A testimony was published in the January issue of Apologia, a monthly publication of FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) an unofficial Mormon publication
Reachout/Barksdale (FAIR) Correspondence
#1 An Official Statement
A testimony was published in the January issue of Apologia, a monthly publication of FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) an unofficial Mormon publication. It is accompanied by an editor's note declaring that "Names and identifiable details of this individual’s testimony have been altered at the author’s request." The testimony can be seen at ftp://www.fair-lds.org/pub/Vol3/January.PDF
It is the story of a lady who became a Mormon but not before indulging in some less than honest practices as a so-called "anti-Mormon", things for which she feels considerable shame and embarrassment and of which she has fully repented. As she mentions her past association with Reachout Trust we have been contacted by a number of people who have expressed concern that what was done was done in the name of, and at the behest of, Reachout Trust. We know the lady involved and have been in touch with her. While respecting her wish to remain anonymous we have her full permission to publish the following statement that she has kindly made in order to clarify the situation.
"If I indicated that my dishonest and diabolical deeds might have been sanctioned by, or even KNOWN by, Reachout I wholeheartedly apologise, it was totally unintentional. I am heartily ashamed of myself, looking back, knowing that I was driven by an obsessive and unjustified hatred of the Mormons. Reachout do not act through hatred and I never indicated to them what I was doing. Please do correct this on my behalf in whatever way is necessary… Since EMFJ [ex-Mormons for Jesus] are mentioned too perhaps it should also mention that they knew nothing about it either."
We hope that this will clarify the position of Reachout Trust in relation to how the work of witnessing to the cults should be conducted. In our experience the great majority of discernment ministries operate in an honest and sympathetic fashion and have the love of the Lord and the eternal welfare of the lost as their motivation.Doug Harris, Mike Thomas, Ann Thomas
#2 For Reachout Trust
In a message dated 02/09/00 11:17:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.reachout@net.ntl.com writes:
We hope that this will clarify the position of Reachout Trust in relation to how the work of witnessing to the cults should be conducted. In our experience the great majority of discernment ministries operate in an honest and sympathetic fashion and have the love of the Lord and the eternal welfare of the lost as their motivation.
Dear Thomas;
I was grateful to receive your e-mail which clarified any misunderstandings that may have been put forth in the article we recently published. I fully intend to publish this response in the February issue of Apologia.
Your last paragraph, however, struck me as a bit odd and more than a little disingenuous. Do you honestly not believe it to be "dishonest" to misrepresent LDS beliefs, even after being corrected with documented, verifiable evidence which refutes your statements?
I would be most eager to engage in a dialogue with you regarding these various misrepresentations, with an eye towards assisting you in maintaining the highest degree of accuracy possible in your claims. You see, I fully respect your right to disagree with our doctrine, but I have to believe that you yourself would insist on at least accurately portraying the official doctrines of the LDS Church with which you disagree, no?
I will look forward to communicating with you further on this regard.
Sincerely, D. L. Barksdale, President, Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR)#3 Dear Mr Barksdale
Thank you for your prompt reply to our Email and for offering to publish it in your newsletter. I welcome also your acknowledgement of our right to disagree with LDS doctrine and I would be glad to discuss what you perceive as misrepresentation of that doctrine. I wish you would clarify for me, however, what exactly is LDS doctrine? I know this must seem an odd question from someone who so confidently criticises your doctrine, but you see whenever I think I have a handle on it and begin to question it - it disappears. One moment my Mormon friends are confidently teaching and vehemently defending something then, as soon as it begins to lose credibility, it becomes simple opinion, or worse, aberration.
Investigators begin their journey into Mormonism with the promise that unerring guidance and prophetic leading is the LDS inheritance only to find that eternal verities can too easily become provisional policies. Look to the prophet has addended "but not too closely". Restoration swiftly becomes Rapprochement, likewise revelation adumbration. "What is LDS doctrine?" is, then, a reasonable question I believe and I look forward to receiving your reply.
Sincerely, M Thomas
#4 Mr. Thomas;
Barks: Thank you so much for your prompt reply. ;)
Thomas: Thank you for your prompt reply to our Email and for offering to publish it in your newsletter.Barks: No problem. It's no more nor less than a true Christian ought to do.
Thomas: I welcome also your acknowledgement of our right to disagree with LDS doctrine and I would be glad to discuss what you perceive as misrepresentation of that doctrine.
Barks: I must admit that I'm a bit confused by this statement... has any LDS you have encountered denied you the basic right to disagree with LDS doctrine? If so, they don't know much about our core beliefs. The Articles of Faith clearly state that we believe in religious freedom, and in allowing anyone to believe in what they choose.
I'm very grateful that you are willing to discuss the many blatant misrepresentations of our beliefs included in your writings and on your web site. That is an unexpected display of integrity that I very much appreciate.
Thomas: I wish you would clarify for me, however, what exactly is LDS doctrine? I know this must seem an odd question from someone who so confidently criticises your doctrine, but you see whenever I think I have a handle on it and begin to question it - it disappears. One moment my Mormon friends are confidently teaching and vehemently defending something then, as soon as it begins to lose credibility, it becomes simple opinion, or worse, aberration.
Barks: You'll have to forgive me, but I have a difficult time imagining that you are unfamiliar with what comprises official LDS doctrine, given the sheer number of statements from LDS leaders defining it. I also happen to be aware of a copious amount of correspondence between you and some of my colleagues wherein this very topic was discussed in detail. Perhaps you could assist me in understanding where your confusion lies by showing me where in their correspondence on this issue you found ambiguity?
In any case, since you appear to be confused about this issue, allow me to present some statements from LDS Prophets on this very topic, in case you've forgotten, or have never seen them:
"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)President Harold B. Lee affirmed this:
"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorised to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69)
We accept the 4 standard works and any statement that appears over the signature of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as authoritative. Now that I have answered your question and have provided referenced verification from the writings of not one, but two LDS prophets, I'm assuming that you will be integrous enough to accept the answer and not be confused on this issue any longer. :)
Thomas: Investigators begin their journey into Mormonism with the promise that unerring guidance and prophetic leading is the LDS inheritance only to find that eternal verities can too easily become provisional policies.
