take up with the Catholic Church), it seems that he’s overly quick to denigrate Peter’s importance as one of the first Twelve Apostles. We need only look at Matthew 16:15-19 to see that Jesus Christ put him into a preeminent role:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

These verses indicate that Peter clearly could do much more than “tell people how to get into heaven.” They declare that Jesus Christ will “give unto (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” To the membership of the Church—to say nothing of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches—the “keys” in question are representative of the authority necessary to act in the name of God. Indeed, once Peter received the promised keys, he could, and did, do far more than “tell people how to get into heaven: he altered Church practices through new revelation, led the apostles in decision-making, and exercised judgment over Church members.

The priesthood keys in the early church were:

'''''Given in turn by Peter and the other apostles to those who were called and ordained''''':

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||John|15|16}}
* {{s||Acts|1|22}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22-23}}
* {{s||Acts|15|32}}
* {{s||Ephesians|2|20}}

||
* {{s||Ephesians|4|11-12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-13}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|5|17}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|1|9}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
* {{s||Titus|1|5}}
|-
|}

'''''Given by the laying on of hands
{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}
*{{s||Acts|8|18}}

||
*{{s||Acts|13|1-3}}
|-
|}

'''''These priesthood holders, referred to as:'''''

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
:''Elders, or the "presbytery"''
*{{s||Acts|15|2}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22}}
||
* {{s||Acts|15|23}}
* {{s||Acts|16|4}}
* {{s||Acts|20|17}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|4|14}}
|-
|
:''Bishops''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-2}}
||
* {{s||Titus|1|7}}
* {{s|1|Peter|2|20}}
|-
|
:''Deacons''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|8}}
*{{s|1|Timothy|3|10}}

||
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|13}}
* {{s||Philippians|1|1}}
|-
|
:''Evangelists''
*{{s||Acts|21|8}}
||
*{{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
|-
|}

'''''These leaders''':
* performed healings - {{s||James|5|14-15}}
* accomplished other miracles - {{s||Mark|16|17-18}}
* led the Church - {{s||Acts|15|2-6}}

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
* {{s||Matthew|16||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: [Peter] "didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints do not believe that holding the priesthood makes anyone "better than another person." Priesthood is a call to service from God; it is not an office to which one aspires because of perks or social prestige.

As Jesus told his apostles:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ''ordained you'' ({{s||John|15|16}}.) {{ea}}

He further instructed them:

:...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it ''shall not be so among you'': but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, ''but to minister''....({{s||Matthew|20|25-28}}){{ea}}

'''To read more:'''
* {{s||DC|121||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...in 1 Peter 2:9, he said, “...you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood” and he didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person, he wrote it to all of us in the Church because we have been given the responsibility as priests—all of us in the body of Christ to represent Christ—and that’s really what a priest, or a pastor, should do. And so, Peter wrote to everybody in the body of Christ to be a good representative of Christ as a royal priest." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin is determined to defend the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers," and so does not mention all the scriptures from the New Testament (discussed above) that clearly demonstrate that priesthood was held by specific members, and that this authority was conferred, not assumed.

He here invokes a single verse as a proof text for the idea of a priesthood of all believers. A closer look in context demonstrates that this is a misinterpretation.

:If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious...({{s|1|Peter|2|3-4}})

Peter begins by speaking about Jesus as "a living stone," to whom the Christians are to come.

:Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.({{s|1|Peter|2|5}})

Peter then compares the members to living or "lively stones" (miniature imitations of Christ, filled with His life and power, as it were). These lively stones are built into a "spiritual house" with the "living stone" (Christ) as the cornerstone.

Peter here invokes temple imagery—the members are compared to the building blocks of the Jewish temple, in which a holy priesthood officiates, and where sacrifices are offered (though here the sacrifices are "spiritual"—a broken heart, and a contrite spirit, etc., rather than animal).

The point which Pastor Gallatin overlooks is that this is a ''metaphor'' or ''allegory''. Are we really to believe that Peter saw Jesus as a ''literal'' stone? Or, that the members were ''literal'' rocks, or actually constituted a physical building? Of course not.

Peter goes on in his allegory, and compares Jesus to:
* "the chief cornerstone" to those who believe (again invoking the temple building)
* "the stone which the builders disallowed" to those who rejected him
* "the head of the corner"
* "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense" to the disobedient (see {{s|1|Peter|6|8}}.)

Now we get to the verse which Pastor Gallatin has quoted:

:But ye are a chosen generation, a <font color="red">royal priesthood</font>, an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>, a <font color="green">peculiar people</font>;{{s|1|Peter|2|9}}

This a clear allusion to the Old Testament, in which God tells Israel:

:Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a <font color="green">peculiar treasure</font> unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a <font color="red">kingdom of priests</font>, and an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.({{s||Exodus|19|5-6}})

Even though Israel is a "kingdom of priests," and God here addresses all of Israel, that does not mean that every Israelite held the priesthood. Clearly, only Levites held priesthood in Israel.

Thus, Peter's remarks in 1 Peter 2 are allegorical comparisons, in which the Christian believers are compared to the temple, in which a holy priesthood officiated to give offerings to God. That priesthood and the people with whom it worked were the Israelites, who were discussed in the same terms. But, this does not mean that every member of the community in which that priesthood operated were priesthood holders.

This is made extremely clear by Peter's reaction to Simon Magus' attempts to use priesthood power.

Simon was a convert, and a ''believer'':

:Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.({{s||Acts|8|13}})

If the doctrine of a priesthood of all believers was true, then Simon ought to have had the priesthood authority to heal, work miracles, and lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. But, Simon clearly ''was not taught this doctrine'' because he realized he didn't have the power, and wanted it. He attempted to buy it, and was rebuked by Peter.

There would have been no need to offer to buy the priesthood power if Simon had been taught that all believers held the priesthood. But, Peter clearly did not believe this doctrine, and did not teach it in 1 Peter 2.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/The Priesthood

2007-03-24T17:27:32Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: The Priesthood?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"We are priests. In two different sections of scripture God calls every believer a priest." - Floyd McElveen (Author and Lifetime Evangelist) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen is here claiming that the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers" is Biblical. This Biblical interpretation holds that there is no special priesthood authority, but that the authority to act in God's name is given to all faithful Christians.

Mr. McElveen wishes to prove that the LDS claim to a restored priesthood authority is unnecessary.

However, the Bible paints a quite different picture.

* In Old Testament times, the authority to act in a religious capacity did not belong to everyone. Even kings could not act as priests of the Lord without authority. ({{s|1|Samuel|13|11-14}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|26|18}})

* Critics may claim that this changed in New Testament times, but Hebrews teaches that the same principle applies:
:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.({{s||Hebrews|5|4}})

How was Aaron chosen? By direct revelation from God to a prophet:

:And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.({{s||Exodus|28|1}}).

Jesus also called apostles, set them apart, and made certain it was clear who had authority (see {{s||Mark|13|34}}, {{s||Matthew|16|18}}). Following Judas' suicide, the remaining apostles met and sought God's will regarding a replacement, demonstrating that this authority was meant to persist, and needed to be conferred upon someone, not just assumed to exist because they believed ({{s||Acts|1|21-25}}).

The apostles called others to assist them, and gave them authority by laying on hands (see {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}). Paul and Barnabas were called and given authority in the same way ({{s||Acts|13|2-3}}). Bestowing the Holy Ghost was viewed as requiring the laying on of hands, and not something that every believer could accomplish—those with authority had to come and do so ({{s||Acts|8|18-23}}, {{s||Acts|19|1-6}}).

Jesus insisted that others did not choose to wield His authority—He chose them, and made it clear who was chosen by ordination:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.({{s||John|15|16}})

On the other hand, the Bible is extremely clear regarding those who take the priesthood unto themselves. After witnessing the miracles of Paul, the seven sons of Sceva, who fancied themselves as exorcists with the power to cast out evil spirits, were soundly taught otherwise. The evil spirt recognized Jesus and Paul but not them, causing them to flee out of the house naked and wounded. ({{scripture||Acts|19|11|16}}) Certainly the Bible teaches us that the authority of God is reserved for those whom He chooses.

Clearly, the conferral and proper transfer of authority is of key importance within the Old and New Testaments. One must accept one of two positions: either this authority continued, unbroken, through the Church of the Middle Ages down to the present day, or the authority was lost and a restoration was necessary.

Since Mr. McElveen's denomination is of recent origin, it is not surprising that he would want to dispense with the idea of an ordained line of priesthood authority. But, the Bible clearly teaches another view.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Yes it has been said that the Mormon Church does believe that there is a special priesthood that is separate from other individuals in the Church and it’s interesting that Peter goes on to tell us, now Peter was the one who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven; he wasn’t the first Pope or anything but, he was given the gospel, he could tell people how to get into heaven..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

While one could debate whether Peter was the first Pope (an issue that Rev. Gallatin should take up with the Catholic Church), it seems that he’s overly quick to denigrate Peter’s importance as one of the first Twelve Apostles. We need only look at Matthew 16:15-19 to see that Jesus Christ put him into a preeminent role:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

These verses indicate that Peter clearly could do much more than “tell people how to get into heaven.” They declare that Jesus Christ will “give unto (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” To the membership of the Church—to say nothing of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches—the “keys” in question are representative of the authority necessary to act in the name of God. Indeed, once Peter received the promised keys, he could, and did, do far more than “tell people how to get into heaven: he altered Church practices through new revelation, led the apostles in decision-making, and exercised judgment over Church members.

The priesthood keys in the early church were:

'''''Given in turn by Peter and the other apostles to those who were called and ordained''''':

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||John|15|16}}
* {{s||Acts|1|22}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22-23}}
* {{s||Acts|15|32}}
* {{s||Ephesians|2|20}}

||
* {{s||Ephesians|4|11-12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-13}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|5|17}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|1|9}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
* {{s||Titus|1|5}}
|-
|}

'''''Given by the laying on of hands
{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}
*{{s||Acts|8|18}}

||
*{{s||Acts|13|1-3}}
|-
|}

'''''These priesthood holders, referred to as:'''''

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
:''Elders, or the "presbytery"''
*{{s||Acts|15|2}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22}}
||
* {{s||Acts|15|23}}
* {{s||Acts|16|4}}
* {{s||Acts|20|17}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|4|14}}
|-
|
:''Bishops''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-2}}
||
* {{s||Titus|1|7}}
* {{s|1|Peter|2|20}}
|-
|
:''Deacons''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|8}}
*{{s|1|Timothy|3|10}}

||
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|13}}
* {{s||Philippians|1|1}}
|-
|
:''Evangelists''
*{{s||Acts|21|8}}
||
*{{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
|-
|}

'''''These leaders''':
* performed healings - {{s||James|5|14-15}}
* accomplished other miracles - {{s||Mark|16|17-18}}
* led the Church - {{s||Acts|15|2-6}}

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
* {{s||Matthew|16||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: [Peter] "didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints do not believe that holding the priesthood makes anyone "better than another person." Priesthood is a call to service from God; it is not an office to which one aspires because of perks or social prestige.

As Jesus told his apostles:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ''ordained you'' ({{s||John|15|16}}.) {{ea}}

He further instructed them:

:...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it ''shall not be so among you'': but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, ''but to minister''....({{s||Matthew|20|25-28}}){{ea}}

'''To read more:'''
* {{s||DC|121||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...in 1 Peter 2:9, he said, “...you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood” and he didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person, he wrote it to all of us in the Church because we have been given the responsibility as priests—all of us in the body of Christ to represent Christ—and that’s really what a priest, or a pastor, should do. And so, Peter wrote to everybody in the body of Christ to be a good representative of Christ as a royal priest." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin is determined to defend the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers," and so does not mention all the scriptures from the New Testament (discussed above) that clearly demonstrate that priesthood was held by specific members, and that this authority was conferred, not assumed.

He here invokes a single verse as a proof text for the idea of a priesthood of all believers. A closer look in context demonstrates that this is a misinterpretation.

:If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious...({{s|1|Peter|2|3-4}})

Peter begins by speaking about Jesus as "a living stone," to whom the Christians are to come.

:Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.({{s|1|Peter|2|5}})

Peter then compares the members to living or "lively stones" (miniature imitations of Christ, filled with His life and power, as it were). These lively stones are built into a "spiritual house" with the "living stone" (Christ) as the cornerstone.

Peter here invokes temple imagery—the members are compared to the building blocks of the Jewish temple, in which a holy priesthood officiates, and where sacrifices are offered (though here the sacrifices are "spiritual"—a broken heart, and a contrite spirit, etc., rather than animal).

The point which Pastor Gallatin overlooks is that this is a ''metaphor'' or ''allegory''. Are we really to believe that Peter saw Jesus as a ''literal'' stone? Or, that the members were ''literal'' rocks, or actually constituted a physical building? Of course not.

Peter goes on in his allegory, and compares Jesus to:
* "the chief cornerstone" to those who believe (again invoking the temple building)
* "the stone which the builders disallowed" to those who rejected him
* "the head of the corner"
* "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense" to the disobedient (see {{s|1|Peter|6|8}}.)

Now we get to the verse which Pastor Gallatin has quoted:

:But ye are a chosen generation, a <font color="red">royal priesthood</font>, an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>, a <font color="green">peculiar people</font>;{{s|1|Peter|2|9}}

This a clear allusion to the Old Testament, in which God tells Israel:

:Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a <font color="green">peculiar treasure</font> unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a <font color="red">kingdom of priests</font>, and an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.({{s||Exodus|19|5-6}})

Even though Israel is a "kingdom of priests," and God here addresses all of Israel, that does not mean that every Israelite held the priesthood. Clearly, only Levites held priesthood in Israel.

Thus, Peter's remarks in 1 Peter 2 are allegorical comparisons, in which the Christian believers are compared to the temple, in which a holy priesthood officiated to give offerings to God. That priesthood and the people with whom it worked were the Israelites, who were discussed in the same terms. But, this does not mean that every member of the community in which that priesthood operated were priesthood holders.

This is made extremely clear by Peter's reaction to Simon Magus' attempts to use priesthood power.

Simon was a convert, and a ''believer'':

:Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.({{s||Acts|8|13}})

If the doctrine of a priesthood of all believers was true, then Simon ought to have had the priesthood authority to heal, work miracles, and lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. But, Simon clearly ''was not taught this doctrine'' because he realized he didn't have the power, and wanted it. He attempted to buy it, and was rebuked by Peter.

There would have been no need to offer to buy the priesthood power if Simon had been taught that all believers held the priesthood. But, Peter clearly did not believe this doctrine, and did not teach it in 1 Peter 2.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/The Priesthood

2007-03-24T17:26:29Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: The Priesthood?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"We are priests. In two different sections of scripture God calls every believer a priest." - Floyd McElveen (Author and Lifetime Evangelist) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen is here claiming that the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers" is Biblical. This Biblical interpretation holds that there is no special priesthood authority, but that the authority to act in God's name is given to all faithful Christians.

Mr. McElveen wishes to prove that the LDS claim to a restored priesthood authority is unnecessary.

However, the Bible paints a quite different picture.

* In Old Testament times, the authority to act in a religious capacity did not belong to everyone. Even kings could not act as priests of the Lord without authority. ({{s|1|Samuel|13|11-14}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|26|18}})

* Critics may claim that this changed in New Testament times, but Hebrews teaches that the same principle applies:
:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.({{s||Hebrews|5|4}})

How was Aaron chosen? By direct revelation from God to a prophet:

:And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.({{s||Exodus|28|1}}).

Jesus also called apostles, set them apart, and made certain it was clear who had authority (see {{s||Mark|13|34}}, {{s||Matthew|16|18}}). Following Judas' suicide, the remaining apostles met and sought God's will regarding a replacement, demonstrating that this authority was meant to persist, and needed to be conferred upon someone, not just assumed to exist because they believed ({{s||Acts|1|21-25}}).

The apostles called others to assist them, and gave them authority by laying on hands (see {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}). Paul and Barnabas were called and given authority in the same way ({{s||Acts|13|2-3}}). Bestowing the Holy Ghost was viewed as requiring the laying on of hands, and not something that every believer could accomplish—those with authority had to come and do so ({{s||Acts|8|18-23}}, {{s||Acts|19|1-6}}).

Jesus insisted that others did not choose to wield His authority—He chose them, and made it clear who was chosen by ordination:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.({{s||John|15|16}})

On the other hand, the Bible is extremely clear regarding those who take the priesthood unto themselves. After witnessing the miracles of Paul, the seven sons of Sceva, who fancied themselves as exorcists with the power to cast out evil spirits, were soundly taught otherwise. The evil spirt recognized Jesus and Paul but not them, causing them to flee out of the house naked and wounded. ({{scripture||Acts|19|11-|16}}) Certainly the Bible teaches us that the authority of God is reserved for those whom He chooses.

Clearly, the conferral and proper transfer of authority is of key importance within the Old and New Testaments. One must accept one of two positions: either this authority continued, unbroken, through the Church of the Middle Ages down to the present day, or the authority was lost and a restoration was necessary.

Since Mr. McElveen's denomination is of recent origin, it is not surprising that he would want to dispense with the idea of an ordained line of priesthood authority. But, the Bible clearly teaches another view.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Yes it has been said that the Mormon Church does believe that there is a special priesthood that is separate from other individuals in the Church and it’s interesting that Peter goes on to tell us, now Peter was the one who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven; he wasn’t the first Pope or anything but, he was given the gospel, he could tell people how to get into heaven..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

While one could debate whether Peter was the first Pope (an issue that Rev. Gallatin should take up with the Catholic Church), it seems that he’s overly quick to denigrate Peter’s importance as one of the first Twelve Apostles. We need only look at Matthew 16:15-19 to see that Jesus Christ put him into a preeminent role:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

These verses indicate that Peter clearly could do much more than “tell people how to get into heaven.” They declare that Jesus Christ will “give unto (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” To the membership of the Church—to say nothing of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches—the “keys” in question are representative of the authority necessary to act in the name of God. Indeed, once Peter received the promised keys, he could, and did, do far more than “tell people how to get into heaven: he altered Church practices through new revelation, led the apostles in decision-making, and exercised judgment over Church members.

The priesthood keys in the early church were:

'''''Given in turn by Peter and the other apostles to those who were called and ordained''''':

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||John|15|16}}
* {{s||Acts|1|22}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22-23}}
* {{s||Acts|15|32}}
* {{s||Ephesians|2|20}}

||
* {{s||Ephesians|4|11-12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-13}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|5|17}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|1|9}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
* {{s||Titus|1|5}}
|-
|}

'''''Given by the laying on of hands
{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}
*{{s||Acts|8|18}}

||
*{{s||Acts|13|1-3}}
|-
|}

'''''These priesthood holders, referred to as:'''''

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
:''Elders, or the "presbytery"''
*{{s||Acts|15|2}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22}}
||
* {{s||Acts|15|23}}
* {{s||Acts|16|4}}
* {{s||Acts|20|17}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|4|14}}
|-
|
:''Bishops''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-2}}
||
* {{s||Titus|1|7}}
* {{s|1|Peter|2|20}}
|-
|
:''Deacons''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|8}}
*{{s|1|Timothy|3|10}}

||
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|13}}
* {{s||Philippians|1|1}}
|-
|
:''Evangelists''
*{{s||Acts|21|8}}
||
*{{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
|-
|}

'''''These leaders''':
* performed healings - {{s||James|5|14-15}}
* accomplished other miracles - {{s||Mark|16|17-18}}
* led the Church - {{s||Acts|15|2-6}}

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
* {{s||Matthew|16||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: [Peter] "didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints do not believe that holding the priesthood makes anyone "better than another person." Priesthood is a call to service from God; it is not an office to which one aspires because of perks or social prestige.

As Jesus told his apostles:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ''ordained you'' ({{s||John|15|16}}.) {{ea}}

He further instructed them:

:...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it ''shall not be so among you'': but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, ''but to minister''....({{s||Matthew|20|25-28}}){{ea}}

'''To read more:'''
* {{s||DC|121||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...in 1 Peter 2:9, he said, “...you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood” and he didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person, he wrote it to all of us in the Church because we have been given the responsibility as priests—all of us in the body of Christ to represent Christ—and that’s really what a priest, or a pastor, should do. And so, Peter wrote to everybody in the body of Christ to be a good representative of Christ as a royal priest." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin is determined to defend the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers," and so does not mention all the scriptures from the New Testament (discussed above) that clearly demonstrate that priesthood was held by specific members, and that this authority was conferred, not assumed.

He here invokes a single verse as a proof text for the idea of a priesthood of all believers. A closer look in context demonstrates that this is a misinterpretation.

:If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious...({{s|1|Peter|2|3-4}})

Peter begins by speaking about Jesus as "a living stone," to whom the Christians are to come.

:Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.({{s|1|Peter|2|5}})

Peter then compares the members to living or "lively stones" (miniature imitations of Christ, filled with His life and power, as it were). These lively stones are built into a "spiritual house" with the "living stone" (Christ) as the cornerstone.

Peter here invokes temple imagery—the members are compared to the building blocks of the Jewish temple, in which a holy priesthood officiates, and where sacrifices are offered (though here the sacrifices are "spiritual"—a broken heart, and a contrite spirit, etc., rather than animal).

The point which Pastor Gallatin overlooks is that this is a ''metaphor'' or ''allegory''. Are we really to believe that Peter saw Jesus as a ''literal'' stone? Or, that the members were ''literal'' rocks, or actually constituted a physical building? Of course not.

Peter goes on in his allegory, and compares Jesus to:
* "the chief cornerstone" to those who believe (again invoking the temple building)
* "the stone which the builders disallowed" to those who rejected him
* "the head of the corner"
* "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense" to the disobedient (see {{s|1|Peter|6|8}}.)

Now we get to the verse which Pastor Gallatin has quoted:

:But ye are a chosen generation, a <font color="red">royal priesthood</font>, an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>, a <font color="green">peculiar people</font>;{{s|1|Peter|2|9}}

This a clear allusion to the Old Testament, in which God tells Israel:

:Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a <font color="green">peculiar treasure</font> unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a <font color="red">kingdom of priests</font>, and an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.({{s||Exodus|19|5-6}})

Even though Israel is a "kingdom of priests," and God here addresses all of Israel, that does not mean that every Israelite held the priesthood. Clearly, only Levites held priesthood in Israel.

Thus, Peter's remarks in 1 Peter 2 are allegorical comparisons, in which the Christian believers are compared to the temple, in which a holy priesthood officiated to give offerings to God. That priesthood and the people with whom it worked were the Israelites, who were discussed in the same terms. But, this does not mean that every member of the community in which that priesthood operated were priesthood holders.

This is made extremely clear by Peter's reaction to Simon Magus' attempts to use priesthood power.

Simon was a convert, and a ''believer'':

:Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.({{s||Acts|8|13}})

If the doctrine of a priesthood of all believers was true, then Simon ought to have had the priesthood authority to heal, work miracles, and lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. But, Simon clearly ''was not taught this doctrine'' because he realized he didn't have the power, and wanted it. He attempted to buy it, and was rebuked by Peter.

There would have been no need to offer to buy the priesthood power if Simon had been taught that all believers held the priesthood. But, Peter clearly did not believe this doctrine, and did not teach it in 1 Peter 2.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/The Priesthood

2007-03-24T17:25:50Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: The Priesthood?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"We are priests. In two different sections of scripture God calls every believer a priest." - Floyd McElveen (Author and Lifetime Evangelist) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen is here claiming that the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers" is Biblical. This Biblical interpretation holds that there is no special priesthood authority, but that the authority to act in God's name is given to all faithful Christians.

Mr. McElveen wishes to prove that the LDS claim to a restored priesthood authority is unnecessary.

However, the Bible paints a quite different picture.

* In Old Testament times, the authority to act in a religious capacity did not belong to everyone. Even kings could not act as priests of the Lord without authority. ({{s|1|Samuel|13|11-14}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|26|18}})

* Critics may claim that this changed in New Testament times, but Hebrews teaches that the same principle applies:
:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.({{s||Hebrews|5|4}})

How was Aaron chosen? By direct revelation from God to a prophet:

:And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.({{s||Exodus|28|1}}).

Jesus also called apostles, set them apart, and made certain it was clear who had authority (see {{s||Mark|13|34}}, {{s||Matthew|16|18}}). Following Judas' suicide, the remaining apostles met and sought God's will regarding a replacement, demonstrating that this authority was meant to persist, and needed to be conferred upon someone, not just assumed to exist because they believed ({{s||Acts|1|21-25}}).

The apostles called others to assist them, and gave them authority by laying on hands (see {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}). Paul and Barnabas were called and given authority in the same way ({{s||Acts|13|2-3}}). Bestowing the Holy Ghost was viewed as requiring the laying on of hands, and not something that every believer could accomplish—those with authority had to come and do so ({{s||Acts|8|18-23}}, {{s||Acts|19|1-6}}).

Jesus insisted that others did not choose to wield His authority—He chose them, and made it clear who was chosen by ordination:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.({{s||John|15|16}})

On the other hand, the Bible is extremely clear regarding those who take the priesthood unto themselves. After witnessing the miracles of Paul,the seven sons of Sceva, who fancied themselves as exorcists with the power to cast out evil spirits, were soundly taught otherwise. The evil spirt recognized Jesus and Paul but not them, causing them to flee out of the house naked and wounded. ({{scripture||Acts|19|11-|16}}) Certainly the Bible teaches us that the authority of God is reserved for those whom He chooses.

Clearly, the conferral and proper transfer of authority is of key importance within the Old and New Testaments. One must accept one of two positions: either this authority continued, unbroken, through the Church of the Middle Ages down to the present day, or the authority was lost and a restoration was necessary.