Barks: "Provisional policies"? How do you determine that this is the case, rather than that the Lord is leading His people dynamically, as opposed to statically (as modern Christianity believes)? How strange a notion is this! Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the Lord's instructions to His people never changes. If you are, I hope you are prepared to discard much of the Bible. We believe that the Lord leads and guides this Church through living prophets, and is very much in charge as much today as when He walked the earth. Does this bother you? Is this in any way unbiblical?
Thomas: Look to the prophet has addended "but not too closely".
Barks: Certainly not to those who truly do understand LDS beliefs. In fact, the only ones I have *ever* heard echo this sentiment were anti-Mormons, who had a definite agenda to advance. :)
Thomas: Restoration swiftly becomes Rapprochement, likewise revelation adumbration.
Barks: So, are you claiming that any change which occurs in the name of the Lord is automatically false and constitutes de facto evidence of a false belief system, or are you suggesting that the prophetic office demands infallibility? Is this (infallibility) a Biblical concept, or is this one that you have imagined? Were the Biblical prophets and apostles infallible? Did they differ on points of doctrine? Did they err?
As far as your charge of adumbration, my heavens, even the apostle Paul wrote that "we see through a glass darkly," and noted that even he was confused and uncertain regarding certain experiences and visions he had... are you suggesting that somehow he was misinformed or worse, was deliberately deceptive? Were the revelations he received adumbrated? Are you willing to hold the Bible to the same standard you seem to want to hold LDS prophets to? :)
Thomas: "What is LDS doctrine?" is, then, a reasonable question I believe and I look forward to receiving your reply.
You now have my detailed, documented answer. I'm very eager to see yours. :) D. L. Barksdale, President, FAIR#5 Dear Mr Barksdale
Thank you again for a prompt and succinct reply. Perhaps you can clarify a point for me. You sum up your answer to my question "what is LDS doctrine?" by stating, "We accept the 4 standard works and any statement that appears over the signature of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as authoritative." I think I understand the part about the standard works, although I feel that even that may not be the clear and helpful statement it appears to be. In discussions with Mormons I am often surprised at how even the seemingly most simple statements taken from those standard works can be subject to "interpretation"; contingent upon special understanding known only to the "worthy"; brought into the category of "we don't discuss sacred things" (a most peculiar statement from an evangelistic religion); even consigned to the area of "one day we will understand these things". So I confess that, as apparently ingenuous as your statement appears to be, experience has taught me to check what is in the poke before I buy it.
The point on which you might provide clarification is that which refers to "any statement that appears over the signature of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve". What exactly would fall into this category? Would Conference talks? How about fireside talks, which are sometimes reported in the official Ensign magazine? Would articles from the pens of these men fall into this category? Does "statement" mean only official policy statement, or would it include statements given for clarification, for example President Hinckley's recent declaration that he believes in a different Jesus to the rest of us? Finally, would such statements be regarded as authoritative if coming from any one, or any combination of these men, or would it have to come from all fifteen before it could be deemed official? Perhaps you could provide me with examples of such statements and give a clear definition.
Sincerely, M Thomas
#6 In a message dated 2/12/00 3:49:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, thomas.reachout@net.ntl.com writes:
Thomas: Thank you again for a prompt and succinct reply.
Barks: You're certainly welcome. :)
Thomas: Perhaps you can clarify a point for me.
Barks: I would consider it a pleasure.
Thomas: You sum up your answer to my question "what is LDS doctrine?" by stating, "We accept the 4 standard works and any statement that appears over the signature of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as authoritative."
Barks: That is correct.
Thomas: I think I understand the part about the standard works, although I feel that even that may not be the clear and helpful statement it appears to be.
Barks: On what grounds did you determine this, especially considering the several statements from LDS prophets that I provided?
Thomas: In discussions with Mormons I am often surprised at how even the seemingly most simple statements taken from those standard works can be subject to "interpretation"; contingent upon special understanding known only to the "worthy"; brought into the category of "we don't discuss sacred things" (a most peculiar statement from an evangelistic religion); even consigned to the area of "one day we will understand these things".
Barks: Most fascinating. Perhaps you could humor me with some examples of this, and more importantly, how this ties into the central issue of your last missive, which was 'what constitutes official LDS doctrine'? Are you truly implying that because there are different levels of spiritual understanding of Holy Writ that Holy Writ then cannot possibly be a source of official doctrine?Shall we apply this to your own beliefs, Mr. Thomas? Certainly you are aware that there is a huge diversity of "interpretations" of Biblical passages by those who call themselves Christians. If there were not, we certainly would not have the rather staggering number of Christian denominations dotting the globe, would we not? Is this truly proof positive in your view that the Bible is an "unworthy source" of Christian doctrine? Or is it your assertion that the Bible only holds one level of spiritual truth within its pages and does not hold deeper gems of truth for those more mature in the gospel?
I noticed that you failed to address Paul's remarks about "seeing through a glass darkly." What do you suppose he was referring to, if not the incompleteness of our spiritual understanding? I notice that you seemed to avoid my questions on this matter. Might I ask why?
Thomas: So I confess that, as apparently ingenuous as your statement appears to be, experience has taught me to check what is in the poke before I buy it.
Barks: It seems to me that you are simply saying, "I don't care what kind of documented, verifiable evidence you present, I refuse to accept it if it disagrees with my anti-Mormon agenda." Please share with me, Mr. Thomas, how this position is congruent with that of a true "Seeker of Truth," rather than a mere "defender of dogma"? Have you used this same level of scrutiny to interrogate your own sacred beliefs?
Thomas: The point on which you might provide clarification is that which refers to "any statement that appears over the signature of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve". What exactly would fall into this category?
Barks: I appreciate this question, since it is most easy to answer. This means exactly what is says. An excellent example of this is found in the Proclamation to the World on the Family.
Thomas: Would Conference talks?
Barks: By definition? No.
Thomas: How about fireside talks, which are sometimes reported in the official Ensign magazine?
Barks: By definition? No.
Thomas: Would articles from the pens of these men fall into this category?Barks: By definition? No.
Thomas: Does "statement" mean only official policy statement, or would it include statements given for clarification, for example President Hinckley's recent declaration that he believes in a different Jesus to the rest of us?
Barks: I'm saddened that you would feel the need to stoop to such an inflammatory statement as this. I don't believe a true Christian would do this, as they would surely recognize that this kind of polemic is not "What Jesus Would Do." Be that as it may, the answer is "no."
Thomas: Finally, would such statements be regarded as authoritative if coming from any one, or any combination of these men, or would it have to come from all fifteen before it could be deemed official?
Barks: All 15.
Thomas: Perhaps you could provide me with examples of such statements and give a clear definition.
Barks: See my statement above regarding the Proclamation to the World on the Family. And Mr. Thomas, I gave you a very clear definition in my last missive. What part of it specifically did you find to be ambiguous? If you will share that with me, I will eagerly attempt to explain in simpler terms if that would assist you in comprehending it.
In the meantime, I still eagerly await your answers to the questions I raised in both this, and my last missive. I'm sure you failed to address them inadvertently, therefore I am eager to hear your response.
I hope this finds you and yours well and happy. Cheers! D. L. Barksdale President, FAIR#7 Dear Mr Barksdale
Thank you again for attempting to clarify what is LDS doctrine. I do wish to clarify an important point before going any further and that is that I did not ask you "What is official LDS doctrine?" My question was, and is, "What is LDS doctrine?" The difference between the two questions, whilst not immediately apparent is, nevertheless, quite important.
"Official" LDS doctrine is that which the LDS church officially wants people to believe and understand to be the LDS position on any given issue, at any given time.
LDS doctrine, that on which I seek clarification, is what Mormons believe to be abidingly true on the fundamentals of the faith. The difference is easily and clearly illustrated.
In its attitude to other churches the Mormon Church has a distinctive, indeed unique, position. We are told that it is neither Catholic nor Protestant, or Reformed, but is Restored. In its relationship to other churches, if I go to the sources given by you as the only true standard by which to judge, the four "standard works", then I find the Mormon attitude to other churches, the LDS doctrine, is that "they were all wrong…all their creeds were an abomination in his [God's] sight; that those professors were all corrupt: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'" (JS - History 1:19)
If I go into the Book of Mormon I discover that "there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." (1 Nephi 14:12)
In the Doctrine and Covenants it is written that "this [LDS] church [is] the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased…" (D&C 1:30)
Clearly LDS doctrine, what Mormons believe, is that the LDS Church is the 'church of the Lamb', the 'only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth', while all other churches are an expression of the 'church of the devil'; 'the mother of abominations'; 'the whore of all the earth'.
I have before me a copy of the "official" media pack for the opening of the Mormon temple in Chorley, Lancashire, the Preston England temple. Under the deceptively disarming title of "Facts" the list of the church's beliefs, official LDS doctrine, begins with the statement:
"The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is a Christian denomination, wholly committed to the New Testament account of the birth, life, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Saviour of mankind."
What Mormons believe, LDS doctrine, is that they alone have the truth and on that basis stand apart from all other churches as unique.
"Official" LDS doctrine is that the Mormon Church is "a Christian denomination".
I cannot help but observe that this is, what was the word you used to describe the contents of our web pages? Disingenuous? Yes, disingenuous. You accuse Reachout Trust of misrepresenting LDS beliefs but it is the Mormon Church itself that is at the very least economical with the truth as it tries to present a politically correct image to an unsuspecting public. You hasten to emphasise those points you raise that I have failed to answer, yet you have singularly failed to address this point that I raised which sees the Mormon Church moving from the unique position of Restorationist to this position of apparent Rapprochement. I am prompted to ask the question, who exactly wants who for dinner?
You ask if any LDS has ever denied me the right to disagree with LDS doctrine. My answer is an unequivocal Yes! Every Mormon I meet seems to feel it an affront to question his faith, ascribes to me the basest motives of mischief and destructiveness, and readily demonises me as an "anti-Mormon"1, thus dismissing me in the classic ad hominem fashion so common amongst your fellow church members. Even from the top there is a warning sounded against rooting out and telling the truth. No less an authority than Boyd K Packer had the following to say in attacking even professionals as they attempt to achieve impartiality in telling the truth about Mormonism.
"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."
Note that it is not lies about which Packer is concerned, but the truth. Given the history of your church I can well see how "some things that are true are not very useful". Clearly the message here is that there are things about the church's history that cannot bear close scrutiny without potentially damaging the faith of its members. I am grateful to Boyd Packer for confirming what we have said for some time. The church's test, then, of whether to tell the story of Mormonism is whether what you tell promotes the Mormon faith and engenders faith amongst it's members. If the truth does not promote faith then it is best to protect people from it. The clear implication here is that the obverse is also true, i.e. if a lie promotes faith then there is no harm in telling it. This is an inference that was clearly taken to heart by the late Mormon leader Paul H Dunn whose Early Life and War Experiences proved to be less than scrupulous.
Even today it seems that what church leaders say is sometimes too embarrassing to repeat or discuss. I asked what seemed to me a clear and honest question, i.e.
"Does "statement" mean only official policy statement, or would it include statements given for clarification, for example President Hinckley's recent declaration that he believes in a different Jesus to the rest of us?"
Your reply I found most revealing.
"I'm saddened that you would feel the need to stoop to such an inflammatory statement as this. I don't believe a true Christian would do this, as they would surely recognize that this kind of polemic is not 'What Jesus Would Do.' Be that as it may, the answer is 'no.'"How, pray tell, is this stooping, inflammatory, polemic and so contrary to what Jesus would do? I have this picture in my mind of Jesus challenging the Jewish authorities, "John's baptism, was it from heaven, or from men?" You will recall that the Jewish leaders reasoned amongst themselves that if they answered that it was from heaven then Jesus would ask them why they did not recognise it as such, but if they answered that it was from men then they would risk the wrath of the crowd, because John was very popular. The answer, then, to the question "what would Jesus do?" is that he would ask you an awkward question designed to put you on the spot. I am glad to discover that I have followed my Lord's example so faithfully.
Of course, you say that this is not an "official" statement, although that in itself is strange since he was acting in his official capacity as the representative of the church to the world's press. The question remains, however, did what he say, whether official or otherwise, represent LDS doctrine, what Mormons believe about Jesus, i.e. that the Mormon Jesus is different to the Jesus of the Christian Churches? I would be glad of an unequivocal answer.
So far as my question regarding "official statements", whilst I acknowledge that you have given an answer of sorts, I confess that I find it unsatisfactory. Your definition of an official statement, i.e. "any statement that appears over the signature of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve", and your further clarification, i.e. that "all 15" would have to be signatories to make it official raises other questions. How many times did Joseph Smith seek the approval of his underlings before giving a revelation or doctrine? If Brigham Young, Gordon B Hinckley, and everyone else claims the same office of authority that Joseph Smith had, why is such a precaution necessary? On that note, I can't remember reading where Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or any other biblical prophet for that matter, had to seek out signatures in order to make a declaration to the people.