Since Mr. McElveen's denomination is of recent origin, it is not surprising that he would want to dispense with the idea of an ordained line of priesthood authority. But, the Bible clearly teaches another view.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Yes it has been said that the Mormon Church does believe that there is a special priesthood that is separate from other individuals in the Church and it’s interesting that Peter goes on to tell us, now Peter was the one who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven; he wasn’t the first Pope or anything but, he was given the gospel, he could tell people how to get into heaven..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

While one could debate whether Peter was the first Pope (an issue that Rev. Gallatin should take up with the Catholic Church), it seems that he’s overly quick to denigrate Peter’s importance as one of the first Twelve Apostles. We need only look at Matthew 16:15-19 to see that Jesus Christ put him into a preeminent role:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

These verses indicate that Peter clearly could do much more than “tell people how to get into heaven.” They declare that Jesus Christ will “give unto (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” To the membership of the Church—to say nothing of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches—the “keys” in question are representative of the authority necessary to act in the name of God. Indeed, once Peter received the promised keys, he could, and did, do far more than “tell people how to get into heaven: he altered Church practices through new revelation, led the apostles in decision-making, and exercised judgment over Church members.

The priesthood keys in the early church were:

'''''Given in turn by Peter and the other apostles to those who were called and ordained''''':

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||John|15|16}}
* {{s||Acts|1|22}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22-23}}
* {{s||Acts|15|32}}
* {{s||Ephesians|2|20}}

||
* {{s||Ephesians|4|11-12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-13}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|5|17}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|1|9}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
* {{s||Titus|1|5}}
|-
|}

'''''Given by the laying on of hands
{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}
*{{s||Acts|8|18}}

||
*{{s||Acts|13|1-3}}
|-
|}

'''''These priesthood holders, referred to as:'''''

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
:''Elders, or the "presbytery"''
*{{s||Acts|15|2}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22}}
||
* {{s||Acts|15|23}}
* {{s||Acts|16|4}}
* {{s||Acts|20|17}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|4|14}}
|-
|
:''Bishops''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-2}}
||
* {{s||Titus|1|7}}
* {{s|1|Peter|2|20}}
|-
|
:''Deacons''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|8}}
*{{s|1|Timothy|3|10}}

||
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|13}}
* {{s||Philippians|1|1}}
|-
|
:''Evangelists''
*{{s||Acts|21|8}}
||
*{{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
|-
|}

'''''These leaders''':
* performed healings - {{s||James|5|14-15}}
* accomplished other miracles - {{s||Mark|16|17-18}}
* led the Church - {{s||Acts|15|2-6}}

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
* {{s||Matthew|16||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: [Peter] "didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints do not believe that holding the priesthood makes anyone "better than another person." Priesthood is a call to service from God; it is not an office to which one aspires because of perks or social prestige.

As Jesus told his apostles:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ''ordained you'' ({{s||John|15|16}}.) {{ea}}

He further instructed them:

:...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it ''shall not be so among you'': but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, ''but to minister''....({{s||Matthew|20|25-28}}){{ea}}

'''To read more:'''
* {{s||DC|121||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...in 1 Peter 2:9, he said, “...you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood” and he didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person, he wrote it to all of us in the Church because we have been given the responsibility as priests—all of us in the body of Christ to represent Christ—and that’s really what a priest, or a pastor, should do. And so, Peter wrote to everybody in the body of Christ to be a good representative of Christ as a royal priest." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin is determined to defend the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers," and so does not mention all the scriptures from the New Testament (discussed above) that clearly demonstrate that priesthood was held by specific members, and that this authority was conferred, not assumed.

He here invokes a single verse as a proof text for the idea of a priesthood of all believers. A closer look in context demonstrates that this is a misinterpretation.

:If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious...({{s|1|Peter|2|3-4}})

Peter begins by speaking about Jesus as "a living stone," to whom the Christians are to come.

:Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.({{s|1|Peter|2|5}})

Peter then compares the members to living or "lively stones" (miniature imitations of Christ, filled with His life and power, as it were). These lively stones are built into a "spiritual house" with the "living stone" (Christ) as the cornerstone.

Peter here invokes temple imagery—the members are compared to the building blocks of the Jewish temple, in which a holy priesthood officiates, and where sacrifices are offered (though here the sacrifices are "spiritual"—a broken heart, and a contrite spirit, etc., rather than animal).

The point which Pastor Gallatin overlooks is that this is a ''metaphor'' or ''allegory''. Are we really to believe that Peter saw Jesus as a ''literal'' stone? Or, that the members were ''literal'' rocks, or actually constituted a physical building? Of course not.

Peter goes on in his allegory, and compares Jesus to:
* "the chief cornerstone" to those who believe (again invoking the temple building)
* "the stone which the builders disallowed" to those who rejected him
* "the head of the corner"
* "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense" to the disobedient (see {{s|1|Peter|6|8}}.)

Now we get to the verse which Pastor Gallatin has quoted:

:But ye are a chosen generation, a <font color="red">royal priesthood</font>, an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>, a <font color="green">peculiar people</font>;{{s|1|Peter|2|9}}

This a clear allusion to the Old Testament, in which God tells Israel:

:Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a <font color="green">peculiar treasure</font> unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a <font color="red">kingdom of priests</font>, and an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.({{s||Exodus|19|5-6}})

Even though Israel is a "kingdom of priests," and God here addresses all of Israel, that does not mean that every Israelite held the priesthood. Clearly, only Levites held priesthood in Israel.

Thus, Peter's remarks in 1 Peter 2 are allegorical comparisons, in which the Christian believers are compared to the temple, in which a holy priesthood officiated to give offerings to God. That priesthood and the people with whom it worked were the Israelites, who were discussed in the same terms. But, this does not mean that every member of the community in which that priesthood operated were priesthood holders.

This is made extremely clear by Peter's reaction to Simon Magus' attempts to use priesthood power.

Simon was a convert, and a ''believer'':

:Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.({{s||Acts|8|13}})

If the doctrine of a priesthood of all believers was true, then Simon ought to have had the priesthood authority to heal, work miracles, and lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. But, Simon clearly ''was not taught this doctrine'' because he realized he didn't have the power, and wanted it. He attempted to buy it, and was rebuked by Peter.

There would have been no need to offer to buy the priesthood power if Simon had been taught that all believers held the priesthood. But, Peter clearly did not believe this doctrine, and did not teach it in 1 Peter 2.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/The Priesthood

2007-03-24T17:21:18Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: The Priesthood?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"We are priests. In two different sections of scripture God calls every believer a priest." - Floyd McElveen (Author and Lifetime Evangelist) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen is here claiming that the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers" is Biblical. This Biblical interpretation holds that there is no special priesthood authority, but that the authority to act in God's name is given to all faithful Christians.

Mr. McElveen wishes to prove that the LDS claim to a restored priesthood authority is unnecessary.

However, the Bible paints a quite different picture.

* In Old Testament times, the authority to act in a religious capacity did not belong to everyone. Even kings could not act as priests of the Lord without authority. ({{s|1|Samuel|13|11-14}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|26|18}})

* Critics may claim that this changed in New Testament times, but Hebrews teaches that the same principle applies:
:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.({{s||Hebrews|5|4}})

How was Aaron chosen? By direct revelation from God to a prophet:

:And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.({{s||Exodus|28|1}}).

Jesus also called apostles, set them apart, and made certain it was clear who had authority (see {{s||Mark|13|34}}, {{s||Matthew|16|18}}). Following Judas' suicide, the remaining apostles met and sought God's will regarding a replacement, demonstrating that this authority was meant to persist, and needed to be conferred upon someone, not just assumed to exist because they believed ({{s||Acts|1|21-25}}).

The apostles called others to assist them, and gave them authority by laying on hands (see {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}). Paul and Barnabas were called and given authority in the same way ({{s||Acts|13|2-3}}). Bestowing the Holy Ghost was viewed as requiring the laying on of hands, and not something that every believer could accomplish—those with authority had to come and do so ({{s||Acts|8|18-23}}, {{s||Acts|19|1-6}}).

Jesus insisted that others did not choose to wield His authority—He chose them, and made it clear who was chosen by ordination:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.({{s||John|15|16}})

On the other hand, the Bible is extremely clear regarding those who do take the priesthood unto themselves. When the seven sons of Sceva, who, after witnessing the miracles of Paul, fancied themselves as exorcists with the power to cast out evil spirits, were soundly cast out themseleves. The evil spirt recognized Jesus and Paul, but them. ({{scripture||Acts|19|11-|16}}) Certainly the Bible teaches us that the authority of God is reserved for those whom God chooses.

Clearly, the conferral and proper transfer of authority is of key importance within the Old and New Testaments. One must accept one of two positions: either this authority continued, unbroken, through the Church of the Middle Ages down to the present day, or the authority was lost and a restoration was necessary.

Since Mr. McElveen's denomination is of recent origin, it is not surprising that he would want to dispense with the idea of an ordained line of priesthood authority. But, the Bible clearly teaches another view.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Yes it has been said that the Mormon Church does believe that there is a special priesthood that is separate from other individuals in the Church and it’s interesting that Peter goes on to tell us, now Peter was the one who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven; he wasn’t the first Pope or anything but, he was given the gospel, he could tell people how to get into heaven..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

While one could debate whether Peter was the first Pope (an issue that Rev. Gallatin should take up with the Catholic Church), it seems that he’s overly quick to denigrate Peter’s importance as one of the first Twelve Apostles. We need only look at Matthew 16:15-19 to see that Jesus Christ put him into a preeminent role:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

These verses indicate that Peter clearly could do much more than “tell people how to get into heaven.” They declare that Jesus Christ will “give unto (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” To the membership of the Church—to say nothing of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches—the “keys” in question are representative of the authority necessary to act in the name of God. Indeed, once Peter received the promised keys, he could, and did, do far more than “tell people how to get into heaven: he altered Church practices through new revelation, led the apostles in decision-making, and exercised judgment over Church members.

The priesthood keys in the early church were:

'''''Given in turn by Peter and the other apostles to those who were called and ordained''''':

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||John|15|16}}
* {{s||Acts|1|22}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22-23}}
* {{s||Acts|15|32}}
* {{s||Ephesians|2|20}}

||
* {{s||Ephesians|4|11-12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-13}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|5|17}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|1|9}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
* {{s||Titus|1|5}}
|-
|}

'''''Given by the laying on of hands
{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}
*{{s||Acts|8|18}}

||
*{{s||Acts|13|1-3}}
|-
|}

'''''These priesthood holders, referred to as:'''''

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
:''Elders, or the "presbytery"''
*{{s||Acts|15|2}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22}}
||
* {{s||Acts|15|23}}
* {{s||Acts|16|4}}
* {{s||Acts|20|17}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|4|14}}
|-
|
:''Bishops''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-2}}
||
* {{s||Titus|1|7}}
* {{s|1|Peter|2|20}}
|-
|
:''Deacons''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|8}}
*{{s|1|Timothy|3|10}}

||
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|13}}
* {{s||Philippians|1|1}}
|-
|
:''Evangelists''
*{{s||Acts|21|8}}
||
*{{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
|-
|}

'''''These leaders''':
* performed healings - {{s||James|5|14-15}}
* accomplished other miracles - {{s||Mark|16|17-18}}
* led the Church - {{s||Acts|15|2-6}}

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
* {{s||Matthew|16||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: [Peter] "didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints do not believe that holding the priesthood makes anyone "better than another person." Priesthood is a call to service from God; it is not an office to which one aspires because of perks or social prestige.

As Jesus told his apostles:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ''ordained you'' ({{s||John|15|16}}.) {{ea}}

He further instructed them:

:...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it ''shall not be so among you'': but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, ''but to minister''....({{s||Matthew|20|25-28}}){{ea}}

'''To read more:'''
* {{s||DC|121||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...in 1 Peter 2:9, he said, “...you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood” and he didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person, he wrote it to all of us in the Church because we have been given the responsibility as priests—all of us in the body of Christ to represent Christ—and that’s really what a priest, or a pastor, should do. And so, Peter wrote to everybody in the body of Christ to be a good representative of Christ as a royal priest." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin is determined to defend the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers," and so does not mention all the scriptures from the New Testament (discussed above) that clearly demonstrate that priesthood was held by specific members, and that this authority was conferred, not assumed.

He here invokes a single verse as a proof text for the idea of a priesthood of all believers. A closer look in context demonstrates that this is a misinterpretation.

:If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious...({{s|1|Peter|2|3-4}})

Peter begins by speaking about Jesus as "a living stone," to whom the Christians are to come.

:Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.({{s|1|Peter|2|5}})

Peter then compares the members to living or "lively stones" (miniature imitations of Christ, filled with His life and power, as it were). These lively stones are built into a "spiritual house" with the "living stone" (Christ) as the cornerstone.

Peter here invokes temple imagery—the members are compared to the building blocks of the Jewish temple, in which a holy priesthood officiates, and where sacrifices are offered (though here the sacrifices are "spiritual"—a broken heart, and a contrite spirit, etc., rather than animal).

The point which Pastor Gallatin overlooks is that this is a ''metaphor'' or ''allegory''. Are we really to believe that Peter saw Jesus as a ''literal'' stone? Or, that the members were ''literal'' rocks, or actually constituted a physical building? Of course not.

Peter goes on in his allegory, and compares Jesus to:
* "the chief cornerstone" to those who believe (again invoking the temple building)
* "the stone which the builders disallowed" to those who rejected him
* "the head of the corner"
* "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense" to the disobedient (see {{s|1|Peter|6|8}}.)

Now we get to the verse which Pastor Gallatin has quoted:

:But ye are a chosen generation, a <font color="red">royal priesthood</font>, an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>, a <font color="green">peculiar people</font>;{{s|1|Peter|2|9}}

This a clear allusion to the Old Testament, in which God tells Israel:

:Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a <font color="green">peculiar treasure</font> unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a <font color="red">kingdom of priests</font>, and an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.({{s||Exodus|19|5-6}})

Even though Israel is a "kingdom of priests," and God here addresses all of Israel, that does not mean that every Israelite held the priesthood. Clearly, only Levites held priesthood in Israel.

Thus, Peter's remarks in 1 Peter 2 are allegorical comparisons, in which the Christian believers are compared to the temple, in which a holy priesthood officiated to give offerings to God. That priesthood and the people with whom it worked were the Israelites, who were discussed in the same terms. But, this does not mean that every member of the community in which that priesthood operated were priesthood holders.

This is made extremely clear by Peter's reaction to Simon Magus' attempts to use priesthood power.

Simon was a convert, and a ''believer'':

:Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.({{s||Acts|8|13}})

If the doctrine of a priesthood of all believers was true, then Simon ought to have had the priesthood authority to heal, work miracles, and lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. But, Simon clearly ''was not taught this doctrine'' because he realized he didn't have the power, and wanted it. He attempted to buy it, and was rebuked by Peter.

There would have been no need to offer to buy the priesthood power if Simon had been taught that all believers held the priesthood. But, Peter clearly did not believe this doctrine, and did not teach it in 1 Peter 2.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/The Priesthood

2007-03-24T17:19:16Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: The Priesthood?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"We are priests. In two different sections of scripture God calls every believer a priest." - Floyd McElveen (Author and Lifetime Evangelist) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen is here claiming that the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers" is Biblical. This Biblical interpretation holds that there is no special priesthood authority, but that the authority to act in God's name is given to all faithful Christians.

Mr. McElveen wishes to prove that the LDS claim to a restored priesthood authority is unnecessary.

However, the Bible paints a quite different picture.

* In Old Testament times, the authority to act in a religious capacity did not belong to everyone. Even kings could not act as priests of the Lord without authority. ({{s|1|Samuel|13|11-14}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|26|18}})

* Critics may claim that this changed in New Testament times, but Hebrews teaches that the same principle applies:
:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.({{s||Hebrews|5|4}})

How was Aaron chosen? By direct revelation from God to a prophet:

:And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.({{s||Exodus|28|1}}).

Jesus also called apostles, set them apart, and made certain it was clear who had authority (see {{s||Mark|13|34}}, {{s||Matthew|16|18}}). Following Judas' suicide, the remaining apostles met and sought God's will regarding a replacement, demonstrating that this authority was meant to persist, and needed to be conferred upon someone, not just assumed to exist because they believed ({{s||Acts|1|21-25}}).

The apostles called others to assist them, and gave them authority by laying on hands (see {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}). Paul and Barnabas were called and given authority in the same way ({{s||Acts|13|2-3}}). Bestowing the Holy Ghost was viewed as requiring the laying on of hands, and not something that every believer could accomplish—those with authority had to come and do so ({{s||Acts|8|18-23}}, {{s||Acts|19|1-6}}).

Jesus insisted that others did not choose to wield His authority—He chose them, and made it clear who was chosen by ordination:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.({{s||John|15|16}})

On the other hand, the Bible is extremely clear regarding those who do take the priesthood unto themselves. When the seven sons of Sceva, who, after witnessing the miracles of Paul, fancied themselves as exorcists with the power to cast out evil spirits. ({{scripture||Acts|19;|11-|16}}) Certainly the Bible teaches us that the authority of God is reserved for those whom God chooses.

Clearly, the conferral and proper transfer of authority is of key importance within the Old and New Testaments. One must accept one of two positions: either this authority continued, unbroken, through the Church of the Middle Ages down to the present day, or the authority was lost and a restoration was necessary.

Since Mr. McElveen's denomination is of recent origin, it is not surprising that he would want to dispense with the idea of an ordained line of priesthood authority. But, the Bible clearly teaches another view.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Yes it has been said that the Mormon Church does believe that there is a special priesthood that is separate from other individuals in the Church and it’s interesting that Peter goes on to tell us, now Peter was the one who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven; he wasn’t the first Pope or anything but, he was given the gospel, he could tell people how to get into heaven..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

While one could debate whether Peter was the first Pope (an issue that Rev. Gallatin should take up with the Catholic Church), it seems that he’s overly quick to denigrate Peter’s importance as one of the first Twelve Apostles. We need only look at Matthew 16:15-19 to see that Jesus Christ put him into a preeminent role:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

These verses indicate that Peter clearly could do much more than “tell people how to get into heaven.” They declare that Jesus Christ will “give unto (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” To the membership of the Church—to say nothing of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches—the “keys” in question are representative of the authority necessary to act in the name of God. Indeed, once Peter received the promised keys, he could, and did, do far more than “tell people how to get into heaven: he altered Church practices through new revelation, led the apostles in decision-making, and exercised judgment over Church members.

The priesthood keys in the early church were:

'''''Given in turn by Peter and the other apostles to those who were called and ordained''''':

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||John|15|16}}
* {{s||Acts|1|22}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22-23}}
* {{s||Acts|15|32}}
* {{s||Ephesians|2|20}}

||
* {{s||Ephesians|4|11-12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-13}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|5|17}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|1|9}}
* {{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
* {{s||Titus|1|5}}
|-
|}

'''''Given by the laying on of hands
{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
* {{s||Acts|6|1-6}}
*{{s||Acts|8|18}}

||
*{{s||Acts|13|1-3}}
|-
|}

'''''These priesthood holders, referred to as:'''''

{| valign="top" border="0" style="width:100%"
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"|
:''Elders, or the "presbytery"''
*{{s||Acts|15|2}}
* {{s||Acts|15|4}}
* {{s||Acts|15|6}}
* {{s||Acts|15|22}}
||
* {{s||Acts|15|23}}
* {{s||Acts|16|4}}
* {{s||Acts|20|17}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|4|14}}
|-
|
:''Bishops''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|1-2}}
||
* {{s||Titus|1|7}}
* {{s|1|Peter|2|20}}
|-
|
:''Deacons''
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|8}}
*{{s|1|Timothy|3|10}}

||
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}
* {{s|1|Timothy|3|13}}
* {{s||Philippians|1|1}}
|-
|
:''Evangelists''
*{{s||Acts|21|8}}
||
*{{s|2|Timothy|4|5}}
|-
|}

'''''These leaders''':
* performed healings - {{s||James|5|14-15}}
* accomplished other miracles - {{s||Mark|16|17-18}}
* led the Church - {{s||Acts|15|2-6}}

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
* {{s||Matthew|16||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: [Peter] "didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person..." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints do not believe that holding the priesthood makes anyone "better than another person." Priesthood is a call to service from God; it is not an office to which one aspires because of perks or social prestige.

As Jesus told his apostles:

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ''ordained you'' ({{s||John|15|16}}.) {{ea}}

He further instructed them:

:...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it ''shall not be so among you'': but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, ''but to minister''....({{s||Matthew|20|25-28}}){{ea}}

'''To read more:'''
* {{s||DC|121||}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...in 1 Peter 2:9, he said, “...you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood” and he didn’t write it to one particular individual or an individual that is better than another person, he wrote it to all of us in the Church because we have been given the responsibility as priests—all of us in the body of Christ to represent Christ—and that’s really what a priest, or a pastor, should do. And so, Peter wrote to everybody in the body of Christ to be a good representative of Christ as a royal priest." - Scott Gallatin, Pastor, Calvary Chapel</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin is determined to defend the doctrine of "priesthood of all believers," and so does not mention all the scriptures from the New Testament (discussed above) that clearly demonstrate that priesthood was held by specific members, and that this authority was conferred, not assumed.

He here invokes a single verse as a proof text for the idea of a priesthood of all believers. A closer look in context demonstrates that this is a misinterpretation.

:If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious...({{s|1|Peter|2|3-4}})

Peter begins by speaking about Jesus as "a living stone," to whom the Christians are to come.

:Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.({{s|1|Peter|2|5}})

Peter then compares the members to living or "lively stones" (miniature imitations of Christ, filled with His life and power, as it were). These lively stones are built into a "spiritual house" with the "living stone" (Christ) as the cornerstone.

Peter here invokes temple imagery—the members are compared to the building blocks of the Jewish temple, in which a holy priesthood officiates, and where sacrifices are offered (though here the sacrifices are "spiritual"—a broken heart, and a contrite spirit, etc., rather than animal).

The point which Pastor Gallatin overlooks is that this is a ''metaphor'' or ''allegory''. Are we really to believe that Peter saw Jesus as a ''literal'' stone? Or, that the members were ''literal'' rocks, or actually constituted a physical building? Of course not.

Peter goes on in his allegory, and compares Jesus to:
* "the chief cornerstone" to those who believe (again invoking the temple building)
* "the stone which the builders disallowed" to those who rejected him
* "the head of the corner"
* "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense" to the disobedient (see {{s|1|Peter|6|8}}.)

Now we get to the verse which Pastor Gallatin has quoted:

:But ye are a chosen generation, a <font color="red">royal priesthood</font>, an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>, a <font color="green">peculiar people</font>;{{s|1|Peter|2|9}}

This a clear allusion to the Old Testament, in which God tells Israel:

:Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a <font color="green">peculiar treasure</font> unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a <font color="red">kingdom of priests</font>, and an <font color="blue">holy nation</font>. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.({{s||Exodus|19|5-6}})

Even though Israel is a "kingdom of priests," and God here addresses all of Israel, that does not mean that every Israelite held the priesthood. Clearly, only Levites held priesthood in Israel.

Thus, Peter's remarks in 1 Peter 2 are allegorical comparisons, in which the Christian believers are compared to the temple, in which a holy priesthood officiated to give offerings to God. That priesthood and the people with whom it worked were the Israelites, who were discussed in the same terms. But, this does not mean that every member of the community in which that priesthood operated were priesthood holders.

This is made extremely clear by Peter's reaction to Simon Magus' attempts to use priesthood power.

Simon was a convert, and a ''believer'':

:Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.({{s||Acts|8|13}})

If the doctrine of a priesthood of all believers was true, then Simon ought to have had the priesthood authority to heal, work miracles, and lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. But, Simon clearly ''was not taught this doctrine'' because he realized he didn't have the power, and wanted it. He attempted to buy it, and was rebuked by Peter.

There would have been no need to offer to buy the priesthood power if Simon had been taught that all believers held the priesthood. But, Peter clearly did not believe this doctrine, and did not teach it in 1 Peter 2.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Priesthood restoration|Necessity of priesthood restoration]]
* [[Priesthood_non-transferable|Jesus was not the only priesthood holder]]
|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T17:07:17Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: 1 Tim 3:2; 1 Tim 3:12; Titus 1:6)."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The listed scriptures do indeed include Paul's instructions to some leaders to be both ''married'' and monogamous. Latter-day Saints agree that the "standard" instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video carefully avoids describing the outcome of this legal proceeding. The video apparently wants the listener to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. (And, even a false conviction is no stain on a man's character—even Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.)

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

In fact, the appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty, and no trial was held.

This is one more "historical document" from which the video wants to protect its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified ''for Joseph'' as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims.

In fact, Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Would the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage, or Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

:''Allen J. Stout, who served as a bodyguard for Joseph, recounted a conversation he overheard in the Mansion House between Joseph and his tormented wife. A summary of his account states that "from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet's inspired warning: 'Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel.'"''

Emma's inner conflict was also dramatized in another report:

:''Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet's wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. "What I said I have got [to] repent of," lamented Emma. "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it."''

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it."

The critics ought to let ''all'' of Emma speak for herself—she had a great trial, but also had great knowledge. That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers believe Emma is an important witness, why do they not include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life, ''despite'' her struggles with plural marriage?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven?

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. There is more to the story, however, than is presented inthe DVD. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

There is no doubt that Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage.

Despite this, he continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God to the end of his long life. Would he have continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was true if he had any doubt about his witness of the angel, his view of the plates, and having heard the voice of God commanding him to bear record? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive ''because'' of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will not get this information from critics of the LDS Church.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:

:''While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.''
::<small>— {{LDSBioEncy |vol=1|start=82| end=83}}</small>

McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph ''was'' a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?

William helped publish the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
*''"blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"'' and
*''"a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."''
::<small>—Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to ''some'' of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such poor tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that many of Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing, rather than the carnal motives which they presume must have been at work.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and simply await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Unless the proper time and attention is paid, one will not understand it.

The DVD producers seem to have been banking on this—by throwing out numerous charges designed to shock the viewer, they hope to hide the fact that they are providing only accusations, but no substance or basis for the reader to judge the truth.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T17:06:35Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: 1 Tim 3:2; 1 Tim 3:12; Titus 1:6)."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The listed scriptures do indeed include Paul's instructions to some leaders to be both ''married'' and monogamous. Latter-day Saints agree that the "standard" instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video carefully avoids describing the outcome of this legal proceeding. The video apparently wants the listener to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. (And, even a false conviction is no stain on a man's character—even Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.)

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

In fact, the appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty, and no trial was held.

This is one more "historical document" from which the video wants to protect its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified ''for Joseph'' as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims.

In fact, Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Would the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage, or Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

:''Allen J. Stout, who served as a bodyguard for Joseph, recounted a conversation he overheard in the Mansion House between Joseph and his tormented wife. A summary of his account states that "from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet's inspired warning: 'Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel.'"''

Emma's inner conflict was also dramatized in another report:

:''Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet's wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. "What I said I have got [to] repent of," lamented Emma. "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it."''

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it."

The critics ought to let ''all'' of Emma speak for herself—she had a great trial, but also had great knowledge. That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers believe Emma is an important witness, why do they not include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life, ''despite'' her struggles with plural marriage?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven?

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. There is more to the story, however, than is presented inthe DVD. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

There is no doubt that Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage.

Despite this, he continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God to the end of his long life. Would he have continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was true if he had any doubt about his witness of the angel, his view of the plates, and having heard the voice of God commanding him to bear record? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive ''because'' of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will not get this information from critics of the LDS Church.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:

:''While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.''
::<small>— {{LDSBioEncy |vol=1|start=82| end=83}}</small>

McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph ''was'' a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?

William helped publish the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
*''"blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"'' and
*''"a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."''
::<small>—Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to ''some'' of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such poor tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that many of Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing, rather than the carnal motives which they presume must have been at work.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and simply await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Unless the proper time and attention is paid, one will not understand it.

The DVD producers seem to have been banking on this—by throwing out numerous charges designed to shock the viewer, they hope to hide the fact that they are providing only accusations, but no substance or basis for the reader to judge the truth.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Eternal Life

2007-03-24T16:14:47Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Eternal Life}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "With the concept of God being so drastically different between the Bible and Joseph Smith's teachings one must wonder how Joseph Smith could claim that the Book of Mormon was another Testament of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Powell (Host)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The claim that the Bible and Joseph Smith disagree is false, as shown [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|here]]. Joseph Smith disagrees with the non-Biblical creeds and resulting ''interpretations'' of the Bible favored by Mr. Powell.

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ because it clearly teaches redemption through a personal covenant relationship with God, through the Lord Jesus Christ.

In addition, the self proclaimed purpose of the Book of Mormon is to establish the truthfulness of the Bible by substantiating it's teachings ({{s|1|Nephi|13|39-40}}). In this sense, it becomes a second witness of Christ by supporting the teachings of Christ and his pivotal role in the salvation of mankind, as found in the Bible.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Doctrines relating to the Savior and his mission|Book of Mormon doctrines about Christ and His mission]]
*[[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#Faith.2C_Repentance.2C_Baptism.2C_the_gift_of_the_Holy_Ghost_and_Enduring_to_the_End|Book of Mormon doctrines on:]]
**Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
**Repentance
**Baptism of water
**Baptism of fire (the Holy Ghost)
**Enduring to the end
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Prayer|Book of Mormon doctrine on prayer]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#The purpose of life|Book of Mormon doctrine on the purpose of life]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#What the devil doesn.27t want us to know|Book of Mormon doctrine on how to fight Satan]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You just don't pay lip service to Jesus; you enter into Him. You become a part of Him. You absorb. You identify completely with His suffering on the cross; His resurrection from the dead; His claims to be the Son of God and therefore qualified to pay the price we could never pay; and once we believe in Him in that deep sense of commitment which can be instantaneous—in fact it has to be—at that moment we have eternal life." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite the video's implication, Latter-day Saints wholeheartedly teach this doctrine. The Book of Mormon, which the critics claim cannot be a testament of Jesus Christ, contains an account of a group of people who are transformed by faith in Christ:

:And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.
:And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them. ({{s||Mosiah|4|2-3}})

The Book of Mormon also teaches:

:Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
:And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. ({{s||Moroni|10|32-33}})

Latter-day Saints do not wish to simply pay "lip service" to Jesus, as Dr. Whitcomb says. Therefore, they seek to obey when Jesus commands them to do something. To say we believe while not trying to obey (however imperfectly) would indeed be to give lip service. As Jesus Himself taught, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" ({{s||John|14|15}}).

And, after presenting His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus admonishes us:

:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
:And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. ({{s||Matthew|7|24-27}}).

Is Jesus lying, or does He expect us to obey to the extent we are able?

'''To read more'''
*[[Born again translation|Being "born again": early Christian perspectives]]
* "Are We Saved by Grace Alone?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Are_We_Saved_by_Grace_Alone.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In Christianity eternal life is a gift. It's the most radical understanding of how one goes to heaven, is resurrected, has eternal life, in the religious realm—by grace or saved through faith—it is the gift of God. Why is it a gift? Because Jesus Christ did something that we couldn't do for ourselves. He died on the cross satisfying God's sense of justice against sin; paid the price for our sins; was raised eternally through the resurrection with a glorified body. When we put our faith and trust in Him your pain of sins and believing in Him we receive salvation as a gift." - Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints also preach this same doctrine. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*We can't do it ourselves:
:And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*We are saved by grace because of Christ's sacrifice for our sins:

:Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
:Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6-7}})

*Christ died on the cross to satisfy the demands of justice:

:Yea, even so he [the Messiah, Christ] shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
:And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—
:Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice. ({{s||Mosiah|15|7-9}})

*Eternal life and salvation is a "gift from God":

:...lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven, yea, which is eternal, and which fadeth not away; yea, that ye may have that precious gift of eternal life, which we have reason to suppose hath been given to our fathers. ({{s||Helaman|5|8}})

*Christ was raised from the dead with a glorified body:

:Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})

It should be clear that the DVD critics do not understand LDS doctrine, or are trying to make it appear as if the Latter-day Saints do not believe these fundamental Christian concepts.

The speakers distort or are ignorant of LDS scripture and the faith of the Latter-day Saints. They act as if such doctrines would be novel to us, but in fact they are the core doctrines of our faith.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: After mentioning the LDS doctrine of the three degrees of glory, the video adds: "In Romans 6:23 it talks about although "wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the Latter-day Saints share this doctrine. The Bible and Book of Mormon teach it:

:For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that [evil] spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge. ({{s||Mosiah|2|33}})

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It is only by trusting Him that we come to be able to enjoy the glory of heaven. ‘I am the way, the truth and life and no one, not one person, comes to the Father but through me.'" - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints believe this scripture, and quote it frequently. And, this doctrine is again taught in the Book of Mormon, which the DVD insists isn't a "Christian" testament:

*Christ is the only way to salvation:

:And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}})

:And if it so be that [men] repent and come unto the Father in the name of Jesus, they shall be received into the kingdom of God. ({{s||Ether|5|5}})

*Trust in God necessary for salvation:

: I would that ye should remember, that as much as ye shall put your trust in God even so much ye shall be delivered out of your trials, and your troubles, and your afflictions, and ye shall be lifted up at the last day. ({{s||Alma|38|5}})

Latter-day Saints would ask, however, if they are to ''trust'' Jesus, why they should not trust Him enough to do what He says?

This is discussed further in the next claim.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "According to the Bible, repenting of our sins and faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to gain eternal life. In John, Jesus was asked 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.' (John 6:28,29)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints proclaim that faith in Christ and repentance are absolutely essential for Christ's atonement to be effective in our lives?

But, they also insist that beliving in Jesus includes believing what He says, and obeying Him because we love Him.

"According to the Bible," Jesus also says:

*"He that believeth ''and is baptized'' shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."{{s||Mark|16|16}} {{ea}}
*"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."({{s||Matthew|7|21}})
*"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." ({{s||Matthew|24|13}})
*"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, ''to give every man according as his work'' shall be."({{s||Revelation|22|12}}) {{ea}}
*"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.... Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.... Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. ({{s||Matthew|25|31-46}}) {{ea}}

The Bible also says:
*And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})
*But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. ({{s||James|1|22}})
*What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.... ({{s||Romans|6|15}})
*...if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.... ({{s||Hebrews|10|26}}
*For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. ({{s|1|John|5|3}})
*Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. ({{s||Galatians|6|7}})
*...all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; ''they that have done good'', unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. ({{s||John|5|28-29}}) {{ea}}
*For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ({{s||Ephesians|2|10}})
*This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. ({{s||Titus|3|8}})
*That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;({{s||Colossians|1|10}})
*Nothing saves us without Christ. But, "He that saith, I know [Christ], and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})

'''To read more:'''
*[[Neglect grace|Does the Church neglect the doctrine of grace?]]
|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In the Bible it is clear that our salvation rests in the hands of Jesus Christ alone. Why? Because from the beginning God's word tells us that the penalty for all sin is death—both physical death and spiritual separation from God." "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) (on screen)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Yet again, these doctrines are all embraced by the Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*All mankind suffers spiritual and physical death

:for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal [i.e., physical] and to things spiritual. ({{s||Helaman|14|16}})

*All sin and are condemned

:And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*No one can say anything of themselves

:And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth.... ({{s||Mosiah|2|25}})

*Christ alone can save us
:Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him.... ({{s||Jacob|4|11}})

The DVD producers are either ignorant or deceitful about LDS beliefs concerning Christ and His atonement.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: To pay [the] penalty [for sin] a person must:<br>

:[1] Be sinless<br>
:[2] Be infinite to pay the infinite penalty for mankind's sin<br>
:[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood to pay sin's penalty<br>
:[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death<br>
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is almost as if the DVD producers are quoting the Book of Mormon.

Yet again, all these doctrines are taught and believed by the Latter-day Saints.

'''[1] Sinless'''
*I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. ({{s||Mosiah|15|1}})
*Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6}})

'''[2] Be infinite to pay an infinite penalty'''
*...therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. ({{s||Alma|34|12}})
*...there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man...for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. ({{s||Alma|34|10-11}})

'''[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood'''
*Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. ({{s||DC|76|69}})
*[this] great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption. ({{s||Alma|34|14-16}})
*And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people({{s||Alma|7|12}}

'''[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death'''
*Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have seen his day, and my heart doth magnify his holy name. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|12}})

These are basic, fundamental doctrines accepted without reservation by all faithful Latter-day Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "No other person could do what Jesus did; therefore only faith in Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection can save a sinner."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is precisely what the Book of Mormon teaches:

*Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|8}})
*remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. ({{s|2|Nephi|10|24}})
*there is no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ. Behold, he is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness. ({{s||Alma|38|9}})
*ought ye not to tremble and repent of your sins, and remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved?({{s||Mosiah|16|13}})

Speakers who know so little of the fundamental doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be trusted to inform others about the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Can we know that we have eternal life? Scripture states, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, a Latter-day Saint can only give a hearty "Amen!" By now, it should be no surprise that the Book of Mormon teaches these doctrines:

*he [Christ] shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*...as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s||Jacob|6|4}})

The Book of Mormon teaches all these doctrines which the critics insist are so important. Why, then, are they so hostile toward the faith of the Latter-day Saints? Could it be that they do not understand that which they attack?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In order to gain access into the celestial heaven Joseph Smith's revelation requires keeping the Ten Commandments as well as all the commandments found throughout the three sacred Mormon books; be baptized into the Mormon Church; tithe; get married in the Temple; obey the Word of Wisdom; be baptized for the dead; magnify the Church callings; and the list goes on."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The LDS position is here distorted very badly.

The atonement of Christ, operative in our individual lives, is required for each of us to enter the "celestial heaven" (as demonstrated extensively above). Yet, Christ sets the terms whereby the atonement may be received. LDS believe that all mankind will be saved in a kingdom of glory because of the universal atonement of the Savior. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" ({{s|1|Corinthians|15|21-22}}). This is without action on our part, but as a result of a loving Savior's atoning sacrifice and God the Father's plan of salvation.

We see, at last, the complaint which the critics have against the Latter-day Saints. The critics insist that no action of mankind's, aside from fervent, correct belief in Christ and the action of personally accepting Christ as their savior, is required for salvation.

Yet, Latter-day Saints believe that the atonement of Christ brings salvation without action on our part, without even the requirements that other faiths add to the process. But, they find it hypocritical and nonsensical to talk about a fervent faith that does not lead to fervent efforts to do one's best to honor Christ's commandments, seek His will, obey His words, and imitate His sinless life. If we love, honor, and trust someone, why would we not try to be like them to the extent possible? How we apply these lessons have a great deal to do with how the atonement will be applied in our lives beyond the life in a heaven that comes to all men.

Of course we will not succeed perfectly in this undertaking—but, the sincerity of our faith compels us to offer our best efforts—not because we think they will save us (they will not) but because we love Christ, and desire to obey Him. As Jesus asked rhetorically, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" ({{s||Luke|6|46}})

The Latter-day Saints desire to make Jesus not just Lord of their lips, but Lord of their lives.
|-





! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The critics insist that ''their'' view of salvation's requirements is the only Biblically legitimate one.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics act as if ''their'' conception of salvation is the only possible one, and the only possible Biblical interpretation. But, this is clearly false, since many Christians have held other views.

One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

:''If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is ''the'' cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians.'' [It's almost as if Mr. Bercot has seen the DVD!]
:{{parabreak}}
:''Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.''

:''The early Christians ''[and the Latter-day Saints!]'' would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience.... The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And ''He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him''.''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=57, 61|end=62}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints are pleased to be in the company of the earliest Christians. And, the LDS cannot be excluded as Christians because they have not embraced the ''modified'' doctrines adopted later, and now taught by ''Search for the Truth''.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "There is no religion in the world that believes this except the religion of the Bible because every religion in the world says we just have to do something to contribute, we have to earn our way, we have to somehow please God with ourselves and our attitudes in our words and deeds. Impossible." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video presumes that ''their'' view of the Bible is the only legitimate one.

The early Christians were certainly both Christians and believers in the Biblical texts. Evangelical author David Bercot responded to the charge that the Early Christians didn't properly "understand" the Bible the way 20th century Christians do by pointing out that Clement of Alexandria quoted the New Testament 2,400 times and Tertullian 7,000 times. Bercot concludes:

:''So please don't accuse the early Christians ''[and, we would add, LDS Christians]'' of not reading their Bibles. These Christians were well aware of what Paul had written concerning salvation and grace. After all, Paul personally taught men like Clement of Rome. However, the early Christians didn't put Paul's letters to the Romans and the Galatians on a pedestal above the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles. They read Paul's words about grace in conjunction with such other scriptures as''...{{s||Matthew|7|21}}...{{s||Matthew|24|13}}...{{s||John|5|28-29}}...{{s||Revelation|22|12}}...{{s|1|Timothy|4|16}}...
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}}</small>

Bercot then addresses a matter which happens to be the video's next claim....

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In fact, the Bible refutes the ordinances in Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith by stating, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:16-19;&version=49; Ephesians 2:8,9 NASB])"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Bercot continues:

:''So, the real issue isn't a matter of ''believing'' the Scriptures, but one of ''interpreting'' the scriptures. The Bible says that "by yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" ({{s||Ephesians|2|8-9}}). And yet the Bible also says, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" ({{s||James|2|24}}). Our [i.e. evangelical] doctrine of salvation accepts that first statement but essentially nullifies the second. The early Christian doctrine of salvation gives equal weight to both."''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints likewise honor ''all'' facets of salvation taught in scripture, not just some of them.

The Bible does not "refute" the idea of ordinances for salvation. When the apostles preached to a crowd, and the people were pricked in their hearts, they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" ({{s||Acts|2|37}}).

Peter did ''not'' reply: "simply have faith in Jesus, and don't worry about any ordinances." He said:

:Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ({{s||Acts|2|38}})

Peter's answer is exactly what the fourth Article of Faith calls for after faith in Jesus Christ: repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why is Joseph Smith condemned for following Peter's teachings?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]
*[[Born again translation|Born of water: essential baptism in early Christianity]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith said, "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.... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (<i>History of the Church,</i> vol. 6, pg. 408, 409)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

To contrast against the immediately preceding statement about "lest anyone should boast," the producers of the video include a purported statement of Joseph Smith's, wherein he does, indeed boast. There is no explicit reason given for including this contrasting statement, other than to perhaps imply that Joseph was some sort of egomaniacal leader or someone who was stepping outside the bounds of propriety, and therefore not to be trusted. There are a couple of problems with such a comparison, however.

'''Joseph not the author'''

First, this statement is written as if Joseph was the author of it, but he was not. Scribes assembled this account from a "synposis" following Joseph's death. Trying to get insight into Joseph's character and intent from a statement put into his mouth after he was dead is poor history.

'''Quoted out of context'''

Second, the quote is taken out of context. In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. This statement was supposedly made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinithians, chaper 11 to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:

:Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking in as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19, NASB)

Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.

Do the producers of the video dismiss the words of Paul and deny his calling as an Apostle because he used such a literary approach that included boasting? No, they do not. Yet, they dismiss Joseph Smith when it is clear by his own statements, in context, that he engaged in the exact same literary approach. Consider the words of Joseph right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:

:''My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. 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. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies re no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.''
:;<small>—{{HoC1|vol=6|start=408}}</small>

After giving the above explanation, Joseph ''then'' makes the statements that the video accounts to him, in the same way that Paul made outrageous "boasts" to contrast his position with the position of those who the Corinthians were starting to listen to. Paul starts the next chapter of 2 Corinthians with the statement "boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable." So, it would appear that Paul recognizes the necessity of boasting at times (though it may do little good, being unprofitable), yet the producers of the video do not allow Joseph to follow Paul's advice and, of necessity, boast at times.

Perhaps the producers are unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps they apply a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not? Again, the producers never reveal their intent in including Joseph's Paul-like statements in their video.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith's Doctrine & Covenants teaches that Joseph himself holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven (on screen) "Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come.... "({{s||DC|90|3}}) (on screen ends) and if Joseph Smith holds the keys to heaven then how can Jesus claim, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." ({{s||Matthew|28|18}})"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Jesus told Peter, the chief apostle:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

Peter was told that he would hold the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." The power of these keys was to continue into the hereafter, since Peter's actions on earth would have validity in the world to come.

Jesus does not seem to think that giving Peter keys in the 16th chapter of Matthew affects His ability to hold "all authority" in the 28th chapter. Should we believe His understanding, or the critics?

If the president of a company gives responsability for some part of his corporation, this does not mean that the president has lost authority—he has merely given an underling power to make some decisions on his behalf. Without the president, the underling has no power.

Are the critics offended that Peter was given keys?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God's word tells us that "there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.... " ({{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}) In stark contrast, Brigham Young stated, "...that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7 p 289)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints embrace the doctrine taught in 1 Timothy. The Book of Mormon says likewise that

:[men] are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death.... ({{s|2|Nephi|2|27}})

'''Ignoring the Bible'''

At the Last Supper, Jesus himself taught His apostles:

:Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ({{s||Luke|22|28-30}}; see also {{s||Matthew|19|28}}.)

Since the Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Joseph was called as an apostle and prophet (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/21/1#1 D&C 21:1]) with the same authority as that given to Peter, James, John, and others, they do not think it strange that he will likewise play a role in judgment.

The witness of a prophet will always be brought against those who did not accept his witness of Christ (see {{s||Matthew|10|40}}; {{s||John|5|45-47}}). Could first century Christians accept Christ while rejecting the witness of Peter or Paul?

'''Another incomplete quote'''

Not content to ignore a clear Biblical teaching, the DVD producers also failed to include the entirety of Brigham Young's quotation. Following the portion cited, Brigham said:

:''...I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy...he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.... It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption.''
::<small>—{{JoD7_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Intelligence, etc.|date=9 October 1859|start=289|end=289}}</small>>

Clearly, Joseph's role is to function under the "direction...of the Son of God," and the primary goal is the salvation of all who will accept any degree of Christ and Joseph's witness of Him. Joseph's role is not to condemn, but to do everything possible to encourage all to come unto Christ and be saved.

Joseph's participation in the judgment (at the command and sufferance of Jesus) is no more or less than the role assigned to the Lord's apostles at the Last Supper.

No mortal's role in the judgment supercedes the role given to Jesus, as the Book of Mormon bears witness:

:...the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}.)

Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But we cannot believe both the Bible and the writings of Joseph Smith when the Bible tells us there is only one God and Joseph Smith tells us there are many gods and we must become gods ourselves." - Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The non-Biblical creeds and the ''interpretation'' of the Bible chosen by Ms. Robertson are the only problems.

Millions of Christians have not accepted the post-Biblical Trinitarian creeds, and so have believed in more than one divine being.

Millions of others have had hope in the doctrine of ''theosis'': humans being made like God.

Many of these Christians were among the earliest followers of Christ. Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Ms. Robertson's superficial grasp of the issues:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
::<small>—{{FR-17-1-10}}</small>

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer to the Christianity of Jesus and His Apostles than Ms. Robertson may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|''Search for the Truth'' reply: Who is God]]
*[[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
*[[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* "Do We Have the Potential to Become Like God?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Do_We_Have_the_Potential_to_become_Like_God.html}}
*D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
*{{FR-17-1-10}}
|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Eternal Life

2007-03-24T16:12:42Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Eternal Life}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "With the concept of God being so drastically different between the Bible and Joseph Smith's teachings one must wonder how Joseph Smith could claim that the Book of Mormon was another Testament of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Powell (Host)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The claim that the Bible and Joseph Smith disagree is false, as shown [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|here]]. Joseph Smith disagrees with the non-Biblical creeds and resulting ''interpretations'' of the Bible favored by Mr. Powell.

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ because it clearly teaches redemption through a personal covenant relationship with God, through the Lord Jesus Christ.

In addition, the self proclaimed purpose of the Book of Mormon is to establish the truthfulness of the Bible by substantiating it's teachings ({{s|1|Nephi|13|39-40}}). In this sense, it becomes a second witness of Christ by supporting the teachings of Christ and his pivotal role in the salvation of mankind, as found in the Bible.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Doctrines relating to the Savior and his mission|Book of Mormon doctrines about Christ and His mission]]
*[[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#Faith.2C_Repentance.2C_Baptism.2C_the_gift_of_the_Holy_Ghost_and_Enduring_to_the_End|Book of Mormon doctrines on:]]
**Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
**Repentance
**Baptism of water
**Baptism of fire (the Holy Ghost)
**Enduring to the end
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Prayer|Book of Mormon doctrine on prayer]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#The purpose of life|Book of Mormon doctrine on the purpose of life]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#What the devil doesn.27t want us to know|Book of Mormon doctrine on how to fight Satan]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You just don't pay lip service to Jesus; you enter into Him. You become a part of Him. You absorb. You identify completely with His suffering on the cross; His resurrection from the dead; His claims to be the Son of God and therefore qualified to pay the price we could never pay; and once we believe in Him in that deep sense of commitment which can be instantaneous—in fact it has to be—at that moment we have eternal life." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite the video's implication, Latter-day Saints wholeheartedly teach this doctrine. The Book of Mormon, which the critics claim cannot be a testament of Jesus Christ, contains an account of a group of people who are transformed by faith in Christ:

:And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.
:And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them. ({{s||Mosiah|4|2-3}})

The Book of Mormon also teaches:

:Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
:And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. ({{s||Moroni|10|32-33}})

Latter-day Saints do not wish to simply pay "lip service" to Jesus, as Dr. Whitcomb says. Therefore, they seek to obey when Jesus commands them to do something. To say we believe while not trying to obey (however imperfectly) would indeed be to give lip service. As Jesus Himself taught, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" ({{s||John|14|15}}).

And, after presenting His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus admonishes us:

:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
:And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. ({{s||Matthew|7|24-27}}).

Is Jesus lying, or does He expect us to obey to the extent we are able?

'''To read more'''
*[[Born again translation|Being "born again": early Christian perspectives]]
* "Are We Saved by Grace Alone?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Are_We_Saved_by_Grace_Alone.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In Christianity eternal life is a gift. It's the most radical understanding of how one goes to heaven, is resurrected, has eternal life, in the religious realm—by grace or saved through faith—it is the gift of God. Why is it a gift? Because Jesus Christ did something that we couldn't do for ourselves. He died on the cross satisfying God's sense of justice against sin; paid the price for our sins; was raised eternally through the resurrection with a glorified body. When we put our faith and trust in Him your pain of sins and believing in Him we receive salvation as a gift." - Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints also preach this same doctrine. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*We can't do it ourselves:
:And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*We are saved by grace because of Christ's sacrifice for our sins:

:Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
:Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6-7}})

*Christ died on the cross to satisfy the demands of justice:

:Yea, even so he [the Messiah, Christ] shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
:And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—
:Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice. ({{s||Mosiah|15|7-9}})

*Eternal life and salvation is a "gift from God":

:...lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven, yea, which is eternal, and which fadeth not away; yea, that ye may have that precious gift of eternal life, which we have reason to suppose hath been given to our fathers. ({{s||Helaman|5|8}})

*Christ was raised from the dead with a glorified body:

:Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})

It should be clear that the DVD critics do not understand LDS doctrine, or are trying to make it appear as if the Latter-day Saints do not believe these fundamental Christian concepts.