Where in the standard works does it list all of the qualifications you list? Where in the Standard Works does it say all 15 have to sign a statement in order to decree true doctrine? For that matter, where in the Standard Works does it say that a prophet is only a prophet
when he is acting as such? I thought the History of the Church (where that quote is found) is outside the realm of doctrinal truth.
Your qualifications certainly go against the grain of D&C 21:4-5: "Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith." The prophet's commands are to be received as "he receiveth them" not as the quorum of the 12 receives them.I would further observe that your example of an official statement is quite inadequate. The Proclamation to the World on the Family, whilst no doubt containing commendable Christian sentiments, and representing the LDS view, nevertheless hardly qualifies as an example of Mormons being unerringly led by a prophet of God in matters of correct doctrine and conduct. Don’t forget that my original question concerned LDS doctrine, not simple and safe policy statements that straddle the Christian centre right of American thinking. I suppose your answer can be said to be begging the question "where is the revelation in the Mormon Church?" So far we have settled on the 4 Standard Works but, outside of those, where can a person go to find accurate doctrine, accurate understanding of what is in the heart of a Mormon when he believes? I am afraid your answers, whilst no doubt well intended, have been too vague.
I wish to address your point about "seeing through a glass darkly". The reference is 1 Corinthians 13:9 and you seem to be using it to excuse the adumbration to which I originally referred. This text, however, is a reference to knowledge of Christ, which is now partial but will be complete. The "perfect" of verse 10 is a reference to fulfilment, completeness or maturity and a contrast is being made between the partial and the complete knowledge of Him. It is nothing to do with puzzling over vague prophecies, or adumbrated pronouncements.
Furthermore, that you should use this text at all in this way is most peculiar. Your church has always despised Christian churches for "seeing through a glass darkly", declaring that our knowledge is, at best, incomplete, at worst, corrupt. The promise of Mormonism is clarity of vision and confidence in guidance. Do you wish to work by our standards, as you see them, or by yours, as declared by church leaders? You cannot have the penny and the bun.
I am struck by your insistence that different levels of truth and understanding alone can account for the plethora of contradictions, anomalies, and vagaries in LDS doctrine. What deep spiritual insight can make sense of the apparent contradiction between Alma 34:36 and D&C 130:3? Can a deeper understanding help me make sense of the contradiction between Jacob 2:24 and D&C 132:1? Before you answer that question you should know that no less and authority than Legrand Richards said of this last mentioned contradiction:
"I am afraid I can't adequately reconcile these two statements. If the one in the Doctrine and Covenants had omitted the names of David and Solomon, then I think I could reconcile the two statements."
Of course I am not suggesting that there are not different levels of understanding and insight, and yes I do apply exacting standards to my own faith and to the Bible, God's word, in which I trust. Neither do I pretend that I have nothing to learn. But neither do I excuse my relative ignorance and occasional misunderstandings by claiming that when you get to my level you will see as I do. Furthermore, the standards which I apply to LDS doctrine and practice is the standard the Mormon Church invites me to apply. Having made a claim to unerringly and consistently lead the Saints I expect unerring and consistent leadership. When I do not see it, when I find the opposite, I feel I have the right to point it out and call to account those who have made and broken such promises. To paraphrase one Christian commentator, such men do not deserve the devotion of their followers.
I would be glad if you could, then, settle for me this issue of LDS doctrine. Is it only in the 4 Standard Works? Are these supplemented by living prophets and, if so, where can I find this "further revelation"? If talks, writings, pronouncements and interpretations by church leaders are merely speculation and opinion on their part, may a Mormon safely ignore them confident of remaining in good standing with the church?
Sincerely, M Thomas
#8 Mr. Thomas;
I apologize profusely for the time it has taken me to reply to your last message. It seems like a tidal wave of different time-consuming tasks has washed over me lately, leaving me very little time for recreational correspondence.
Please allow me to simply "dig in," however, and address the issues you raised.
Thomas: Thank you again for attempting to clarify what is LDS doctrine. I do wish to clarify an important point before going any further and that is that I did not ask you "What is official LDS doctrine?" My question was, and is, "What is LDS doctrine?" The difference between the two questions, whilst not immediately apparent is, nevertheless, quite important.
Barks: I would have to agree that there are several levels of "doctrine" that are taught in nearly ALL Churches and denominations, aside from the official sources that each claim to be authoritative, whether that be a creed, the Bible, or any other source. The LDS Church is no different. Individuals love to speculate on the mysteries in our fold as well as in others.
Your interest not in what the LDS Church embraces as official doctrine, but in the unofficial and often spurious "everything else," is quite disappointingly revealing. You obviously have no interest in understanding what Latter-day Saints truly believe, but are simply rooting around in the refuse dump of religious speculation for whatever stray bits of filth or contaminated rot you may find to hold up as "representative" of that faith, even though such samplings are clearly not.
Are you aware of how utterly dishonest and deceitful that effort is, Mr. Thomas? Would it please you for us to hold up the rather "interesting" teachings of Martin Luther regarding his belief that evil spirits could be exorcized by a "mighty blast of flatulence" as representative of the collective "doctrine" of all denominations that sprang forth from Luther’s influence? Or would it be fair to ascribe his rabid anti-Semitism to all of those same denominations simply because Luther quite openly taught hostility towards the Jews? Or would it be more honest and even-handed to accept what those denominations claimed to be their authoritative source of doctrine in order to really understand their true theology?
Or shall we, in yet another example, carefully examine the teachings of those who currently profess to be Evangelical, "Christian" pastors and teachers who advocate some very "odd" doctrines on their television programs, such as Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, those involved in the "Brownsville Movement," and many others who are currently being broadcast? Surely their teachings are "Christian Doctrine," by your definition, are they not? Does the fact that in many cases these individual (and quite erroneous) teachings vary wildly from the Biblical account mean that we can safely embrace them as a solid indicator of what YOU "really believe," seeing that YOU also claim the title of "Christian"? Or would you perhaps ask us to examine what you felt were more authoritative creeds and scripture to define your theology?
Or, better yet, shall we accept the rabid racism that permeated the "Christian" Church throughout the last 200+ years here in America? Are you truly aware of how intense, hateful, and vicious these "Christian doctrines" were… and even today are, in some areas? Surely, if I understand you correctly, you won’t have any problem if we soundly condemn you by association on the basis of these extremist "doctrines," correct? After all, it is not what you REALLY believe that we would be searching for, by your definition, but what "Christian" doctrine "is," in whatever form, and however specious.
An integrous man, Mr. Thomas, would seem to be one who had the intellectual, moral, and ethical acumen to honestly examine the views that a differing sect officially embraces as their doctrine, from sources they consider authoritative, instead of the spurious machinations of individuals members of its rolls, would it not? Or is your preferred method how we shall, from here on out, judge your own sacred beliefs and that of the rest of collective modern Christianity?
Thomas: "Official" LDS doctrine is that which the LDS church officially wants people to believe and understand to be the LDS position on any given issue, at any given time.
Barks: I note with some disappointment your retreat from a tone of civility and respect, to a more polemical one. Your statement here smacks of snide insinuation. Shall we say the same of your beliefs? Obviously, that which you claim to be a sacred, authoritative declaration of doctrine must be no more nor less than that which the official governing body of your denomination, whether it be synod, council, diocese, or convention, "officially wants people to believe and understand" to be your position on any given issue, at any given time, with the insinuation being that your real beliefs are something else entirely. Is this a fair assessment, Mr. Thomas?
Thomas: LDS doctrine, that on which I seek clarification, is what Mormons believe to be abidingly true on the fundamentals of the faith. The difference is easily and clearly illustrated.
Barks: While I shall look forward to your "clear and easy" illustration, I must again take exception to your definition here. It seems as though you are attempting to erect a straw man of immense proportion in order to hack away at for no other purpose than self-congratulatory back-patting on your "victory" as a good little Christian soldier. Why not instead take on the truth, Mr. Thomas? Does it intimidate you that much?
For your information, Mr. Thomas, as a life-long Mormon and returned missionary, as one who HAS taught LDS doctrine for many, many years, I can tell you authoritatively that Mormons believe our official doctrinal sources to be the only abidingly true sources of doctrine on the fundamentals of our faith.
Thomas: In its attitude to other churches the Mormon Church has a distinctive, indeed unique, position. We are told that it is neither Catholic nor Protestant, or Reformed, but is Restored. In its relationship to other churches, if I go to the sources given by you as the only true standard by which to judge, the four "standard works", then I find the Mormon attitude to other churches, the LDS doctrine, is that "they were all wrong…all their creeds were an abomination in his [God's] sight; that those professors were all corrupt: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'" (JS - History 1:19)
Barks: That is correct. This was stated by Jesus Christ Himself, in answer to Joseph Smith’s question about which Church to join. Later, JS clearly taught that all churches had a portion of the truth, but did not have the fullness of the Gospel, which had been lost through apostacy many years before. Does this idea trouble you, Mr. Thomas? Does it seem far-fetched and beyond belief that a good "Christian" could embrace such a view? Are you aware that the Great Reformers, as well as many other notable clerics through the centuries all remarked on this event, not the least of which was the founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams? My heavens, even Martin Luther wrote that Christianity had completely "ceased to exist" by HIS day. Is it so great a stretch to acknowledge that same event, and the same state of Christianity today?
Thomas: If I go into the Book of Mormon I discover that "there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth." (1 Nephi 14:12)
Barks: That also is correct. Please also take note that this passage is paramount to declaring the basic difference between good and evil. There are two groups of people on earth... those who are honest, and sincere people who love God and seek to do His will, and there are those who are evil and seek to tear down anything good.
Thomas: In the Doctrine and Covenants it is written that "this [LDS] church [is] the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased…" (D&C 1:30)
Barks: Again, this is correct. Christ established one church, not 2000. Does this fact bother you, Mr. Thomas?
Thomas: Clearly LDS doctrine, what Mormons believe, is that the LDS Church is the 'church of the Lamb', the 'only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth', while all other churches are an expression of the 'church of the devil'; 'the mother of abominations'; 'the whore of all the earth'.
Barks: Mr. Thomas, I must say you have a most fertile imagination. You have just given us a textbook example of the logical fallacy of "begging the question." Your conclusions are based upon the premise you have given, which you have not justified at all. None of the passages you quoted said that "everyone else" than the Mormon Church is the "Church of the Devil." Not one. And you have failed to cite, most interestingly, the many statements by JS and other LDS leaders which directly contradict this notion. Their position was that while Christianity as a whole had unfortunately inherited the dreadful heritage of the Great Apostasy, that there were many truths within those denominations that had survived.
Thomas: What Mormons believe, LDS doctrine, is that they alone have the truth and on that basis stand apart from all other churches as unique.
Barks: Yes, and another most important facet is that it is the Lord Himself who declared it so, and who initiated the restoration of His gospel, which was foretold in the New Testament.
Thomas: "Official" LDS doctrine is that the Mormon Church is "a Christian denomination".
Barks: Yes, because it clearly is.
Thomas: I cannot help but observe that this is, what was the word you used to describe the contents of our web pages? Disingenuous? Yes, disingenuous.
Barks: I am very sorry that this clear and plain statement of belief seems "disingenuous" to you. Could you please explain how articulately and accurately stated the facts are "disingenuous"?
Thomas: You accuse Reachout Trust of misrepresenting LDS beliefs but it is the Mormon Church itself that is at the very least economical with the truth as it tries to present a politically correct image to an unsuspecting public.
Barks: This is a ludicrous statement. Reachout Trust is correctly criticized for blatantly, knowingly, and persistently misrepresenting LDS doctrine even after being corrected and shown documented evidence that proves its error. To accuse us of being "economical with the truth" over clearly and explicitly stating our beliefs is, in itself, beyond belief.
Thomas: You hasten to emphasise those points you raise that I have failed to answer, yet you have singularly failed to address this point that I raised which sees the Mormon Church moving from the unique position of Restorationist to this position of apparent Rapprochement. I am prompted to ask the question, who exactly wants who for dinner?
Barks: I hasten to emphasize those point I previously raised which you have failed to answer because they are emminently germane to the issue here. And you have still, to this writing, not answered them, have you? Why is that, Mr. Thomas? Why are those question so difficult for you to address? As far as accusing me of not addressing your issue, please point out where I have not done so. The example you cite here is the first time in our correspondence that I even remember it being raised.
Thomas: You ask if any LDS has ever denied me the right to disagree with LDS doctrine. My answer is an unequivocal Yes!
Barks: Who has denied you the right to disagree? Such would be against the most basic tenets of the truths we hold dear. The 11th Article of Faith states, "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." Who, may I ask, is the insidious creature who denies you this most basic right? Report them at once to their Bishop!
Thomas: Every Mormon I meet seems to feel it an affront to question his faith, ascribes to me the basest motives of mischief and destructiveness, and readily demonises [sic] me as an "anti-Mormon"1, thus dismissing me in the classic ad hominem fashion so common amongst your fellow church members.
Barks: Based on what you have expressed above, no one is denying you the right to disagree. What we have done is deny you the right to dictate what we ‘really believe,’ when such declarations are contradictory to that which we embrace as official sources for our doctrine, practice, and belief.
As far as "demonis[ing]"[sic] you as an "anti-Mormon," one could ask you a couple of revealing questions. Are you in opposition to Mormon doctrine? Have you not established an entire "ministry" for the purpose of "exposing" or "witnessing" against the doctrines of the LDS Church? Does that not, in fact, make you an "anti-Mormon" in the same sense that such activities, directed against Jewish people, for instance, would make one "anti-Semitic"? If you do not like the title, Mr. Thomas, a very pertinent question to ponder might be, "Why do I do those things that quite appropriately earn me that title"?
And no, Mr. Thomas, correctly identifying you as an "anti-Mormon" is not the classic "ad hominem" argument. It is a valid statement of fact, which I would love to see you address.
Thomas: Even from the top there is a warning sounded against rooting out and telling the truth. No less an authority than Boyd K Packer had the following to say in attacking even professionals as they attempt to achieve impartiality in telling the truth about Mormonism. "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."
Barks: I had to read this through several times before I realized that you weren’t joking. Elder Packer’s statement is quite timely and very wise. There is no ‘hidden agenda’ in his words nor any counsel to hide anything from the membership of the Church at large, or from the public. Are you even remotely familiar with who the audience of this address was, or what the context was? This was taken from an address by Elder Packer to the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators' Symposium, on the 22nd of August, 1981. This was an address to counsel teachers of our youth.
Elder Packer went on in this address to explain;
"Some things that are true are not very useful.
Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult—often impossible—to verify." (Boyd K. Packer, Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled, p. 106)
The question that lingers in my mind in reading your accusation above, Mr. Thomas, is whether you are being patently hypocritical in raising this issue at all. Tell me. Are you teaching your youth that they can get rid of evil spirits by a "mighty blast of flatulence," and that they should hate and murder Jews? Why not? That clearly is your doctrine (by your standards of determining such, that is), and to withhold these ‘truths’ from them is very sinister and evil, is it not? Withholding these facts surely doesn’t teach your tender youth ALL of the documented history of their faith, does it? Why are you not teaching them the Christian motives behind the witch-hunts of the 17th and 18th centuries, Mr. Thomas? The Inquisition? Sale of Indulgences? Why not? Could it possibly be that even though these events are a true part of history, that they are not very valuable in building the faith of these young men and women? What say you, Mr. Thomas?
Thomas: Note that it is not lies about which Packer is concerned, but the truth. Given the history of your church I can well see how "some things that are true are not very useful".
Barks: As with Christianity in general, as I pointed out above. The real question is, Mr. Thomas, "Are you willing to hold your own faith to the same standards you demand of ours"?
Thomas: Clearly the message here is that there are things about the church's history that cannot bear close scrutiny without potentially damaging the faith of its members.
Barks: Can we not make the same statement in relation to Modern Christianity?
Thomas: I am grateful to Boyd Packer for confirming what we have said for some time.
Barks: You are grateful to Elder Packer to stating the obvious? Does this mean by implication that you DO teach your youth all of the sordid details of every dark shadow and stain in the history of the Christian faith in order to make "full disclosure" to them? Please elaborate on this and provide us some evidence of this practice in the form of some current Sunday School manuals and teaching guides. I am most interested in your Sunday School curriculum.
Thomas: The church's test, then, of whether to tell the story of Mormonism is whether what you tell promotes the Mormon faith and engenders faith amongst it's members. If the truth does not promote faith then it is best to protect people from it. The clear implication here is that the obverse is also true ,i.e. if a lie promotes faith then there is no harm in telling it. This is an inference that was clearly taken to heart by the late Mormon leader Paul H Dunn whose Early Life and War Experiences proved to be less than scrupulous.
Barks: Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying then, by extension, that it is wrong for Evangelical Christianity to determine whether to tell the true and complete story of Christian History to its youth based on whether what it tells promotes the Christian faith and engenders faith amongst it's members. Is that your position? You are claiming in your statement that it is incorrect that if the truth does not promote faith then it is best to protect people from it. Is that right? You also note that the clear implication here is that the obverse is also true ,i.e. if a lie promotes faith then there is no harm in telling it. Based on fact nad actual practice, this indeed seems to be the position of Evangelical Christianity, I must agree. After all, this certainly was an inference that was clearly taken to heart by the late Christian apologist Walter Martin, whose Kingdom of the Cults and The Maze of Mormonism proved to be less than scrupulous and entirely less than honest.
Thomas: How, pray tell, is this stooping, inflammatory, polemic and so contrary to what Jesus would do?
Barks: Very simple. Christ would not misrepresent the substance and content of someone else’s remarks for the purpose of "digging a pit" for him to trap him in his words and condemn him unjustly because of them. But thank you for allowing me to teach you about the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I count it a privilege to do so with every opportunity I get.
Thomas: I have this picture in my mind of Jesus challenging the Jewish authorities, "John's baptism, was it from heaven, or from men?" You will recall that the Jewish leaders reasoned amongst themselves that if they answered that it was from heaven then Jesus would ask them why they did not recognize [sic] it as such, but if they answered that it was from men then they would risk the wrath of the crowd, because John was very popular. The answer, then, to the question "what would Jesus do?" is that he would ask you an awkward question designed to put you on the spot. I am glad to discover that I have followed my Lord's example so faithfully.
Barks: A few noteworthy points to observe here. 1) You are not Jesus. 2) We are not the Jewish authorities, nor do we seek to slay Him. 3) Your entire example misses the point. I must assume, intentionally.
Thomas: Of course, you say that this is not an "official" statement, although that in itself is strange since he was acting in his official capacity as the representative of the church to the world's press.
Barks: Please elaborate on why this would be "strange." Are statements made in interviews by leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention here in America to the press "official statements of doctrine" accepted by all Baptists, simply because they are acting in an "official capacity"? Are they considered the same weight as scripture? Why the hypocrisy here, Mr. Thomas? Again, you are quite noticeably erecting a huge straw man that has no basis in reality.
Thomas: The question remains, however, did what he say, whether official or otherwise, represent LDS doctrine, what Mormons believe about Jesus, i.e. that the Mormon Jesus is different to the Jesus of the Christian Churches? I would be glad of an unequivocal answer.
Barks: President Hinckley was alluding to the fact that our respective understandings of who Jesus was, and is, vary greatly. In a very significant way, we do believe in a "different Jesus" than does modern Christianity. We believe in the Jesus who created this earth, who is the Only Begotten Son of Almighty God, who was born of a virgin, and was the only sinless one to walk the face of the earth. We believe in the Jesus who died for our sins, and paid the price for us to return to His presence some day. We believe in the Jesus who was literally resurrected, and was the firstborn of creation. We believe in the Jesus who will stand as the judge over all at the end. I believe, and President Hinckley correctly stated, that modern Christianity believes in a much different Jesus than the Bible teaches. And both Protestant and Catholic scholars alike join him and making that clear distinction. The Trinitarian Jesus of modern Christianity has no basis in Biblical truth.
Thomas: So far as my question regarding "official statements", whilst I acknowledge that you have given an answer of sorts
Barks: I am truly sorry if I have been obscure in any way. Please point out for me where my answer has been less than clear, concise, articulate, and very easy to understand.
Thomas: I confess that I find it unsatisfactory.
Barks: I confess that I find your finding completely irrelevant and meaningless.
Thomas: Your definition of an official statement, i.e. "any statement that appears over the signature of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve", and your further clarification, i.e. that "all 15" would have to be signatories to make it official raises other questions.
Barks: Considering the difficulty you have had in answering the clear, plain questions that I have already posed to you, I find it no stretch of the imagination that you would have difficulty comprehending this very simple matter.
The policies and procedures of the Church have evolved quite significantly since the prophet Joseph organized the Church in 1830. Back then, the structure and organization of the Church was in its infancy. It was refined and crafted by the Lord, as the Church grew, by revelation through his living prophets, as can be seen throughout the Doctrine and Covenants. To make the claim that because the Church practices a policy now that it once didn’t, you are opening up yourself to a veritable tidal wave of accusation when considering the practices and policies of modern Christianity.
<< How many times did Joseph Smith seek the approval of his underlings before giving a revelation or doctrine? If Brigham Young, Gordon B Hinckley, and everyone else claims the same office of authority that Joseph Smith had, why is such a precaution necessary? >>
The Lord explained that it was because His house was not a house of confusion, but a house of order. I think the result of what you describe and the resulting aftermath can be readily seen in the abysmal lack of unity among modern Christian sects.
Thomas: On that note, I can't remember reading where Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or any other biblical prophet for that matter, had to seek out signatures in order to make a declaration to the people.
Barks: Gosh, on that note, I can't remember reading where Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or any other biblical prophet for that matter, embraced or taught the Nicene Trinitarian dogma, ex-nihilo creation, sola scriptura, sola fidianism, original sin, or any of the myriad of other non-Biblical doctrines that modern Christianity has invented. What exactly is your point?
Thomas: Where in the standard works does it list all of the qualifications you list? Where in the Standard Works does it say all 15 have to sign a statement in order to decree true doctrine?
Barks: Where in the Bible is the Nicene Trinitarian dogma, ex-nihilo creation, sola scriptura, sola fidianism, or original sin presented and taught? Again, what is your point?
Thomas: Your qualifications certainly go against the grain of D&C 21:4-5: "Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith." The prophet's commands are to be received as "he receiveth them" not as the quorum of the 12 receives them.
Barks: Still erecting the straw man, I see. Where did I suggest that the 12 received the revelation? The prophet receives the revelation, and the 12 are entitled to a confirmation of that revelation, as was the case with the Priesthood revelation in 1979. They, as a quorum, attest to, and confirm, the reality of and the accuracy of, the revelation or truth being presented to the Church for confirmation.
Thomas: I would further observe that your example of an official statement is quite inadequate.
Barks: I am quite sorry. I will try and use small words next time.
Thomas: The Proclamation to the World on the Family, whilst no doubt containing commendable Christian sentiments, and representing the LDS view, nevertheless hardly qualifies as an example of Mormons being unerringly led by a prophet of God in matters of correct doctrine and conduct.
Barks: How so? Who said that prophets were infallible and "unerring"? What straw man standard are you erecting NOW?
Thomas: Don’t forget that my original question concerned LDS doctrine, not simple and safe policy statements that straddle the Christian center right of American thinking.
Barks: Oh, I see. So, in order for prophesy to be prophesy, or any communication for the Lord to be authentic then, it must meet your standards of "uniqueness" and must not be a clear, forthright statement or position. Got it. Where in the Bible is this found again? Chapter and verse, if you don’t mind. I’m sure you’ll keep us apprised of your work in removing a large portion of the Bible then as well, since it is hardly "unique," and many parts of it (Proverbs spring to mind) are "simple and safe policy statements that straddle the Christian center right of American thinking." Please let us know which books and passages make the "final cut" in your editing efforts, OK?
Thomas: I suppose your answer can be said to be begging the question "where is the revelation in the Mormon Church?" So far we have settled on the 4 Standard Works but, outside of those, where can a person go to find accurate doctrine, accurate understanding of what is in the heart of a Mormon when he believes? I am afraid your answers, whilst no doubt well intended, have been too vague.
Barks: I’m afraid that "vagueness" is in the eye of the beholder. When your entire mission and purpose is to dredge up lies and misrepresentations about someone else’s sacred beliefs, it should come as no shock to anyone that the truth would seem "too vague." It is very difficult to revile against the truth in its plainness and simplicity, as the widespread and dreadful failure of anti-Mormons en masse is ample evidence of.
Thomas: I wish to address your point about "seeing through a glass darkly". The reference is 1 Corinthians 13:9 and you seem to be using it to excuse the adumbration to which I originally referred. This text, however, is a reference to knowledge of Christ, which is now partial but will be complete. The "perfect" of verse 10 is a reference to fulfillment, completeness or maturity and a contrast is being made between the partial and the complete knowledge of Him. It is nothing to do with puzzling over vague prophecies, or adumbrated pronouncements.
Barks: I can see that you are as much a stranger to proper hermeneutics as you are to sound reason and logic. 1 Cor 13:9 means exactly what I represented it to mean in context.
"Whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Cor 13:8-12)
There is no such restriction contained in the context of this passage such as you ascribe to it in your desperation to avoid its condemning stare. You still have not adequately or "satisfactorily" addressed this issue. You have simply attempted to sidestep it without giving even one valid reason for your avoidance. This passage clearly does not speak ONLY of a knowledge of Christ, but of knowledge in general.
Thomas: Furthermore, that you should use this text at all in this way is most peculiar. Your church has always despised Christian churches for "seeing through a glass darkly", declaring that our knowledge is, at best, incomplete, at worst, corrupt. The promise of Mormonism is clarity of vision and confidence in guidance. Do you wish to work by our standards, as you see them, or by yours, as declared by church leaders? You cannot have the penny and the bun.
Barks: Peculiar? Not at all. Our Church has never "despised" other denominations. That is an outright lie. We have despised the actions and behavior of those who used their faith as a rationalization for their own evil behavior, and we have denounced the corruption of the pure, simple doctrines of Christ taught in the Bible by those who have another agenda. But as I reminded you previously, Joseph Smith and many, many others, including Gordon B. Hinckley in his last general conference address, had very positive things to say about honest Christians in other denominations, and about those denominations themselves.
There is clarity of vision and confidence in guidance in the LDS Church. There is very little, if any, of the insidious and incessant bickering, backbiting, politicking and jockeying for position within the LDS Church that exists in modern Christianity. That you could with a straight face, compare the two is most remarkable. I think a better question to ponder than the one you posed is "Do you wish to second-guess God Himself and cling to your blatant hypocrisy in judging spiritual matters, or are you willing to humble yourself and seek the truth wherever it may be found"?
Thomas: I am struck by your insistence that different levels of truth and understanding alone can account for the plethora of contradictions, anomalies, and vagaries in LDS doctrine. What deep spiritual insight can make sense of the apparent contradiction between Alma 34:36 and D&C 130:3? Can a deeper understanding help me make sense of the contradiction between Jacob 2:24 and D&C 132:1?
Barks: I’m afraid the "insight" doesn’t have to be particularly deep to reconcile these passages. David and Solomon had many wives and concubines that were given to them from the Lord. Their sin was in seeking more, which the Lord did not give them. For that, they were found guilty before God. What is your confusion in this most simple example? Need I tutor you in this specific instance? I will, if you wish. Let me know.
Thomas: Before you answer that question you should know that no less and authority than Legrand Richards said of this last mentioned contradiction:
"I am afraid I can't adequately reconcile these two statements. If the one in the Doctrine and Covenants had omitted the names of David and Solomon, then I think I could reconcile the two statements."
Barks: As one who knew Bro. Richards personally, I can authoritatively say, "Who cares?" And he would undoubtedly agree. What does his lack of understanding of this issue have to do with anything?
Thomas: Of course I am not suggesting that there are not different levels of understanding and insight, and yes I do apply exacting standards to my own faith and to the Bible, God's word, in which I trust.
Barks: Good. Then I am most interested in your answers to the many questions I have posed to date which you have not answered.
Thomas: Neither do I pretend that I have nothing to learn.
Barks: Baloney. Your arrogant tone suggests exactly that.
Thomas: But neither do I excuse my relative ignorance and occasional misunderstandings by claiming that when you get to my level you will see as I do.
Barks: Is that truly the inference that I made, or are you putting words in my mouth?
Thomas: Furthermore, the standards which I apply to LDS doctrine and practice is the standard the Mormon Church invites me to apply.
Barks: Is that how you rationalize hypocrisy nowadays? Interesting. Very insightful.
Thomas: Having made a claim to unerringly and consistently lead the Saints I expect unerring and consistent leadership. When I do not see it, when I find the opposite, I feel I have the right to point it out and call to account those who have made and broken such promises. To paraphrase one Christian commentator, such men do not deserve the devotion of their followers.
Barks: Nor, judging by your profound lack of A) knowledge of the Bible, B) knowledge of sound logic and reason, C) knowledge of Christian History, and D) knowledge of LDS Doctrine, do you deserve the devotion of your followers, it seems.
Thomas: I would be glad if you could, then, settle for me this issue of LDS doctrine.
Barks: I will certainly try.
Thomas: Is it only in the 4 Standard Works? >>
Barks: No, nor did I say so. Go back and reread my previous answer.
Thomas: Are these supplemented by living prophets and, if so, where can I find this "further revelation"?
Barks: In statements signed by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, which are then confirmed by sustaining vote of the membership of the Church.
Thomas: If talks, writings, pronouncements and interpretations by church leaders are merely speculation and opinion on their part, may a Mormon safely ignore them confident of remaining in good standing with the church?
Barks: Again, the straw man. Do you never tire of logical fallacy? You are attempting to equate apples and oranges here. For one to remain in "good standing" with the church involves standards of personal worthiness of conduct, and acceptance and support of the Brethren in their callings. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the status of the Brethren’s statements in relation to whether they represent official doctrine. One can certainly disagree with what they hear from the writings of the general authority and remain a member in good standing. One cannot, on the other hand, reject the official doctrine of the Church and be a member in good standing.
Now. Shall we discuss, in detail, the many, many contradictions and failed prophesies, and other errors found in the Bible, and its subsequent implied impact on modern Christianity? Please allow me to remind you… we are still waiting for your answers to my previous questions. Please find the time to address them in detail. I would be most grateful.
Sincerely, D. L. Barksdale, President, FAIR
#9 Dear Mr Barksdale
Let’s Get a Couple of Things Straight
Unique or United?
Of Course we Trust the Bible - Sort of…
1 Nephi 14:10
Rot? You May Have a Point
Prophet, Seer, Revelator?
Follow the Leader, or Follow the Lord?
Racism? Do you Really Want to go There?
Anti-Mormon?
Anti-Christian?
History or Revisionism?
History or Gossip?
How Dare You Say that we Worship a Different Jesus When Everyone Knows That we Do!
This is Official - and Safe
Prophets Ain’t What They Used to Be
Through a Glass Darkly?