The speakers distort or are ignorant of LDS scripture and the faith of the Latter-day Saints. They act as if such doctrines would be novel to us, but in fact they are the core doctrines of our faith.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: After mentioning the LDS doctrine of the three degrees of glory, the video adds: "In Romans 6:23 it talks about although "wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the Latter-day Saints share this doctrine. The Bible and Book of Mormon teach it:

:For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that [evil] spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge. ({{s||Mosiah|2|33}})

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It is only by trusting Him that we come to be able to enjoy the glory of heaven. ‘I am the way, the truth and life and no one, not one person, comes to the Father but through me.'" - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints believe this scripture, and quote it frequently. And, this doctrine is again taught in the Book of Mormon, which the DVD insists isn't a "Christian" testament:

*Christ is the only way to salvation:

:And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}})

:And if it so be that [men] repent and come unto the Father in the name of Jesus, they shall be received into the kingdom of God. ({{s||Ether|5|5}})

*Trust in God necessary for salvation:

: I would that ye should remember, that as much as ye shall put your trust in God even so much ye shall be delivered out of your trials, and your troubles, and your afflictions, and ye shall be lifted up at the last day. ({{s||Alma|38|5}})

Latter-day Saints would ask, however, if they are to ''trust'' Jesus, why they should not trust Him enough to do what He says?

This is discussed further in the next claim.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "According to the Bible, repenting of our sins and faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to gain eternal life. In John, Jesus was asked 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.' (John 6:28,29)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints proclaim that faith in Christ and repentance are absolutely essential for Christ's atonement to be effective in our lives?

But, they also insist that beliving in Jesus includes believing what He says, and obeying Him because we love Him.

"According to the Bible," Jesus also says:

*"He that believeth ''and is baptized'' shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."{{s||Mark|16|16}} {{ea}}
*"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."({{s||Matthew|7|21}})
*"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." ({{s||Matthew|24|13}})
*"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, ''to give every man according as his work'' shall be."({{s||Revelation|22|12}}) {{ea}}
*"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.... Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.... Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. ({{s||Matthew|25|31-46}}) {{ea}}

The Bible also says:
*And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})
*But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. ({{s||James|1|22}})
*What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.... ({{s||Romans|6|15}})
*...if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.... ({{s||Hebrews|10|26}}
*For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. ({{s|1|John|5|3}})
*Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. ({{s||Galatians|6|7}})
*...all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; ''they that have done good'', unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. ({{s||John|5|28-29}}) {{ea}}
*For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ({{s||Ephesians|2|10}})
*This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. ({{s||Titus|3|8}})
*That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;({{s||Colossians|1|10}})
*Nothing saves us without Christ. But, "He that saith, I know [Christ], and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})

'''To read more:'''
*[[Neglect grace|Does the Church neglect the doctrine of grace?]]
|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In the Bible it is clear that our salvation rests in the hands of Jesus Christ alone. Why? Because from the beginning God's word tells us that the penalty for all sin is death—both physical death and spiritual separation from God." "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) (on screen)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Yet again, these doctrines are all embraced by the Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*All mankind suffers spiritual and physical death

:for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal [i.e., physical] and to things spiritual. ({{s||Helaman|14|16}})

*All sin and are condemned

:And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*No one can say anything of themselves

:And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth.... ({{s||Mosiah|2|25}})

*Christ alone can save us
:Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him.... ({{s||Jacob|4|11}})

The DVD producers are either ignorant or deceitful about LDS beliefs concerning Christ and His atonement.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: To pay [the] penalty [for sin] a person must:<br>

:[1] Be sinless<br>
:[2] Be infinite to pay the infinite penalty for mankind's sin<br>
:[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood to pay sin's penalty<br>
:[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death<br>
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is almost as if the DVD producers are quoting the Book of Mormon.

Yet again, all these doctrines are taught and believed by the Latter-day Saints.

'''[1] Sinless'''
*I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. ({{s||Mosiah|15|1}})
*Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6}})

'''[2] Be infinite to pay an infinite penalty'''
*...therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. ({{s||Alma|34|12}})
*...there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man...for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. ({{s||Alma|34|10-11}})

'''[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood'''
*Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. ({{s||DC|76|69}})
*[this] great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption. ({{s||Alma|34|14-16}})
*And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people({{s||Alma|7|12}}

'''[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death'''
*Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have seen his day, and my heart doth magnify his holy name. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|12}})

These are basic, fundamental doctrines accepted without reservation by all faithful Latter-day Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "No other person could do what Jesus did; therefore only faith in Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection can save a sinner."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is precisely what the Book of Mormon teaches:

*Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|8}})
*remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. ({{s|2|Nephi|10|24}})
*there is no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ. Behold, he is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness. ({{s||Alma|38|9}})
*ought ye not to tremble and repent of your sins, and remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved?({{s||Mosiah|16|13}})

Speakers who know so little of the fundamental doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be trusted to inform others about the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Can we know that we have eternal life? Scripture states, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, a Latter-day Saint can only give a hearty "Amen!" By now, it should be no surprise that the Book of Mormon teaches these doctrines:

*he [Christ] shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*...as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s||Jacob|6|4}})

The Book of Mormon teaches all these doctrines which the critics insist are so important. Why, then, are they so hostile toward the faith of the Latter-day Saints? Could it be that they do not understand that which they attack?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In order to gain access into the celestial heaven Joseph Smith's revelation requires keeping the Ten Commandments as well as all the commandments found throughout the three sacred Mormon books; be baptized into the Mormon Church; tithe; get married in the Temple; obey the Word of Wisdom; be baptized for the dead; magnify the Church callings; and the list goes on."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The LDS position is here distorted very badly.

The atonement of Christ, operative in our individual lives, is required for each of us to enter the "celestial heaven" (as demonstrated extensively above). Yet, Christ sets the terms whereby the atonement may be received. LDS believe that all mankind will be saved in a kingdom of glory because of the universal atonement of the Savior. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" ({{s|1|Corinthians|15|21-22}}). This is without action on our part, but as a result of a loving Savior's atoning sacrifice and God the Father's plan of salvation.

We see, at last, the complaint which the critics have against the Latter-day Saints. The critics insist that no action of mankind's, aside from fervent, correct belief in Christ and the action of personally accepting Christ as their savior, is required for salvation.

Yet, Latter-day Saints believe that the atonement of Christ brings salvation without action on our part, without even the requirements that other faiths add to the process. But, they find it hypocritical and nonsensical to talk about a fervent faith that does not lead to fervent efforts to do one's best to honor Christ's commandments, seek His will, obey His words, and imitate His sinless life. If we love, honor, and trust someone, why would we not try to be like them to the extent possible? How we apply these lessons have a great deal to do with how the atonement will be applied in our lives beyond the life in a heaven that comes to all men.

Of course we will not succeed perfectly in this undertaking—but, the sincerity of our faith compels us to offer our best efforts—not because we think they will save us (they will not) but because we love Christ, and desire to obey Him. As Jesus asked rhetorically, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" ({{s||Luke|6|46}})

The Latter-day Saints desire to make Jesus not just Lord of their lips, but Lord of their lives.
|-





! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The critics insist that ''their'' view of salvation's requirements is the only Biblically legitimate one.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics act as if ''their'' conception of salvation is the only possible one, and the only possible Biblical interpretation. But, this is clearly false, since many Christians have held other views.

One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

:''If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is ''the'' cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians.'' [It's almost as if Mr. Bercot has seen the DVD!]
:{{parabreak}}
:''Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.''

:''The early Christians ''[and the Latter-day Saints!]'' would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience.... The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And ''He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him''.''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=57, 61|end=62}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints are pleased to be in the company of the earliest Christians. And, the LDS cannot be excluded as Christians because they have not embraced the ''modified'' doctrines adopted later, and now taught by ''Search for the Truth''.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "There is no religion in the world that believes this except the religion of the Bible because every religion in the world says we just have to do something to contribute, we have to earn our way, we have to somehow please God with ourselves and our attitudes in our words and deeds. Impossible." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video presumes that ''their'' view of the Bible is the only legitimate one.

The early Christians were certainly both Christians and believers in the Biblical texts. Evangelical author David Bercot responded to the charge that the Early Christians didn't properly "understand" the Bible the way 20th century Christians do by pointing out that Clement of Alexandria quoted the New Testament 2,400 times and Tertullian 7,000 times. Bercot concludes:

:''So please don't accuse the early Christians ''[and, we would add, LDS Christians]'' of not reading their Bibles. These Christians were well aware of what Paul had written concerning salvation and grace. After all, Paul personally taught men like Clement of Rome. However, the early Christians didn't put Paul's letters to the Romans and the Galatians on a pedestal above the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles. They read Paul's words about grace in conjunction with such other scriptures as''...{{s||Matthew|7|21}}...{{s||Matthew|24|13}}...{{s||John|5|28-29}}...{{s||Revelation|22|12}}...{{s|1|Timothy|4|16}}...
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}}</small>

Bercot then addresses a matter which happens to be the video's next claim....

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In fact, the Bible refutes the ordinances in Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith by stating, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:16-19;&version=49; Ephesians 2:8,9 NASB])"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Bercot continues:

:''So, the real issue isn't a matter of ''believing'' the Scriptures, but one of ''interpreting'' the scriptures. The Bible says that "by yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" ({{s||Ephesians|2|8-9}}). And yet the Bible also says, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" ({{s||James|2|24}}). Our [i.e. evangelical] doctrine of salvation accepts that first statement but essentially nullifies the second. The early Christian doctrine of salvation gives equal weight to both."''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints likewise honor ''all'' facets of salvation taught in scripture, not just some of them.

The Bible does not "refute" the idea of ordinances for salvation. When the apostles preached to a crowd, and the people were pricked in their hearts, they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" ({{s||Acts|2|37}}).

Peter did ''not'' reply: "simply have faith in Jesus, and don't worry about any ordinances." He said:

:Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ({{s||Acts|2|38}})

Peter's answer is exactly what the fourth Article of Faith calls for after faith in Jesus Christ: repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why is Joseph Smith condemned for following Peter's teachings?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]
*[[Born again translation|Born of water: essential baptism in early Christianity]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith said, "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.... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (<i>History of the Church,</i> vol. 6, pg. 408, 409)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

To contrast against the immediately preceding statement about "lest anyone should boast," the producers of the video include a purported statement of Joseph Smith's, wherein he does, indeed boast. There is no explicit reason given for including this contrasting statement, other than to perhaps imply that Joseph was some sort of egomaniacal leader or someone who was stepping outside the bounds of propriety, and therefore not to be trusted. There are a couple of problems with such a comparison, however.

'''Joseph not the author'''

First, this statement is written as if Joseph was the author of it, but he was not. Scribes assembled this account from a "synposis" following Joseph's death. Trying to get insight into Joseph's character and intent from a statement put into his mouth after he was dead is poor history.

'''Quoted out of context'''

Second, the quote is taken out of context. In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. This statement was supposedly made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinithians, chaper 11 to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:

:Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking in as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19, NASB)

Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.

Do the producers of the video dismiss the words of Paul and deny his calling as an Apostle because he used such a literary approach that included boasting? No, they do not. Yet, they dismiss Joseph Smith when it is clear by his own statements, in context, that he engaged in the exact same literary approach. Consider the words of Joseph right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:

:''My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. 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. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.''
:;<small>—{{HoC1|vol=6|start=408}}</small>

After giving the above explanation, Joseph ''then'' makes the statements that the video accounts to him, in the same way that Paul made outrageous "boasts" to contrast his position with the position of those who the Corinthians were starting to listen to. Paul starts the next chapter of 2 Corinthians with the statement "boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable." So, it would appear that Paul recognizes the necessity of boasting at times (though it may do little good, being unprofitable), yet the producers of the video do not allow Joseph to follow Paul's advice and, of necessity, boast at times.

Perhaps the producers are unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps they apply a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not? Again, the producers never reveal their intent in including Joseph's Paul-like statements in their video.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith's Doctrine & Covenants teaches that Joseph himself holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven (on screen) "Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come.... "({{s||DC|90|3}}) (on screen ends) and if Joseph Smith holds the keys to heaven then how can Jesus claim, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." ({{s||Matthew|28|18}})"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Jesus told Peter, the chief apostle:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

Peter was told that he would hold the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." The power of these keys was to continue into the hereafter, since Peter's actions on earth would have validity in the world to come.

Jesus does not seem to think that giving Peter keys in the 16th chapter of Matthew affects His ability to hold "all authority" in the 28th chapter. Should we believe His understanding, or the critics?

If the president of a company gives responsability for some part of his corporation, this does not mean that the president has lost authority—he has merely given an underling power to make some decisions on his behalf. Without the president, the underling has no power.

Are the critics offended that Peter was given keys?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God's word tells us that "there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.... " ({{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}) In stark contrast, Brigham Young stated, "...that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7 p 289)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints embrace the doctrine taught in 1 Timothy. The Book of Mormon says likewise that

:[men] are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death.... ({{s|2|Nephi|2|27}})

'''Ignoring the Bible'''

At the Last Supper, Jesus himself taught His apostles:

:Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ({{s||Luke|22|28-30}}; see also {{s||Matthew|19|28}}.)

Since the Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Joseph was called as an apostle and prophet (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/21/1#1 D&C 21:1]) with the same authority as that given to Peter, James, John, and others, they do not think it strange that he will likewise play a role in judgment.

The witness of a prophet will always be brought against those who did not accept his witness of Christ (see {{s||Matthew|10|40}}; {{s||John|5|45-47}}). Could first century Christians accept Christ while rejecting the witness of Peter or Paul?

'''Another incomplete quote'''

Not content to ignore a clear Biblical teaching, the DVD producers also failed to include the entirety of Brigham Young's quotation. Following the portion cited, Brigham said:

:''...I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy...he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.... It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption.''
::<small>—{{JoD7_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Intelligence, etc.|date=9 October 1859|start=289|end=289}}</small>>

Clearly, Joseph's role is to function under the "direction...of the Son of God," and the primary goal is the salvation of all who will accept any degree of Christ and Joseph's witness of Him. Joseph's role is not to condemn, but to do everything possible to encourage all to come unto Christ and be saved.

Joseph's participation in the judgment (at the command and sufferance of Jesus) is no more or less than the role assigned to the Lord's apostles at the Last Supper.

No mortal's role in the judgment supercedes the role given to Jesus, as the Book of Mormon bears witness:

:...the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}.)

Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But we cannot believe both the Bible and the writings of Joseph Smith when the Bible tells us there is only one God and Joseph Smith tells us there are many gods and we must become gods ourselves." - Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The non-Biblical creeds and the ''interpretation'' of the Bible chosen by Ms. Robertson are the only problems.

Millions of Christians have not accepted the post-Biblical Trinitarian creeds, and so have believed in more than one divine being.

Millions of others have had hope in the doctrine of ''theosis'': humans being made like God.

Many of these Christians were among the earliest followers of Christ. Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Ms. Robertson's superficial grasp of the issues:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
::<small>—{{FR-17-1-10}}</small>

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer to the Christianity of Jesus and His Apostles than Ms. Robertson may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|''Search for the Truth'' reply: Who is God]]
*[[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
*[[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* "Do We Have the Potential to Become Like God?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Do_We_Have_the_Potential_to_become_Like_God.html}}
*D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
*{{FR-17-1-10}}
|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God?

2007-03-24T15:49:33Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Who Is God?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Claim: According to Joseph, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also..." ({{s||D&C|130|22}}) However in John 4:24 we are told "God is Spirit..."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
President Gordon B. Hinckley recently addressed this very old criticism:

:''In the account of the Creation of the earth, "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" ({{s||Gen|1|26}}).''
:''Could any language be more explicit? Does it demean God, as some would have us believe, that man was created in His express image? Rather, it should stir within the heart of every man and woman a greater appreciation for himself or herself as a son or daughter of God....''
:''I remember the occasion more than 70 years ago when, as a missionary, I was speaking in an open-air meeting in Hyde Park, London. As I was presenting my message, a heckler interrupted to say, "Why don't you stay with the doctrine of the Bible which says in John, 'God is a Spirit'?"''
:''I opened my Bible to the verse he had quoted and read to him the entire verse:''
::''"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" ({{s||John|4|24}}).''
:''I said, "Of course God is a spirit, and so are you in the combination of spirit and body that makes of you a living being, and so am I."''
:''...Jesus's declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that He has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body.''
:''I do not equate my body with His in its refinement, in its capacity, in its beauty and radiance. His is eternal. Mine is mortal. But that only increases my reverence for Him. I worship Him "in spirit and in truth."''
::<small>—Gordon B. Hinckley, "First Presidency Message: In These Three I Believe," ''Ensign'' (July 2006): 2–8.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0adce2270ed6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

It is interesting to note that some early Christians actually used John 4:24 as a proof text to support the notion that God has a body. While Origen (''De Principiis'', 242 {{link|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen122.html}}) didn't approve, he admits "I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declaration of our own scriptures, God is a body, because. . .they find it said in the Gospel according to John that 'God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.'. . .Spirit according to them [is] to be regarded as nothing less than a body."

Tertullian (''Against Praxeus'', Chapter 7 {{link|url=http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.p.burns/3978_F06/TertullianAgainstPraxeas.html}}) believed "This for certain is He who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not none. For who will deny that God is a body although God is a spirit? (John 4:24). For spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form."

While evangelical scholar Paul Copan {{link|url=http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_augustine_copan.html}} views Tertullian's belief in God's corporeality as anti-intellectual and influenced by stoicism, he writes that in Augustine's time "North African Catholics typically believed [in God's corporeality]." Copan indicated that "neo-Platonist Christians in Milan" helped Augustine adopt a belief in an incorporeal God.

The conception of God which Joseph Smith claimed to restore through revelation is clearly a match for the common beliefs of the early Christians—and, that early perspective was later altered and corrupted by philosophical innovations.

'''To read more:'''
*[[God is a Spirit|God is a Spirit]]
*[[Corporeality of God|Corporeality of God]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: God has existed for eternity. But Joseph Smith taught "He was once a man like us, yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did." Dr. Phil Roberts says, "In Mormonism God is simply an exalted man. He was born as a man, he was conceived in a natural way and by adherence to a system of Mormonism in a previous world and a previous life through his good works in accordance with that system he became God."
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Very little is known about these matters in LDS doctrine, but Dr. Roberts manages to distort what ''is'' known.

There is no official doctrine on the method by which Christ's mortal body was conceived, despite speculation by some early members. Latter-day Saints do not deny that God has existed for eternity—they believe all intelligence is eternal and uncreated (see {{s||D&C|93|29}}). Latter-day Saints do not accept the late, non-biblical Trinitarian creeds. Thus, they see God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate beings.

Jesus Christ was:
* born as a mortal
* conceived with a literal, physical body to a literal, physical mother
* lived as a man/mortal
* died
* was resurrected and glorified

Given that Christ was the only one to lead a sinless life, one might agree with Dr. Roberts that "through his good works," He completed His mortal life and was exalted to divine status.

Joseph Smith simply taught that the Father went through the same process as Christ.

Although Christ shared aspects of the mortal experience with us, to argue that He was "simply a man" who became exalted is to distort LDS teaching beyond recognition. Jesus Christ has divine status and exaltation by merit and right. By analogy, we presume—but do not know—that the Father proceeded similarly. Exaltation of all other mortals is through the grace, mercy, and atonement of Christ, following the Father's plan.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Jesus Christ's conception|Conception of Jesus Christ]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...the Mormon teachings about many gods is false." – Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe in more than one divine personage. Any Christian who does not embrace the late, non-biblical Trinitarian creeds will understand there to be more than one "God," in the sense of "divine person."

Latter-day Saints and scripture often use the term "God" to denote what may be more properly called "the Godhead." This is the divine unity of love, purpose, and will possessed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are "one God," while remaining distinct divine personages.

While recognizing that more than one being may have divine status, Latter-day Saints reject any attempt to worship any other being, or assume that any other being has greater power than the God of the Bible.

Elder Boyd K. Packer taught:

:''The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.''
::<small>—{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Pattern of Our Parentage|date=November 1984|start=69}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20november%201984%20.htm/the%20pattern%20of%20our%20parentage.htm?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=$x=}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* David L. Paulsen, "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith: Defending the Faith" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_God_of_Abraham_Isaac_and_Joseph_Smith.html}}
* {{Restoringancientchurch|chapter=3|title=The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:4–5 there is only one God, and the rest are simply imaginary (see remarks by Dr. John Whitcomb).</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen ignores the scriptural context and scholarship in his interpretation. The verses in question read:

:As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
:For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

This is followed by a verse not cited by Mr. McElveen:

:But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. ({{s|1|Corinthians|8|4-6}})

Mr. McElveen would like us to conclude that because idols are mentioned in verse 4, the "gods many, and lords many" mentioned in verse 5 also refer to idols. It is clear, however, that Paul makes the distinction in verse 5. He says that while there are those that are "called gods," it is true, but he clarifies and distinguishes his meaning in two separate ways.

First, Paul follows this statement, referring to those that are called gods, with the words, "whether in heaven or in earth..."—it is unlikely that idols would be found in heaven!

Secondly, Paul acknowledges that "there be gods many, and lords many." Then he brings the point home in the next verse, though it is not cited by Mr. McElveen, since it undermines his interpretation.

Paul says that "to us," however, "there is but one God" and "one Lord." He clarifies his point: We are only to worship one God, not many gods, although they do exist. We only follow one Lord, not many Lords, although they do exist.

This is not merely a Latter-day Saint supposition. Origin (A.D. 185–''ca.''254), head of the Christian Church in Alexandria, wrote:

:''There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in the prophecy, "Thank ye the God of gods," and "The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth." Now God, according to the Gospel, "is not the God of the dead but of the living." ''Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god''. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: "As there are gods many and lords many," and so we have spoken of these gods ''as really existing''. Now there are, besides the gods of whom God is god, certain others.''
::<small>–Origen, "Commentary on John," in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., ''The Ante-Nicene Fathers'' (1886-1890; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978-1981), 10:315. {{ea}}</small>

Thus, Paul distinguishes between two groups of things:
# non-existent gods (idols)
# other divine beings that exist, but are not to be worshipped

Mr. McElveen has similar problems interpreting Old Testament scripture in context, discussed below.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: (cont.) "The Bible says before me there were no gods formed (Isaiah 43:10) neither shall there be after me. That means that all the Mormon teachings about many gods is false. It means there was never a God before this God." - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen's interpretation of these passages also ignores much context and Biblical scholarship.

In this portion of Isaiah, Jehovah warned Judah to trust in him alone and not to trust in false gods who had no power to deliver them. The passages portray this as a contest between Jehovah and the gods of other nations.

Consider the passage in {{s||Isaiah|43|10-11}}, where the Lord says

:Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

The context is clear in verse 12, which omitted (as is typical for critics who try to use this proof-text against the Latter-day Saints) from the quotation:

:I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no ''strange god'' among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God. {{Ia}}

"Strange god" refers to a false god, an idol.

Likewise for 44:6, 8 — this passage is followed by extensive discussion of "graven images" ({{s||Isaiah|44|9-17}}).

These and similar passages in Isaiah (e.g. {{s||Isaiah|43|10-11}}; {{s||Isaiah|44|6,8}}; {{s||Isaiah|45|5-6}}; {{s||Isaiah|45|21-22}}; and {{s||Isaiah|46|9-10}}) cannot be called upon to disprove LDS beliefs in separate Gods in the Godhead or human deification (see below).

As Dr. Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary observed:

: ''Most OT scholars see the early stages of OT thought as henotheistic, i.e., ''the view that there are many Gods but that Jehovah is the supreme deity'' before whom we should place no other. Similarly, Paul in Colossians seems to suggest that there are many powers, but we should not placate them, because everything holds together in Jesus Christ. I think the important thing is that we acknowledge that only the God and father of JC is worthy of our worship and obedience.''
::<small>—AOL on-line discussion, cited [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Reviews/Whats_with_the_Dudes_at_the_Door.html here]. {{ea}}</small>

In sum, the goal of these verses is to encourage Israel to leave off their idols and worship Jehovah alone. Any other use of them distorts Isaiah's meaning and intent.

'''To read more:'''
* [[%22No God beside me%22|Isaiah: "No God beside me"]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">It also means that Mormon men will never become gods. - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen's analysis up to here has been superficial and flawed.

LDS doctrine teaches that believers are deified through the grace of Christ. This is a belief common among ancient and modern Christians, though it applies to both men ''and'' women—Mr. McElveen fails to mention the latter.

As one example among many, the early Christian Irenaeus (A.D. 180) wrote:

:''We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.''
::<small>—{{ECF1|start=94}}</small>

Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Mr. McElveen's superficial grasp of Christian theology and history:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
::<small>—{{FR-17-1-10}}</small>

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer than Mr. McElveen may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
* [[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
* D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
* {{FR-17-1-10}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: Becoming a God was the lie that the serpent told to Eve in the Garden of Eden. Dave Hunt is quoted saying, "So Mormonism takes the lie of the serpent, it's based on the saying that the lie of the serpent is the truth."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Mr. Hunt might want to read a bit further in his Bible:

:And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. ({{s||Genesis|3|4-5}}.)

At first glance, it appears Mr. Hunt is right. But if Mr. Hunt had bothered to turn the page in his Bible he would have found that he was spectacularly wrong. After Adam and Eve partake of the forbidden fruit, God declares:

:And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.... ({{s||Genesis|3|22}}.)

So God says the man is become "as one of us." Is Mr. Hunt trying to contradict God?

The serpent did lie, but the lie wasn't what Mr. Hunt claims. The Serpent lied when he said, "Ye shall not surely die." Man did become mortal and God restricted his access to the tree of life.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God would never condone lying. Yet in the Pearl of Great Price, Abraham is told by God to 'Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.' (Abraham 2:24) This contradicts what is in the Bible. Why would God give us the Bible for instruction and life-molding and later give us another testimony of Jesus Christ only to contradict each other? Does God make mistakes?"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This remark betrays an ignorance of extra-Biblical materials, LDS scripture, ''and'' the Bible.

In the ancient ''Genesis Apocryphon'' text, Abraham has the same motives described in the Pearl of Great Price as delivered by Joseph Smith. He tells Sarah that God has given him a dream in which she saves him from being killed. He then tells her:

:[Say to them] of me, 'He is my brother,' and because of you I shall live, and because of your my life shall be saved...'

:And Sarai wept that night on account of my words..."
::<small>—Geza Vermes, ''The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English'' (Penguin Press, 1997), 453–454. ''See also'': ({{link|url=http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Books/Dead_Sea_Scrolls/genesis_apocryphon.htm}}.)</small>

How did Joseph produce this authentic ancient detail, with this text not available until 1948?

The perspective offered by the Book of Abraham and the ''Genesis Apocyphon'' does not ''contradict'' the Bible—the Bible simply does not tell us why Abraham and Sarah claimed she was his sister ({{s||Genesis|20|2}}). God expresses no displeasure at their choice, and even speaks to the king in a dream to save Sarah. Given Abraham's nobility of character, it is hard to picture him taking this course if he felt God would disapprove.

During Israel's captivity in Egypt, God blessed the Egyptian midwives' decision to lie to Pharaoh about their failure to murder Hebrew infants (see {{s||Exodus|1|19-20}}.)

However, there is an even more dramatic Biblical example of God commanding deception for the greater good—Moses himself.

The Lord speaks to Moses and says:

:And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey ({{s||Exodus|3|17}})

The Lord announces His intention to liberate the Israelites from slavery. But, in the very next breath, He tells Moses what to tell Pharaoh:

:And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God. ({{s||Exodus|3|18}})

The "public stance" of Moses and the Israelite leaders is to be that they only want to go three days' journey to sacrifice. So, here the Lord is advocating some degree of deception. This extends to even deceiving their Egyptian neighbors:

:And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty:
:But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. ({{s||Exodus|3|21-22}})

Because they are just going to make sacrifices, in the public version, the Israelites are to "borrow" valuable goods from the Egyptians. But, the true intent is clearly spelled out: they are to "spoil" (i.e. "loot") the Egyptians. (See {{s||Exodus|11|2}}, {{s||Exodus|12|35-36}}.)

Anti-Moses authors could have a field day—they could mock Moses' "ethical lapse" here, and insist that he did it all for the money. They could contrast his behavior here with the "thou shalt not covet," "thou shalt not bear false witness," and "thou shalt not steal" commands given later at Sinai, and point out that "borrowing" when you don't ever intend to come back looks a lot like "stealing."

Yet, Moses did exactly what the Lord told him to do, according to the Bible. It is therefore not inconsistent with the Bible for God to have Abraham cloud his relationship with Sarah for their own protection.

This claim by the producers and cast of The DVD regarding deceit serves as a double edged sword against them. The many misrepresentations of LDS beliefs in this video begs the question of whether or not their deceit is sanctioned by God whereas the deceit of Abraham as recorded in the Pearl of Great Price should be condemned.
|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God?

2007-03-24T15:48:46Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Who Is God?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Claim: According to Joseph, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also..." ({{s||D&C|130|22}}) However in John 4:24 we are told "God is Spirit..."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
President Gordon B. Hinckley recently addressed this very old criticism:

:''In the account of the Creation of the earth, "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" ({{s||Gen|1|26}}).''
:''Could any language be more explicit? Does it demean God, as some would have us believe, that man was created in His express image? Rather, it should stir within the heart of every man and woman a greater appreciation for himself or herself as a son or daughter of God....''
:''I remember the occasion more than 70 years ago when, as a missionary, I was speaking in an open-air meeting in Hyde Park, London. As I was presenting my message, a heckler interrupted to say, "Why don't you stay with the doctrine of the Bible which says in John, 'God is a Spirit'?"''
:''I opened my Bible to the verse he had quoted and read to him the entire verse:''
::''"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" ({{s||John|4|24}}).''
:''I said, "Of course God is a spirit, and so are you in the combination of spirit and body that makes of you a living being, and so am I."''
:''...Jesus's declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that He has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body.''
:''I do not equate my body with His in its refinement, in its capacity, in its beauty and radiance. His is eternal. Mine is mortal. But that only increases my reverence for Him. I worship Him "in spirit and in truth."''
::<small>—Gordon B. Hinckley, "First Presidency Message: In These Three I Believe," ''Ensign'' (July 2006): 2–8.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0adce2270ed6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

It is interesting to note that some early Christians actually used John 4:24 as a proof text to support the notion that God has a body. While Origen (''De Principiis'', 242 {{link|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen122.html}}) didn't approve, he admits "I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declaration of our own scriptures, God is a body, because. . .they find it said in the Gospel according to John that 'God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.'. . .Spirit according to them [is] to be regarded as nothing less than a body."

Tertullian (''Against Praxeus'', Chapter 7 {{link|url=http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.p.burns/3978_F06/TertullianAgainstPraxeas.html}}) believed "This for certain is He who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not none. For who will deny that God is a body although God is a spirit? (John 4:24). For spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form."

While evangelical scholar Paul Copan {{link|url=http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_augustine_copan.html}} views Tertullian's belief in God's corporeality as anti-intellectual and influenced by stoicism, he writes that in Augustine's time "North African Catholics typically believed [in God's corporeality]." Copan indicated that "neo-Platonist Christians in Milan" helped Augustine adopt a belief in an incorporeal God.

The conception of God which Joseph Smith claimed to restore through revelation is clearly a match for the common beliefs of the early Christians—and, that early perspective was later altered and corrupted by philosophical innovations.

'''To read more:'''
*[[God is a Spirit|God is a Spirit]]
*[[Corporeality of God|Corporeality of God]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: God has existed for eternity. But Joseph Smith taught "He was once a man like us, yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did." Dr. Phil Roberts says, "In Mormonism God is simply an exalted man. He was born as a man, he was conceived in a natural way and by adherence to a system of Mormonism in a previous world and a previous life through his good works in accordance with that system he became God."
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Very little is known about these matters in LDS doctrine, but Dr. Roberts manages to distort what ''is'' known.

There is no official doctrine on the method by which Christ's mortal body was conceived, despite speculation by some early members. Latter-day Saints do not deny that God has existed for eternity—they believe all intelligence is eternal and uncreated (see {{s||D&C|93|29}}). Latter-day Saints do not accept the late, non-biblical Trinitarian creeds. Thus, they see God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate beings.

Jesus Christ was:
* born as a mortal
* conceived with a literal, physical body to a literal, physical mother
* lived as a man/mortal
* died
* was resurrected and glorified

Given that Christ was the only one to lead a sinless life, one might agree with Dr. Roberts that "through his good works," He completed His mortal life and was exalted to divine status.

Joseph Smith simply taught that the Father went through the same process as Christ.

Although Christ shared aspects of the mortal experience with us, to argue that He was "simply a man" who became exalted is to distort LDS teaching beyond recognition. Jesus Christ has divine status and exaltation by merit and right. By analogy, we presume—but do not know—that the Father proceeded similarly. Exaltation of all other mortals is through the grace, mercy, and atonement of Christ, following the Father's plan.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Jesus Christ's conception|Conception of Jesus Christ]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...the Mormon teachings about many gods is false." – Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe in more than one divine personage. Any Christian who does not embrace the late, non-biblical Trinitarian creeds will understand there to be more than one "God," in the sense of "divine person."

Latter-day Saints and scripture often use the term "God" to denote what may be more properly called "the Godhead." This is the divine unity of love, purpose, and will possessed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are "one God," while remaining distinct divine personages.

While recognizing that more than one being may have divine status, Latter-day Saints reject any attempt to worship any other being, or assume that any other being has greater power than the God of the Bible.

Elder Boyd K. Packer taught:

:''The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.''
::<small>—{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Pattern of Our Parentage|date=November 1984|start=69}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20november%201984%20.htm/the%20pattern%20of%20our%20parentage.htm?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=$x=}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* David L. Paulsen, "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith: Defending the Faith" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_God_of_Abraham_Isaac_and_Joseph_Smith.html}}
* {{Restoringancientchurch|chapter=3|title=The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:4–5 there is only one God, and the rest are simply imaginary (see remarks by Dr. John Whitcomb).</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen ignores the scriptural context and scholarship in his interpretation. The verses in question reads:

:As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
:For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

This is followed by a verse not cited by Mr. McElveen:

:But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. ({{s|1|Corinthians|8|4-6}})

Mr. McElveen would like us to conclude that because idols are mentioned in verse 4, the "gods many, and lords many" mentioned in verse 5 also refer to idols. It is clear, however, that Paul makes the distinction in verse 5. He says that while there are those that are "called gods," it is true, but he clarifies and distinguishes his meaning in two separate ways.

First, Paul follows this statement, referring to those that are called gods, with the words, "whether in heaven or in earth..."—it is unlikely that idols would be found in heaven!

Secondly, Paul acknowledges that "there be gods many, and lords many." Then he brings the point home in the next verse, though it is not cited by Mr. McElveen, since it undermines his interpretation.

Paul says that "to us," however, "there is but one God" and "one Lord." He clarifies his point: We are only to worship one God, not many gods, although they do exist. We only follow one Lord, not many Lords, although they do exist.

This is not merely a Latter-day Saint supposition. Origin (A.D. 185–''ca.''254), head of the Christian Church in Alexandria, wrote:

:''There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in the prophecy, "Thank ye the God of gods," and "The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth." Now God, according to the Gospel, "is not the God of the dead but of the living." ''Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god''. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: "As there are gods many and lords many," and so we have spoken of these gods ''as really existing''. Now there are, besides the gods of whom God is god, certain others.''
::<small>–Origen, "Commentary on John," in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., ''The Ante-Nicene Fathers'' (1886-1890; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978-1981), 10:315. {{ea}}</small>

Thus, Paul distinguishes between two groups of things:
# non-existent gods (idols)
# other divine beings that exist, but are not to be worshipped

Mr. McElveen has similar problems interpreting Old Testament scripture in context, discussed below.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: (cont.) "The Bible says before me there were no gods formed (Isaiah 43:10) neither shall there be after me. That means that all the Mormon teachings about many gods is false. It means there was never a God before this God." - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen's interpretation of these passages also ignores much context and Biblical scholarship.

In this portion of Isaiah, Jehovah warned Judah to trust in him alone and not to trust in false gods who had no power to deliver them. The passages portray this as a contest between Jehovah and the gods of other nations.

Consider the passage in {{s||Isaiah|43|10-11}}, where the Lord says

:Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

The context is clear in verse 12, which omitted (as is typical for critics who try to use this proof-text against the Latter-day Saints) from the quotation:

:I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no ''strange god'' among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God. {{Ia}}

"Strange god" refers to a false god, an idol.

Likewise for 44:6, 8 — this passage is followed by extensive discussion of "graven images" ({{s||Isaiah|44|9-17}}).

These and similar passages in Isaiah (e.g. {{s||Isaiah|43|10-11}}; {{s||Isaiah|44|6,8}}; {{s||Isaiah|45|5-6}}; {{s||Isaiah|45|21-22}}; and {{s||Isaiah|46|9-10}}) cannot be called upon to disprove LDS beliefs in separate Gods in the Godhead or human deification (see below).

As Dr. Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary observed:

: ''Most OT scholars see the early stages of OT thought as henotheistic, i.e., ''the view that there are many Gods but that Jehovah is the supreme deity'' before whom we should place no other. Similarly, Paul in Colossians seems to suggest that there are many powers, but we should not placate them, because everything holds together in Jesus Christ. I think the important thing is that we acknowledge that only the God and father of JC is worthy of our worship and obedience.''
::<small>—AOL on-line discussion, cited [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Reviews/Whats_with_the_Dudes_at_the_Door.html here]. {{ea}}</small>

In sum, the goal of these verses is to encourage Israel to leave off their idols and worship Jehovah alone. Any other use of them distorts Isaiah's meaning and intent.

'''To read more:'''
* [[%22No God beside me%22|Isaiah: "No God beside me"]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">It also means that Mormon men will never become gods. - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen's analysis up to here has been superficial and flawed.

LDS doctrine teaches that believers are deified through the grace of Christ. This is a belief common among ancient and modern Christians, though it applies to both men ''and'' women—Mr. McElveen fails to mention the latter.

As one example among many, the early Christian Irenaeus (A.D. 180) wrote:

:''We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.''
::<small>—{{ECF1|start=94}}</small>

Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Mr. McElveen's superficial grasp of Christian theology and history:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
::<small>—{{FR-17-1-10}}</small>

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer than Mr. McElveen may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
* [[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
* D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
* {{FR-17-1-10}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: Becoming a God was the lie that the serpent told to Eve in the Garden of Eden. Dave Hunt is quoted saying, "So Mormonism takes the lie of the serpent, it's based on the saying that the lie of the serpent is the truth."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Mr. Hunt might want to read a bit further in his Bible:

:And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. ({{s||Genesis|3|4-5}}.)

At first glance, it appears Mr. Hunt is right. But if Mr. Hunt had bothered to turn the page in his Bible he would have found that he was spectacularly wrong. After Adam and Eve partake of the forbidden fruit, God declares:

:And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.... ({{s||Genesis|3|22}}.)

So God says the man is become "as one of us." Is Mr. Hunt trying to contradict God?

The serpent did lie, but the lie wasn't what Mr. Hunt claims. The Serpent lied when he said, "Ye shall not surely die." Man did become mortal and God restricted his access to the tree of life.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God would never condone lying. Yet in the Pearl of Great Price, Abraham is told by God to 'Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.' (Abraham 2:24) This contradicts what is in the Bible. Why would God give us the Bible for instruction and life-molding and later give us another testimony of Jesus Christ only to contradict each other? Does God make mistakes?"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This remark betrays an ignorance of extra-Biblical materials, LDS scripture, ''and'' the Bible.

In the ancient ''Genesis Apocryphon'' text, Abraham has the same motives described in the Pearl of Great Price as delivered by Joseph Smith. He tells Sarah that God has given him a dream in which she saves him from being killed. He then tells her:

:[Say to them] of me, 'He is my brother,' and because of you I shall live, and because of your my life shall be saved...'

:And Sarai wept that night on account of my words..."
::<small>—Geza Vermes, ''The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English'' (Penguin Press, 1997), 453–454. ''See also'': ({{link|url=http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Books/Dead_Sea_Scrolls/genesis_apocryphon.htm}}.)</small>

How did Joseph produce this authentic ancient detail, with this text not available until 1948?

The perspective offered by the Book of Abraham and the ''Genesis Apocyphon'' does not ''contradict'' the Bible—the Bible simply does not tell us why Abraham and Sarah claimed she was his sister ({{s||Genesis|20|2}}). God expresses no displeasure at their choice, and even speaks to the king in a dream to save Sarah. Given Abraham's nobility of character, it is hard to picture him taking this course if he felt God would disapprove.

During Israel's captivity in Egypt, God blessed the Egyptian midwives' decision to lie to Pharaoh about their failure to murder Hebrew infants (see {{s||Exodus|1|19-20}}.)

However, there is an even more dramatic Biblical example of God commanding deception for the greater good—Moses himself.

The Lord speaks to Moses and says:

:And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey ({{s||Exodus|3|17}})

The Lord announces His intention to liberate the Israelites from slavery. But, in the very next breath, He tells Moses what to tell Pharaoh:

:And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God. ({{s||Exodus|3|18}})

The "public stance" of Moses and the Israelite leaders is to be that they only want to go three days' journey to sacrifice. So, here the Lord is advocating some degree of deception. This extends to even deceiving their Egyptian neighbors:

:And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty:
:But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. ({{s||Exodus|3|21-22}})

Because they are just going to make sacrifices, in the public version, the Israelites are to "borrow" valuable goods from the Egyptians. But, the true intent is clearly spelled out: they are to "spoil" (i.e. "loot") the Egyptians. (See {{s||Exodus|11|2}}, {{s||Exodus|12|35-36}}.)

Anti-Moses authors could have a field day—they could mock Moses' "ethical lapse" here, and insist that he did it all for the money. They could contrast his behavior here with the "thou shalt not covet," "thou shalt not bear false witness," and "thou shalt not steal" commands given later at Sinai, and point out that "borrowing" when you don't ever intend to come back looks a lot like "stealing."

Yet, Moses did exactly what the Lord told him to do, according to the Bible. It is therefore not inconsistent with the Bible for God to have Abraham cloud his relationship with Sarah for their own protection.

This claim by the producers and cast of The DVD regarding deceit serves as a double edged sword against them. The many misrepresentations of LDS beliefs in this video begs the question of whether or not their deceit is sanctioned by God whereas the deceit of Abraham as recorded in the Pearl of Great Price should be condemned.
|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Search for the Truth DVD:What is Hell?

2007-03-24T14:21:03Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: What is Hell?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "We see that here [{{s||Revelation|20|11-15}}] is what happens to people that are judged according to their works. They do not go into heaven. If you read this carefully and look at the words, it says 'and death and hell,' not death, part of death, not part of hell—all of them, kit and kaboodle. All the huge vast people that are on that broad road that leads to hell the Bible tells us about, all of them were cast into hell because they insisted on being judged according to their works. It breaks my heart to think people think they're going to be good enough to get to heaven. We're not good. We're lost. We desperately need Jesus. You must realize you're a lost sinner before there's any hope for you." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

John tells us:

:And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. ({{s||Revelation|20|12}})

Mr. McElveen is telling us that this isn't ''all'' the dead, only those that insisted on being judged "according to their works." But does the scripture actually say that? John speaks of "the dead, small and great" being judged from "the book of life."

Judgment is inescapable, whether anyone insists upon it or not. Our actions, our works will be judged by Christ. He and only He will determine if our works are righteous or evil. We must remember that not everyone who saith, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that ''doeth'' the will of the Father. ({{scripture||Matthew|7|21}}) Certainly keeping the commandants of God have value. Otherwise there would be no purpose in God giving commandments to His children.

But, what is this book of life?

Paul refers to the book of life and tells us that those who labor for the Lord are listed in it:

:And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. ({{s||Phillippians|4|3}})

John is told that those who overcome the world will be kept in the book of life:

:He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. ({{s||Revelation|3|5}})

John further says that a person that alters his book of Revelation will have his name removed from the Book of Life:

:For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book...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.... ({{s||Revelation|22|18-19}})

Moses in his pleading on Israel's behalf asks the Lord to blot his name from the Lord's book if God will not forgive Israel. The Lord tells Moses that those who sin against Him are the ones who will be blotted from His book:

:And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. ({{s||Exodus|3|31-33}})

So how do we get into God's book of life?
*By serving God (Paul).
*By overcoming the world (John).
*By believing God's prophets and apostles and not misquoting what they say (John).
*By trying to live as righteously as we are able (Moses).

True, we will fail to live a perfect life, but we trust in the redemptive power of Christ and His atonement to cleanse us from our imperfections, when we have done our best to follow Him. Paul expresses this well to the Romans:

:What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
:{{parabreak}}
:Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
:{{parabreak}}
:Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
:{{parabreak}}
:But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. ({{s||Romans|6|1-2,6,12-16,22-23}})

LDS Christians recognize that their works cannot save them, but believe that by trusting in Christ, who is mighty to save, they can, through their good works, honor Christ, and serve their fellowman. They believe that their names will therefore be written in the Lamb's book of life, and that they will "be found on the right hand of God" at the last day ({{s||Mosiah|5|9}}).

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "We have a beggar [in {{s||Luke|16|19-24}}]. He laid at the gate of the rich man. Dogs licked his sores. Nobody cared whether he lived or died. I can imagine a huge parade when the rich man died. But the rich man was in hell. He'd sold his soul for a mess of porridge, for goods, so many do that today. And yet, the poor man, the man who was starving, the man who was sick, went to be with Jesus because he knew Him—he believed in Him. That's the end of every person that doesn't know Jesus—a place called hell.... Lazarus had nothing. He was poverty stricken, he was sick, he was hurting, he was miserable, probably partly because of malnutrition because he wasn't fed by the rich man. I would think God would give (inaudible) atrocious thing the rich man did. My friend (inaudible) is atrocious when you see somebody in need and let them suffer. And that Lazarus was in heaven forever because he trusted Jesus. But the rich man is in hell." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The story of the rich man and Lazarus was told by Christ to teach humility, love, and compassion. Certainly it also references the inability of the unrepentent to change.

There is a certain irony in Mr. McElveen using this story. For the rich man had all he needed, while the poor man was willing to accept whatever the Lord would give him. Similarly, Biblical inerrantists believe they have all they need and won't allow for modern prophets and revelation, while the LDS are willing to "...believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." ({{s||Articles+of+Faith|1|9}})

Even more telling is his condemnation of the rich man for failing to do works, such as caring for his poor neighbor. Latter-day Saints also consider such works to be an essential act of someone who is following Christ, and so many of them engage in acts of charity and service to people, in and out of the Church, who need assistance.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And yet hell has an end too. Not that people get out of hell, they never do, but in the 20th chapter of Revelation you find out. You see the body has not yet joined the part of man that goes to be in hell—the spirit. But that's going to happen in the resurrection—the second resurrection we spoke of. That body, which will be resurrected, the unsaved dead, will join that soul already in torment and then body and soul both will be cast into hell. And here is that awful picture. Thank God the resurrection of the just! The resurrection of the saved! And they will go to be with Jesus Christ forever." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints teach the same doctrines. That Mr. McElveen believes they need to learn these truths demonstrates once again that he does not understand LDS doctrine.

Alma<sup>2</sup> taught:

:...the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and [after death] these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
:Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.
:{{parabreak}}
:The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.
:And now...this is the restoration of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets—
:And then shall the righteous shine forth in the kingdom of God.
:But behold, an awful death cometh upon the wicked; for they die as to things pertaining to things of righteousness; for they are unclean, and no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God; but they are cast out, and consigned to partake of the fruits of their labors or their works, which have been evil; and they drink the dregs of a bitter cup. ({{s||Alma|40|13-14,23-26}}.)

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now let's talk for a moment about that place called hell—hell itself being cast into the lake of fire. There will be torment for ever and ever. James 1:17 says, 'Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' What it is saying in this verse is that everything that's good, its source is God—everything. There's nothing that's good that didn't come from God. The reason you can breathe is because every moment God gives you breath. The reason your heart is beating is because every moment God propels that heart to beat. Everything." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, Latter-day Saints teach these same doctrines.

In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin explained:

:I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—
:I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. ({{s||Mosiah|2|20-21}}.)

Mr. EcElveen labors under the false idea that Latter-day Saints believe that their own righteousness and goodness is what qualifies them for exaltation. As we have attempted to explain in this response, Latter-day Saints do good works ''because the Lord asks them to and because they love the Lord and their fellow man.'' We do not believe it is our works that resurrect us and bring us back into the presence of God—only Jesus' atonement can do that. We simply seek to follow his counsel to love and serve others, as true disciples should.

One area where we ''would'' disagree with Mr. McElveen is in his characterization of hell as a ''literal'' lake of fire and brimstone. The Bible and other LDS scriptures certainly describe it that way, but the Book of Mormon makes clear that the "torment [of the wicked] is ''as'' a lake of fire and brimstone" ({{s|2|Nephi|9|16}})—that is to say, it is a torment, but the "fire and brimstone" imagery is metaphorical. (More on this below.)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now, you have refused God. You have counted it of no account and you've thought that other things were much more important and so you (inaudible) into living for yourself. You may even be a professing Christian. You may be a Mormon. You may be one who is in a true Church. You may be depending on other things. But according to God if you have not been born again, if you've not been cleansed through the blood of Christ, you are not a child of God." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints teach the doctrines of adoption through Christ, despite Mr. McElveen's claims.

Speaking to the righteous, the Book of Mormon says:

:And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. ({{s||Mosiah|5|7}}; compare {{s||Mosiah|27|25}})

Speaking to the wicked who die in their sins:

:But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head. ({{s||Helaman|13|38}}; compare {{s||Alma|34|35}})

Saying someone is "not a child of God" is misleading unless one uses precise definitions. This is examined in the next heading.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You see? Many people think everybody is a child of God. The Bible says that's not true. You have to be born again, receiving Jesus in order to become a child of God. He said 'to as many received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God' ({{s||John|1|12}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Bible—and the Latter-day Saints—teaches two distinct concepts about our relationships to God. Mr. McElveen is incorrectly conflating them.

'''The universal Fatherhood of God'''

All mortals are children of God in the sense that God is the creator of their spirit bodies:

:Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? ({{s||Hebrews|12|9}})

Note that God is "the Father of spirits" even if we are not in subjection to Him (though we are encouraged to be). Paul also described God as:

:One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. ({{s||Ephesians|4|6}})

'''Adoptive Fatherhood of God and Christ'''

All mortals squander their inheritance, as it were. By committing sin, they forfeit any right to God's blessings and kingdom. Only Jesus lived a sinless life; only He is a worthy heir. Through the grace of Christ, the rest of us may be adopted as "children of God"—we are readmitted into the family of God.

:For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
:For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
:The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
:And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. ({{s||Romans|8|14-17}}).

:But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son...
:To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. ({{s||Galatians|4|4-5}})

:Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. ({{s||Ether|3|14}})

It is interesting that Biblical scholars consider Paul's teachings about adoption through Christ as sons ("filial adoption") to be his way of teaching the doctrine of human deification:

:''Deification (Greek ''Theosis'') is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, '''according to the Bible''', is 'made in the image and likeness of God,'...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. ({{s||Psalms|82|6}}; {{s|2|Peter|1|4}}), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption ({{s||Romans|8|9-17}}, {{s||Galatians|4|5-7}}) and the fourth gospel ({{s||John|17|21-23}}).''
::<small>—Alan Richardson (editor), ''The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology'' (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1983). ISBN 0664213987. (emphasis added).</small>

Thus, Mr. McElveen distorts the Bible's teachings on this point. Everyone is a child of God in terms of spiritual parentage; no one lives worthy of that heritage without adoption into the family of God through Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Deification of man]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now, here you are, you're in hell. What is the situation? The Bible calls it a lake of fire, a furnace of fire, everlasting fire. There are some who say, well surely it couldn't fire. It really is fire. God doesn't kid about things like that. He's not a 'scare God.' He simply tells you the truth. And this is not a parable we read in Luke, the 16th chapter—God never used proper names in a parable. Even (inaudible) a picture of something worse, but here we are now, here's what happens. Every good and perfect thing remember that's a gift from God is gone. Gone is gone. You refused Him, you turned Him down. You turned down Jesus, you turned down His word or if you professed to accept Him and you still went your own way and did your own thing. {{s||Isaiah|53|6}}: All we like sheep have gone astray, we've turned everyone to his own way and the Lord has laid on him the sin of us all."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is true that the Bible refers to Hell as a place of fire, but it is also true that the Bible uses other symbolic language to describe Hell. For example, three times in the gospel of Matthew the destination of the unsaved is described as "outer darkness." (See {{s||Matthew|8|12}}, {{s||Matthew|22|13}}, and {{s||Matthew|25|30}}.) Jesus employed much of the imagery and symbols of the Hebrew Scriptures in His teaching, and in particular He frequently alluded to the last verse of the Book of Isaiah. (See {{s||Isaiah|66|24}} and {{s||Mark|9|43-44}}.)

And Jesus did, in fact, use proper names in parables. Jesus frequently used proper names for places, such as Jerusalem and Jericho (see the parable of the Good Samaritan in {{s||Luke|10|30-35}}). Note also that in the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus used the proper names of various groups, such as Levites and Samaritans. We also have an instance where Jesus used a proper name of a person—it is found in {{s||Luke|16|19-31}} as referenced by Mr. McElveen. It may be that some Bible readers may want to take this parable to be a literal story, but to do so wrests the verses in Luke from their cultural and literary environment.

And despite Mr. McElveen's suggestion that he is avoiding scare tactics, he evokes images of eternal burning and torment for anyone who rejects his preaching.

'''To read more:'''

* {{TTTF1|start=81|article=Hell}} {{link1|url=http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b3bc55cbf541229058520974e44916a0/?vgnextoid=ed462ce2b446c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1ecf991a83d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Here's what happens [in hell]. You will never again hear beautiful music. You will never again see a beautiful cloud. You will never again feel the soft touch of wind on your face. You will never again have a lover's embrace. You will never again have one moment of (inaudible). There will no moment of pleasure, not ever. Eternity rolls on. And the Bible also says you're in outer darkness, you're in (inaudible) darkness and yet in a burning fire. No one can explain that, but God can do it. He had a bush burn and not be consumed that Moses saw.<br><br>
"Listen my friend, hell is so awful that when I think of hell, many, many times I've wept as I think of people going there—and Mormon friends, LDS friends, that's just the beginning. You hear of doctors treating people for depression. You'll have the worst depression the world has ever seen. Nobody will treat. No psychiatrist will be there treating you. No doctor will be giving you aspirin. No doctor will give you something to alleviate the pain. You're there. And interminably it goes on. Every day it seems to be worse than the day before. One minute is like an hour. One hour is like a week. One week is like a month. One month is like a year and still you burn and you scream like the rich man, you'd give everything you ever owned for one drop of water to cool your tongue. Oh my God, oh my God what a fool I've been. I'm in hell. I didn't believe. I knew many of the things in the Bible came true. I don't know I didn't believe hell would come true. You're in hell. You're in hell, you're abandoned by God and man." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

In this segment we see where Mr. McElveen himself acknowledges that we run into problems when we try to interpret figurative language, symbols, and metaphors as being literal descriptions. Mr. McElveen can do no more than end up describing his dark fire of Hell as some kind of indescribable miracle. Mr. McElveen does a disservice to the Gospel of Jesus Christ when the appeal to follow Jesus is couched in lengthy, fearful warnings rather than as an invitation to come to Jesus to partake of the waters of Life. This sort of presentation has the unfortunate result of casting the beautiful gift of the Savior as merely the absence of horrific, eternal punishment.

Latter-day Saints have a very different view of Hell. It comes as a result of our belief that God the Father is a loving father who wants the very best possible for His children. It is not consistent to think of a loving Father who would condemn his children to the kind of place described. Rather LDS view the life after our mortal existence as being far better than anything we experience here, save for a very few that are sent to outer darkness. Almost all of God's children will find themselves in a kingdom of glory. The "hell" for those in lesser kingdoms will come as they realize the loss of what could have been, if they only had truly accepted Christ and followed His teachings. The dissapointment and very real limitations on future growth will be a great disappointment for those who find themselves in such a situation. That will cause the very real pain suggested by the symbolic biblical descriptions of hell. There are consequences for faiing to follow Christ, but they are tempered by the love of the Father for all of His children.

What is also interesting is that many of his assertions about the conditions of hell have no Biblical basis. They represent McElveen's interpretation, generally derived from medieval and renaissance depictions of hell, not God's revelation.

Most fascinating is that McElveen rejects the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal marriage and eternal families, and yet claims here that, in hell, "You will never again have a lover's embrace." Presumably this mean that in heaven one ''will'' experience a lover's embrace. If so, is this love within the bounds of marriage and family? If not, how is Mr. McElveen's hell any different from his heaven when it comes to this particular point? Mr. McElveen's description of hell seems to add strength to the LDS belief that part of the great joy and blessing of heaven is the eternal continuation of the loving bonds forged during our time in mortality.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "My friends, quit pitying yourself. Hell is awful and God is warning you and warning you—he's warning you through me. I say with all my heart and all my soul I don't want one Mormon to go to hell. I don't want anybody to go to hell. I want you saved by the blood of Jesus and I want to enjoy heaven with you forever." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Likewise, Latter-day Saints wish with all their hearts that Mormons, Evangelicals, and every other person will return to live with God in heaven. Latter-day Saints firmly believe that salvation lies in Christ alone ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}}) and that anyone who has faith in Christ, truly repents, and follows the example of Jesus will be lifted up at the last day by the grace and mercy of God (for example, see {{s|3|Nephi|27|19-22}}, {{s||Mosiah|23|22}}, {{s||Ether|4|19}}). Latter-day Saints invite all men and women of all religions to hear the restored message of the Gospel and to accept the atoning blood of Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation.

'''To read more:'''

[http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e88b8949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____ LDS Beliefs about the Atonement of Christ]

|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Search for the Truth DVD:What is Hell?

2007-03-24T14:16:31Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: What is Hell?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "We see that here [{{s||Revelation|20|11-15}}] is what happens to people that are judged according to their works. They do not go into heaven. If you read this carefully and look at the words, it says 'and death and hell,' not death, part of death, not part of hell—all of them, kit and kaboodle. All the huge vast people that are on that broad road that leads to hell the Bible tells us about, all of them were cast into hell because they insisted on being judged according to their works. It breaks my heart to think people think they're going to be good enough to get to heaven. We're not good. We're lost. We desperately need Jesus. You must realize you're a lost sinner before there's any hope for you." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

John tells us:

:And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. ({{s||Revelation|20|12}})

Mr. McElveen is telling us that this isn't ''all'' the dead, only those that insisted on being judged "according to their works." But does the scripture actually say that? John speaks of "the dead, small and great" being judged from "the book of life."

Judgment is inescapable, whether anyone insists upon it or not. Our actions, our works will be judged by Christ. He and only He will determine if our works are righteous or evil. We must remember that not everyone who saith, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of the Father. ({{scripture||Matthew|7|21}}) Certainly keeping the commandants of God have value. Otherwise there would be no purpose in God giving commandments to His children.

But, what is this book of life?

Paul refers to the book of life and tells us that those who labor for the Lord are listed in it:

:And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. ({{s||Phillippians|4|3}})

John is told that those who overcome the world will be kept in the book of life:

:He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. ({{s||Revelation|3|5}})

John further says that a person that alters his book of Revelation will have his name removed from the Book of Life:

:For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book...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.... ({{s||Revelation|22|18-19}})

Moses in his pleading on Israel's behalf asks the Lord to blot his name from the Lord's book if God will not forgive Israel. The Lord tells Moses that those who sin against Him are the ones who will be blotted from His book:

:And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. ({{s||Exodus|3|31-33}})

So how do we get into God's book of life?
*By serving God (Paul).
*By overcoming the world (John).
*By believing God's prophets and apostles and not misquoting what they say (John).
*By trying to live as righteously as we are able (Moses).

True, we will fail to live a perfect life, but we trust in the redemptive power of Christ and His atonement to cleanse us from our imperfections, when we have done our best to follow Him. Paul expresses this well to the Romans:

:What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
:{{parabreak}}
:Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
:{{parabreak}}
:Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
:{{parabreak}}
:But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. ({{s||Romans|6|1-2,6,12-16,22-23}})

LDS Christians recognize that their works cannot save them, but believe that by trusting in Christ, who is mighty to save, they can, through their good works, honor Christ, and serve their fellowman. They believe that their names will therefore be written in the Lamb's book of life, and that they will "be found on the right hand of God" at the last day ({{s||Mosiah|5|9}}).

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "We have a beggar [in {{s||Luke|16|19-24}}]. He laid at the gate of the rich man. Dogs licked his sores. Nobody cared whether he lived or died. I can imagine a huge parade when the rich man died. But the rich man was in hell. He'd sold his soul for a mess of porridge, for goods, so many do that today. And yet, the poor man, the man who was starving, the man who was sick, went to be with Jesus because he knew Him—he believed in Him. That's the end of every person that doesn't know Jesus—a place called hell.... Lazarus had nothing. He was poverty stricken, he was sick, he was hurting, he was miserable, probably partly because of malnutrition because he wasn't fed by the rich man. I would think God would give (inaudible) atrocious thing the rich man did. My friend (inaudible) is atrocious when you see somebody in need and let them suffer. And that Lazarus was in heaven forever because he trusted Jesus. But the rich man is in hell." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The story of the rich man and Lazarus was told by Christ to teach humility, love, and compassion. Certainly it also references the inability of the unrepentent to change.

There is a certain irony in Mr. McElveen using this story. For the rich man had all he needed, while the poor man was willing to accept whatever the Lord would give him. Similarly, Biblical inerrantists believe they have all they need and won't allow for modern prophets and revelation, while the LDS are willing to "...believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." ({{s||Articles+of+Faith|1|9}})

Even more telling is his condemnation of the rich man for failing to do works, such as caring for his poor neighbor. Latter-day Saints also consider such works to be an essential act of someone who is following Christ, and so many of them engage in acts of charity and service to people, in and out of the Church, who need assistance.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And yet hell has an end too. Not that people get out of hell, they never do, but in the 20th chapter of Revelation you find out. You see the body has not yet joined the part of man that goes to be in hell—the spirit. But that's going to happen in the resurrection—the second resurrection we spoke of. That body, which will be resurrected, the unsaved dead, will join that soul already in torment and then body and soul both will be cast into hell. And here is that awful picture. Thank God the resurrection of the just! The resurrection of the saved! And they will go to be with Jesus Christ forever." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints teach the same doctrines. That Mr. McElveen believes they need to learn these truths demonstrates once again that he does not understand LDS doctrine.

Alma<sup>2</sup> taught:

:...the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and [after death] these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
:Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.
:{{parabreak}}
:The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.
:And now...this is the restoration of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets—
:And then shall the righteous shine forth in the kingdom of God.
:But behold, an awful death cometh upon the wicked; for they die as to things pertaining to things of righteousness; for they are unclean, and no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God; but they are cast out, and consigned to partake of the fruits of their labors or their works, which have been evil; and they drink the dregs of a bitter cup. ({{s||Alma|40|13-14,23-26}}.)

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now let's talk for a moment about that place called hell—hell itself being cast into the lake of fire. There will be torment for ever and ever. James 1:17 says, 'Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' What it is saying in this verse is that everything that's good, its source is God—everything. There's nothing that's good that didn't come from God. The reason you can breathe is because every moment God gives you breath. The reason your heart is beating is because every moment God propels that heart to beat. Everything." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, Latter-day Saints teach these same doctrines.

In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin explained:

:I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—
:I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. ({{s||Mosiah|2|20-21}}.)

Mr. EcElveen labors under the false idea that Latter-day Saints believe that their own righteousness and goodness is what qualifies them for exaltation. As we have attempted to explain in this response, Latter-day Saints do good works ''because the Lord asks them to and because they love the Lord and their fellow man.'' We do not believe it is our works that resurrect us and bring us back into the presence of God—only Jesus' atonement can do that. We simply seek to follow his counsel to love and serve others, as true disciples should.

One area where we ''would'' disagree with Mr. McElveen is in his characterization of hell as a ''literal'' lake of fire and brimstone. The Bible and other LDS scriptures certainly describe it that way, but the Book of Mormon makes clear that the "torment [of the wicked] is ''as'' a lake of fire and brimstone" ({{s|2|Nephi|9|16}})—that is to say, it is a torment, but the "fire and brimstone" imagery is metaphorical. (More on this below.)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now, you have refused God. You have counted it of no account and you've thought that other things were much more important and so you (inaudible) into living for yourself. You may even be a professing Christian. You may be a Mormon. You may be one who is in a true Church. You may be depending on other things. But according to God if you have not been born again, if you've not been cleansed through the blood of Christ, you are not a child of God." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints teach the doctrines of adoption through Christ, despite Mr. McElveen's claims.

Speaking to the righteous, the Book of Mormon says:

:And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. ({{s||Mosiah|5|7}}; compare {{s||Mosiah|27|25}})

Speaking to the wicked who die in their sins:

:But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head. ({{s||Helaman|13|38}}; compare {{s||Alma|34|35}})

Saying someone is "not a child of God" is misleading unless one uses precise definitions. This is examined in the next heading.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You see? Many people think everybody is a child of God. The Bible says that's not true. You have to be born again, receiving Jesus in order to become a child of God. He said 'to as many received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God' ({{s||John|1|12}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Bible—and the Latter-day Saints—teaches two distinct concepts about our relationships to God. Mr. McElveen is incorrectly conflating them.

'''The universal Fatherhood of God'''

All mortals are children of God in the sense that God is the creator of their spirit bodies:

:Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? ({{s||Hebrews|12|9}})

Note that God is "the Father of spirits" even if we are not in subjection to Him (though we are encouraged to be). Paul also described God as:

:One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. ({{s||Ephesians|4|6}})

'''Adoptive Fatherhood of God and Christ'''

All mortals squander their inheritance, as it were. By committing sin, they forfeit any right to God's blessings and kingdom. Only Jesus lived a sinless life; only He is a worthy heir. Through the grace of Christ, the rest of us may be adopted as "children of God"—we are readmitted into the family of God.

:For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
:For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
:The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
:And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. ({{s||Romans|8|14-17}}).

:But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son...
:To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. ({{s||Galatians|4|4-5}})

:Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. ({{s||Ether|3|14}})

It is interesting that Biblical scholars consider Paul's teachings about adoption through Christ as sons ("filial adoption") to be his way of teaching the doctrine of human deification:

:''Deification (Greek ''Theosis'') is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, '''according to the Bible''', is 'made in the image and likeness of God,'...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. ({{s||Psalms|82|6}}; {{s|2|Peter|1|4}}), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption ({{s||Romans|8|9-17}}, {{s||Galatians|4|5-7}}) and the fourth gospel ({{s||John|17|21-23}}).''
::<small>—Alan Richardson (editor), ''The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology'' (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1983). ISBN 0664213987. (emphasis added).</small>

Thus, Mr. McElveen distorts the Bible's teachings on this point. Everyone is a child of God in terms of spiritual parentage; no one lives worthy of that heritage without adoption into the family of God through Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Deification of man]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now, here you are, you're in hell. What is the situation? The Bible calls it a lake of fire, a furnace of fire, everlasting fire. There are some who say, well surely it couldn't fire. It really is fire. God doesn't kid about things like that. He's not a 'scare God.' He simply tells you the truth. And this is not a parable we read in Luke, the 16th chapter—God never used proper names in a parable. Even (inaudible) a picture of something worse, but here we are now, here's what happens. Every good and perfect thing remember that's a gift from God is gone. Gone is gone. You refused Him, you turned Him down. You turned down Jesus, you turned down His word or if you professed to accept Him and you still went your own way and did your own thing. {{s||Isaiah|53|6}}: All we like sheep have gone astray, we've turned everyone to his own way and the Lord has laid on him the sin of us all."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is true that the Bible refers to Hell as a place of fire, but it is also true that the Bible uses other symbolic language to describe Hell. For example, three times in the gospel of Matthew the destination of the unsaved is described as "outer darkness." (See {{s||Matthew|8|12}}, {{s||Matthew|22|13}}, and {{s||Matthew|25|30}}.) Jesus employed much of the imagery and symbols of the Hebrew Scriptures in His teaching, and in particular He frequently alluded to the last verse of the Book of Isaiah. (See {{s||Isaiah|66|24}} and {{s||Mark|9|43-44}}.)

And Jesus did, in fact, use proper names in parables. Jesus frequently used proper names for places, such as Jerusalem and Jericho (see the parable of the Good Samaritan in {{s||Luke|10|30-35}}). Note also that in the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus used the proper names of various groups, such as Levites and Samaritans. We also have an instance where Jesus used a proper name of a person—it is found in {{s||Luke|16|19-31}} as referenced by Mr. McElveen. It may be that some Bible readers may want to take this parable to be a literal story, but to do so wrests the verses in Luke from their cultural and literary environment.

And despite Mr. McElveen's suggestion that he is avoiding scare tactics, he evokes images of eternal burning and torment for anyone who rejects his preaching.

'''To read more:'''

* {{TTTF1|start=81|article=Hell}} {{link1|url=http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b3bc55cbf541229058520974e44916a0/?vgnextoid=ed462ce2b446c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1ecf991a83d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Here's what happens [in hell]. You will never again hear beautiful music. You will never again see a beautiful cloud. You will never again feel the soft touch of wind on your face. You will never again have a lover's embrace. You will never again have one moment of (inaudible). There will no moment of pleasure, not ever. Eternity rolls on. And the Bible also says you're in outer darkness, you're in (inaudible) darkness and yet in a burning fire. No one can explain that, but God can do it. He had a bush burn and not be consumed that Moses saw.<br><br>
"Listen my friend, hell is so awful that when I think of hell, many, many times I've wept as I think of people going there—and Mormon friends, LDS friends, that's just the beginning. You hear of doctors treating people for depression. You'll have the worst depression the world has ever seen. Nobody will treat. No psychiatrist will be there treating you. No doctor will be giving you aspirin. No doctor will give you something to alleviate the pain. You're there. And interminably it goes on. Every day it seems to be worse than the day before. One minute is like an hour. One hour is like a week. One week is like a month. One month is like a year and still you burn and you scream like the rich man, you'd give everything you ever owned for one drop of water to cool your tongue. Oh my God, oh my God what a fool I've been. I'm in hell. I didn't believe. I knew many of the things in the Bible came true. I don't know I didn't believe hell would come true. You're in hell. You're in hell, you're abandoned by God and man." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

In this segment we see where Mr. McElveen himself acknowledges that we run into problems when we try to interpret figurative language, symbols, and metaphors as being literal descriptions. Mr. McElveen can do no more than end up describing his dark fire of Hell as some kind of indescribable miracle. Mr. McElveen does a disservice to the Gospel of Jesus Christ when the appeal to follow Jesus is couched in lengthy, fearful warnings rather than as an invitation to come to Jesus to partake of the waters of Life. This sort of presentation has the unfortunate result of casting the beautiful gift of the Savior as merely the absence of horrific, eternal punishment.

Latter-day Saints have a very different view of Hell. It comes as a result of our belief that God the Father is a loving father who wants the very best possible for His children. It is not consistent to think of a loving Father who would condemn his children to the kind of place described. Rather LDS view the life after our mortal existence as being far better than anything we experience here, save for a very few that are sent to outer darkness. Almost all of God's children will find themselves in a kingdom of glory. The "hell" for those in lesser kingdoms will come as they realize the loss of what could have been, if they only had truly accepted Christ and followed His teachings. The dissapointment and very real limitations on future growth will be a great disappointment for those who find themselves in such a situation. That will cause the very real pain suggested by the symbolic biblical descriptions of hell. There are consequences for faiing to follow Christ, but they are tempered by the love of the Father for all of His children.

What is also interesting is that many of his assertions about the conditions of hell have no Biblical basis. They represent McElveen's interpretation, generally derived from medieval and renaissance depictions of hell, not God's revelation.

Most fascinating is that McElveen rejects the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal marriage and eternal families, and yet claims here that, in hell, "You will never again have a lover's embrace." Presumably this mean that in heaven one ''will'' experience a lover's embrace. If so, is this love within the bounds of marriage and family? If not, how is Mr. McElveen's hell any different from his heaven when it comes to this particular point? Mr. McElveen's description of hell seems to add strength to the LDS belief that part of the great joy and blessing of heaven is the eternal continuation of the loving bonds forged during our time in mortality.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "My friends, quit pitying yourself. Hell is awful and God is warning you and warning you—he's warning you through me. I say with all my heart and all my soul I don't want one Mormon to go to hell. I don't want anybody to go to hell. I want you saved by the blood of Jesus and I want to enjoy heaven with you forever." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Likewise, Latter-day Saints wish with all their hearts that Mormons, Evangelicals, and every other person will return to live with God in heaven. Latter-day Saints firmly believe that salvation lies in Christ alone ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}}) and that anyone who has faith in Christ, truly repents, and follows the example of Jesus will be lifted up at the last day by the grace and mercy of God (for example, see {{s|3|Nephi|27|19-22}}, {{s||Mosiah|23|22}}, {{s||Ether|4|19}}). Latter-day Saints invite all men and women of all religions to hear the restored message of the Gospel and to accept the atoning blood of Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation.

'''To read more:'''

[http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e88b8949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____ LDS Beliefs about the Atonement of Christ]

|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Search for the Truth DVD:What is Hell?

2007-03-24T14:15:53Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: What is Hell?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "We see that here [{{s||Revelation|20|11-15}}] is what happens to people that are judged according to their works. They do not go into heaven. If you read this carefully and look at the words, it says 'and death and hell,' not death, part of death, not part of hell—all of them, kit and kaboodle. All the huge vast people that are on that broad road that leads to hell the Bible tells us about, all of them were cast into hell because they insisted on being judged according to their works. It breaks my heart to think people think they're going to be good enough to get to heaven. We're not good. We're lost. We desperately need Jesus. You must realize you're a lost sinner before there's any hope for you." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

John tells us:

:And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. ({{s||Revelation|20|12}})

Mr. McElveen is telling us that this isn't ''all'' the dead, only those that insisted on being judged "according to their works." But does the scripture actually say that? John speaks of "the dead, small and great" being judged from "the book of life." Judgment is inescapable, whether anyone insists upon it or not. Our actions, our works will be judged by Christ. He and only He will determine if our works are righteous or evil. We must remember that not everyone who saith, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of the Father. ({{scripture||Matthew|7|21}}) Certainly keeping the commandants of God have value. Otherwise there would be no purpose in God giving commandments to His children.

But, what is this book of life?

Paul refers to the book of life and tells us that those who labor for the Lord are listed in it:

:And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. ({{s||Phillippians|4|3}})

John is told that those who overcome the world will be kept in the book of life:

:He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. ({{s||Revelation|3|5}})

John further says that a person that alters his book of Revelation will have his name removed from the Book of Life:

:For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book...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.... ({{s||Revelation|22|18-19}})

Moses in his pleading on Israel's behalf asks the Lord to blot his name from the Lord's book if God will not forgive Israel. The Lord tells Moses that those who sin against Him are the ones who will be blotted from His book:

:And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. ({{s||Exodus|3|31-33}})

So how do we get into God's book of life?
*By serving God (Paul).
*By overcoming the world (John).
*By believing God's prophets and apostles and not misquoting what they say (John).
*By trying to live as righteously as we are able (Moses).

True, we will fail to live a perfect life, but we trust in the redemptive power of Christ and His atonement to cleanse us from our imperfections, when we have done our best to follow Him. Paul expresses this well to the Romans:

:What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
:{{parabreak}}
:Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
:{{parabreak}}
:Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
:{{parabreak}}
:But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. ({{s||Romans|6|1-2,6,12-16,22-23}})

LDS Christians recognize that their works cannot save them, but believe that by trusting in Christ, who is mighty to save, they can, through their good works, honor Christ, and serve their fellowman. They believe that their names will therefore be written in the Lamb's book of life, and that they will "be found on the right hand of God" at the last day ({{s||Mosiah|5|9}}).

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "We have a beggar [in {{s||Luke|16|19-24}}]. He laid at the gate of the rich man. Dogs licked his sores. Nobody cared whether he lived or died. I can imagine a huge parade when the rich man died. But the rich man was in hell. He'd sold his soul for a mess of porridge, for goods, so many do that today. And yet, the poor man, the man who was starving, the man who was sick, went to be with Jesus because he knew Him—he believed in Him. That's the end of every person that doesn't know Jesus—a place called hell.... Lazarus had nothing. He was poverty stricken, he was sick, he was hurting, he was miserable, probably partly because of malnutrition because he wasn't fed by the rich man. I would think God would give (inaudible) atrocious thing the rich man did. My friend (inaudible) is atrocious when you see somebody in need and let them suffer. And that Lazarus was in heaven forever because he trusted Jesus. But the rich man is in hell." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The story of the rich man and Lazarus was told by Christ to teach humility, love, and compassion. Certainly it also references the inability of the unrepentent to change.

There is a certain irony in Mr. McElveen using this story. For the rich man had all he needed, while the poor man was willing to accept whatever the Lord would give him. Similarly, Biblical inerrantists believe they have all they need and won't allow for modern prophets and revelation, while the LDS are willing to "...believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." ({{s||Articles+of+Faith|1|9}})

Even more telling is his condemnation of the rich man for failing to do works, such as caring for his poor neighbor. Latter-day Saints also consider such works to be an essential act of someone who is following Christ, and so many of them engage in acts of charity and service to people, in and out of the Church, who need assistance.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And yet hell has an end too. Not that people get out of hell, they never do, but in the 20th chapter of Revelation you find out. You see the body has not yet joined the part of man that goes to be in hell—the spirit. But that's going to happen in the resurrection—the second resurrection we spoke of. That body, which will be resurrected, the unsaved dead, will join that soul already in torment and then body and soul both will be cast into hell. And here is that awful picture. Thank God the resurrection of the just! The resurrection of the saved! And they will go to be with Jesus Christ forever." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints teach the same doctrines. That Mr. McElveen believes they need to learn these truths demonstrates once again that he does not understand LDS doctrine.

Alma<sup>2</sup> taught:

:...the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and [after death] these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
:Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.
:{{parabreak}}
:The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.
:And now...this is the restoration of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets—
:And then shall the righteous shine forth in the kingdom of God.
:But behold, an awful death cometh upon the wicked; for they die as to things pertaining to things of righteousness; for they are unclean, and no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God; but they are cast out, and consigned to partake of the fruits of their labors or their works, which have been evil; and they drink the dregs of a bitter cup. ({{s||Alma|40|13-14,23-26}}.)

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now let's talk for a moment about that place called hell—hell itself being cast into the lake of fire. There will be torment for ever and ever. James 1:17 says, 'Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' What it is saying in this verse is that everything that's good, its source is God—everything. There's nothing that's good that didn't come from God. The reason you can breathe is because every moment God gives you breath. The reason your heart is beating is because every moment God propels that heart to beat. Everything." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, Latter-day Saints teach these same doctrines.

In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin explained:

:I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—
:I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. ({{s||Mosiah|2|20-21}}.)

Mr. EcElveen labors under the false idea that Latter-day Saints believe that their own righteousness and goodness is what qualifies them for exaltation. As we have attempted to explain in this response, Latter-day Saints do good works ''because the Lord asks them to and because they love the Lord and their fellow man.'' We do not believe it is our works that resurrect us and bring us back into the presence of God—only Jesus' atonement can do that. We simply seek to follow his counsel to love and serve others, as true disciples should.

One area where we ''would'' disagree with Mr. McElveen is in his characterization of hell as a ''literal'' lake of fire and brimstone. The Bible and other LDS scriptures certainly describe it that way, but the Book of Mormon makes clear that the "torment [of the wicked] is ''as'' a lake of fire and brimstone" ({{s|2|Nephi|9|16}})—that is to say, it is a torment, but the "fire and brimstone" imagery is metaphorical. (More on this below.)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now, you have refused God. You have counted it of no account and you've thought that other things were much more important and so you (inaudible) into living for yourself. You may even be a professing Christian. You may be a Mormon. You may be one who is in a true Church. You may be depending on other things. But according to God if you have not been born again, if you've not been cleansed through the blood of Christ, you are not a child of God." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints teach the doctrines of adoption through Christ, despite Mr. McElveen's claims.

Speaking to the righteous, the Book of Mormon says:

:And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. ({{s||Mosiah|5|7}}; compare {{s||Mosiah|27|25}})

Speaking to the wicked who die in their sins:

:But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head. ({{s||Helaman|13|38}}; compare {{s||Alma|34|35}})

Saying someone is "not a child of God" is misleading unless one uses precise definitions. This is examined in the next heading.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You see? Many people think everybody is a child of God. The Bible says that's not true. You have to be born again, receiving Jesus in order to become a child of God. He said 'to as many received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God' ({{s||John|1|12}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Bible—and the Latter-day Saints—teaches two distinct concepts about our relationships to God. Mr. McElveen is incorrectly conflating them.

'''The universal Fatherhood of God'''

All mortals are children of God in the sense that God is the creator of their spirit bodies:

:Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? ({{s||Hebrews|12|9}})

Note that God is "the Father of spirits" even if we are not in subjection to Him (though we are encouraged to be). Paul also described God as:

:One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. ({{s||Ephesians|4|6}})

'''Adoptive Fatherhood of God and Christ'''

All mortals squander their inheritance, as it were. By committing sin, they forfeit any right to God's blessings and kingdom. Only Jesus lived a sinless life; only He is a worthy heir. Through the grace of Christ, the rest of us may be adopted as "children of God"—we are readmitted into the family of God.

:For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
:For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
:The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
:And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. ({{s||Romans|8|14-17}}).

:But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son...
:To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. ({{s||Galatians|4|4-5}})

:Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. ({{s||Ether|3|14}})

It is interesting that Biblical scholars consider Paul's teachings about adoption through Christ as sons ("filial adoption") to be his way of teaching the doctrine of human deification:

:''Deification (Greek ''Theosis'') is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, '''according to the Bible''', is 'made in the image and likeness of God,'...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. ({{s||Psalms|82|6}}; {{s|2|Peter|1|4}}), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption ({{s||Romans|8|9-17}}, {{s||Galatians|4|5-7}}) and the fourth gospel ({{s||John|17|21-23}}).''
::<small>—Alan Richardson (editor), ''The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology'' (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1983). ISBN 0664213987. (emphasis added).</small>

Thus, Mr. McElveen distorts the Bible's teachings on this point. Everyone is a child of God in terms of spiritual parentage; no one lives worthy of that heritage without adoption into the family of God through Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Deification of man]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now, here you are, you're in hell. What is the situation? The Bible calls it a lake of fire, a furnace of fire, everlasting fire. There are some who say, well surely it couldn't fire. It really is fire. God doesn't kid about things like that. He's not a 'scare God.' He simply tells you the truth. And this is not a parable we read in Luke, the 16th chapter—God never used proper names in a parable. Even (inaudible) a picture of something worse, but here we are now, here's what happens. Every good and perfect thing remember that's a gift from God is gone. Gone is gone. You refused Him, you turned Him down. You turned down Jesus, you turned down His word or if you professed to accept Him and you still went your own way and did your own thing. {{s||Isaiah|53|6}}: All we like sheep have gone astray, we've turned everyone to his own way and the Lord has laid on him the sin of us all."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is true that the Bible refers to Hell as a place of fire, but it is also true that the Bible uses other symbolic language to describe Hell. For example, three times in the gospel of Matthew the destination of the unsaved is described as "outer darkness." (See {{s||Matthew|8|12}}, {{s||Matthew|22|13}}, and {{s||Matthew|25|30}}.) Jesus employed much of the imagery and symbols of the Hebrew Scriptures in His teaching, and in particular He frequently alluded to the last verse of the Book of Isaiah. (See {{s||Isaiah|66|24}} and {{s||Mark|9|43-44}}.)

And Jesus did, in fact, use proper names in parables. Jesus frequently used proper names for places, such as Jerusalem and Jericho (see the parable of the Good Samaritan in {{s||Luke|10|30-35}}). Note also that in the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus used the proper names of various groups, such as Levites and Samaritans. We also have an instance where Jesus used a proper name of a person—it is found in {{s||Luke|16|19-31}} as referenced by Mr. McElveen. It may be that some Bible readers may want to take this parable to be a literal story, but to do so wrests the verses in Luke from their cultural and literary environment.

And despite Mr. McElveen's suggestion that he is avoiding scare tactics, he evokes images of eternal burning and torment for anyone who rejects his preaching.

'''To read more:'''

* {{TTTF1|start=81|article=Hell}} {{link1|url=http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b3bc55cbf541229058520974e44916a0/?vgnextoid=ed462ce2b446c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1ecf991a83d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Here's what happens [in hell]. You will never again hear beautiful music. You will never again see a beautiful cloud. You will never again feel the soft touch of wind on your face. You will never again have a lover's embrace. You will never again have one moment of (inaudible). There will no moment of pleasure, not ever. Eternity rolls on. And the Bible also says you're in outer darkness, you're in (inaudible) darkness and yet in a burning fire. No one can explain that, but God can do it. He had a bush burn and not be consumed that Moses saw.<br><br>
"Listen my friend, hell is so awful that when I think of hell, many, many times I've wept as I think of people going there—and Mormon friends, LDS friends, that's just the beginning. You hear of doctors treating people for depression. You'll have the worst depression the world has ever seen. Nobody will treat. No psychiatrist will be there treating you. No doctor will be giving you aspirin. No doctor will give you something to alleviate the pain. You're there. And interminably it goes on. Every day it seems to be worse than the day before. One minute is like an hour. One hour is like a week. One week is like a month. One month is like a year and still you burn and you scream like the rich man, you'd give everything you ever owned for one drop of water to cool your tongue. Oh my God, oh my God what a fool I've been. I'm in hell. I didn't believe. I knew many of the things in the Bible came true. I don't know I didn't believe hell would come true. You're in hell. You're in hell, you're abandoned by God and man." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

In this segment we see where Mr. McElveen himself acknowledges that we run into problems when we try to interpret figurative language, symbols, and metaphors as being literal descriptions. Mr. McElveen can do no more than end up describing his dark fire of Hell as some kind of indescribable miracle. Mr. McElveen does a disservice to the Gospel of Jesus Christ when the appeal to follow Jesus is couched in lengthy, fearful warnings rather than as an invitation to come to Jesus to partake of the waters of Life. This sort of presentation has the unfortunate result of casting the beautiful gift of the Savior as merely the absence of horrific, eternal punishment.

Latter-day Saints have a very different view of Hell. It comes as a result of our belief that God the Father is a loving father who wants the very best possible for His children. It is not consistent to think of a loving Father who would condemn his children to the kind of place described. Rather LDS view the life after our mortal existence as being far better than anything we experience here, save for a very few that are sent to outer darkness. Almost all of God's children will find themselves in a kingdom of glory. The "hell" for those in lesser kingdoms will come as they realize the loss of what could have been, if they only had truly accepted Christ and followed His teachings. The dissapointment and very real limitations on future growth will be a great disappointment for those who find themselves in such a situation. That will cause the very real pain suggested by the symbolic biblical descriptions of hell. There are consequences for faiing to follow Christ, but they are tempered by the love of the Father for all of His children.

What is also interesting is that many of his assertions about the conditions of hell have no Biblical basis. They represent McElveen's interpretation, generally derived from medieval and renaissance depictions of hell, not God's revelation.

Most fascinating is that McElveen rejects the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal marriage and eternal families, and yet claims here that, in hell, "You will never again have a lover's embrace." Presumably this mean that in heaven one ''will'' experience a lover's embrace. If so, is this love within the bounds of marriage and family? If not, how is Mr. McElveen's hell any different from his heaven when it comes to this particular point? Mr. McElveen's description of hell seems to add strength to the LDS belief that part of the great joy and blessing of heaven is the eternal continuation of the loving bonds forged during our time in mortality.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "My friends, quit pitying yourself. Hell is awful and God is warning you and warning you—he's warning you through me. I say with all my heart and all my soul I don't want one Mormon to go to hell. I don't want anybody to go to hell. I want you saved by the blood of Jesus and I want to enjoy heaven with you forever." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Likewise, Latter-day Saints wish with all their hearts that Mormons, Evangelicals, and every other person will return to live with God in heaven. Latter-day Saints firmly believe that salvation lies in Christ alone ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}}) and that anyone who has faith in Christ, truly repents, and follows the example of Jesus will be lifted up at the last day by the grace and mercy of God (for example, see {{s|3|Nephi|27|19-22}}, {{s||Mosiah|23|22}}, {{s||Ether|4|19}}). Latter-day Saints invite all men and women of all religions to hear the restored message of the Gospel and to accept the atoning blood of Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation.

'''To read more:'''

[http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e88b8949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____ LDS Beliefs about the Atonement of Christ]

|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Search for the Truth DVD:What is Hell?

2007-03-24T14:11:50Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: What is Hell?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "We see that here [{{s||Revelation|20|11-15}}] is what happens to people that are judged according to their works. They do not go into heaven. If you read this carefully and look at the words, it says 'and death and hell,' not death, part of death, not part of hell—all of them, kit and kaboodle. All the huge vast people that are on that broad road that leads to hell the Bible tells us about, all of them were cast into hell because they insisted on being judged according to their works. It breaks my heart to think people think they're going to be good enough to get to heaven. We're not good. We're lost. We desperately need Jesus. You must realize you're a lost sinner before there's any hope for you." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

John tells us:

:And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. ({{s||Revelation|20|12}})

Mr. McElveen is telling us that this isn't ''all'' the dead, only those that insisted on being judged "according to their works." But does the scripture actually say that? John speaks of "the dead, small and great" being judged from "the book of life." Judgment is inescapable, whether anyone insists upon it or not. Our actions, our works will be judged by Christ. He and only He will determine if our works are righteous or evil.

But, what is this book of life?

Paul refers to the book of life and tells us that those who labor for the Lord are listed in it:

:And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. ({{s||Phillippians|4|3}})

John is told that those who overcome the world will be kept in the book of life:

:He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. ({{s||Revelation|3|5}})

John further says that a person that alters his book of Revelation will have his name removed from the Book of Life:

:For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book...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.... ({{s||Revelation|22|18-19}})

Moses in his pleading on Israel's behalf asks the Lord to blot his name from the Lord's book if God will not forgive Israel. The Lord tells Moses that those who sin against Him are the ones who will be blotted from His book:

:And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. ({{s||Exodus|3|31-33}})

So how do we get into God's book of life?
*By serving God (Paul).
*By overcoming the world (John).
*By believing God's prophets and apostles and not misquoting what they say (John).
*By trying to live as righteously as we are able (Moses).

True, we will fail to live a perfect life, but we trust in the redemptive power of Christ and His atonement to cleanse us from our imperfections, when we have done our best to follow Him. Paul expresses this well to the Romans:

:What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
:{{parabreak}}
:Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
:{{parabreak}}
:Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
:{{parabreak}}
:But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. ({{s||Romans|6|1-2,6,12-16,22-23}})

LDS Christians recognize that their works cannot save them, but believe that by trusting in Christ, who is mighty to save, they can, through their good works, honor Christ, and serve their fellowman. They believe that their names will therefore be written in the Lamb's book of life, and that they will "be found on the right hand of God" at the last day ({{s||Mosiah|5|9}}).

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "We have a beggar [in {{s||Luke|16|19-24}}]. He laid at the gate of the rich man. Dogs licked his sores. Nobody cared whether he lived or died. I can imagine a huge parade when the rich man died. But the rich man was in hell. He'd sold his soul for a mess of porridge, for goods, so many do that today. And yet, the poor man, the man who was starving, the man who was sick, went to be with Jesus because he knew Him—he believed in Him. That's the end of every person that doesn't know Jesus—a place called hell.... Lazarus had nothing. He was poverty stricken, he was sick, he was hurting, he was miserable, probably partly because of malnutrition because he wasn't fed by the rich man. I would think God would give (inaudible) atrocious thing the rich man did. My friend (inaudible) is atrocious when you see somebody in need and let them suffer. And that Lazarus was in heaven forever because he trusted Jesus. But the rich man is in hell." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The story of the rich man and Lazarus was told by Christ to teach humility, love, and compassion. Certainly it also references the inability of the unrepentent to change.

There is a certain irony in Mr. McElveen using this story. For the rich man had all he needed, while the poor man was willing to accept whatever the Lord would give him. Similarly, Biblical inerrantists believe they have all they need and won't allow for modern prophets and revelation, while the LDS are willing to "...believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." ({{s||Articles+of+Faith|1|9}})

Even more telling is his condemnation of the rich man for failing to do works, such as caring for his poor neighbor. Latter-day Saints also consider such works to be an essential act of someone who is following Christ, and so many of them engage in acts of charity and service to people, in and out of the Church, who need assistance.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And yet hell has an end too. Not that people get out of hell, they never do, but in the 20th chapter of Revelation you find out. You see the body has not yet joined the part of man that goes to be in hell—the spirit. But that's going to happen in the resurrection—the second resurrection we spoke of. That body, which will be resurrected, the unsaved dead, will join that soul already in torment and then body and soul both will be cast into hell. And here is that awful picture. Thank God the resurrection of the just! The resurrection of the saved! And they will go to be with Jesus Christ forever." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints teach the same doctrines. That Mr. McElveen believes they need to learn these truths demonstrates once again that he does not understand LDS doctrine.

Alma<sup>2</sup> taught:

:...the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and [after death] these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
:Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.
:{{parabreak}}
:The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.
:And now...this is the restoration of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets—
:And then shall the righteous shine forth in the kingdom of God.
:But behold, an awful death cometh upon the wicked; for they die as to things pertaining to things of righteousness; for they are unclean, and no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God; but they are cast out, and consigned to partake of the fruits of their labors or their works, which have been evil; and they drink the dregs of a bitter cup. ({{s||Alma|40|13-14,23-26}}.)

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now let's talk for a moment about that place called hell—hell itself being cast into the lake of fire. There will be torment for ever and ever. James 1:17 says, 'Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' What it is saying in this verse is that everything that's good, its source is God—everything. There's nothing that's good that didn't come from God. The reason you can breathe is because every moment God gives you breath. The reason your heart is beating is because every moment God propels that heart to beat. Everything." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, Latter-day Saints teach these same doctrines.

In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin explained:

:I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—
:I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. ({{s||Mosiah|2|20-21}}.)

Mr. EcElveen labors under the false idea that Latter-day Saints believe that their own righteousness and goodness is what qualifies them for exaltation. As we have attempted to explain in this response, Latter-day Saints do good works ''because the Lord asks them to and because they love the Lord and their fellow man.'' We do not believe it is our works that resurrect us and bring us back into the presence of God—only Jesus' atonement can do that. We simply seek to follow his counsel to love and serve others, as true disciples should.

One area where we ''would'' disagree with Mr. McElveen is in his characterization of hell as a ''literal'' lake of fire and brimstone. The Bible and other LDS scriptures certainly describe it that way, but the Book of Mormon makes clear that the "torment [of the wicked] is ''as'' a lake of fire and brimstone" ({{s|2|Nephi|9|16}})—that is to say, it is a torment, but the "fire and brimstone" imagery is metaphorical. (More on this below.)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now, you have refused God. You have counted it of no account and you've thought that other things were much more important and so you (inaudible) into living for yourself. You may even be a professing Christian. You may be a Mormon. You may be one who is in a true Church. You may be depending on other things. But according to God if you have not been born again, if you've not been cleansed through the blood of Christ, you are not a child of God." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints teach the doctrines of adoption through Christ, despite Mr. McElveen's claims.

Speaking to the righteous, the Book of Mormon says:

:And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. ({{s||Mosiah|5|7}}; compare {{s||Mosiah|27|25}})

Speaking to the wicked who die in their sins:

:But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head. ({{s||Helaman|13|38}}; compare {{s||Alma|34|35}})

Saying someone is "not a child of God" is misleading unless one uses precise definitions. This is examined in the next heading.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You see? Many people think everybody is a child of God. The Bible says that's not true. You have to be born again, receiving Jesus in order to become a child of God. He said 'to as many received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God' ({{s||John|1|12}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Bible—and the Latter-day Saints—teaches two distinct concepts about our relationships to God. Mr. McElveen is incorrectly conflating them.

'''The universal Fatherhood of God'''

All mortals are children of God in the sense that God is the creator of their spirit bodies:

:Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? ({{s||Hebrews|12|9}})

Note that God is "the Father of spirits" even if we are not in subjection to Him (though we are encouraged to be). Paul also described God as:

:One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. ({{s||Ephesians|4|6}})

'''Adoptive Fatherhood of God and Christ'''

All mortals squander their inheritance, as it were. By committing sin, they forfeit any right to God's blessings and kingdom. Only Jesus lived a sinless life; only He is a worthy heir. Through the grace of Christ, the rest of us may be adopted as "children of God"—we are readmitted into the family of God.

:For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
:For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
:The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
:And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. ({{s||Romans|8|14-17}}).

:But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son...
:To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. ({{s||Galatians|4|4-5}})

:Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. ({{s||Ether|3|14}})

It is interesting that Biblical scholars consider Paul's teachings about adoption through Christ as sons ("filial adoption") to be his way of teaching the doctrine of human deification:

:''Deification (Greek ''Theosis'') is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, '''according to the Bible''', is 'made in the image and likeness of God,'...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. ({{s||Psalms|82|6}}; {{s|2|Peter|1|4}}), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption ({{s||Romans|8|9-17}}, {{s||Galatians|4|5-7}}) and the fourth gospel ({{s||John|17|21-23}}).''
::<small>—Alan Richardson (editor), ''The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology'' (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1983). ISBN 0664213987. (emphasis added).</small>

Thus, Mr. McElveen distorts the Bible's teachings on this point. Everyone is a child of God in terms of spiritual parentage; no one lives worthy of that heritage without adoption into the family of God through Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Deification of man]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now, here you are, you're in hell. What is the situation? The Bible calls it a lake of fire, a furnace of fire, everlasting fire. There are some who say, well surely it couldn't fire. It really is fire. God doesn't kid about things like that. He's not a 'scare God.' He simply tells you the truth. And this is not a parable we read in Luke, the 16th chapter—God never used proper names in a parable. Even (inaudible) a picture of something worse, but here we are now, here's what happens. Every good and perfect thing remember that's a gift from God is gone. Gone is gone. You refused Him, you turned Him down. You turned down Jesus, you turned down His word or if you professed to accept Him and you still went your own way and did your own thing. {{s||Isaiah|53|6}}: All we like sheep have gone astray, we've turned everyone to his own way and the Lord has laid on him the sin of us all."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is true that the Bible refers to Hell as a place of fire, but it is also true that the Bible uses other symbolic language to describe Hell. For example, three times in the gospel of Matthew the destination of the unsaved is described as "outer darkness." (See {{s||Matthew|8|12}}, {{s||Matthew|22|13}}, and {{s||Matthew|25|30}}.) Jesus employed much of the imagery and symbols of the Hebrew Scriptures in His teaching, and in particular He frequently alluded to the last verse of the Book of Isaiah. (See {{s||Isaiah|66|24}} and {{s||Mark|9|43-44}}.)

And Jesus did, in fact, use proper names in parables. Jesus frequently used proper names for places, such as Jerusalem and Jericho (see the parable of the Good Samaritan in {{s||Luke|10|30-35}}). Note also that in the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus used the proper names of various groups, such as Levites and Samaritans. We also have an instance where Jesus used a proper name of a person—it is found in {{s||Luke|16|19-31}} as referenced by Mr. McElveen. It may be that some Bible readers may want to take this parable to be a literal story, but to do so wrests the verses in Luke from their cultural and literary environment.

And despite Mr. McElveen's suggestion that he is avoiding scare tactics, he evokes images of eternal burning and torment for anyone who rejects his preaching.

'''To read more:'''

* {{TTTF1|start=81|article=Hell}} {{link1|url=http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b3bc55cbf541229058520974e44916a0/?vgnextoid=ed462ce2b446c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1ecf991a83d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Here's what happens [in hell]. You will never again hear beautiful music. You will never again see a beautiful cloud. You will never again feel the soft touch of wind on your face. You will never again have a lover's embrace. You will never again have one moment of (inaudible). There will no moment of pleasure, not ever. Eternity rolls on. And the Bible also says you're in outer darkness, you're in (inaudible) darkness and yet in a burning fire. No one can explain that, but God can do it. He had a bush burn and not be consumed that Moses saw.<br><br>
"Listen my friend, hell is so awful that when I think of hell, many, many times I've wept as I think of people going there—and Mormon friends, LDS friends, that's just the beginning. You hear of doctors treating people for depression. You'll have the worst depression the world has ever seen. Nobody will treat. No psychiatrist will be there treating you. No doctor will be giving you aspirin. No doctor will give you something to alleviate the pain. You're there. And interminably it goes on. Every day it seems to be worse than the day before. One minute is like an hour. One hour is like a week. One week is like a month. One month is like a year and still you burn and you scream like the rich man, you'd give everything you ever owned for one drop of water to cool your tongue. Oh my God, oh my God what a fool I've been. I'm in hell. I didn't believe. I knew many of the things in the Bible came true. I don't know I didn't believe hell would come true. You're in hell. You're in hell, you're abandoned by God and man." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

In this segment we see where Mr. McElveen himself acknowledges that we run into problems when we try to interpret figurative language, symbols, and metaphors as being literal descriptions. Mr. McElveen can do no more than end up describing his dark fire of Hell as some kind of indescribable miracle. Mr. McElveen does a disservice to the Gospel of Jesus Christ when the appeal to follow Jesus is couched in lengthy, fearful warnings rather than as an invitation to come to Jesus to partake of the waters of Life. This sort of presentation has the unfortunate result of casting the beautiful gift of the Savior as merely the absence of horrific, eternal punishment.

Latter-day Saints have a very different view of Hell. It comes as a result of our belief that God the Father is a loving father who wants the very best possible for His children. It is not consistent to think of a loving Father who would condemn his children to the kind of place described. Rather LDS view the life after our mortal existence as being far better than anything we experience here, save for a very few that are sent to outer darkness. Almost all of God's children will find themselves in a kingdom of glory. The "hell" for those in lesser kingdoms will come as they realize the loss of what could have been, if they only had truly accepted Christ and followed His teachings. The dissapointment and very real limitations on future growth will be a great disappointment for those who find themselves in such a situation. That will cause the very real pain suggested by the symbolic biblical descriptions of hell. There are consequences for faiing to follow Christ, but they are tempered by the love of the Father for all of His children.

What is also interesting is that many of his assertions about the conditions of hell have no Biblical basis. They represent McElveen's interpretation, generally derived from medieval and renaissance depictions of hell, not God's revelation.

Most fascinating is that McElveen rejects the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal marriage and eternal families, and yet claims here that, in hell, "You will never again have a lover's embrace." Presumably this mean that in heaven one ''will'' experience a lover's embrace. If so, is this love within the bounds of marriage and family? If not, how is Mr. McElveen's hell any different from his heaven when it comes to this particular point? Mr. McElveen's description of hell seems to add strength to the LDS belief that part of the great joy and blessing of heaven is the eternal continuation of the loving bonds forged during our time in mortality.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "My friends, quit pitying yourself. Hell is awful and God is warning you and warning you—he's warning you through me. I say with all my heart and all my soul I don't want one Mormon to go to hell. I don't want anybody to go to hell. I want you saved by the blood of Jesus and I want to enjoy heaven with you forever." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Likewise, Latter-day Saints wish with all their hearts that Mormons, Evangelicals, and every other person will return to live with God in heaven. Latter-day Saints firmly believe that salvation lies in Christ alone ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}}) and that anyone who has faith in Christ, truly repents, and follows the example of Jesus will be lifted up at the last day by the grace and mercy of God (for example, see {{s|3|Nephi|27|19-22}}, {{s||Mosiah|23|22}}, {{s||Ether|4|19}}). Latter-day Saints invite all men and women of all religions to hear the restored message of the Gospel and to accept the atoning blood of Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation.

'''To read more:'''

[http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e88b8949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____ LDS Beliefs about the Atonement of Christ]

|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/A New Beginning

2007-03-24T13:55:33Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features:A New Beginning}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

| style="color:#000;text-align:left"|
We appreciate the testimonies of Jesus that are expressed in this clip, and we wish the people the best in their search for a better relationship with Christ. LDS have never believed that other faiths cannot bring believers to a relationship with Christ. The truth that can be found in other denominations is valuable and useful as people seek to understand the things of God. LDS believe that there is a great deal more to be found with a correct understanding of doctrines of the restored gospel. We invite all serious Christians to examine the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to see how their relationship with Christ can be enriched further by a full understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.<p>

We are saddened, however, that the individuals found in this video use their time and energy in an attempt to attack the faith of the Latter-day Saints, which can only result in bringing people away from Jesus Christ and His gospel. It is especially troubling that they have participated in making this DVD, which contains so many false claims that the actual beliefs of the LDS Church are hardly recognizable.

Jesus' apostles were troubled by some who did not follow Jesus with them, and said:

:Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. ({{s||Luke|9|49}})

What did Jesus say about this person who was not following Jesus and the disciples?

:And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. ({{s||Luke|9|50}})

The Latter-day Saints do not "follow with" the conservative creedal Christians who produced this video. It is a pity that they have not chosen to follow Jesus' admonition, and leave judgment to Him whose right it is. Surely we can all share our beliefs and joy in Christ without attacking others, or caricaturizing their beliefs.

<br><br>'''To read more''':<br><br>

''Links to testimonies of Latter-Day Saints'':
* "The Living Christ: Testimony of the Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,163-1-10-1,FF.html}}
* "Why I am LDS" {{link|url=http://www.writerspost.com/testify/}}

|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T22:06:47Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen's myopic view is correct. The Bible does caution us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings to those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful, or lifted up in pride. It also cautions against those who only pay lip serice to God, while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His Word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" ({{s||Romans|10:|10}}) Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart that is pure before God are to be trusted. Certainly feelings given by God are to be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, why would the Lord promise that those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? ({{scripture||Matthew|5:|8}}) When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience only to those who have accepted Him as their Savior ''and'' have passed from this life. He simply promised that those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stoned to death ({{scripture||Acts|7:|55}}). Are we to believe Stephen's heart or feelings were deceitful? Whoever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

McElveen's statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts or our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to ensure that there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace ''to your mind'' concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]). {{ea}}

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must ''study it out in your mind''; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a ''stupor of thought'' that shall cause you to ''forget'' the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]). {{ea}}

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace, joy, and calmness.{{nc}} (''scripture'') An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T21:15:42Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen myopic view is correct. The Bible does caution us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" {{scripture||Romans|10:|10}} Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart that is pure before God can be trusted. Certainly feelings given by God may be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, why would the Lord promise that those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? {{scripture||Matthew|5:|8}} When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life. He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stoned to death. {{scripture||Acts|7:|55}} Are we to believe Stephen's heart or feelings were deceitful? Whomever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T21:15:03Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen myopic view is correct. The Bible does caution us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" {{scripture||Romans|10:|10}} Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart that is pure before God can be trusted. Certainly feelings given by God may be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, why would the Lord promise that those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? {{scripture||Matthew|5:|8}} When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life. He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stoned to death. {{scripture|Acts|7:|55}} Are we to believe Stephen's heart or feelings were deceitful? Whomever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T21:14:19Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen myopic view is correct. The Bible does caution us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" {{scripture||Romans|10:|10}} Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart that is pure before God can be trusted. Certainly feelings given by God may be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, why would the Lord promise that those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? {{scripture||Matthew|5:|8}} When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life. He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stoned to death. {{scripture|Acts|7:|55}}. Are we to believe Stephen's heart or feelings were deceitful? Whomever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T21:11:12Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen myopic view is correct. The Bible does caution us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" {{scripture||Romans|10:|10}} Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart that is pure before God can be trusted. Certainly feelings given by God may be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, why would the Lord promise that those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? Matt 5:8. When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life. He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stoned to death (Acts 7:55). Are we to believe Stephen's heart or feelings were deceitful? Whomever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T20:55:01Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen myopic view is correct. The Bible does caution us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" (Rom 10:10) Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart that is pure before God can be trusted. Certainly feelings given by God may be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, why would the Lord promise that those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? Matt 5:8. When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life. He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stoned to death (Acts 7:55). Are we to believe Stephen's heart or feelings were deceitful? Whomever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T20:23:32Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen is correct. The Bible does caution us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" (Rom 10:10) Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart that is pure before God can be trusted. Certainly feelings given by God may be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, why would the Lord promise that those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? Matt 5:8. When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life. He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stoned to death (Acts 7:55). Are we to believe Stephen's heart or feelings were deceitful? Whomever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T20:22:11Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen is correct. The Bible does caution us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" (Rom 10:10) Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart that is pure before God can be trusted. Certainly feelings given by God may be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, why would the Lord promise those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? Matt 5:8. When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life. He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stoned to death (Acts 7:55). Are we to believe Stephen's heart or feelings were deceitful? Whomever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T20:20:18Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen is correct. The Bible does caution us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" (Rom 10:10) Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart that is pure before God can be trusted. Certainly feelings given by God may be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, why would the Lord promise those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? Matt 5:8. When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life. He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stoned to death (Acts 7:55). Are we to believe Stephen's heart or feelings were deceitful? Saul, whose heart was not correct before God, was visited by the resurrected Lord on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:5). Was Saul heart or feeling truly deceitful in the eyes of God? Of course not. Whomever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T20:19:07Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen is correct. The Bible does caution us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" (Rom 10:10) Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart that is pure before God can be trusted. Certainly feelings given by God may be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, why would the Lord promise those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? Matt 5:8. When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life. He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stonedto death (Acts 7:55). Are we to believe Stephen's heart or feelings were deceitful? Saul, whose heart was not correct before God, was visited by the resurrected Lord on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:5). Was Saul heart or feeling truly deceitful in the eyes of God? Of course not. Whomever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T20:08:29Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen is correct. The Bible does cautions us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice to Him while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" (Rom 10:10) Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart that is pure before God can be trusted. Surely feelings given by God may be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, then why would the Lord promise those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? Matt 5:8. When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life. He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stoned(Acts 7:55). Are we to believe Stephen's heart was d(feelings)eceitful? Saul, whose heart was not correct before God, was visited by the resurrected Lord on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:5). Assuredly, Saul's heart was changed as well as his name. Whomever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more, as another witness along with Stephen and Paul, early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T20:07:04Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen is correct. The Bible does cautions us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice to Him while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" (Rom 10:10) Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart that is pure before God can be trusted. Surely feelings given by God may be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, then why would the Lord promise those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? Matt 5:8. When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life. He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stoned(Acts 7:55). Are we to believe Stephen's heart was deceitful? Saul, who heart was not correct before God, was visited by the resurrect Lord on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:5) Assuredly, Saul's heart was changed as well as his name. Surely whomever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more, as another witness along with Stephen and Paul, early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T20:05:46Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen is correct. The Bible does cautions us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice to Him while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" (Rom 10:10) Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart (feelings) that is pure before God can be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, then why would the Lord promise those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? Matt 5:8. When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life. He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. Stephen saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God as he was being stoned(Acts 7:55). Are we to believe Stephen's heart was deceitful? Saul, who heart was not correct before God, was visited by the resurrect Lord on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:5) Assuredly, Saul's heart was changed as well as his name. Surely whomever the Lord chooses to bless with His presence may see Him. This promise was made manifest once more, as another witness along with Stephen and Paul, early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T19:56:42Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen is correct. The Bible does cautions us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice to Him while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" (Rom 10:10) Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement. Certainly a heart (feelings) that is pure before God can be trusted.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, then why would the Lord promise those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? Matt 5:8. When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life as with Stephen (Acts 7:55) or Saul, who heart was not correct before God, on the road to Damascus (acts 9:5). He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. This promise was made manifest once more, early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-22T19:55:01Z

BrianRogers:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: Burning in the Bosom}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "One of the things our Mormon friends tell us...is that the reason they're sure about Mormonism is [be]cause when they prayed about the Book of Mormon; when they prayed about the truth of Mormonism; they had a burning in the bosom. Well, many of us have prayed; I've prayed, and I have tremendous joy in knowing Jesus." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints are not surprised that other Christians find tremendous joy in prayer and experiencing a personal relationship with Christ. We also enjoy this same feeling.

It is nice that Mr. McElveen calls Mormons his "friends," but his participation in a deceptive attack on their faith does not feel very "friendly."

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Many of us have that exhilaration, but we don't depend on that. If we did, we might easily be led astray, and here's why: Jeremiah 17:9 says: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9) The heart of man is wicked. Our feelings betray us all the time. That's why there are so many cults and so many [inaudible] and differences in the gospel of Jesus Christ. So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

On the surface, Mr McElveen is correct. The Bible does cautions us about those who, in their pride, have turned away from God. The Bible is replete with warnings of those whose hardened hearts are uncircumscribed, blind, vain, foolish, lustful or lifted up in pride or those who only pay lip serice to Him while their hearts are far from Him. All members of the LDS Church are mindful of God's admontion.

But there is another side of the story the critics would not have you know. God also speaks in His word about hearts that are humble, honest, true, who have an eye single towards His glory. How can a deceitful heart "...believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation?" (Rom 10:10) Only Jesus knows what is in the heart of each of us. Only Jesus has the right to make that judgement.

If every heart is deceitful as Mr. McElveen would have us accept, then why would the Lord promise those He has blessed with a pure heart will see Him? Matt 5:8. When the Master spoke those words, He did not confine that glorious experience to only those who have accepted Him as their Savior AND have passed from this life as with Stephen (Acts 7:55) or Saul, who heart was not correct before God, on the road to Damascus (acts 9:5). He simply promised those who are blessed with a pure heart will see God. This promise was made manifest once more, early in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith walked into a small grove of trees near his home in Palymra, New York.

The statement also indicates a lack of familiarity with how members of the LDS Church understand revelatory experiences. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we cannot trust our hearts, our feelings. God has given us additional revelation, to insure there is no confusion.

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier. A witness of the Spirit confirms information which has been previously learned through other means.

This matches a later scriptural description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

Again, heart and mind are in unity, or there is no revelation. Things must be clear, logical, and reasonable to us, not just "feel good."

The Holy Ghost brings peace and calmness. An absence of the Holy Ghost brings mental and emotional turmoil and confusion. When a Latter-day Saint has experienced the former, the turmoil, aggression, and hate that pervades anti-Mormon materials (such as this DVD) are easy to distinguish.

Small wonder that many choose to avoid them—not because they fear them, but because such experiences are unpleasant and distasteful.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Our feelings betray us all the time...So God is saying 'do not depend on your feelings.'" - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One must be careful in how one uses the word "feelings." To be sure, many members will talk about how they "felt" when they prayed.

The problem is that there is no good expression for exactly describing the experience of the Holy Ghost to someone else who has not had it. Words like "feel" are used as a convenient verbal "shorthand," which works fine among fellow Saints.

When critics begin to attack or mock that which they have never experienced, and so do not understand, they risk fundamentally misunderstanding what the Latter-day Saints mean. There is no description which a hostile listener could not misinterpret if they chose.

A more 'netural' expression that could avoid misunderstanding "feeling" or "emotion" might be "experiencing the Spirit." This experience often has nothing to do with emotion (though it may be followed by emotions of joy and gratitude). Elijah described the Holy Ghost clearly:

:...And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire ''a still small voice''.
: And it was so, ''when Elijah heard it'', that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. ({{s|1|Kings|19|11-13}}) {{ea}}

Thus, the Holy Ghost may speak words and concepts to the mind—it is not merely "an emotional experience." To outside observers, emotion may be the only visible sign of such an experience—the voice will not be perceived by others, but this makes it no less real.

Interestingly, the [[Search for the Truth DVD|introductory]] text to the DVD says:

:''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The present section of the DVD spends much effort trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do the video's producers hope their feelings are touched? Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[God tells us not to trust] a burning in the bosom, not an exhilaration, not a suffussion of joy. " - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is very strange to hear a Bible-believing Christian claim that a "burning in the bosom" is of no importance, since it is taught in the Bible.

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other such things as:

* "We should have known it was Jesus because of His scriptural teaching."
* "We should have known it was Jesus because the Bible (which isn't even written or collected now) tells us that He would walk with two disciples on the road to Emmaus."

Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart '''''burn within us''''', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates again that a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

The mental conclusions they drew from that information were simultaneously confirmed by the inward "burning" that accompanies the Holy Spirit.

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom?" Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional?

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Depend on the Word of God, period." - Floyd McElveen </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This claim demonstrates how circular the critics' arguments are. One assumes that Mr. McElveen feels the Bible is the only "Word of God."

Where does God tell us to depend only "on the Word of God, period," or only and entirely on the Bible? Nowhere.

Jesus tells us ''in the Bible'' that we should live by "''every'' word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ({{s||Matthew|4|4}}). This statement was made prior to the Bible being compiled; none of the New Testament had been written. So, Jesus clearly taught that ''everything'' which God said (both prior to His statement, and ''after'' His statement) be depended upon.

Even if we presume that the Bible is the only Word of God, how do we know to trust the Bible? It is circular to believe the Bible simply because the Bible tells us to:

:Believer - The Bible is the word of God!
:Unbeliever - How do you know?
:Believer - Because it says so, right in the Bible!
:Unbeliever - ???

The Qu'ran tells us to believe the Qu'ran; the Book of Mormon tells us to believe the Book of Mormon. Yet, the critics would not have us believe them.

The Bible cannot be the ultimate source of authority for belief, because we need ''something outside the Bible'' to confirm the Bible's authority. Who can confirm God's Word, save God Himself?

Mr. McElveen seems to understand this problem, on some level, and changes his story slightly in the next item.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Then, you may have wonderful feelings. For instance, the Bible says, "in thy presence is a fulness of joy. At thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." And I love my relationship with Jesus; it's wonderful. Besides that, I know I'm going to heaven. But anything short of that, feelings only decimate." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

So, Mr. McElveen trusts feelings insofar as they confirm what he wants us to believe—that the Bible is God's Word, that Jesus saves, and that the believer is destined for heaven.

This is exactly what the Latter-day Saints claim—after learning and implementing true principles (e.g. accepting Jesus as the Son of God) one will be filled with joy. This is the action of the Holy Ghost.

Mr. McElveen just doesn't believe that such an experience can extend beyond the Bible.

But, at least he realizes that the Bible needs ''something'' to confirm its status as the Word of God. This fatally undercuts the doctrine of "don't believe anything except what you read in the Bible."

However, the critics continue to have a big problem with circular reasoning.

'''To read more:'''
* J. Cooper Johnson, "Can We Trust Our Feelings?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Can_We_Trust_Our_Feelings.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I don't believe what I believe because it makes me happy or because it makes me feel good. I believe what I believe because the Bible says that that's true, and I believe in the authority of the Bible." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is simply more circular reasoning: "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." The Book of Mormon also claims to be true (e.g., {{s||Moroni|7|35}}; {{s||Moroni|10|29}}), but yet critics reject the Book of Mormon. This type of reasoning is unsound.

The bottom line is that basing one's beliefs on the Bible is an admirable and wise way to make decisions about one's faith. LDS believe that God's word is always a good source to use when making such decisions . The major difference, of course, is that the LDS believe God's word encompasses more than just the Bible. We believe that the Book of Mormon is God's word. We believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is God's word. We believe that the Pearl of Great Price is God’s word. We believe that we can receive God's word through modern-day prophets. We believe that we can receive God’s word for us through personal revelations from the Holy Ghost. In short, we believe that the heavens are still open, and that God continues to talk to His children today, the same as he did in biblical times.

Despite the assertion to the contrary, LDS do not make decisions concerning God's word or their eternal condition based solely on "what makes them happy" or "what makes them feel good." However, surely a confirmation of faith from the Holy Ghost would "make one happy" or "make one feel good," but that "feeling" comes only after much study of God's word and prayer.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question|Circular reasoning / begging the question]] (FAIR Wiki)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Circular reasoning / begging the question] {Wikipedia)
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon|Open versus closed canon?]]

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Paul preached the gospel, he opened the scriptures, Acts 17:2, 3, or you can go to Acts 9, and it says Paul proved from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. You can go to Acts 18:28, Apollos, it says he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that preaching from and study of the scriptures is an important way to prepare ourselves to experience the Holy Ghost's witness of truth.

However, Mr. Hunt ignores the many times in the Book of Acts when the Holy Ghost bore witness, instructed, or directed members in ways that were not in scripture (the New Testament writings did not even exist at this point).

; {{s||Acts|13|2}}
:''As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.''
There was no Bible or writing to tell the apostles that Barnabas and Saul should be called as missionaries. Should the apostles have ignored this because "it's not in the Bible"?

;{{s||Acts|15|28}}
:''For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...''
When the apostles were confronted with the issue of circumcision for Christian converts, they actually ''violated'' Jewish scriptural commands regarding circumcision. If they had relied only on the "Word of God" which they had received up to that point, they would have erred. But, they continued to listen to the ''on-going'' Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Following reasoned discussion of the issues (mind) their hearts were also in unity and peace about the correct action.

Many more examples are available [[Search for the Truth DVD:Burning in the Bosom:Holy Ghost in Acts|here]].

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "OK, so I'm not just to go by emotion or some burning in the bosom, although I certainly have a convicting power of the Holy Spirit because the Bible speaks to my heart; it's true..." - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, the critics want to have their cake and eat it too. On some level, they seem to realize that the Bible ''must'' have something to verify the Bible's authority. So, they claim that the Holy Ghost has used convincing power with regards to the Bible.

Members of the Church bear witness that the same convincing power is present when they read the Bible ''and'' the Book of Mormon. They find no conflict between the teachings found in both. So, why should they not accept both?

Critics simply fall back on the non-Biblical claim that the Bible is all sufficient.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical_completeness|Biblical sufficiency?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But the Mormon says 'well, in spite of all the evidence, DNA evidence,' and the fact that they can't document anything—that there's no historical evidence, and so forth—it reads like a lot of nonsense in many places. They say 'yeah, but I have a burning in the bosom. Now, if you will just read it, and you'll get a burning in the bosom, and that will prove to you that it is true.'" - Dave Hunt</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Hunt is, unfortunately, bearing false witness. Mormons do not say "well, in spite of all the evidence..." They do not believe ''in spite'' of evidence—they are convinced by the evidence which supports the Book of Mormon's claim to be scripture.

Non-LDS Christians make the same sort of decisions all the time—any atheist can provide Christians with "evidence" for the non-existence of God. Christians reply—quite rightly—that the atheist's evidence is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence which the Christian has for God's existence.

Evaluating evidence involves ''choice.'' God will not force us to believe:

:The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. The option to believe must appear on our personal horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is, it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
::<small>—{{BYUS|author=Terryl L. Givens|article='Lightning Out of Heaven': Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community|date=2006|start=5|end=21|vol=45|num=1}}{{nl}}</small>

Those who choose to exercise faith will find evidences which they cannot deny.

Latter-day Saints do not tell people simply to read and get a "burning in the bosom." They invite all to read the Book of Mormon, compare its teachings with those in the Bible, and exercise faith by ''living the principles which it teaches.'' Those who are not willing to do this will not receive a witness from the Holy Ghost of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness.

It is clear that the critics shown in this DVD have not even compared the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Time and again, they try to "teach" Latter-day Saints what the Bible teaches, completely ignoring identical teachings in the Book of Mormon. Many examples of this are available [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Gene R. Cook|article=Moroni's Promise|date=April 1994|start=12}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20april%201994.htm/moronis%20promise.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When I had doubts and I prayed, I did receive confirmation that it was true. But now, looking back, I see that it was my self-will. I wanted it to be true so badly, because all the reasons why I saw Mormonism as a hope, as a goal, was to do work for my dead family." - Rauni Higley</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Since self-deception is possible, this is one reason why LDS revelation requires "two or more witnesses"—the mind ''and'' heart.

The critics ignore, of course, that one can be just as guilty of self-deception in reading a scriptural text. By relying only on their own understanding of the text—and insisting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, or even unChristian—the critics demonstrate how self-deception can affect anyone, and be self-reinforcing.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Our relationship with God has to be built upon truth, not upon experience, not upon a sensation that could come from the Kingdom of Darkness. You think it's hard for the Kingdom of Darkness, who obviously has great power... "You want a burning in your bosom, sure, that's no problem; we'll give you a burning in the bosom." That's gonna get you launched down this way that you're gonna believe all this stuff, we can... you know, the Kingdom of Darkness can easily provide that." - Joel Kramer</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is fantastic that Mr. Kramer argues that a relationship with God cannot be built upon "experience." What is a relationship if not an experience with another being? When one is "born again," is that not an experience?

Mr. Kramer believes that Satan can provide experiences which will be mistaken for the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul and the Bible argue differently:

:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
:Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. ({{s||Galatians|5|22-23}})

The Spirit brings certain fruits, and Jesus promises that "by their fruits, ye shall know them" ({{s||Matthew|7|22}}). Why would Paul describe certain fruits of the spirit if these were not a reliable method to "know" the Spirit? Would the critics have us believe that the Bible contradicts itself?

Paul's fruits contain elements of both mind ''and'' heart:
* love, joy, peace: these are "feelings," but obviously more than mere 'emotions'
* longsuffering, temperance, gentleness, faith: these are mental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The reason why we can't trust our emotions when it comes to knowing truth is because the scripture's very clear that the heart of man is evil from conception. So rather than calling upon an emotional experience to determine truth, I think we should take God at His word." - Brian Mackert</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As described earlier, the Latter-day Saints are not talking about "emotional experiences." But, taking God at His word is always a good idea. What does the Bible tell us? What did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the Holy Ghost, not ignore Him. The Holy Ghost is the "Comforter"—are we to dismiss His witness because "comfort" might be thought of by some as an "emotion" or even "an emotional experience?"

Note that Jesus emphasizes that the Comforter (in what might be termed an "emotional role") accomplishes His purporse by ''mental'' or ''intellectual'' means: He teaches and brings things to remembrance. It is this that provides the comfort; it is not mere emotion, but mental light and information which ''result'' in joy, peace, and comfort.

Instead, it would seem, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread, despite Jesus' command and promise:

:Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
:For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
:Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
:Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ({{s||Matthew|7|7-10}})

The Bible further commands us:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

When describing the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith which was most dangerous to the devil, Parley P. Pratt wrote that it was that

:[y]ou have again revived the doctrine of direct communication with God, by new revelation.
::<small>—Parley P. Pratt, ''New York Herald'' (25 August 1844): 1.</small>
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-21T21:32:57Z

BrianRogers:

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-21T21:31:47Z

BrianRogers:

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Burning in the Bosom

2007-03-21T21:30:40Z

BrianRogers: