The Bible/Scripture interpretation

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Biblical scripture interpretation

Jump to details:

• Question: How can a Latter-day Saint approach responding to criticism of the Church on biblical grounds?
• Question: When the Bible talks about being "born again," what does this mean?
• Question: Was the Gospel of Christ a mystery that was unknown until the advent of Christ?

• Question: Does the Bible condemn genealogical research?
• Question: Why did Joseph described the United Order in revelation as "everlasting" and "immutable and unchangeable" until Jesus comes?
• Question: Why do Mormons use the Aaronic Priesthood, since Hebrews 7 states that the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood was "changed" to the unique priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" held by Jesus Christ?
• Question: Is there a "Priesthood of All Believers" which eliminates the need for unbroken lines of priesthood authority?
• Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?
• Question: Do the Latter-day Saint "Three Degrees of Glory" have a basis in the Bible?
• Question: Is it appropriate to celebrate holidays as a Christian?
• Question: Was Moses a real person?
• Question: Does the practice of baptism for the dead have ancient roots?
• Question: What are the common objections to a belief in God's corporeality?
• Question: Does the doctrine that God has a physical body contradict the Bible?
• Question: Why do the Latter-day Saints believe God has a body?
• Question: What Biblical scriptures discuss the doctrine of the deification of man?
• Question: How is Isaiah 43:10 used as a proof-text by critics of the Mormon doctrines of the plurality of gods and the deification of man?
• Question: Does the fact that the Bible states that nothing should be "added to" or "taken away" from the book mean that the Book of Mormon is false?
• Question: How is Genesis 3:5 used by critics to attempt to show that the Mormon doctrine of deification is a teaching of Satan?
• Question: Was the temple obsolete after Christ?
• Question: Does Acts 17:24-25 teach that the idea of temple worship is foreign to Christianity?
• Question: Is original sin a biblical doctrine?
• Question: Is Mormon insistence on baptism as an essential ordinance of salvation "unChristian" or "unbiblical"?
• Question: Is the Mormon doctrine of a "premortal existence" pagan, unchristian, or unbiblical, and therefore false?
• Question: What biblical evidence is there for a pre-mortal existence?
• Question: Did Jesus and the apostles believe in pre-mortal life?
• Question: How do Mormons see the relationship between works and grace?
• Question: Do Mormons believe that salvation is based upon works?
• Question: What can the writings of early Christians tell us about how to receive salvation in Jesus Christ?
• Question: Does the Bible teach that individual works are unnecessary?
• Question: Do Mormons ignore the doctrine of grace at the expense of "works"?
• Question: Is an evangelist really a patriarch?
• Question: Does the fact that the Bible states that nothing should be "added to" or "taken away" from the book mean that the Book of Mormon is false?

Question: How can a Latter-day Saint approach responding to criticism of the Church on biblical grounds?

Question: When the Bible talks about being "born again," what does this mean?

Latter-day Saints have unknowingly had the same interpretation as those early writers who came after the Apostles

These authors may have had a more clear picture of the apostles' interpretation of Scripture than a modern reader does.

To be sure, baptism must be accompanied by faith in Christ and repentance of sins, or it is of no worth. But, to argue that baptism is unnecessary, or only a formality, does not seem to be in keeping with either scriptural or early Patristic testimony.

A witness of the Spirit pushes those who are truly born again to repent, change their lives, and obey the Lord's commandments insofar as they are able to do so: e.g., be baptized. This witness by the Holy Ghost of the truth of the restored gospel has been shared by millions of people of all nations, ethnic backgrounds, cultures and tongues, and is the primary reason that thousands choose to join the Church even in the face of defamatory material published against it.

1. Baptisms

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.(John 3:3-5)

Latter-day Saints believe this scripture should be interpreted as saying a man must be baptized in order to enter into the kingdom of God, while some conservative Christians often interpret this as saying that one need only believe in Jesus Christ to enter into the kingdom of God.

It is interesting to note that the LDS interpretation concurs with what the ancients taught and believed. Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D) said the following:

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Irenaeus wrote:

‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], "seven times in Jordan." It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’

The Clementine Homilies reads:

And do not think, though you were more pious than all the pious that ever were, but if you be unbaptized, that you shall ever obtain hope. For all the more, on this account, you] shall endure the greater punishment, because you have done excellent works not excellently. For well-doing is excellent when it is done as God has commanded. But if you will not be baptized according to His pleasure, you serve your own will and oppose His counsel. But perhaps some one will say, What does it contribute to piety to be baptized with water? In the first place, because you do that which is pleasing to God; and in the second place, being born again to God of water, by reason of fear you change your first generation, which is of lust, and thus you are able to obtain salvation. But otherwise it is impossible. For thus the prophet has sworn to us, saying, "Verily I say to you, Unless ye be regenerated by living water into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Apostolic Constitutions says:

Nay, he that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says: "Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven." And again: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

2. A "born again" experience?

In some religious traditions the term “born again” often refers to a strong emotional experience that is interpreted in that tradition as a manifestation that he or she who has experienced it has been saved. Latter-day Saints do not accept the idea that one can enter the kingdom of God on this basis alone; but do not deny the sincerity of those who feel that the experience is sacred to them.

It is not uncommon for a Latter-day Saint to have a personal spiritual experience, or witness, which is often intense but differing from mere emotion. This experience is often life-changing, affirming, and strengthening to those that experience it. Occasionally members of other religious traditions tell a Latter-day Saint who has had such a spiritual witness that he or she has instead had a “born again” experience, inferring that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is false.

On the contrary, an actual spiritual experience affirms to the Latter-day Saint the truth and efficacy of the restored gospel. Latter-day Saints believe in all of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and that these may be experienced by any Latter-day Saint as appropriate to his or her faith and circumstance.

People who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but are investigating its truth may also experience a witness from the Holy Ghost that what they are being taught by missionaries, members, or the Book of Mormon is true. This enables them, by faith, to follow the Lord’s teachings and be baptized, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and become members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 11. ( Index of claims )

Question: Was the Gospel of Christ a mystery that was unknown until the advent of Christ?

"Mystery" denotes a knowledge available only through revelation: There is clear Biblical evidence that some before Christ knew of Jesus

Members of the Church believe that the gospel of Christ has been known since the days of Adam. However, it is claimed by some Christians that the New Testament teaches that the Gospel of Christ was a mystery unknown until the advent of Christ. (In defense of this claim, they often cite such scriptures as Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:7, 1 Corinthians 4:1; or Ephesians 3:1-10;

"Mystery" denotes a knowledge available only through revelation. There is clear Biblical evidence that some before Christ knew of Jesus. If Moses, for example, had this mystery revealed to him, then it is fallacious for one to claim that no other pre-Christian prophets could have known of Jesus and his saving gospel.

It is an error to assume that the term "mystery" has the same meaning to the New Testament writers as it does to the modern creedal Christian

As a non-LDS Bible reference explains:

[A "mystery" is] [s]omething revealed by God, at least to a few. The meaning is different from the usual English sense of an unsolved problem....

Its principal occurrences [in the NT] are in Pauline literature, where it is found 21 times....

Paul's use of the term...[connects] it with Jesus' crucifixion rather than with esoteric forms of knowledge (1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 2:1-7). For Paul the mystery that has been revealed is God's plan of salvation. In Ephesians 6:19 he speaks of the mystery of the gospel. Similarly, in Colossians 2:2 he calls God's mystery Christ himself. The mystery is ancient. According to Romans 16:25 it was kept secret for long ages, but in the following verse and in Ephesians 3:9-10 Paul indicates that it was revealed int he fullness of time. The mystery relates to the inclusion of the Gentiles as well as the Jews in God's plan of salvation (Romans 16:25-26, Colossians 1:26-27, Ephesians 3:3-6....

The word "mystery" is also used in a derivative sense in several passages where the terms to which it applies are significant in the divine plan of salvation which has been revealed....

The LDS Bible Dictionary gives a similar perspective:

[The word "mystery"] [d]enotes in the N.T. a spiritual truth that was once hidden but now is revealed, and that, without special revelation, would have remained unknown. It is generally used along with words denoting revelation or publication (e.g., Rom. 16:25–26; Eph. 1:9; 3:3–10; Col. 1:26; 4:3; 1 Tim. 3:16). The modern meaning of something incomprehensible forms no part of the significance of the word as it occurs in the N.T."

Thus, a mystery is not necessarily something that is unknown or unknowable. Rather, it is truth that is known only through revelation. As the first quote indicates, one of the mysteries that Paul claims has been hid is the extension of gospel blessings to all, both Jew and Gentile. This does not mean, however, that the entire gospel was hid even from the covenant people of the pre-Christian era.

Indeed, the NT is clear that at least one Old Testament figure knew of Christ:

By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. (Hebrews 11:24-26} (italics added)

How can Moses have chosen the "reproach of Christ" if he did not have a knowledge of Christ? Yet, that knowledge was a "mystery"—a knowledge which could only be known through revelation.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers

Question: Does the Bible condemn genealogical research?

The Bible rejects the use of genealogies to "prove" one's righteousness, or the truth of one's teachings

Critics charge that the Bible condemns genealogy, and therefore the Latter-day Saint practice of compiling family histories is anti-Biblical, often citing 1 Timothy 1:4 or Titus 3:9.

The Bible does not condemn all genealogy per se. Rather, it rejects the use of genealogy to "prove" one's righteousness, or the truth of one's teachings. It also rejects the apostate uses to which some Christians put genealogy in some varieties of gnosticism.

Latter-day Saints engage in genealogical work so that they can continue the Biblical practice of providing vicarious ordinances for the dead

Latter-day Saints engage in genealogy work so that they can continue the Biblical practice—also endorsed by Paul—of providing vicarious ordinances for the dead, such as baptism (See 1 Corinthians 15:29) so that the atonement of Christ may be available to all who would choose it, living or dead. See: Baptism for the dead

The Bible clearly does not reject all uses of genealogy

This can be seen through its many genealogical lists, including two such lists for Jesus Christ Himself. (See Matthew 1:1–24 and Luke 3:23–38.)

The condemnation of "genealogies" in Timothy and Titus likely came because:

• the Christians perceived a Jewish tendency to be pre-occupied by "pure descent" as a qualification for holding the priesthood. Since only pure descendents of Levi could hold the priesthood, there was endless wrangling about one's pedigree—since Paul considers the Aaronic Priesthood to have been superceded by Christ, the great High Priest like Melchizedek (see Hebrews 5), this probably strikes him as pointless.
• some Jewish scribes and other teachers claimed that their "traditions" were directly descended from Moses, Joshua, or some other prominent leader, and thus superior to the Christian gospel.
• some gnostic sects had involved accounts of the descent of the Aeons (up to 365 "generations" in one scheme) and other mystic or pagan variations thereon.

Since all these genealogies were either speculative or fabricated, they could cause endless, pointless debate. Rather Paul wants the faith (in Christ) which builds up ("edifying") testimonies and lives.

⍗

Learn more about alleged condemnation of genealogy in the bible

Online	Stephen R. Gibson, Why Don't Latter-day Saints Avoid "Endless Genealogy"?off-site George H. Fudge, "I Have a Question: How do we interpret scriptures in the New Testament that seem to condemn genealogy?," Ensign (March 1986): 49.off-site
Print	Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds., The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 353.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young Bible

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 517–518.( Index of claims ) Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Joseph Smith

Life and Character	Status in Latter-day Saint belief Joseph's trustworthiness Money digging Folk magic or the occult The Word of Wisdom Alleged narcissism
Youth	Joseph Smith's family as trustworthy and hard-working Education Use of seer stones as a youth The Hurlbut affidavits Joseph Smith's 1826 trial
Revelations and the Church	Witness of Jesus Christ First Vision Book of Mormon Joseph Smith's inspired revision of the Bible (JST) The restoration of the priesthood Personages who appeared to Joseph Smith Production of the Book of Abraham Kinderhook Plates
Prophetic Statements	The U.S. Civil War Rocky Mountain prophecy The White Horse prophecy Alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith Joseph Smith and Old Testament practices
Society	Legal issues 1826 trial Creation of the Kirtland Safety Society Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society Campaign for President of the United States
Plural marriage (polygamy)	Plural marriage or polygamy Polygamy navigator Plural wives of Joseph Smith
Death	The Nauvoo Expositor Events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith Firing a gun at Carthage Jail Qualification as a martyr 1844 Succession to Joseph Smith

Alleged false prophecies by leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Many critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints assert that its past presidents (men that Latter-day Saints consider prophets) have made failed prophecies and that this either proves or provides evidence for the claim that they aren't true prophets receiving revelation from God.

We will first discuss general principles regarding alleged false prophecies.

The Three Models of Prophecy: Film Reel, Weather Forecast, and Plan

How we understand a claim of false prophecy will depend on what we understand prophecy to be. There are at least three potential models:

1. Film Reel model: The future is already planned out and God, like an old-timey projectionist, can unfurl the reel and see what happens further on in the movie of life, come back to the present, and reveal that will to his children. Key to this model of prophecy is that the events revealed in prophecy will certainly happen.
2. Weather forecast model: God makes a prediction of the future based off of present circumstances. If present circumstances change, then the prophecy does not have to reach fulfillment. God’s formula in scripture seems to be one set up on conditional statements. In this model, prophecy is a description of what will probably happen, not a certain declaration.
3. Plan model: God revealing his plans for the future given certain conditions being met. If those conditions are not met, then God will act differently. For instance, God can state that if A happens, then B will happen. (For example, "If you do not repent, you will be destroyed." Under this model, humans make choices right now that change the outcome of the prophecy. Key to this model of prophecy is that the events revealed and described in prophecy will contingently happen.

Elements of all models may apply in some situations. We often have a model in mind without realizing it, and so make judgments based on only a partial view of what prophecy is or can be.

A more speculative fourth option—God's foreknowledge may not be absolute

A more speculative option (and one that is likely to be much more objectionable for some) is the idea that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of the future. (Conservative protestant critics, often Calvinists by theology, would typically reject this option strongly since they believe in God's absolute sovereignty—including the idea that some people are unconditionally chosen from all eternity to be saved. Those so chosen will always respond to God's decision to offer them salvation, and this saved state cannot be undone by any human choice or action,

By contrast, the restored Church of Jesus Christ holds to none of these views—God has not predestined any of his children to salvation or damnation, all have the moral agency to respond to God's gracious offer of salvation, and even those who are in a saved state and covenant relationship can use that same moral agency to reject God and not "endure to the end."

The Church does not take an official position as to how members ought to view God's foreknowledge.

Some believe that God has knowledge of all things that will actually happen in the future.

Others believe that the nature of free will or moral agency means that even God cannot be certain how truly free creatures will act until they do so. Thus, God has a very good idea of how things will go, but he does not achieve certainty until we choose to act. Those who hold this view insist that this does not mean that God does not have all the power it is possible to have—merely that absolute foreknowledge is a logical impossibility. Further, they also believe that regardless of these considerations, God is still absolutely capable of bringing to pass his purposes, and no moral agent can thwart his plans, save as it regards themselves.

Deuteronomy 18—a biblical test of true prophesy

Critics from other branches of Christianity often cite Deuteronomy 18:20–22 as a scriptural test of a claim to prophethood. That scripture states:

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

This test is straightforward—if a prophesy is made and it fails, the speaker of the prophesy should be regarded as a false prophet. While simple on the surface, the matter quickly becomes more complex. If the critics used this standards on the bible as they try to use it against Joseph Smith, they would soon dismiss much of the bible.

John Tvedtnes wrote:

Based on the false premise that "all you need is one false prophecy to have a false prophet," some critics have ignored many of Joseph Smith’s [fulfilled] prophecies and have zeroed in on ones they consider to be false. But they typically identify unfulfilled commandments, opinions, and counsel as "false prophecies." In doing so, they forsake the rules laid out in 18?lang=eng&id=p20-22#p20-22 Deuteronomy 18꞉20-22, ignoring the fact that the passage defines a false prophecy as one uttered in the name of the Lord which does not come to pass.

The main problem is that the critics do not apply these same standards to biblical prophecies. And when we try to show that, by these standards, many of the biblical prophets fail the tests they have set up for Joseph Smith, we are accused of "Bible-slamming." To those who ascribe more divinity to the Bible than to God, such a "sin" is worse than blasphemy itself. Honesty, however, impels us to submit the biblical prophets to the same tests as those applied to Joseph Smith.

For this reason, following the logic of the critics, we would have to conclude that Moses-to whom the revelation in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 is ascribed-was a false prophet. In Numbers 25꞉13, he said, in the name of the Lord, that Phinehas, his grand nephew, would hold the priesthood eternally. But if Hebrews 7꞉11-12 is correct, the Aaronic priesthood is not eternal. In this particular example, Moses fills the requirement for the test of Deuteronomy much more closely than does Joseph Smith in most of the examples of "false prophecies" cited by the critics. How, then, can Latter-day Saints accept both Joseph Smith and Moses as true prophets, regarding their prophecies as divinely-inspired? The answer lies in the fact that prophecy is typically conditional.

Step #1: Ensure that the account of the prophecy is authentic and is not based on hearsay

John Tvedtnes wrote:

This brings us to the fact that some critics quote secondary sources to illustrate "false prophecies" uttered by Joseph Smith. By their very definition, such sources cannot be considered totally accurate in their representation of the prophet’s words. One of the critics became rather selective in his use of secondary sources. Whenever the "prophecy" (some of them weren’t prophecies), in his judgment, failed, he was quick to pronounce the secondary source "authentic" or "reliable." But when it was fulfilled, he denounced it as coming from a secondary source and therefore unreliable. He even went so far as to term one failed prophecy as "reliable" because its source was "Mormon," while denouncing another fulfilled prophecy on the very same grounds.

For my part, I use all secondary sources with caution. They may give insights, but they cannot be considered with the same weight as known statements of Joseph Smith. This is true of journal accounts as well, for the reason that they are generally written after the fact (often at the end of the day) and are usually not reviewed by the person who made the statement.

Here is an example of how journals are sometimes misused: One critic quoted a revelation of Joseph Smith as found in Parley P. Pratt’s Autobiography (page 100), reading "surely Zion cannot fail, neither be moved out of her place." Elder Pratt, however, gave an abbreviated version of the revelation, which is found in D&C 97꞉19-20. In the original, we find that the words in question are what "the nations of the Gentiles shall say" of Zion at some point in the future. The secondary version was evidently used because it is more susceptible to interpretation as a "false prophecy."

Other problems arise when the critics cite a known forgery or a "false prophecy" by Joseph Smith whose only source is another anti-Mormon publication. Of a particular document, one critic wrote, "I believe this might be the most clear cut prophecy Joseph Smith ever gave." The document in question is a forgery prepared by Mark Hofmann. ...

One critic asked, "Do you really want to risk your eternal salvation on men who make statements like these?" To this, I reply, Can we risk our eternal salvation on the Bible, which reports that the sun and the moon stood still for Joshua (Joshua 10꞉12-14), when we know that this-like Quakers living on the moon-is a scientific impossibility? One might object that what the Bible describes is the standing still of the earth, rather than of the heavenly bodies (which is precisely the way the Book of Mormon puts it in Helaman 12꞉13-15). But the point is that the author of Joshua held an incorrect belief concerning the movement of celestial bodies, even if that does not invalidate the basic story he tells. So, too, Joseph Smith (and others) could have held false views concerning these same celestial bodies and yet told the truth about the revelations he received from God.

Step #2: Verify that the source claims that the prophecy came by revelation from God

Tvedtnes continued:

Under date of February 8, 1843, Joseph Smith wrote, "[I] visited with a brother and sister from Michigan who thought that >a prophet is always a prophet;’ but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such" (History of the Church 5:265). Prophets are, after all, human beings. The fact that they speak for God on occasion does not remove their free agency. Like all of us, prophets have opinions. Sometimes, these opinions are clearly set off, as Paul did in his first epistle to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7꞉10,12,25,40). Joseph Smith occasionally used wording such as "this is my counsel" (History of the Church 1:455) or "I therefore warn" ( Nauvoo Neighbor, June 19, 1844). Elder Charles W. Penrose, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and later a counselor in the First Presidency, wrote, "At the head of this Church stands a man who is a Prophet…we respect and venerate him; but we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God."

More recently, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

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. (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)

Similar thoughts were expressed by President Harold B. Lee in a European area conference:

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 authorized 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.

In January 1970, six months after the first Apollo moon landing, Joseph Fielding Smith became President of the Church. Some anti-Mormon groups took delight in pointing out that he had, during his tenure as an Apostle, declared that it was "doubtful that man will ever be permitted to make any instrument or ship to travel through space and visit the moon or any distant planet." What these same critics failed to point out was that President Smith never attributed his belief to a revelation from God. Indeed, many of his generation held the same opinion, and all were surprised-but delighted-when proven wrong. Incorrect opinions do not make false prophets. Some of the Bible’s foremost prophets, such as Moses and Jeremiah, objected that their lack of eloquence made them unsuited to fill the role the Lord had cut out for them. God overruled these opinions and sent them on their way.

Step #3: Ensure that the account of the prophecy does not misrepresent or misinterpret what the prophet actually said.

To avoid misrepresenting or misinterpreting what a prophet said:

• Check sources: Revisit the source of the prophecy to see if there is any missing context.
• Check interpretation: Consider alternative interpretations. Have other Latter-day Saint or other Christians authors examined the prophecy in question? Have they offered alternative interpretations? Is there only one possible interpretation that is compelled by the source or are there multiple possible interpretations?
• Ask, 'Vision or prophecy?': John Tvedtnes wrote that

Visions are often highly symbolic and hence require interpretation. They cannot, therefore, necessarily be taken as "prophecy" in the sense of predictions of precise future events. As an example, we may consider Joseph Smith’s vision of the celestial kingdom (History of the Church 2:380-381). It has been highly criticized because in it he saw the twelve apostles of his day in the celestial kingdom. Of the twelve, however, five were excommunicated and never returned to the Church. This, the critics say, is evidence of a false prophecy. More likely, it is an indication of what the Lord intended for them, had they all remained faithful. If Joseph Smith is to be condemned as a false prophet on the basis of this vision, then we must condemn Jesus as a false prophet for similar reasons. Christ promised his twelve apostles that, when he returned to reign in glory, they would sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). And yet Judas, who was one of the twelve at the time, later fell away and, losing his place as an apostle, was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:15-26).12 If we take Jesus’ words literally, then either Judas will receive the reward (which makes the account in Acts wrong), or Jesus lied. On the other hand, if we do not hold Jesus to every word, should we not extend the same courtesy to Joseph Smith who, after all, was far less perfect than the Savior?

• Multiple ways to fulfillment: Latter-day Saints (like many other Christians) believe in the concept of dual fulfillment. That is: prophecies can be fulfilled in multiple ways.
• Check timeframe: Often, prophecies do not have a set timeframe for when they will be fulfilled. Sometimes they use language that's equivocal. For instance, prophecies may state that God will "soon" act in a certain way. But, as many know, our "soon" and God's "soon" may not be the same.
• Prophetic language: Tvedtnes observed that "[w]hen it comes to written revelations, the question of language becomes paramount. Was the revelation taken from the Lord’s dictation by the prophet? Or does it reflect the prophet’s language, reflecting the truths revealed to him by God? One could argue either case without clear resolution. But Latter-day Saints realize that the Lord "speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding" (2 Nephi 31꞉3; see also D&C 1꞉24). Thus, each prophet of the Old Testament wrote in his own dialect. Some of the later ones even used Aramaic or Persian words then being borrowed by the Hebrew language."

Step #4: Remember that most prophecies are contingent on conditions being met—even if that contingency is not made clear by the explicit text of the prophecy

Prophecy is virtully always conditional in the Latter-day Saint view. Before concluding that a prophesy is false, we should look for any stated or implied conditions for fulfillment.

John Tvedtnes wrote:

It was the Lord himself, through the biblical prophet Jeremiah, who explained the conditional nature of prophecy:

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jeremiah 18:7-10)

Jeremiah himself exemplified the principle of conditional prophecy when he told king Zedekiah, in the name of the Lord, that he would not go captive into Babylon if he followed the prophet’s instructions; otherwise, he would be taken captive and Jerusalem would be destroyed (Jeremiah 38꞉17-23). The conditional nature of prophecy explains why Jonah is not a false prophet. The Lord’s threat to destroy Nineveh within forty days (Jonah 3꞉4) was mitigated by the repentance of the city’s population (Jonah 3꞉4-9). "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not" (Jonah 3 10). Ironically, Jonah was upset by the fact that the prophecy was not fulfilled, and the Lord had to explain to him that the resultant repentance of "sixscore thousand persons" was more important than fulfilling the word (Jonah 4꞉1-11). From this story, it is obvious that the free-will actions of men play a role in the fulfillment of prophecy. Here are other examples from the Bible:

• The Lord told David that the men of Keilah "will deliver thee up [to Saul]" (1 Samuel 23꞉12). This did not happen, however, because David fled from the city (verses 13-14).
• Isaiah told king Hezekiah, "Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." (2 Kings 20꞉1) But after the king pleaded with the Lord, the prophet delivered a new message, saying that fifteen years would be added to his life (verses 2-6).
• The Lord told Moses that he would destroy the Israelites and make of Moses a greater nation than they. When Moses protested that this would be wrong, the Lord changed his mind (Numbers 14꞉11-20).
• The Lord said through Elisha that the combined armies of Israel, Judah and Edom would "smite every fenced city" of Moab and that he would "deliver the Moabites also into your hand." But one city, Kir-hareseth, was not taken. When Mesha, the Moabite king, sacrificed his son on the city wall, the Israelites left and went home. The prophecy was not fulfilled because the Israelites would not cooperate with the Lord’s wishes.
• Through Ezekiel, the Lord declared that the Lebanese city of Tyre would be destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar, never to be rebuilt (Ezekiel 26, especially verses 4, 7, 12, 14). Though Nebuchadrezzar laid siege against Tyre from 598 to 586 B.C., he was never able to take the city.
• The Lord then told Ezekiel that, in compensation for his not taking Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar would be given the land of Egypt, (Ezekiel 29 17-10). Its people would be slain and its rivers dry up (Ezekiel 30꞉10-12; Ezekiel 32꞉11-15) and the land of Egypt would remain uninhabited for forty years (Ezekiel 29꞉11-13). But though Nebuchadrezzar defeated an Egyptian army in battle, he never conquered Egypt either.
• Isaiah, in his prophesy against Babylon (Isaiah 13꞉1), declared that the Medes would slay men, women and children and that Babylon would "be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation" (Isaiah 13:17-20). In 539 B.C., Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, took Babylon without bloodshed, and made it one of the principal cities of his empire. Babylon remained inhabited for centuries afterward.

It is in the light of the conditional nature of prophecy that we must consider some of Joseph Smith’s prophecies. For example, the missionary calling promised Thomas B. Marsh in D&C 112 was never fulfilled because he was excommunicated and forfeited his blessings. Critics have stated that if God really knew Marsh’s heart (verse 11), he would have known that he would apostatize and not be worthy of the promised blessings. The same argument has been used in regard to George Miller’s calling to the bishopric (D&C 124꞉20-21), eight years before he was disfellowshipped.

• By this same reasoning, God should not have promised a throne to David (1 Samuel 16꞉12-13; 2 Samuel 3꞉9-10; 1 Kings 2꞉4; 1 Kings 8꞉25; 1 Kings 9꞉5), since David, in future, would commit adultery and order the death of an innocent man (1 Samuel 11). This also brings up the question of Jesus’ promise to his twelve apostles: "Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19꞉28). This promise was made before Judas betrayed the Master and he was obviously included among those who would sit on the "twelve thrones." How could Jesus have made such a promise to the one who would betray him, whom he termed "a devil" (John 6꞉70-71)? The answer seems obvious: at the time of the promises, Judas, Thomas B. Marsh and George Miller were faithful to the Lord. By their subsequent actions, they lost all claim to those promises.

Step #5: Remember the commandment "shall" and the predictive "shall"

One mistake people make in interpreting prophecies mistaking a commandment for a foretelling. That is because both may use "shall". There's obviously a difference between "thou shall not kill" (command) and "thou shall be in Arizona in four months" (foretelling of location).

Step #6: most prophecies can be considered "unreasonable" by some standard

John Tvedtnes wrote:

Some of the critics have included "unreasonable" prophecies in their lists of false prophetic utterances by Joseph Smith. The subjective nature of such a determination makes this procedure unacceptable. What is "unreasonable" to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another. For example, the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah "contradicted" each other concerning an essential point, and yet were both right. Ezekiel had prophesied that king Zedekiah would go to Babylon but never see it (Ezekiel 12:13), while his contemporary Jeremiah prophesied that Hezekiah would be taken captive to Babylon (Jeremiah 32:5). But, in the end, both prophets proved true, for Zedekiah indeed went captive into Babylon, but did not see the city, for he had been blinded (2 Kings 25:7). Thus, we see that prophecies "impossible" of fulfillment have, in the course of time, proven true. Joseph Smith deserves at least the same kind of consideration.

Conclusion

We will use these principles to evaluate Joseph Smith's alleged prophecies.

First, however, we need to consider a question that may lurk behind many Christian critics of Joseph Smith. Although they search for "false prophecies" to discredit him, the underlying motive may be that they "know" that there cannot be any more prophets today. They believe the bible "says so," and thus Joseph must be a false prophet. Their evaluation of Joseph's prophecies are not intended, then, to ascertain if he is a true prophet. They have already decided that he is a false prophets on other grounds.

Are there not supposed to be any more prophets after Christ's day?

The belief that there would be no more prophets after Christ is firmly rooted in tradition, not the Bible

The belief that there would be no more prophets after Christ is rooted in tradition, not the Bible. The Bible teaches the opposite of this traditional belief. "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3꞉7, (emphasis added)) God has always had direct dealings with man, through the prophets and through revelation. "Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?" (Jeremiah 23꞉23) This is the process God has used since the time of Adam. "As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began." (Luke 1꞉70) it is only logical, and biblically correct, to expect God to have the same relationship with man today.

Christianity claims that God does not change. This is a statement that Latter-Day Saints agree with. Yet, while making this claim, most of Christianity says God has changed because he does not now call prophets.

Only the living prophets are opposed

Those who oppose Joseph Smith as a prophet, do not oppose dead past prophets, but the living ones. Jesus himself noted the irony—the religious leaders opposed him most strongly. Christ understood that his opponents claimed to believe in the past prophets while rejecting a present-day messenger from God. Jesus described them as having the appearance of righteousness, yet were full of iniquity:

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 (Matthew 23꞉28-34):

Many follow this pattern today—they proclaim a belief in Christ while denying living prophets.

Alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith

Did Joseph Smith prophesy that he couldn't be killed within 5 years of August 1843?

It would appear that the letter written by Sarah Scott on 22 July 1844 is a blending of separate and distinct pieces of information and they have been assembled in order to support her view that Joseph Smith was a false prophet

Claim: Joseph Smith prophesied in August 1843 "that he could not be killed within five years from that time". Since he was killed less than one year later, some claim that his statement counts as a false prophecy and that he should be considered a false prophet.

The letter written by Sarah Scott on 22 July 1844 is likely a blending of separate and distinct pieces of information and they have been assembled—whether consciously or subconsciously—in order to support her view that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

As always, we consider the original document in analyzing this claim:

Joseph also prophesied on the stand a year ago last conference that he could not be killed within five years from that time; that they could not kill him till the Temple would be completed, for that he had received an unconditional promise from the Almighty concerning his days, and he set Earth and Hell at defiance; and then said, putting his hand on his head, they never could kill this Child. But now that he is killed some of the Church say that he said: unless he gave himself up. My husband was there at the time and says there was no conditions whatever, and many others testify to the same thing.

Biases of the author

We note first that the author and her husband "were influenced by William Law to leave the Church in 1844" - close to the time when the document was composed. That does not mean that the report is false, but we need to account for the writer's bias.

Secondly, this letter is not an eyewitness account of what was said by Joseph. The writer stead cites someone else (her husband) who was an eyewitness and so the information second-hand. 

Thirdly, this information is being relayed about 11 months after the Prophet spoke, so memories may be more flawed. The author is also not clear about the dates—the sentence above should read: "a year ago [before] last conference"). The underlined portion of the letter accurately reflects what Joseph Smith said on 27 August 1843. 

The "five years" aspect is from an earlier statement

The 'five-year prophecy' is being included where it doesn't belong. On 12 January 1838 the Prophet met in council at his father’s house in Kirtland, Ohio. During a discussion about the dire circumstances caused by apostates and mobs – and in anticipation of his leaving for Missouri - Joseph Smith said: "One thing, brethren is certain, I shall see you again, let what will happen, for I have a promise of life five years, and they cannot kill me until that time is expired." Five years would expire by January 1843, and it is interesting that on 22 January 1843 the Prophet said: "I understand my mission and business. God Almighty is my shield and what can man do [see D&C 122:9] if God is my friend? I shall not be sacrificed until my time comes, then I shall be offered freely."

The idea of an "unconditional promise" with respect to the Prophet's "days" on the earth also appears to be a misapplication of information

The idea of an "unconditional promise" with respect to the Prophet's "days" on the earth also appears to be a misapplication of information. While the Prophet was languishing inside Missouri's Liberty Jail the Lord informed him in March 1839: "Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less" (D&C 122꞉9). These words were published in Nauvoo in 1840, and so we see how Sarah Scott or her informant could have either intentionally or unintentionally mixed them with a later statement.

Contemporary records do not support the claim

Sarah Scott's claim that on 27 August 1843 Joseph Smith said that nobody could kill him "till the Temple would be completed" is not supported by the notes taken by Willard Richards, Franklin D. Richards, and William Clayton.

And, at least three months prior to the composition of Scott's letter the Prophet had told a group of Saints, "There is something going to happen; I don't know what it is, but the Lord bids me to hasten and give you your endowment before the Temple is finished". Indeed, in 1839 Joseph Smith had prophesied his own death before the age of 40—which would have been on 23 December 1845. Knowing about these well-established claims from Joseph makes us more confident that Scott was misreporting or misrepresenting the matter.

This letter also discounts the idea that Joseph said he could not be killed unless he gave himself up

This letter also discounts the idea (testified to by some unidentified Church members) that Joseph said he could not be killed unless he gave himself up. Scott's husband was present at the 27 August 1843 meeting and did not hear any such thing. And it does not appear from contemporaneous notes that Joseph said this on that date. However, on 31 August 1842 Joseph Smith told a gathering of Relief Society sisters "that great exertions had been made on the part of [the Church's] enemies, but they had not accomplished their purpose—God had enabled him to keep out of their hands. . . . the Lord Almighty had preserv'd him . . . . He said he expected th[at] heavenly Father had decreed that the Missourians shall not get him - if they do, it will be because he does not keep out of the way."

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Letter, Sarah Scott to Calvin and Abigail Hall (parents), 22 July 1844, Nauvoo, Illinois. Published in George R. Partridge, ed., “The Death of a Mormon Dictator: Letters of Massachusetts Mormons, 1843–1848," New England Quarterly 9/4 (December 1936): 597.

Why did Joseph Smith say that David Patten would serve a mission when he was killed only six months later?

D&C 114 was not a prophecy, it was a mission call

It is claimed that Joseph Smith prophesied that David Patten would go on a mission (D&C 114꞉1), yet six months later Patten was killed in Missouri at the Battle of Crooked River.

"Thus saith the Lord"

Some critics have pointed to the "thus saith the Lord" phrase at the beginning Patten's call in D&C 114}1-2} proves that this was a prophecy. Other sections where "thus saith the Lord" was part of the revelation demonstrates that the phrase was not used exclusively for prophecies (as in D&C 87) but is also used in revelations where instructions (D&C 21, 44, 49, 50, 52, 75, 89, 91, etc.) callings (D&C 36, 55, 66, 69, 99, 100, 108, etc.), and reproof (D&C 61, 95) are given. More than half the time the phrase was used in the first verse. When used in the first verse, it appears to be an indication that what followed was the product of revelation.

Patten's call

Those who make this argument employ a misreading of the call to Patten and a double standard regarding prophecy to condemn Joseph Smith.

D&C 114 was not a prophecy, it was a mission call. Joseph Smith issued a call for David Patten to go on a mission the following spring. This call by revelation is not a prophecy that David would serve a mission, but an admonition to set all his affairs in order so that he could.

In any event, Patten's death would not change the instructional nature of that call. Joseph Smith declared that: To the "great Jehovah . . . the past, present, and future were and are, with Him, one eternal 'now'." Despite this, God still gives agency to us and to others who impact on our lives, which usage often precludes what would have happened if the Lord's will were done on earth as it is in heaven.

Biblical parallels

There are several Biblical parallels to David Patten's mission call, such as the calling of Judas as an Apostle. As one of the Twelve Apostles, Judas was promised by the Lord that he would sit on twelve thrones with the others and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19꞉28). Judas's choices never fulfilled this promise of the Lord. This doesn't make Christ a false prophet. Patten's death at the hands of Missourians was their doing, not his.

As D&C 124꞉49 says, if "their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings."

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 463, 617n21 ( Index of claims ) Institute for Religious Research Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 3) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 7) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 8)

Did Joseph Smith state that the moon was inhabited, and that it's inhabitants were dressed like Quakers?

This is not a quote from Joseph Smith, but rather a late, third-hand account of something that Joseph is supposed to have said

The source for this claim is not Joseph Smith himself; the first mention comes in 1881 in Oliver B. Huntington's journal, who attributed the information from Philo Dibble. So, we have a late, third-hand account of something Joseph is supposed to have said. Hyrum Smith and Brigham Young both expressed their view that the moon was inhabited.

A patriarchal blessing given to Huntington also indicated that "thou shalt have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient."

Huntington later wrote an article about the concept for a Church magazine:

As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do—that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.

He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.

The idea of an inhabited moon or other celestial body was not foreign to at least some early LDS members. It is not clear whether the idea originated with Joseph Smith.

In the 1800s, the idea that the moon was inhabited was considered scientific fact by many

In any case, this idea was considered 'scientific fact' by many at the time. William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, died in 1822. Herschel argued "[w]ho can say that it is not extremely probable, nay beyond doubt, that there must be inhabitants on the Moon of some kind or another?" Furthermore, "he thought it possible that there was a region below the Sun's fiery surface where men might live, and he regarded the existence of life on the Moon as 'an absolute certainty.'"

Other scientists announced that they had discovered "a lunar city with a collection of gigantic ramparts extending 23 miles in either direction."

The 1835 Great Moon Hoax added to the belief in lunar inhabitants

In addition to these pronouncements from some of the most prominent scientists of the day, a clever hoax in 1835 only added to the belief in lunar inhabitants.

John Herschel, son of the famous William, went to South Africa to study stars visible only in the southern hemisphere. This was the cause of considerable public interest, given Herschel's involvement.

On 23 August 1835, Richard Locke published the first article in the New York Sun of what purported to be reports from Herschel's observations. Over a total of six installments, Locke claimed that Herschel was reporting lunar flowers, forests, bison, goats, unicorns, bipedal tailless beavers who cooked with fire, and (most provocatively) flying men with wings:

They appeared to be constantly engaged in conversing, with much impassioned gesticulation; and hence it was inferred, that they are rational beings. Others, apparently of a higher order, were discovered afterwards. . . . And finally a magnificent temple for the worship of God, of polished sapphire, in a triangle shape, with a roof of gold.

These reports were widely believed and caused a minor sensation. They were carried in the Painsville Telegraph, adjacent to Mormon Kirtland. The Sun eventually hinted that the matter was a hoax:

Certain correspondents have been urging us to come out and confess the whole to be a hoax; but this we can by no means do, until we have the testimony of the English or Scotch papers to corroborate such a declaration.

Popular belief in lunar inhabitants persisted for decades after the hoax

No more than this was forthcoming, and the Painsville Telegraph made no mention of the possibility of a hoax. Popular belief in lunar inhabitants persisted for decades. Herschel initially found the episode amusing, but he eventually grew frustrated with having to continually explain to the public that the whole matter was a hoax, with which he had nothing to do: he would later refer "the whole affair as 'incoherent ravings'".

In a private letter, Hirschel's wife indicated how skillfully the hoax was carried out:

Margaret Herschel was more amused. She called the story "a very clever peice of imagination," and wrote appreciately ... "The whole description is so well clenched with minute details of workmanship...that the New Yorkists were not to be blamed for actually believing it as they did...."

Modern prophets and general authorities will sometimes cite newspaper articles or books to illustrate the points which they wish to make

Church publications did not shy from embracing later scientific findings on the matter:

1856

Desert News noted:

Proof that the Moon is not Inhabited.

"Dr. Scoresby, in an account that he has given of some recent observations made with the Earl of Rosse’s telescope, says: ‘With respect to the moon, every object on its surface of 100 feet was distinctly to be seen; and he had no doubt that, under very favorable circumstances, it would be so with objects 60 feet in height…. But no vestiges of architecture remain to show that the moon, is, or ever was, inhabited by a race of mortals similar to ourselves….. There was no water visible…."

1880

"As there is no air nor water on the moon, but very few changes can take place upon its surface. There can be no vegetation and no animals, and although many astronomers have brought their imaginations to bear upon this subject, and have given us descriptions of the beautiful scenery upon its surface, and have even peopled it with inhabitants, we have every reason to believe that it is as barren and lifeless as an arid rock."

Modern analogies

Modern prophets and general authorities will sometimes cite newspaper articles or books to illustrate the points which they wish to make. In doing so, they are not endorsing such articles or books as being prophetically correct in all particulars. Rather, they are using the science and information of their day to enhance their preaching of the gospel.

"Worlds without number"

LDS doctrine was not provincial, since it provided for "worlds without number" (Moses 1꞉33) created by Christ. These worlds held those who would require the gospel, since by Christ "the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." (D&C 76꞉24)

Information given to the 19th century Saints by the authorities of the day were consistent with these doctrines, and so they believed them, and occasionally mentioned them in a religious context.

As always, prophets and believers are products of their time. Biblical authors, for example, clearly accepted a geocentric (earth centered) cosmos, with a flat earth and heavens supported by four pillars.

Like the authors of the Bible, modern prophets are generally beholden to their era's scientific concepts, except where corrections in those concepts are needed to permit the gospel to be understood and applied. This does not mean, however, that prophets of any era do not receive revelation about matters of eternal significance.

Brigham Young on an inhabited moon.

Summary: Brigham seems to have derived a similar idea from similar influences.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers Jay Jacobson, "Three Reasons Not to Become a Mormon,": 7. Search for the Truth DVD (2007) Resources The God Makers (film, 1982) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 23.( Index of claims )

Did Joseph Smith claim at one time that Kirtland Safety Society notes would be "as good as gold"?

Joseph was likely being optimistic regarding the bank's future

Whatever one thinks of Joseph's conduct in connection with the Kirtland Safety Society, this promise, ironically, eventually came true.

• Brigham Young redeemed Kirtland Safety Society scrip for gold in Utah.
• Marvin S. Hill notes that, "Brigham Young needn't have gone to such pains to ensure that this prophecy was fulfilled. Today [1977] these notes are worth far more than the exchange rate between currency and gold."

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 199. ( Index of claims ) Wilhelm Wyl, Mormon Portraits Volume First: Joseph Smith the Prophet, His Family and Friends (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886), 35.

Did Joseph Smith give a false prophecy by claiming that queens would pay respect to the Relief Society within ten years?

The prophecy is clearly conditional on the continuing righteousness of the Relief Society

Such a record exists, although critics generally do not cite the entire text. Abanes, One Nation, for example, cites only: "I now prophecy that before ten years shall roll around, the queens of the earth shall come and pay their respects to this Society." Abanes then notes, "No queens have ever fulfilled this prophecy.".

Here is the prophecy in context, with several key phrases highlighted:

Females, if they are pure and innocent can come into the presence of God, for what is more pleasing to God than innocence; you must be innocent or you cannot come up before God. If we would come before God let us be pure ourselves. The devil has great power—he will so transform things as to make one gape at those who are doing the will of God—You need not be teasing men for their deeds, but let the weight of innocence be felt which is more mighty than a millstone hung about the neck. Not war, not jangle, not contradiction, but meekness, love purity, these are the things that should magnify us. Action must be brough[t] to light—iniquity must be purged out—then the vail will be rent and the blessings of heaven will flow down—they will roll down like the Mississippi river. This Society shall have power to command Queens in their midst—I now deliver it as a prophecy that before ten years shall roll around, the queens of the earth shall come and pay their respects to this Society—they shall come with their millions and shall contribute of their abundance for the relief of the poor—If you will be pure, nothing can hinder.

After this instruction, you will be responsible for your own sins. It is an honor to save yourselves—all are responsible to save themselves.

According to Joseph's own words, the prophecy is clearly conditional on the continuing righteousness of the Relief Society.

Critics omit the qualifier as they try to discredit Joseph.

Fulfillment of the prophecy

There are several schools of thought regarding this prophecy:

1. That fulfillment has been delayed.
2. That it has already been fulfilled.

We do not take a position on this issue, but present the various arguments here.

Was the fulfillment of the prophecy delayed?

If the prophecy remained unfilled, then it would be because the conditions set forth were not met. There is some evidence to support this position.

For example, it is known that Joseph received considerable trouble from his wife, Emma, as head of the Relief Society. Emma would not support plural marriage, and used the Relief Society to attempt to thwart Joseph's teaching of it. Joseph was frequently trying to draw people up to their own better potential and encourage people to prepare to behold the face of God—he gave similar reproofs to the men of the Church:

How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations—too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of His will, from before the foundation of the world! We are called to hold the keys of the mysteries of those things that have been kept hid from the foundation of the world until now. Some have tasted a little of these things, many of which are to be poured down from heaven upon the heads of babes; yea, upon the weak, obscure and despised ones of the earth. Therefore we beseech of you, brethren, that you bear with those who do not feel themselves more worthy than yourselves, while we exhort one another to a reformation with one and all, both old and young, teachers and taught, both high and low, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female; let honesty, and sobriety, and candor, and solemnity, and virtue, and pureness, and meekness, and simplicity crown our heads in every place; and in fine, become as little children, without malice, guile or hypocrisy.

However, in the case of the Relief Society prophecy, Joseph states, point blank, that "iniquity must be purged out," which implies that it has to be there to begin with. There were certainly apostates among the Relief Society.

Problems with the Relief Society

Brigham Young was not pleased about what the Relief Society leadership had done to oppose Joseph and to oppose plural marriage, and the associated difficulties which the Relief Society and their zeal to expunge impurity caused. (Joseph spoke to them about this also, see below.))

Hiatus for the Relief Society

Following the death of Joseph Smith, the Relief Society as an organization went on "hiatus," in part due to these concerns.

Brigham noted, one year after the martyrdom:

When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of the church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid, but until that time let them stay at home if you see Females huddling together, veto the concern, and if they say Joseph started it all tell them it is a damned lie for I know he never encouraged it.

Note that Brigham's issue is not with the existence of the Relief Society, but the "huddling together" to seek out iniquity. John Taylor gives us further background on why the organization was suspended,

The "reason why the Relief Society did not continue from the first organization was that Emma Smith the Pres. taught the Sisters that the principle of Celestial Marriage as taught and practiced by Joseph Smith was not of God."

Emma's opposition

It should be noted that critical authors Newell and Avery claim this is not true in the strict reading of the minutes—however, it is well known that Emma did everything she could to discourage people from following Joseph's teachings on plural marriage, both in what she said privately and publicly. Newell and Avery provide evidence of this tendency themselves when citing Emma Smith's announced plans, but don't draw the obvious conclusion:

"We [the Relief Society] intend to look into the morals of each other, and watch over each other…. All proceedings that regard difficulties should be kept among the members [of the Relief Society]…. None can object to telling the good but withhold the evil." Given human nature, Emma was demanding an impossible commitment from her members…

Eliza R. Snow's testimony

Even Eliza R. Snow felt it necessary to correct the impression that the Relief Society in Nauvoo had done "more harm than good," emphasizing that it "saved many lives." But, the mere fact that she needed to correct this impression should tell us something about how the Relief Society under Emma's tenure was seen—there were lives saved, but there was also a somewhat darker side that kept Brigham from reconstituting the organization for ten years, and made Eliza need to emphasize that it had been worth it, on balance, even with the problems.

Joseph expressed similar concerns

Joseph expressed his own reservations:

"You need not be teasing men for their deeds, but let the weight of innocence be felt which is more mighty than a millstone hung about the neck."—i.e., quit acting as a type of police on public morals. He spoke on this more than once; it was an on-going problem, and much of it was driven by Emma. (Joseph had previously spoken to the Relief Society and cautioned them about their zeal not being according to knowledge.

Joseph said that there were problems that had to be improved. This could be good evidence that in Emma's case, that the problem wasn't solved. Joseph repeatedly talked to them about judging the actions of others, minding their own business, sustaining the prophet, and so forth. The following remarks from 28 April 1842 are from the same discourse as the prophecy under consideration:

• "He exhorted the sisters always to concentrate their faith and prayers for, and place confidence in their husbands, whom God has appointed for them to honor, and in those faithful men whom God has placed at the head of the Church to lead His people; that we should arm and sustain them with our prayers; for the keys of the kingdom are about to be given to them, that they may be able to detect everything false; as well as to all the Elders who shall prove their integrity in due season."

• [Joseph] "said the same aspiring disposition will be in this Society, and must be guarded against; that every person should stand, and act in the place appointed, and thus sanctify the Society and get it pure (italics added)."

• [Joseph continued] "saying everyone should aspire only to magnify his own office and calling....and said, don't be limited in your views with regard to your neighbor's virtue, but beware of self-righteousness, and be limited in the estimate of your own virtues, and not think yourselves more righteous than others; you must enlarge your souls towards each other, if you would do like Jesus, and carry your fellow-creatures to Abraham's bosom. He said he had manifested long-suffering, forbearance and patience towards the Church, and also to his enemies; and we must bear with each other's failings, as an indulgent parent bears with the foibles of his children (italics added)."

• "How precious are the souls of men! The female part of the community are apt to be contracted in their views. You must not be contracted, but you must be liberal in your feelings. Let this Society teach women how to behave towards their husbands, to treat them with mildness and affection. When a man is borne down with trouble, when he is perplexed with care and difficulty, if he can meet a smile instead of an argument or a murmur—if he can meet with mildness, it will calm down his soul and soothe his feelings; when the mind is going to despair, it needs a solace of affection and kindness. (italics added)"

• "When you go home, never give a cross or unkind word to your husbands, but let kindness, charity and love crown your works henceforward....Let your labors be mostly confined to those around you, in the circle of your own acquaintance, as far as knowledge is concerned, it may extend to all the world; but your administering should be confined to the circle of your immediate acquaintance, and more especially to the members of the Relief Society. Those ordained to preside over and lead you, are authorized to appoint the different officers, as the circumstances shall require."

Was the prophecy fulfilled?

One might ask, "What would it otherwise have taken to fulfill the prophecy? Was the Queen of England supposed to come to Nauvoo?" One could argue that the prophecy was in fact fulfilled. The queens in their midst were anointed as part of the endowment, revealed by Joseph at Nauvoo, and some had their election made sure before leaving for Utah. Joseph's speech to the Relief Society could be a foreshadowing of the temple ordinances they would later receive and that would qualify and prepare them to receive such.

Did Joseph Smith prophesy that Jesus Christ would return in 1890?

Jesus Christ stated that no mortals or angels would know when He would return

Said Jesus of his return:

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only (Matthew 24:36).

Because we do not know, we need to constantly be ready for his return, for "in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh" (Matthew 24:44).

In February 1835, Joseph Smith is reported to have said that "fifty-six years should wind up the scene"

B.H. Roberts in History of the Church notes the Prophet's remark in 1835 when he is reported to have said that,

...it was the will of God that those who went Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.

In Feb 1835, fifty six years in the future was February 1891. This would be shortly after Joseph's 85th birthday (he was born 23 December 1805).

Joseph made continuous reference to this date in light of a revelation which he reported. It is recorded in D&C 130꞉14-17, and it is clear that the revelation leaves the exact date of Christ's second coming much more uncertain. Whatever Joseph meant or understood by "wind up the scene," it must be interpreted in light of the revelation as he reported it, and the conclusions which he drew from it.

This particular revelation is a favorite of anti-Mormon critics. They have misquoted it, misreported it, misinterpreted it and misexplained it. Most often they simply do not complete the quote, making it appear that the Prophet said something he didn't.

Joseph acknowledged as he recorded this revelation that he didn't understand its meaning or intent

The revelation is reported in abbreviated form, and Joseph acknowledged as he recorded it that he didn't understand its meaning or intent:

I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. (D&C 130꞉14-15).

Many critics end the quote at this point, and then they hope the reader will assume that the statement is a prophecy that the Savior would come in the year 1890 or 1891, since the Prophet Joseph was born in 1805. (Other critics do not even bother to cite D&C 130, and simply rely on the quote from the Kirtland Council Minute Book of 1835, reproduced in History of the Church.

Joseph expresses his uncertainty: "I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time"

However, if we continue further, we see how Joseph Smith himself understood the revelation, unfiltered through note-takers or critics who wish to explain his meaning:

I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face (D&C ꞉130).

The actual content of Joseph's prophecy—if personal opinion can be said to be prophecy—does not occur until the next verse:

I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.(D&C 130꞉17.)

Joseph's belief was correct—he Lord did not return to the earth for His Second Coming before that time.

At least twice, as is recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph saw the face of the Son of Man

But there are other aspects of fulfillment that should also be considered. We do not know when it was that the Prophet earnestly prayed to know the time of the Lord's coming. The context, (verse 13), shows that it may have taken place in 1832 or earlier. At least twice, as is recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph saw the face of the Son of Man. D&C 76꞉20-24 and D&C 110꞉2-10 both record appearances of the Lord Jesus Christ, either of which may constitute fulfillment of the Lord's prophetic promise. He may also have seen the Lord's face at the time of his death in 1844, as he pondered in D&C 130:16.

The History of the Church describes Joseph's return to the same ideas:

I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written—the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old.

Again, Joseph Smith doesn't say the Lord will come then, but that He will not come before that time. The return to his age 85 shows that all these remarks derive from the same interpretation of his somewhat opaque revelation from the Lord, who seems determined to tell his curious prophet nothing further.

Joseph denies that anyone knows an exact date

Later, Joseph Smith again prophesied on the subject of Christ's coming:

I also prophesy, in the name of the Lord, that Christ will not come in forty years; and if God ever spoke by my mouth, He will not come in that length of time. Brethren, when you go home, write this down, that it may be remembered. Jesus Christ never did reveal to any man the precise time that He would come. Go and read the scriptures, and you cannot find anything that specifies the exact hour He would come; and all that say so are false teachers.

This remark was made on 10 March 1844. It echoes a teaching given through Joseph in the Doctrine and Covenants in March 1831

And they have done unto the Son of Man even as they listed; and he has taken his power on the right hand of his glory, and now reigneth in the heavens, and will reign till he descends on the earth to put all enemies under his feet, which time is nigh at hand—I, the Lord God, have spoken it; but the hour and the day no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor shall they know until he comes. (D&C 49꞉6-7, emphasis added)

Thus, from the beginning to the end of his ministry, Joseph Smith denied that a man could or would know the date of the second coming of Christ. (Joseph's remarks may have been instigated by the intense interest among religious believers in William Miller's prophecy that Christ would return by 1843.)

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 127-8, 462, 464, 528n5, 617n13, 25–27(PB) ( Index of claims ) Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 102. ( Index of claims ) Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers Alice Felt Tyler, Freedom's Ferment (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1944), 95. G.T. Harrison, Mormons Are Peculiar People (New York: Vantage Press, Inc., 1954), xii, 114. George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), 6, 9, 535. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review)) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 418-419.( Index of claims ) Wesley P. Walters, "Mormonism," Christianity Today V/6 (19 December 1960): 9. Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 7) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 8)

Was a "forged" prophecy about Stephen A. Douglas added to the History of the Church?

Joseph Smith prophesied that Stephen A. Douglas would run for the presidency four years before he actually did

Page one of Deseret News (24 Sept 1856). Material on Stephen A. Douglas, at it appears in the History of the Church is outlined in read.

Detail of the Stephen A. Douglas prophecy, printed on 24 September 1856. This was nearly a year before Douglas would 'turn against' the Saints, and more than four years before he was nominated as President of the United States.

Joseph Smith told Judge Stephen A. Douglas four years before he was nominated for the Presidency of the United States:

I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, that unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the State of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers, that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished; thereby perpetrating a foul and corroding blot upon the fair fame of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame. Judge, you will aspire to the presidency of the United States; and if ever you turn your hand against me or the Latter-day Saints, you will feel the weight of the hand of Almighty upon you; and you will live to see and know that I have testified the truth to you; for the conversation of this day will stick to you through life.

The claim that this prophecy was added after the fact is false

As B.H. Roberts' editorial remark in the History of the Church noted:

There is, and can be no question about the prophecy preceding the event. The prophecy was first published in the Deseret News of September 24, 1856. It was afterwards published in England in the Millennial Star, February, 1859. The publication in the Deseret News preceding Douglas' Springfield speech, mentioned above, (June, 1857) by about one year, and about four years before Douglas was nominated for the presidency by the Charleston Democratic convention.

This paper is available in digital form on-line. Screenshots are included in this article.

Why did Joseph prophesy that the wicked "of this generation" would be swept from the face of the land and the Lost Ten tribes would be gathered?

The final and total return of the Ten Tribes is not required by the prophecy—only the preparation and preliminaries for their return

The destruction of the wicked was seen by those to whom the prophecy was given as fulfilled by the Civil War and its attendant destruction, and it was this that those living were commanded to avoid by fleeing to Zion and the safety of the gospel:

And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years shall pass away before the United States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. The people of the Lord, those who have complied with the requirements of the new covenant, have already commenced gathering together to Zion, which is in the state of Missouri; therefore I declare unto you the warning which the Lord has commanded to declare unto this generation, remembering that the eyes of my Maker are upon me, and that to him I am accountable for every word I say, wishing nothing worse to my fellow-men than their eternal salvation; therefore, "Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come." Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant, and flee to Zion, before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled. Remember these things; call upon the Lord while He is near, and seek Him while He may be found, is the exhortation of your unworthy servant.

There are two aspects to the prophecy.

1. Destruction of the wicked (marked in blue.

These events were certainly seen by the nineteenth-century Saints as fulfilled. They saw the Civil War as the culmination of prophecies against wicked people in a wicked nation. For more information see:

• Civil War prophecy
• Attitude of Saints to Civil War prophecy

Those now living are to flee to Zion to avoid the scourge—i.e., the destruction, which certainly bypassed the Saints in Utah during the Civil War.

2. The preparation for the return of the ten tribes (marked in red.

The critics wish to say that Joseph prophesied the return of the Ten Tribes—but, he did not. He prophecied that those living would see those things necessary to "prepare the way" for the return of the tribes. The prophecy also noted (in green) that this gathering was already beginning as those who embraced the covenant gathered to Zion.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 461, 616 n. 10 ( Index of claims )

Why did Joseph Smith claim that Thomas B. Marsh, who later apostatized, would be "exalted," and that he would preach "unto the ends of the earth"?

This was a conditional prophesy, which was not fulfilled in Marsh's case because of his apostasy

Many feel that Marsh's replacement as President of the Quorum of the Twelve (Brigham Young) did fulfill this prophecy, especially in reference to the line which reads: "thy path lieth among the mountains, and among many nations." Had Marsh remained faithful, he and not Brigham would have directed the western exodus of the Saints to the Rocky Mountains. He also would have joined in the missions abroad conducted by Brigham.

Those who offer the criticism that this is a false prophecy generally do not cite the entire text

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, for example, cites only verses 3–4, 7–8, and 11.

In D&C 112꞉3-11, note the material highlighted in bold, which the author of One Nation Under Gods omits:

Nevertheless, inasmuch as thou hast abased thyself thou shalt be exalted; therefore, all thy sins are forgiven thee. Let thy heart be of good cheer before my face; and thou shalt bear record of my name, not only unto the Gentiles, but also unto the Jews; and thou shalt send forth my word unto the ends of the earth. Contend thou, therefore, morning by morning; and day after day let thy warning voice go forth; and when the night cometh let not the inhabitants of the earth slumber, because of thy speech. Let thy habitation be known in Zion, and remove not thy house; for I, the Lord, have a great work for thee to do, in publishing my name among the children of men. Therefore, gird up thy loins for the work. Let thy feet be shod also, for thou art chosen, and thy path lieth among the mountains, and among many nations. And by thy word many high ones shall be brought low, and by thy word many low ones shall be exalted. Thy voice shall be a rebuke unto the transgressor; and at thy rebuke let the tongue of the slanderer cease its perverseness. Be thou humble; and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand, and give thee answer to thy prayers. I know thy heart, and have heard thy prayers concerning thy brethren. Be not partial towards them in love above many others, but let thy love be for them as for thyself; and let thy love abound unto all men, and unto all who love my name.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see the material cautioning Marsh again pride—the cause of his apostasy and fall from Church leadership—as genuinely prophetic.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 463, 617 n. 20 ( Index of claims )

Why did Joseph describe the United Order in revelation as "everlasting" and "immutable and unchangeable" until Jesus comes?

The United Order is an "everlasting" covenant because it comes from God, reflects his purposes, and is attended by promised blessings for all who obey

This does not mean—just as with biblical examples which use identical language—that "everlasting" is a prophecy about its duration of practice or implementation.

The relevant scripture reads (color emphasis added for clarity):

1 Verily I say unto you, my friends, I give unto you counsel, and a commandment, concerning all the properties which belong to the order which I commanded to be organized and established, to be a united order, and an everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of men until I come—

2 With promise immutable and unchangeable, that inasmuch as those whom I commanded were faithful they should be blessed with a multiplicity of blessings;

3 But inasmuch as they were not faithful they were nigh unto cursing.

4 Therefore, inasmuch as some of my servants have not kept the commandment, but have broken the covenant through covetousness, and with feigned words, I have cursed them with a very sore and grievous curse.

5 For I, the Lord, have decreed in my heart, that inasmuch as any man belonging to the order shall be found a transgressor, or, in other words, shall break the covenant with which ye are bound, he shall be cursed in his life, and shall be trodden down by whom I will;

6 For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things—(D&C 104꞉1-6)

We note:

• the practice of the Order is not prophesied to be "immutable and unchangeable." Rather, the Lord says that the promise is "immutable and unchangeable"—and, that promise is that "inasmuch as those whom I commanded were faithful, they should be blessed with a multiplicity of blessings."
• the United Order is to be everlasting—that is, it is always the Lord's highest law. Temple-worthy Latter-day Saints promise to observe the law of consecration. They are not, at present, commanded to enter the United Order, but covenant to do so if asked.
• the Lord makes it clear (verses 3-6) that some might break the covenant, and suffer the penalty. Thus, failure to live the law is not failure of a prophecy, but failure to live a commandment.

Biblical parallels: similar uses of the term "everlasting" that describe the importance and efficacy of certain commandments or ordinances

There are similar uses of the term "everlasting" that describe the importance and efficacy of certain commandments or ordinances. Yet, Christians do not believe they are bound to continue to observe these ordinances and covenants at all historical times. For example (emphasis added in all cases):

• Aaron and the Levites are given an "everlasting priesthood throughout their generations" (Exodus 40:15, see also Numbers 25:13). Yet, modern day Christians (like many of our critics) do not believe that the only legitimate priestly authority persists with Levitical descendants, or that such descendants currently enjoy divine sanction.
• Circumcision is described as "a token of the covenant betwixt me and you" that "my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." Those who are not circumcised "shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Genesis 17:10-14). Yet, modern Christians do not believe that circumcision continues to be binding or necessary.
• Likewise, the "bread for a memorial" is commanded to be "set...in order before the Lord continually," since it is "taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8). Do the critics likewise believe that this ought to be continued in unbroken succession to the present for it to be a valid commandment from God?

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 462, 617 n. 14 ( Index of claims )

Did Joseph Smith prophesy that Zion, in Jackson County, Missouri, would be redeemed by September 1836?

There were many conditionals placed on this prophecy—its fulfillment relied on the members' faithfulness:

use every effort to prevail on the churches to gather to those regions and locate themselves, to be in readiness to move into Jackson county in two years from the eleventh of September next, which is the appointed time for the redemption of Zion. If—verily I say unto you—if the Church with one united effort perform their duties; if they do this, the work shall be complete....and if we do not exert ourselves to the utmost in gathering up the strength of the Lord's house that this thing may be accomplished, behold there remaineth a scourge for the Church, even that they shall be driven from city to city, and [p.146] but few shall remain to receive an inheritance; if those things are not kept, there remaineth a scourge also; therefore, be wise this once, O ye children of Zion! and give heed to my counsel, saith the Lord. (emphasis added)

Compare with:

• D&C 101꞉1-9- given on 16 December 1833 (History of the Church 1:458-464)
• D&C 103꞉1-12- given on 24 February 1834 (History of the Church 2:36-39)
• D&C 105꞉6-13 - given on 22 June 1834 (History of the Church 2:108-111)

Was Joseph Smith's prophecy that the Independence, Missouri temple "shall be reared in this generation" a failed prophecy?

On 20 July 1831 Joseph Smith recorded a revelation identifying Independence, Missouri, as "the center place; and a spot for the temple[.]" (D&C 57꞉3). Joseph and Sidney Rigdon dedicated a site for the temple on 3 August 1831. The following year, Joseph received another revelation concerning the gathering to Zion:

[T]he word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house (D&C 84꞉2-5, (emphasis added)).

The Saints were expelled from Jackson County in late 1833, before they could make any progress on the temple. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to return to reclaim their lands.

Critics of the Church charge that this is a false prophecy since the temple in Independence was never completed in Joseph Smith's generation.

Commandment, not Prophecy

The supposed "prophecy" was actually a commandment and the command may have already been fulfilled.

After the Saints settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph recorded another revelation rescinding the earlier revelation given to build the Independence temple:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. ... Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God (D&C 124꞉49,51).

Thus, when Smith declared the "temple shall be reared in this generation," he meant this as a directive (compare to the ten commandments: "thou shalt.." and D&C 59꞉5-13) and thus D&C 84 is not actually a prophecy. Webster's 1828 dictionary noted of "shall":

In the second and third persons [i.e., when applied to another person], shall implies a promise, command or determination. "You shall receive your wages," "he shall receive his wages," imply that you or he ought to receive them; but usage gives these phrases the force of a promise in the person uttering them.

Thus, "shall" indicates a promise or command—and, Latter-day Saint theology (with its strong emphasis on moral agency) always holds that man is free to accept or reject the commandments or promises of God, and that God will often not overrule the free-agent acts of others which might prevent his people from obeying. In such cases, God rewards the faithful for their willingness and efforts to obey, and punishes the guilty accordingly.

Potential Fulfillment for the Commmandment?

Latter-day Saints have speculated that the commandment may have already been met.

D. Charles Pyle wrote:

Indeed, this verse was fulfilled—in Kirtland. Here is what was recorded for that event in 1836:

George A. Smith arose and began to prophesy, when a noise was heard like the sound of a rushing mighty wind, which filled the Temple, and all the congregation simultaneously arose, being moved upon by an invisible power; many began to speak in tongues and prophesy; others saw glorious visions; and I beheld the Temple was filled with angels, which fact I declared to the congregation. The people of the neighborhood came running together (hearing an unusual sound within, and seeing a bright light like a pillar of fire resting upon the Temple), and were astonished at what was taking place. (History of the Church, 2:428)

See also Section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Most people who read the above verse in the above section of the Doctrine and Covenants assume that verse 5 has to refer only to the temple that was to be built in the center place of that time. However, all that is required is that a temple be built and that certain events happen in order to meet the conditions of this portion of the prophecy.

Trouble with [anti-Mormon] argumentation is that the prophecy was fulfilled, even if the location of the fulfillment was moved due to the conditional nature of prophecy and of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Bible is filled with such contingent prophecies. However [many] critics of the Church . . . take the Doctrine and Covenants out of context. Building a temple there would require the Saints to remain there in the center place. However, remaining in the center place was contingent by nature. Reading a number of sections of the Doctrine and Covenants shows the conditional nature of their stay there. The Saints failed to live up to the expectations and requirements to stay there. Therefore, they were driven out. ...

The Saints were building the city. The temple site had already been dedicated and foundational cornerstones laid the year previous. Note also the past tense of the latter part of verse 3. However, verse 2, as already noted, was to be tempered by the contingent nature of sections of the Doctrine and Covenants surrounding Section 84, particularly Section 58 and the Sections numbering in the 100s. Note the following verses from Section 58:

Behold, verily I say unto you, for this cause I have sent you—that you might be obedient, and that your hearts might be prepared to bear testimony of the things which are to come; And also that you might be honored in laying the foundation, and in bearing record of the land upon which the Zion of God shall stand; ...:For verily I say unto you, my law shall be kept on this land. ...

Who am I that made man, saith the Lord, that will hold him guiltless that obeys not my commandments? Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled? I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing. Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above. And now, verily, I say concerning the residue of the elders of my church, the time has not yet come, for many years, for them to receive their inheritance in this land, except they desire it through the prayer of faith, only as it shall be appointed unto them of the Lord. For, behold, they shall push the people together from the bends of the earth. ...

And I give unto my servant Sidney Rigdon a commandment, that he shall write a description of the land of Zion, and a statement of the will of God, as it shall be made known by the Spirit unto him; And an epistle and subscription, to be presented unto all the churches to obtain moneys, to be put into the hands of the bishop, of himself or the agent, as seemeth him good or as he shall direct, to purchase lands for an inheritance for the children of God. For, behold, verily I say unto you, the Lord willeth that the disciples and the children of men should open their hearts, even to purchase this whole region of country, as soon as time will permit. Behold, here is wisdom. Let them do this lest they receive none inheritance, save it be by the shedding of blood. And again, inasmuch as there is land obtained, let there be workmen sent forth of all kinds unto this land, to labor for the saints of God. Let all these things be done in order; and let the privileges of the lands be made known from time to time, by the bishop or the agent of the church. And let the work of the gathering be not in haste, nor by flight; but let it be done as it shall be counseled by the elders of the church at the conferences, according to the knowledge which they receive from time to time.

Note the words concerning "many years" in the afore-cited revelation? As can be seen, this above revelation shows some interesting things concerning this land and even was prescient concerning what would come in this region as well as what people would say when the Lord revokes and takes blessings away due to failure to keep the law of God. Did this not indeed happen? Had not it indeed been seen in those days by those who left the Church? And, is not it now being fulfilled by every single critic who has written concerning Section 84 and the land of Zion?

D&C 84꞉4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

The Saints did begin gathering to this location and building the city. They were driven out before the city could be completed because they had failed to live up to expectations for remaining there as a people. Again, see the context of the Doctrine and Covenants sections preceding and succeeding Section 84, particularly those numbering in the 100s. The Saints did not keep the conditions and were driven out. They were told to keep quiet of these things and not to boast, as well as keep the law of God concerning this land. They failed in all these things and were driven out as promised in a following revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants. See, for example, Section 97:26. This forced a move of locations for the building of a temple in that generation. . . . Suffice it to say, that it still was in the Lord's plan to build a temple within that generation.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 9. ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 420-421.( Index of claims ) Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 3) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 7) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 8)

Is the prophecy concerning OIiver Granger contained in section 117 of the Doctrine and Covenants an example of a false prophecy?

Figure 1: Headstone of the grave of Oliver Granger in Kirtland, Ohio.

Joseph received a revelation on 8 July 1838 "concerning the immediate duties of William Marks, Newel K. Whitney, and Oliver Granger" (D&C 117). The revelation written in Far West Missouri, and was addressed as a letter to the three men, all living at the time around Kirtland, Ohio:

The Lord made clear that Marks and Whitney were to relocate to Missouri before winter (117:1-2). Once in Missouri they would preside over the Saints in their respective callings…To expedite their move [Marks' and Whitney's], the Lord instructed that Oliver Granger be dispatched to Kirtland to act as an agent for the First Presidency in settling some of their business affairs…Oliver Granger labored to resolve the Church’s unpaid debts in Kirtland until his death in August 1841. He succeeded in settling the affairs of the First Presidency to the satisfaction of their creditors. One of them wrote, 'Oliver Granger’s management in the arrangement of the unfinished business of people that have moved to Far West, in redeeming their pledges and thereby sustaining their integrity, has been truly praiseworthy, and has entitled him to my highest esteem, and every grateful recollection.’

Concerning Oliver Granger specifically:

I remember my servant Oliver Granger; behold verily I say unto him that his name shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord. Therefore, let him contend earnestly for the redemption of the First Presidency of my Church, saith the Lord; and when he falls he shall rise again, for his sacrifice shall be more sacred unto me than his increase, saith the Lord (D&C 117꞉12-13).

Critics of the Church claim that this represents an example of a false prophecy by Joseph Smith since, today, members do not hold any sort of special occasion for the "sacred remembrance" of Oliver’s assistance to the First Presidency.

"Sacred Remembrance" as remembered in the canon

The first interpretive possibility is that "sacred remembrance" refers to humans remembering Granger. If this is true of the revelation, then canonizing his revelation holds Granger’s name available to all members of the Church. His contributions to building up the Church are not forgotten. Communities of worship, and especially Jews and Christians have used the canon as a means of collective remembrance and shared value for hundreds of years. This possibility fulfills the revelation’s injunction to hold Oliver Granger in sacred rememberance.

"Sacred Remembrance" as divine regard

The second interpretive possibility is that "sacred remembrance" refers to divine remembrance and regard for Granger’s efforts.

John Tvedtnes writes:

Several critics have pointed to D&C 117꞉12-15 as a "false prophecy" because Oliver Granger’s name is unfamiliar to most Latter-day Saints despite the fact that the Lord said "that his name shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever" (verse 12). It seems unlikely that the memory of any mortal can be called "sacred," so the words "sacred remembrance" most likely refer to the fact that the Lord would remember him. After all, the verse begins with the Lord saying, "I remember my servant Oliver Granger."

Robert S. Boylan has added scriptures from the bible as evidence for the strength of Tvedtnes’ argument of interpreting this verse as divine remembrance instead of human rememberance. "Indeed," Boylan writes, "often Yahweh in the Old Testament is said to ‘remember’ things such as his covenant with people, showing this concept of divine remembrance. For a good discussion, see Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, especially his analysis of αναμνησις ('remembrance/memory') in Luke 22 and 1 Cor 11."

Boylan continues:

With respect to αναμησις, the term appears five times in the Septuagint [Greek translation of the Old Testament]. Four of these five instances are within the sense of priestly sacrifice; the exception is Wisdom of Solomon 16:6. The NRSV translates the verse as follows:

They were troubled for a little while as a warning, and received a symbol of deliverance to remind (αναμνησις) them of your law's command.

The other instances of this term in the Septuagint are Leviticus 24:7; Numbers 10:10; Psalms 38:1 [Septuagint 37:1] and 70:1 [Septuagint 69:1]), translating the Hebrew terms אַזְכָּרָה (Lev 24:7); זִכָּרוֹן  (Num 10:10) and הַזְכִּיר (Psa 38:1; 70:1). The NRSV captures the original language text rather well:

• You shall put frankincense with each row, to be a token offering for the bread, as an offering (αναμνησις) by fire to the Lord. (Leviticus 24:7)

• Also on your days of rejoicing, at your appointed festivals, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over your sacrifices of well-being; they shall serve as a reminder (αναμνησις ) on your behalf before the Lord your God: I am the Lord your God. (Numbers 10:10)

• A Psalm of David, for the memorial offering (αναμνησις). . . (Psalms 38:1)

• To the leader. Of David, for the memorial offering (αναμνησις). . . (Psalms 70:1).

All of these are instances wherein God is 'reminded' of His covenant via sacrifice.

Additional passages supporting the ‘divine remembrance’ concept include:

• And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. (Genesis 9:15-16)

• And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. (Exodus 2:24)

• And I have also heard the groaning of my children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. (Exodus 6:5)

• Then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, and I will remember the land . . . but I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 26:42, 45)

• He hath remembered his covenant forever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. (Psalms 105:8)

• And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies. (Psalms 106:45)

• Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee and everlasting covenant. (Ezekiel 16:60)

• Thus he has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors, and has remembered his holy covenant. (Luke 1:72, NRSV)

The evidence discussed above can be summed up with the words of the Psalmist:

Remember all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice; Selah. (Psa 20:3)

All of this strongly supports Tvedtnes’ reading of D&C 117:12.

Responding to an attempt to discredit Tvedtnes' argument

There was an attempt to respond to and refute Tvedtnes' argument. The critic wrote:

Tvedtnes’ argument also suffers from the fact that the term "sacred remembrance" has frequently been used to refer to HUMAN remembrance: B. H. Roberts, in a Pioneer Day address in 1886 said (emphasis added in all quotations):

"My Brethren and Sisters: We have met on this occasion to bear witness to the world that we hold in sacred remembrance the entrance of the Pioneers into this region."

Joseph Smith said:

". . . our circumstances are calculated to awaken our spirits to a sacred remembrance of everything, ..." (DHC, Vol. 3, p. 290).

Writing from Liberty Jail, he wrote to Bishop Partridge:

"Our situation is calculated to awaken our minds to a sacred remembrance of your affection" (Times & Seasons, 1:7:99).

Later in the same letter he wrote:

"… [we] send our respects to fathers, mothers, wives, and children, brothers and sisters, and be assured we hold them in sacred remembrance." ([History of the Church] 3:297-298)

In a letter to Major-General Law (August 14, 1842) he wrote:

"And will not those who come after hold our names in sacred remembrance?" ([History of the Church] 5:94)

Orson Pratt, in commenting on Ezekiel 37:11, said:

"…in other words, our forefather, whose children we are, and whose names are held in sacred remembrance by us, are all dead." ([Journal of Discourses] 20:17).

Boylan responded:

Firstly, the impression that [he] is trying to give (that all instances of "[sacred] remembrance" refers to human, not divine, remembrance) is fallacious. Note D&C 127:9, dated September 1, 1842:

And again, let all the records be had in order, that they may be put in the archives of my holy temple to be held in remembrance from generation to generation, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Furthermore, it ignores the biblical evidence of God "remembering" things, as discussed previously, language which did influence early Latter-day Saints.

Finally, [his] argument suffers from a structural fallacy, that of the excluded middle. If one maps out his argument, it would go something like this:

First Premise: Some instance of "[sacred] remembrance" refers to human remembrance.

Second Premise: D&C 117:12 contains the term, "sacred remembrance."

Conclusion: D&C 117:12 refers to human remembrance.

To those familiar with formal logic, the fallacy is evident: [][Logical_fallacies/Page_4#Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle|the fallacy of undistributed middle]. This means that the predicates in both the major and minor premises do not exhaust all the occurrences of "[sacred] remembrance," and would not necessitate the interpretation of "human remembrance" as [he] argues for. At best, it could refer to human remembrance, but the evidence discussed in this study shows that this is not the most exegetically sound reading.

In any case, either reply suffices to dispel the idea that this is a false prophesy.

Is Doctrine and Covenants 84:114 warnings to New York, Albany, and Boston an example of a false prophecy?

Figure 1. Portrait of Newel K. Whitney.

On 22 and 23 September 1832, Joseph Smith received a revelation after several of his followers had returned from proselyting missions in the eastern United States. Part of this revelation contains a prophecy that assigns Newel K. Whitney, the presiding bishop of the Church, to a mission in New York City, Albany, and Boston. This revelation is canonized as Doctrine and Covenants 84. The 114th verse of this revelation reads as follows:

114 Nevertheless, let the bishop go unto the city of New York, also to the city of Albany, and also to the city of Boston, and warn the people of those cities with the sound of the gospel, with a loud voice, of the desolation and utter abolishment which await them if they do reject these things.

Error creating thumbnail: /bin/bash: line 1: /usr/bin/convert: No such file or directory Error code: 127

Figure 2. Greek depiction of Second Coming of Jesus Christ circa 1700 A.D. Public domain.

Critics of the Church claim that this is a false prophecy since the cities of Albany, Boston, and New York still remain without "desolation and utter absolishment" close to 200 years after this revelation was given and recorded.

The text itself refers to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Doctrine and Covenants tells us that "[w]hen the Lord comes, every corruptible thing will be consumed, the elements will 'melt with fervent heat,' and the works of the world will be burned up (2 Pet. 3:10-12; D&C 101:24-25)." The Doctrine and Covenants also tells us that "all the wicked will be destroyed by burning" (Mal. 4:1; D&C 29:9; 64:23-24; 133:63-64).""

The "wicked", according to this very revelation, are those that "come not unto" and/or "receiveth not [the] voice" of the Savior nor the people that he sends to bear testimony of his Gospel.

Concerning the Second Coming, the Doctrine and Covenants tells us that "the hour and the day no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor shall they know until he comes."

It should be noted that the prophecy is contingent upon repentance (i.e. "if they do reject these things.") and that this revelation should not be taken to mean that all of Boston, New York, and Albany will be destroyed. It means that those that reject the Gospel will be and that can include individual people from those cities.

This argument should remind all that prophecy may take time to interpret correctly and that the timeframe that we assign to the fulfillment of a prophecy may not be the timeframe the Lord has in mind for it. We should remember to read the scriptures contextually as well as holistically; that is, read the scriptures in their historical context as well as read everything that scripture has to say on any given topic.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism—D&C 84 and the destruction of New York, Boston, and Albany

Critical sources	Dick Baer
Past responses	Robert S. Boylan, "Oliver Granger and ‘Sacred Rememberance’," (13 May 2020). John A. Tvedtnes, "A Reply to Dick Baer."

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism—Alleged false prophecies of Joseph Smith

Critical sources

Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 124. ( Index of claims ) Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 9. ( Index of claims ) Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 417.( Index of claims )

Notes

Question: Why do Mormons use the Aaronic Priesthood, since Hebrews 7 states that the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood was "changed" to the unique priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" held by Jesus Christ?

The idea that the Melchizedek Priesthood superseded the Aaronic Priesthood is a correct one, but this does not necessarily imply that there is no Aaronic Priesthood

As other Christians see it, the Aaronic Priesthood is like a small glass of water that is replaced by a fruit juice (the Melchizedek Priesthood). They are distinguished from each other, in most Christians' eyes, as quite separate things.

The LDS would use a different metaphor to explain things: they might compare the Aaronic Priesthood to a glass of water that is filled only part way. Instead of being replaced by an entirely different drink, more water is poured into it until it is a full glass (the Melchizedek Priesthood).

From a Mormon perspective, the two priesthoods are really the same substance: the power of God delegated to man

From whence do the two priesthoods originate? The same source—God. What is the purpose of the two priesthoods? They bring mortals to the Lord (note that only the Melchizedek Priesthood can do so entirely—see Hebrews 7:11—but the Aaronic Priesthood was instrumental in keeping ancient Israel holy and pure). The Aaronic Priesthood is merely a limited form of the Melchizedek Priesthood, or (as LDS scriptures call it) an "appendage" to it (D&C 107:13–14).

Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles illustrated the doctrine clearly:

Since all priesthood is Melchizedek, the Aaronic Priesthood being a portion of it, one does not lose the Aaronic Priesthood when he is ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood [...]

Why does the Aaronic Priesthood persist in the Church?

So, if the Church possesses the Melchizedek priesthood, then why would the Aaronic Priesthood persist today? The Aaronic priesthood serves as a 'preparatory priesthood' (see D&C 84:26.) Just as the Levitical authority in ancient Israel acted as a "schoolmaster" to prepare Israel to receive Christ (see Galatians 3:24–25), in the modern Church the Aaronic priesthood serves to school young men for service in God's kingdom on earth.

The modern Aaronic priesthood's organizational structure follows the pattern established by the New Testament Church, and consists of Deacons (see Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:8,10,12–13), Teachers (Acts 13:1,1 Corinthians 12:28–29), and Priests (see Acts 6:7), and countless references in the Old Testament to Levitical/Aaronic 'priests').

Each Aaronic priesthood office is trusted with more responsibility, providing LDS young men with the opportunity to progress and mature until they are ready to receive the priesthood in full—the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Aaronic priesthood duties and function similar to ancient Israel

Despite some modern differences from ancient Israel, the Aaronic Priesthood is not much different compared to ancient times.

The Aaronic priesthood performs two ordinances (some Christian groups would call these 'sacraments').

1. Baptism: John the Baptist held the Aaronic Priesthood, which holds the keys of baptism, and baptism is of course a fundamental part of salvation through Christ (see Acts 2:38).
2. Sacrifice: The modern Church does not, of course, sacrifice animals because Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself for us, giving us the last great sacrifice (see Ephesians 5:2). Yet, the Church rejoices in and recalls His sacrifice for us by partaking of the sacrament ("communion" or "the Lord's supper" in other denominations) Matthew 26:26-29). Thus, the modern priest repeats a ceremony of atonement and sacrifice through the sacrament of the Lord's supper; this plays a similar theological role to the animal sacrifices offered by Aaronic priests anticipation of Christ's atonement and resurrection.

Separation of priesthood duties in the New Testament Church

It should be noted that all priesthood was not equivalent in the New Testament Church either. For example, many members had been baptized with water (an ordinance of the Aaronic priesthood) but had not yet received the Holy Ghost until one of the apostles laid hands upon them (a Melchizedek priesthood function). (See Acts 8:15–19, Acts 19:2–6).

Question: Is there a "Priesthood of All Believers" which eliminates the need for unbroken lines of priesthood authority?

Peter's reference to the priesthood was drawn from the ancient Israelite views of the priesthood, a view in which only a select group hold the priesthood

It is claimed that there is no need for unbroken lines of priesthood authority since the Bible teaches that all believers hold the priesthood. However, Peter's reference to the priesthood was drawn from the ancient Israelite views of the priesthood, a view in which only a select group hold the priesthood. Neither the Bible nor other early Christian writings support the idea that all Christians hold priesthood authority to govern the Church or administer its ordinances. Instead, this doctrine is a novelty necessitated by the protestant break with Rome.

Here, we examine some of the scriptural passages cited in defense of the concept of a priesthood of all believers.

"A royal priesthood"

• "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9).

This was the principal passage cited by Martin Luther in defense of a priesthood of all believers. What Luther failed to note is that Peter was actually referring to an Old Testament passage, in which the Lord told the Israelites through Moses,

• "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation" (Exodus 19:5-6).

Yet of the Israelites present at the mount of revelation, only the Levites were chosen for priesthood service.

The Gospels and Acts

Based on the belief in the "priesthood of all believers," a Protestant minister often feels that the Bible (or God) has called him to work. But Christ made it clear that this is not the way it works. He said, "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. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:21-24).

Only a believer would prophecy in the name of Christ or, in his name, cast out devils. Yet the Savior said that he would cast out those he never knew. It is wrong to profess to do something in the name of Christ when one does not have the authority to do so. Note that Christ said that there would be "many" who would claim to have performed good works in his name who would be rejected, so this is not just an occasional person.

That specific authority was required to perform ordinances in the early Church is made clear by the story found in chapter 8 of Acts: "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money" (Acts 8:14-20). Simon was not trying to buy the Spirit, but the "power" to "lay hands" on people so they could receive the Holy Ghost. This power is what we call "priesthood." Simon had already been baptized in the name of Christ, but this did not authorize him to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

At the last supper, Christ told his apostles, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you" (John 15:16). This ordination did not take place because they were baptized, but came after they had chosen to follow Christ. In Luke 6:13, we read that "when it was day, he [Jesus] called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles." So only twelve of Christ's followers were chosen to be apostles. Mark gives more details concerning this event: "And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils" (Mark 3:13-15). From this, it is clear that the apostles received, at that time, "power" that other followers of Christ did not have. He later gave that same power or priesthood to seventy others (Luke 10:1-20).

The account in Acts 19:1-6 is also instructive on the concept of authority to baptize and confer the gift of the Holy Ghost: "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

These men (twelve in number according to verse 7), said they had been baptized "unto John's baptism," probably meaning by someone claiming authority from the John the Baptist, who had been killed by Herod Antipas long before the time of Paul. But Paul doubted the truth of this statement, knowing that John had told people of Christ who, coming after him, would baptize them with the Holy Ghost (Matthew 3:11; John 1:29-34). So Paul taught them about Jesus, after which "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" and Paul "laid his hands upon them" for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Early Christian history

Christians in the first centuries do not seem to have endorsed the idea of a priesthood of all believers either—instead, this was a later idea developed by Luther to justify his break with Roman Catholicism, which claimed priesthood inheritance from the apostles.

Question: Why do Mormon's believe that ongoing divine revelation is necessary?

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease

It is claimed that there is no need for on-going divine revelation; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea. According to one ministry:

Jesus Christ, the final and complete revelation of God (Hebrews 1:1-3) has made "further revelation" obsolete and unnecessary. To claim to have such a "revelation" is to say that Jesus really wasn't what and who He said He was, and who the Bible describes Him as being. In actuality, it is the simple fact that Mormonism's teachings cannot be supported from the Bible that drives the leadership to find another source of authority. Everything that has ever claimed to be "further revelation" has failed the test of Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price

—Copyright 2005-2006 Alpha and Omega Ministries

If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, but the Bible teaches that revelations and visions didn't cease.

Biblical history has recorded many instances of God speaking to prophets, and it also tells of many instances of apostasy. To end each period of general apostasy, God has shown His love for His children by calling another prophet and giving him priesthood authority to restore and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ anew. In essence, the prophet acts as a steward to oversee the household of God here on earth. Such periods of time headed by prophetic responsibility are called dispensations.

Matthew 28:19-20

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mark 16:15

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

John 20:30-31

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

We have the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels, why do we need the Book of Revelation, or the epistles of Paul? LDS scriptures clarify the importance of revelation.

What about Hebrews 1:1-3?

1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

It is true that Jesus' coming in the flesh was the most complete revelation of the divine nature. But, these verses do not say that revelation thereby ceased. None of the New Testament was written until well after Jesus died and was resurrected—the early Christians do not seem to have regarded his coming as a bar to on-going revelation and scripture. Even after Jesus' ascension, he continued to give revelation to those chosen to lead his Church. For example, the Lord revealed to John, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" Revelation 1:19

What about 1 Corinthians 13:8?

This scripture is not talking about the last days.

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away (KJV)

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away(NIV)

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away(NASB)

Our jobs will not be eternal; much of our formal education will be forgotten; our Church callings will come to an end

Why do we need revelation today?

1. New revelations and visions are necessary for our progression: time and circumstances always change
2. So that we can have success in our own time and circumstances
3. Despite the best efforts of Christian believers, the Bible has not proved capable of answering all questions in a universal way. There are thousands of Christian groups, and each understands some scriptures differently than others. The unity that should prevail among believers does not, despite their best efforts. Clearly more revelation is needed.

Question: Do the Latter-day Saint "Three Degrees of Glory" have a basis in the Bible?

Summary: Seeing the post-mortal heavens as having multiple degrees was a common early Christian belief, lost over time.

Jump to details:

• It is clear that Joseph Smith went beyond the information found in the Bible concerning the degrees of glory in the resurrection
• The three degrees of glory
• Outer Darkness
• Biblical and early Christian use of sun, moon, and stars as types of the degrees of glory
• More ancient witnesses to the three degrees of glory
• Other early Christian schemas of multiple heavens
• The loss of the doctrine of degrees of glory

Question: Is it appropriate to celebrate holidays as a Christian?

Ancient Israelites celebrated holidays

It is commonly claimed by members of the Jehovah’s Witness organization that it is inapprorpriate to celebrate holidays. This is sometimes used as a criticism against members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Jews celebrate many holidays. Among these is Purim which is a day that, among other things, children dress up in costumes and masks as characters from the Book of Esther and exchange food and drink, donate to charity, eat a celebratory meal, have a recitation of the Esther scroll, and so forth There is no issue with seeking to increase devotion by not celebrating holidays. But there is no biblical evidence that definitively outrules the celebration of holidays as a doctrine of Christian living.

Question: Was Moses a real person?

Biblical scholarship still holds the possibility of a Moses-like figure in history, which is backed up by Latter-day Saint scripture

Some have wondered, based upon findings from Biblical scholarship, if Moses is an actual person from history. Biblical scholarship doesn’t rule out the possibility of Moses’ existence or of a Moses-like figure in history—it only doubts that a lot of the miracles ascribed to him occurred (which is a natural skepticism). Biblical scholars generally see several things that can help affirm some sort of existence. Among these are his authentic Egyptian name (“moseh”) meaning “is born”, the evidence for some form of Israelite exodus, and so on. It has been said that even if none of the traditions of the Pentateuch originated from Moses, scholars would still have to posit his existence since Israelite religion seems a deliberate innovation, not a natural outgrowth.

As Latter-day Saints, we have further evidence of Moses in The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. He appeared in the Kirtland Temple and gave the keys of the priesthood he held to Joseph Smith in April 1836 (D&C 110).

Question: Does the practice of baptism for the dead have ancient roots?

There is considerable evidence that some early Christians and some Jewish groups performed proxy ordinance work for the salvation of the dead

The most obvious of these is 1 Corinthians 15:29:

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

There have been attempts to shrug this off as a reference by Paul to a practice he does not condone but only uses to support the doctrine of the resurrection. These claims are indefensible. Paul's statement makes no sense unless the practice was valid and the saints in Corinth knew it. This is easily demonstrated if we just imagine a young Protestant, who doubts the resurrection, who goes to his pastor with his problem. The pastor answers him, saying, "But what about the Mormons who baptize for the dead? If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?" You know what the young doubter would say. He would say, "Pastor, they're Mormons! What's your point?"

In fact, we know that baptism for the dead was practiced for a long time in the early church. As John A. Tvedtnes has noted:

... historical records are clear on the matter. Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice. Of the [Cerinthians]> of the fourth century, Epiphanius wrote:

“In this country—I mean Asia—and even in Galatia, their school flourished eminently and a traditional fact concerning them has reached us, that when any of them had died without baptism, they used to baptize others in their name, lest in the resurrection they should suffer punishment as unbaptized.” (Heresies, 8:7.)

Thus, baptism for the dead was banned about four hundred years after Christ by the church councils. Latter-day Saints would see this as an excellent example of the apostasy—church councils altering doctrine and practice that was accepted at an earlier date.

Tvedtnes continues:

In early Judaism, too, there is an example of ordinances being performed in behalf of the dead. Following the battle of Marisa in 163 B.C., it was discovered that each of the Jewish soldiers killed in the fight had been guilty of concealing pagan idols beneath his clothing. In order to atone for their wrong, Judas Maccabaeus, the Jewish high priest and commander, collected money from the survivors to purchase sacrificial animals for their dead comrades:

“And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.” (2 Maccabees 12:43–46.)

Collection of Other Sources that Can Support the Latter-day Saint Position

Other sources can give credence to the Latter-day Saint position on this matter. Below we list a selective compilation of quotes from scholars that can demonstrate that:

1. Vicarious baptism was practiced by the ancients
2. The practice wasn't condemned by Paul (even though that would be a natural thing to do given the corrective purposes of the first letter to the church at Corinth).
3. The best translation of the original Greek refers to a practice of vicarious baptism.

The passage in the Bible is, at the very least, very short and cryptic. We can't know much about the practice accept the preceeding three assertions. Thus the following scholars would not affirm that the practice of vicarious baptism matches the modern Latter-day Saint conception of it i.e. that it was done on such a massive scale, for salvific purposes, etc. Some argue on linguistic grounds that this only had to do with catechumens (prospective converts to Christianity who died without baptism) but that is not fully substantiated by the text nor the historical context of the passage. Furthermore, as is noted by several scholars (a couple of which are included below), it is complicated by the fact that Paul spoke approvingly of believing Christians becoming vicarious, sanctifying vessels for non-believing spouses. This could naturally be extrapolated to all kindred, non-believing dead.

There is much that we can't know from the text of the Bible itself following an exegetical approach. At some point, additional revelation is necessary to illuminate and expand on previous revelation. That would be the Latter-day Saint position. As Joseph Smith has said concerning the Restoration, it occured so that "a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times." Latter-day Saints need not feel compelled to defend every last element of their theology from antiquity. Some elements may appear in seed and then be expanded on later by those "things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world[.]" What 1 Corinthians 15:29 can tell us without a doubt is that the practice is ancient and that it wasn't rejected by Paul or others of the earliest Christians. The Greek of the passage is unequivocally said to support the notion that vicarious baptism was performed. Other revelation outside of the Bible can expand on it in the Restoration.

Following is our selective listing of sources. All bolded text has been added by the editor of this article:

• Søren Agersnap: "It cannot be denied that Paul is here [1 Cor 15:29] speaking of a vicarious baptism: one is baptised for the dead to ensure for them a share in the effect of baptism, and this must relate to a post-mortal life. It is also clear that Paul himself refers to this baptismal practice, and without distancing himself from it (This is the embarrassing perception which is the reason for some (comparatively few) interpreters making an imaginative attempt to ignore that this relates to a vicarious baptism).".
• Charles Kingsley Barrett: "The primary reference is to Christian baptism: certain people (οί βαπτιζόμενοι suggest a particular group, not all Christians) undergo the rite of Christian baptism—in what appear to be very strange circumstances. They are baptized on behalf of the dead. The second part of the verse follows clearly enough. If the dead are dead and are beyond recall, there is no point in taking this or any other action on their behalf. But what was the practice of baptism for the dead, and did Paul approve of it? An account of the history of the interpretation of this passage is given by M. Rissi, 'Die Taufe für die Toten (1962)'...It is very unlikely that with the adjective dead (νεκρός) a noun such as works (cf. Heb. vi. I) should be supplied. Throughout this chapter (and in Paul usually) ‘the dead’ are dead men. It is equally unlikely that on behalf of (ὺπέρ) is to be taken in a local sense, and that the reference is to baptism carried out over the dead, that is, over their graves. The most common view is that Paul is referring to some kind of vicarious baptism, in which a Christian received baptism on behalf of someone, perhaps a friend or relative, who had died without being baptized. There is evidence for some such rite among various heretics (among other quotations Lietzmann cites Chrysostom, on this passage: ‘When a catechumen among them [the Marcionites] dies, they hide a living man under the dead man’s bed, approach the dead man, speak with him, and ask if he wished to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer the man who is hidden underneath says instead of him that he wishes to be baptized, and so they baptize him instead of the departed), and there were precedents in Greek religious practices, though not close precedents (see Schweitzer, 'Mysticism', pp. 283 f.). Stauffer lays great stress on 2 Acc. xii. 40-5. Apart however from 1 Corinthians there is no evidence that a rite of this kind arose as early as the 50’s of the first century. This does not make it impossible; many strange things happened in Corinth. But would Paul have approved of it? It is true that in this verse he neither approves nor disapproves, and it may be held that he is simply using an argumenatum ad hominem: if the Corinthians have this practice they destroy their own case against the resurrection. This is the view held by some, and it is possible; but it is more likely that Paul would not have mentioned a practice he thought to be in error without condemning it. Of those who accept this position some draw the conclusion that vicarious baptism cannot be in Paul’s mind, others that, if he did not practice the custom himself, he at least saw no harm in it, since he too held an ex opere operato view of baptism that bordered on the magical…The idea of vicarious baptism (which is that most naturally suggested by the words used) is usually supposed to be bound up with what some would call a high sacramental, others a magical, view of baptism. Immersion in water is supposed to operate so effectively that it matters little (it seems) what body is immersed. The immersion of a living body can secure benefits to a dead man (at any rate, a dead catechumen). This however was not Paul’s view. He did not himself give close attention to baptism (i. 14-17), and though it is probable that most of the members of his churches were baptized it is quite possible that some of the Corinthian Christians had not been baptized, and by no means impossible (even if we do not, with Rissi, think of an epidemic or an accident) that a number of them may have died in this condition. There was no question of making these persons Christians; they were Christians, even though unbaptized. But baptism was was powerful proclamation of death and resurrection, and in this setting it is not impossible to conceive of a rite—practiced, it may be, only once—which Paul, though he evidently took no steps to establish it as normal Christian usage, need not actively have disapproved. And what would be the sense of it, if the dead are not raised?"
• Stephen C. Barton: "…Paul adds further ad hominem arguments against those who deny the resurrection of the dead (cf. 15:12). …the Corinthians’ own ritual practice (of surrogate baptism on behalf of the dead, a suggestive analogy for which appears in 2 Acc 12:43-45) testifies abasing denial of the resurrection of the dead and would be rendered meaningless apart from resurrection faith (15:29)."
• Richard E. Demaris: "The isolated character of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its literary context and the lack of indicators in the verse as to the nature of the rite make it all too easy to propose a range of grammatically possible translations. But the highly speculative interpretations that result only underscore the need to place the text (and practice described therein) in the fullest possible context. Behind all attempts to remove vicarious action from baptism for the dead, one senses uneasiness about Paul or the early church’s association with a rite that appears to be 'superstitious' or 'magical' (Raeder 1955: 258–9; Rissi 1962: 89–92). (Understood vicariously, the practice would affirm that the living can ritually affect the dead.) But who is feeling the discomfort? Paul himself maintained that family members could act vicariously for each other (1 Cor 7:14), and he recognized an efficacy in eucharist that certainly appears to be 'magical' (Sellin 1986: 278; M. Smith 1980: 248): 'Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.' (1 Cor 11:28–30)...[The culture of Greco-Roman society was one] in which aiding the dead was all-important and which assumed that the world of the living could affect the world of the dead. In such a culture baptism undertaken by the living for the dead would have made perfect sense…At the very least, the adaptability of funerals to non-funerary situations opens the door to finding baptism other than where we might expect to find it, at the threshold of the church. Furthermore, two extraordinary types of funeral are noteworthy for how they elucidate baptism on behalf of the dead: (1) a replacement or substitute rite performed vicariously for the dead; and (2) funerals for the living. Both applications are imaginary rites, whose context indicates whether we further qualify them as honorary or mock. This, then, is the language for baptism on behalf of the dead that is both contextually and ritually sensitive: it was an imaginary rite of the honorary type...Isolating baptism for the dead, as Meeks did, made it mystifying to him (Meeks 1983: 162), but placing it in context has the opposite effect. Set alongside funerals for the living – those of Turannius and Pacuvius – baptism for the dead does not appear mysterious. In terms of who undergoes them, both rites reverse ordinary practice. Likewise, in light of surrogate or replacement funerals in which a person or community carried out a rite for someone in absentia – for Pertinax and the Lanuvium burial club member whose body could not be recovered – baptism on behalf of the dead falls within the typical range of ritual variation in the Greco-Roman world. In the context of other rites, therefore, baptism for the dead is, contrary to what New Testament scholars claim, not obscure."
• James D.G. Dunn: "Similarly he accepts a diversity of belief about baptism (1.10-16; 15.29). He does not insist on the sole legitimacy of his own view or of a particular view of baptism. Instead he plays down the role of baptism; it is kerygma that matters not baptism (1.17). And though in 10.1-12 he is probably arguing against a magical view of baptism, in 15.29 he shows no disapproval of the belief in vicarious baptism, baptism for the dead; on the contrary he uses the practice as an argument for the belief in resurrection...I Cor. 15.29 probably refers to a practice of vicari­ous baptism whereby the baptism of one was thought to secure the salvation of another already dead. Here then is indication of influ­ences shaping the theology of baptism and developing views of bap­tism which are far removed from anything we have already examined. And yet Paul addresses those who held such views as members of the Christian community in Corinth – these views were held also by Christians. In other words, as soon as we move outside that sphere of Christianity most influenced by the Baptist’s inheritance the diver­sity of Christian thinking about baptism broadens appreciably."
• Gordon D. Fee: "First, as already noted (n. 15), this unusual use of the third person plural, when elsewhere Paul always turns such references into a word to the community as a whole (e.g., vv. 12-13, 35-36), suggests that it is not the action of the whole community. On the other hand, there is no reason to deny that it was happening with the full knowledge of the community and probably with their approval. Second, Paul’s apparently noncommittal attitude toward it, while not implying approval, would seem to suggest that he did not consider it to be as serious a fault as most interpreters do. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine any circumstances under which Paul would think it permissible for living Christians to be baptized for the sake of unbelievers in general. Such a view, adopted in part by the Mormons, lies totally outside the NT understanding both of salvation and of baptism.[Fee is an evagelical scholar and thus is less open to scholarship that would support Latter-day Saints. There actually isn't evidence to support this view. See how he hedges in suggestion "(b) below.] Therefore, the most likely options are (a) that it reflects some believers’ being baptized for others who either were or were on their way to becoming believers when they died (e.g., as in 11:30), but had never been baptized; or (b) that it reflects the concern of members of households for some of their own number who had died before becoming believers. What they may have expected to gain from it is not quite clear, but one may guess that at least they believed baptism to be necessary for entering the final eschatological kingdom. In any case, and everything must be understood as tentative, this probably reflects the Corinthian attitude toward baptism in general, since 1:13-17 and 10:1-22 imply a rather strongly sacramental stance toward baptism on their part, with some apparently magical implications. Perhaps they believed that along with the gift of the Spirit baptism was their 'magical' point of entrance into the new pneumatism that seems to have characterized them at every turn. If so, then perhaps some of them were being baptized for others because they saw it as a way of offering similar spirituality to the departed. But finally we must admit that we simply do not know.[Interesting thing to conclude with considering his assertion before about Latter-day Saints.]
• Rolf Furuli: "There can be no question that the most natural rendering of 'baptizomenoi huper tōn nekrōn' would be 'being baptized for the dead' or 'being baptized in behalf of the dead.' In almost every other context, such a rendering would have been chosen."
• David Bentley Hart: "The practice of Christians receiving baptism on behalf of other persons who died unbaptized was evidently a common enough practice in the apostolic church that Paul can use it as a support of his argument without qualification. And the form of the Greek (ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν [hyper tōn nekrōn]) leaves no doubt that it is to just such a posthumous proxy baptism that he is referring."
• Scott M. Lewis: "Verse 29 is one of the most vigorously disputed passages in the NT. On the surface, it seems rather simple. Using the statement of the opposition as a springboard—there is no resurrection—Paul points to the inconsistency and futility of a practice of the Corinthians, i.e., being baptized on behalf of the dead. Despite the numerous attempts to explain this passage away, or get out of the difficulties and discomfort it causes, it seems better to accept the obvious surface meaning of the passage: Some Corinthians practiced a form of vicarious baptism. What is meant exactly by that, and when and under what circumstances it was practiced is impossible to answer…"
• Andrew T. Lincoln: "With regard to the problematic verse 29 it is likely that the Corinthians’ confusion is at the root of the practice which has produced an even greater confusion among later commentators. One could guess that with their bewilderment about the fate of those who had died and their strong faith in the efficacy of baptism, some Corinthians were practising a baptism for the dead which they believed might still somehow ensure a place in the kingdom for deceased believers. An ad hominem argument by the apostle points out the futility of such a practice if the dead are not raised."
• Steve Mason and Tom Robinson: "The only reference among 1st-century Christian writings to proxy baptism on behalf of those who have died without having been baptized. Myriad alternative explanations that have been proposed reflect more the interpreters’ discomfort with the plain meaning of the words than any linguistic ambiguity. Paul simply uses this example without explanation and quickly discards it (see the angels of 11:10). We have no opportunity to determine what he thinks of the custom."
• Leon Morris: "This reference to baptism for (hyper) the dead is a notorious difficulty. The most natural meaning of the expression is that some early believers got themselves baptized on behalf of friends of theirs who had died without receiving that sacrament. Thus Parry says: 'The plain and necessary sense of the words implies the existence of a practice of vicarious baptism at Corinth, presumably on behalf of believers who died before they were baptized.' He stigmatizes all other interpretations as 'evasions . . . wholly due to the unwillingness to admit such a practice, and still more to a reference to it by S. Paul without condemnation.'
• John J. O'Rourke: "Nevertheless many ancient and most modern writers understand this as a vicarious baptism received by baptized Christians on belief of deceased catechumens. The obvious difficulty is that Paul does not appear to offer any objection to this practice, so prevalent later among heretics."
• William F. Orr and James A. Walther: "The allusion to the idea and/or practice of baptism on behalf of the dead is unique in the New Testament in this passage. . . . Close inspection of the language of the reference makes all attempts to soften or eliminate its literal meaning unsuccessful. An endeavor to understand the dead as persons who are 'dead in sin' does not really help; for the condition offered, if the dead are not being raised at all, makes it clear that the apostle is writing about persons who are physically dead. It appears that under the pressure of concern for the eternal destiny of dead relatives or friends[,] some people in the church were undergoing baptism on their behalf in the belief that this would enable the dead to receive the benefits of Christ’s salvation. Paul remarks about the practice without specifying who or how many are involved and without identifying himself with them. He attaches neither praise nor blame to the custom. He does take it as an illustration of faith in a future destiny of the dead."
• Stephen E. Potthoff: "Cult of the ancestral dead in classical Greece has been thoroughly documented, and scholars have also identified the early Christian ritual of baptism for the dead mentioned by the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 15.29) as an outgrowth of the longstanding cult of the departed in Corinth (Garland 1985: 107–120; Johnston 1999: 36–81; DeMaris 1995: 663–671)."
• Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright: "One of the most controversial and difficult texts in all of Pauline literature is the reference to baptism for the dead. It is not my purpose to canvas the various interpretations proposed, nor does the view argued for in this essay depend in any way upon the interpretation proposed here. What the verse suggests, however, is that baptism was considered to be indispensable for believers. The plethora of interpretations indicates that the original meaning of the verse is not easily accessible to modern readers. The difficulty of the verse is not entirely surprising, for Paul does not explain the meaning of baptism here, but instead appeals to the baptism of the dead in support his theology of the resurrection. Any baptism performed for the sake of the dead is superfluous, Paul argues, if the dead are not raised. Strictly speaking, Paul does not praise or condemn the practice of baptism for the dead, and hence a theology of baptism for the dead can scarcely be established from this verse. It seems most likely, in my judgment, that baptism for the dead was practiced when someone became a believer and died very quickly thereafter—before baptism was possible. What this verse suggests, despite its obscurity, is the importance of baptism. Baptism was considered to be the standard initiation rite for early Christians, and hence some believers at Corinth thought that baptism should be done for the sake of the dead."
• John Short: "The point is that there would be no sense in the procedure if there were no resurrection. Whatever doubts some members of the church had concerning it, there were others who were such firm believers in the Resurrection that they submitted to this rite of vicarious baptism on behalf of certain of the brethren, probably catechumens, who had passed away before they had been baptized and received into the full membership of the church. Perhaps also they had a feeling, natural enough at that stage of Christian understanding among those who had so recently been pagans, that unbaptized believers at the resurrection would not be so near to their Lord as those who had undergone the rite. Or they may have done it to ensure as far as possible that nothing would be lacking in respect of the eternal bliss of the redeemed. At its best, the vicarious ceremony was a tribute to the spirit of fellowship, of unity, and of solidarity in the community, and as such it would be sure to commend itself to Paul. There are still some survivals of this ancient Christian practice, though in the main it has fallen into disuse. In a sense it might be compared with prayers offered for the dead. They too may for some signify the deep spiritual solidarity of the Christian fellowship in heaven and on earth, in which all are one in Christ Jesus. Whatever the effect of such practices on the joy of the saints in heaven, they do reflect a kindly, generous, and Christian spirit on the part of those on earth in the desire for the continued and increasing wellbeing of those who have passed beyond the veil. Perhaps it is well to leave the matter there. Paul is content to do so, merely pointing to this ancient rite, and incidentally giving us another glimpse into the customary procedures of the early Christian fellowship as they illustrated the truth of the Resurrection. If Christ is not raised, and if therefore no resurrection of the dead, what could such baptism mean?"
• William Tabbernee: "In mainstream Christian circles, 'vicarious baptism' may have been practiced as early as the time of St. Paul (1 Cor 15:29). It was almost certainly practiced, from the second century C.E. onwards, by the Cerinthians.
• James D. Tabor: "For Paul baptism is not a symbolic ritual but a powerful spiritual activity that effected real change in the cosmos. Paul, for example, refers to some who 'baptized in behalf of the dead,' evidently referring to a practice of proxy baptism for loved ones who had died before experiencing their own baptism (1 Corinthians 15:29). Whether Paul endorsed the practice or not we cannot be sure, but it would be unlike Paul to refrain from condemning a practice he did not at least tolerate. After all, there is a sense in which all baptism is 'for the dead' since it represents a 'burial' of the dying mortal flesh in preparation for receiving the life-giving Spirit. Whatever the case, this practice of 'baptism for the dead' shows just how efficacious the activity was understood to be as a means of invoking the Christ-Spirit—even for those who had died!"
• Jeffrey A. Trumbower: "Paul alludes to a practice of some Corinthian Christians in 1 Cor. 15:29, 'Then what are they doing, those who are baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised, why are they baptized on their behalf?' Paul does not here object to this practice, whatever it is, and he uses it to convince the Corinthians that if they are baptized on behalf of the dead, they must also believe in the resurrection as Paul understands it. Enormous vats of ink have been emptied in both pre-critical and critical scholarship speculating on precisely what those Corinthian Christians were doing, why they were doing it, and Paul’s attitude toward it. A thorough 51-page survey of opinion from the second century down to 1962 was assembled by Mathis Rissi; there is no need to rehearse that entire history here. I agree with Rissi and Hans Conzelmann (and, for that matter, with Mormon prophet Joseph Smith), that the grammar and logic of the passage point to a practice of vicarious baptism of a living person for the benefit of a dead person."

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Baptized for the Dead"

Kevin L. Barney,  Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (August 31, 2020)

This thorough treatment of the mention of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29 gives a meticulous analysis of Paul’s Greek argument, and lays out the dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of theories that have been put forth with respect to its interpretation. Barney concludes that “the most natural reading” and the “majority contemporary scholarly reading” is that of “vicarious baptism.” Therefore, “the Prophet Joseph Smith’s reading of the passage to refer to such a practice was indeed correct.”

Click here to view the complete article

Question: What are the common objections to a belief in God's corporeality?

Most other Christians interpret the Bible differently than we do on this point

Obviously, most other Christians interpret the Bible differently than we do on this point, and they put forward several standard objections to this kind of “anthropomorphism.” However, these objections do not hold up under close scrutiny. This will be shown for several common objections to the LDS doctrine, most of which can be found in a tract published by Catholic Answers, Inc., entitled, Does God Have a Body?

Objection: “Being ‘in the image of God’ means humans have a rational soul.”

“And God said, Let us make man in our image [Hebrew tselem], after our likeness [Hebrew demuth]” (Genesis 1:26). This statement in the first chapter of the Bible seems pretty clear to Latter-day Saints. However, our fellow Christians will often say that this is to be interpreted figuratively, in the sense that humans have “rational souls,” which set us apart from the animals. However, just a few chapters later the author of Genesis repeats "God created man, in the likeness [Hebrew demuth] of God made he him" and then adds some interesting commentary about the birth of Adam's son Seth: "And Adam lived an hundred thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness [Hebrew demuth], after his image [Hebrew tselem]; and called his name Seth” (Genesis 5:1-3).

Adam was created in God’s image and likeness, and one of Adam’s sons had Adam’s image and likeness. Exactly the same words were used to describe both scenarios by the same prophetic author only one verse apart. Either Adam looked like God, or Seth was the only one of Adam’s sons who possessed a “rational soul.” If there is a good reason to interpret one passage in one way, and the other in another way, the critics must provide it. Only a prior commitment to refusing to see man in the form of God (or God in the form of a man) would lead one to interpret the terms differently.

Objection: “The Bible also says God has wings, etc. ”

Of course, it is true that the Biblical writers employed numerous metaphors when talking about God. However, just because some statements about God are metaphorical doesn’t mean that every statement is. When the Psalmist speaks of God covering us with His feathers, and giving refuge under His wings, the metaphor is completely clear. As Jesus said, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matthew 23:37.) Exactly what is the metaphorical interpretation of God’s “back parts” that Moses saw? When Stephen reported his vision, the text gives no clue as to any metaphorical interpretation; he simply reported what he saw, as did the others.

Objection: John 4:24 says, “God is a Spirit."

See also: FAIR Wiki article God is a Spirit

There are several problems with this objection. First, Paul wrote, “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:17). To say that God is “a spirit” is grammatically equivalent to the statement that a man joined to the Lord is “one spirit,” and yet, Christians obviously have bodies as well as spirits.

Second, there are no indefinite articles (“a” or “an”) in ancient Greek, so the passage can be translated “God is a Spirit” or “God is Spirit.” Most modern translations have chosen the latter, because John’s statement “God is Spirit” is parallel to two passages in his first epistle, “God is light” (1 Jn 1:5) and “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8). In context, all of these passages seem to be referring to God’s activity toward men rather than to the nature of His “Being,” and of course we would never say that God is “a love” or “a light.”

Furthermore, Christopher Stead of the Cambridge Divinity School (another non-Mormon scholar) explains how such statements would have been interpreted within ancient Judaism:

By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body … but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure.

It must always be remembered that the Bible was written by Hebrews, and the New Testament writers were all Jews. We saw at the beginning of this article that the Hebrews consistently pictured God in human form.

As another commentator noted:

That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God's being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than 1 Jn 1:5, "God is light," or Deuteronomy 4:24, "Your God is a devouring fire." It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship.

Finally, Latter-day Saints do not believe that “spirit” is incorporeal (i.e. “without substance”), and neither did the earliest Christians. The great Protestant historian, Adolf von Harnack, wrote,

God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as the later controversies prove.

For instance, the great Christian writer, Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.) wrote,

For who will deny that God is a body, although ‘God is a Spirit?’ For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form.

Why did Christians start believing otherwise? J.W.C. Wand, a historian and former Anglican bishop of London, writes that one of the Greek philosophical schools (Neoplatonism), which was popular in the days of the Roman Empire, exerted a particular influence in this respect. (See below for more information about the influence of the Greek philosophers.):

It is easy to see what influence this school of thought [Neoplatonism] must have had upon Christian leaders. It was from it that they learnt what was involved in a metaphysical sense by calling God a Spirit. They were also helped to free themselves from their primitive eschatology and to get rid of that crude anthropomorphism which made even Tertullian believe that God had a material body.

Objection: Christians have always believed that God is an unchangeable, simple, immaterial spirit essence.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Origen (circa A.D. 225) wrote,

For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood—whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies—a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching.

Origen (who did not believe in corporeality) nevertheless admitted there was considerable confusion among Christians of that era about this very question, but why?

Origen gives us another clue in a sermon on the book of Genesis:

The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions.

The Jews, and Christians who followed the standard Jewish interpretations, believed that God had a body in human form. Why did Origen reject this? Simply because the philosophers thought it was silly. For instance, the Middle Platonist philosopher Plutarch wrote the following:

Socrates and Plato held that (God is) the One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good: and all this variety of names points immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passible [i.e. changeable].

Another Greek philosopher, Empedocles (ca. 444 B.C.) claimed that God

does not possess a head and limbs similar to those of humans…[He is] a spirit, a holy and inexpressible one.

Greek converts to Christianity wanted to make their faith more appealing to people in their own culture, and so they adopted a definition of God from the Greek philosophers, whose thought was widely respected at the time. The temptation is always there to make one’s faith more popular by “modernizing” it, but the Apostle Paul had warned against exactly this kind of thing. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). What was the “philosophy” current in Paul’s day? Greek philosophy. Similarly, Father Jean Daniélou, a Catholic historian and later a Cardinal, wrote that,

If we now examine the forms of thought and philosophical systems current at the time when Christianity first made its appearance in the world, it is clear that they were by no means ready to assimilate this Christian conception: on the contrary, they were wholly antagonistic thereto.

However, within a few generations that had all changed, and philosophy ruled Christian theology. Latter-day Saints understand this process as one consequence of the Great Apostasy.

Objection: John 1:18 says, “No man has seen God at any time.”

See also: FAIR Wiki article: No_man_has_seen_God

Some mainstream Christians object that the passages in the Bible that describe God’s human form must be taken figuratively, because Jesus said, “No man has seen God at any time” (John 1:18). Similarly, God told Moses, “there shall no man see me, and live” (Exodus 33:20). Of course, God said that to Moses right before he told him that He would pass by so Moses could see His “back parts,” but not his face (Exodus 33:21-23), and God was angry at the time, so it may have been a special circumstance. Still, this presents an odd problem, considering the number of times the Bible reports that people did see God. Samuel Meier, Associate Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Semitics at Ohio State University, writes of this problem:

A deity’s physical manifestation is seen by human beings. The appearance of gods and their involvement with humans are common motifs in ancient Near Eastern and classical mythology. That similar phenomena are found in the Bible seems problematic at first, for a persistent tradition in the Hebrew Bible affirmed that death comes to any human who sees God (Genesis 16:13; Genesis 32:30; Genesis 24:10-11; Genesis 33:20; Deuteronomy 5:24-26; Deuteronomy 18:16; Judges 6:22-23; Judges 13:22; cf Exodus 20:19; Isaiah 6:5). In most of these contexts, however, the narration undermines this sentiment by depicting the pleasant surprise of those who survive. The text presents this perspective as a misperception to which human beings subscribe, for no humans in the Bible ever die simply because they have seen God. On the contrary, throughout the Bible God wants to communicate intimately with humans. The problem of how God can adequately show himself to humankind without harm is a conundrum that is never really resolved in the Bible.

Latter-day Saints can harmonize these passages with those that describe visions of the Father by referring to Moses’ vision of God, as described in the Pearl of Great Price. “And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence … [Moses said] For behold, I could not look upon God, except his glory should come upon me, and I were transfigured before him” (Moses 1꞉2,14). An identical solution is offered by Peter in an early (second or third century) Jewish Christian work called the Clementine Homilies:

For I maintain that the eyes of mortals cannot see the incorporeal form of the Father or Son, because it is illumined by exceeding great light … For he who sees God cannot live. For the excess of light dissolves the flesh of him who sees; unless by the secret power of God the flesh be changed into the nature of light, so that it can see light.

In the same document, another conversation between Peter and Simon Magus is reported:

And Simon said: ‘I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God.’ And Peter said: ‘I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case … It is the shape of the just God.

The point of these passages is not that no one has or will have a vision of God’s person, but rather that men cannot see God as He is. We must be changed and protected by the grace of God to withstand His presence, and even then we cannot fully comprehend His majesty. However, this will not always be the case. As John further wrote, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn:3).

Question: Does the doctrine that God has a physical body contradict the Bible?

A growing consensus of scholars recognizes that God, as depicted in the Bible, is embodied

The overwhelming academic consensus is that God, as depicted in the Bible, is embodied. Several books that you can read bare this out:

• Kamionkowski, S. Tamar and Wonil Kim, eds. Bodies, Embodiment, and Theology of the Hebrew Bible. New York: T&T Clark International, 2010.
• Halton, Charles. A Human-Shaped God: Theology of an Embodied God. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021.
• Wilson, Brittany E. The Embodied God: Seeing the Divine in Luke-Acts and the Early Church. New York: Oxford University Press, 2021.
• Wagner, Andreas. God's Body: The Anthropomorphic God in the Old Testament. Trans. Marion Salzmann. New York: T&T Clark, 2019.
• Markschies, Christoph. God's Body: Jewish, Christian, and Pagan Images of God. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019.
• Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
• Stavarakopolou, Francesca. God: An Anatomy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2021.

This last book, God: An Anatomy, was helpfully reviewed by Latter-day Saint scholar and apologist Daniel C. Peterson. Peterson commends and gives some cautions regarding the book that may apply more generally to the books just listed. We recommend seeing his review cited below.

It is incorrect to imply that God cannot be in human form, since a fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus is God, made flesh

Mormons believe that God has a physical body and human form. Does scripture which says that "God is not a man" (e.g. Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Hosea 11:9) contradict this idea?

These scriptures read (emphasis added):

• "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man [i.e., a human being], that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" - Numbers 23:19
• "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent." - 1 Samuel 15:29
• I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city. - Hosea 11:9

The first passage, in Numbers, not only says that "God is not a man", but it also says that God is not "the son of man." If a Christian were to claim from this passage that God is not a man, they would have to consistently claim that God is also not a "son of man." This of course contradicts many New Testament statements about Jesus (who is God) to the contrary. Though there are many examples, one should suffice. Jesus says, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matthew 12:40 Therefore, we know that the passage from Numbers is not suggesting that God is fundamentally not a "son of man", but rather that God is not a "son of man" in the sense that God doesn't have need for repentance. The next logical step requires us to conclude that the passage is not suggesting that God is fundamentally "not a man", but that God is not a man in the sense that God does not lie.

These verses say nothing about the nature or form of God—they merely assert that God is not like man in certain ways

God will not lie or change his declared course, unlike humans. As the NET translation of 1 Samuel says, "The Preeminent One of Israel does not go back on his word or change his mind, for he is not a human being who changes his mind.”

It is incorrect to imply that God cannot be in human form—the fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus is God, made flesh. One would have to assume that these verses also apply to Jesus, when they clearly do not. Jesus may be in human form, but he will not sin, or change his mind from doing his father's will.

Question: Why do the Latter-day Saints believe God has a body?

Latter-day Saints believe God has a body in human form simply because our scriptures and our prophets unanimously testify on this point

One thing that sets Latter-day Saints apart from nearly all of the rest of Christianity is the doctrine that God the Father possesses a body in human form. In fact, many of our Christian brothers and sisters see this belief as positively strange, and some even question our claim to the title “Christian” because of it.

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man’s; the Son also” (D&C 130꞉22).

In other words, if we want to know what kind of being God is, who better to believe than those who have actually seen Him? There are multiple Biblical examples, such as:

• the prophet Ezekiel, who described his vision of God by saying he saw “high above all, upon the throne, a form in human likeness” (Ezekiel 1:26, New English Bible.).
• Stephen, whose last words were, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56.).
• John, who saw God sitting on the throne in heaven (Revelation 4:2).
• Moses was not allowed to see God’s face in one vision (God was angry at the Israelites at the time), but God said he would “cover thee with my hand while I pass by; and I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen” (Exodus 33:22-23).
• Moses did see God previously, however: “the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend” (Exodus 33:11).
• Jacob “wrestled a man” one night in the wilderness, and after this encounter “Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [Hebrew for “the face of God”]: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved” (Genesis 32:24-32).

Some of these references may refer to visions of God the Son, but some of them, like Stephen’s and John’s, certainly refer to the person of the Father.

Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College (a non-Mormon scholar) summarizes this phenomenon as follows:

In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic (i.e. “in the form of man”)—not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly.

Christopher Stead (another non-Mormon scholar) of the Cambridge Divinity School agrees that

The Hebrews…pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures.

The LDS doctrine of God’s embodiment rests primarily on eyewitness testimony. We believe God has a body in human form because everyone who has seen Him has described Him in this way.

Question: What Biblical scriptures discuss the doctrine of the deification of man?

Theosis or deification is discussed in the following biblical scriptures

• Psalm 82:5-6 (cf. John 10:34-36)
• Daniel 12:3
• Matthew 5:48 (cf. Luke 6:40)
• Matthew 24:45-47
• Acts 17:29
• Romans 8:16-17,32
• 2 Corinthians 3:18
• 1 Corinthians 15:49
• 2 Corinthians 8:9
• Galatians 4:7
• Philippians 3:14-15
• Philippians 3:20-21
• Hebrews 12:23
• 1 Jn 3:1-2
• 1 Peter 3:7
• 2 Peter 1:4
• Revelation 3:21
• Revelation 21:7

In regard to the Mormon doctrine, non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz has observed:

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.

For more quotes about theosis see: Primary sources:Theosis

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Latter-day Saint scripture

Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ	The Holy Bible Book of Mormon Doctrine and Covenants Pearl of Great Price Book of Moses Book of Abraham The Family: A Proclamation to the World
Nature of scripture	Open vs closed canon Understanding revelation
Interpretation of scripture	Tips for studying scripture Leaders on scripture interpretation Common issues in interpretation and proof-texting Alleged contradictions in scripture Violence in the scriptures Slavery in the scriptures Sexism in the scriptures Racism and the scriptures

Specific alleged contradictions in scripture

The challenge of Latter-day Saint scripture and an open canon to the rest of the christian world means that there is a long history of polemics targeted at the Church of Jesus Christ. These are well-worn "chestnuts" and standard biblical issues that have been repeatedly "asked and answered" for Latter-day Saints over nearly two centuries.

Table summary

The supposed contradictions arise from 1) misinterpretation, 2) comparing two verses when are speaking of different things and 3) reading Protestant meanings into scriptural terminology

Many conservative Protestant critics have reproduced a table which purports to show how LDS scripture contradicts itself.

The table below examines the supposed contradictions, presents the scriptures cited in context, and demonstrates that claims of contradiction rest on:

1. a misinterpretation of LDS scripture
2. comparing two verses which are speaking about different things
3. reading Protestant meanings into scriptural terminology

Supposed Contradictions in LDS scripture

Number	Column A: Book of Mormon...	Column B: "Contrasting" scripture...	Response and Comments
1	One God 2 Nephi 31꞉21 Alma 11꞉27-39,44 3 Nephi 11꞉27 Mormon 7꞉7	Plural Gods D&C 121꞉32 D&C 132꞉18-20,37	The scriptures in Column A all state that there is "One God" consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Column B scriptures explain the nature of this oneness. Protestant critics do not like the fact that Latter-day Saints reject the nonbiblical Nicene Creed, which teaches a oneness of substance. Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see John 17꞉22-23). To learn more: Godhead and the Trinity
2	God is a Spirit Alma 18꞉26-28 Alma 22꞉8-11	God Has A Body D&C 130꞉22	The scriptures in Column A describe missionary efforts to teach the pagan Lamanites about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Missionaries begin their efforts by explaining that what the Lamanites called "The Great Spirit" was God. This is not an attempt to give a theological description of God's nature, but to build on common beliefs. To the Lamanites, being "The Great Spirit" did not preclude being corporeal—Ammon was mistaken for the great spirit, and yet he clearly had a body, could perform physical actions, etc. So, the concept of "spirit" used by the Lamanites is not (as the critics assume) the same as the "spirit" of Nicene trinitarianism. The God to which the Column A scriptures refer is Jesus Christ, or Jehovah. In LDS doctrine, Jesus Christ was a premortal spirit that did not yet have a physical body when the scriptures in Column A were given. Thus, the description of Christ as a Spirit was accurate before His birth even in LDS terms. To learn more Book of Mormon teaches God is a spirit? Premortal Jesus divine without physical body God is a Spirit God has a physical body
3	God dwells in the heart Alma 34꞉36 ...35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. 36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell....	God does not dwell in the heart D&C 130꞉3 The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse [John 14:23], is a personal appearance; the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man's heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false."	Column B explains that when Jesus says that He and the Father will "make our abode" with those who "keep my words," this means that the righteous may physically behold them. It targets the false idea that God does not have any physicality, and cannot be seen. Column A describes the fact that the spirit of Satan or the Spirit of the Lord (i.e., the Holy Ghost) will "possess" or influence mortals depending upon their choices. The Holy Ghost can dwell in the heart of man, since he is a spirit (see 2 Timothy 1:14 and D&C 130꞉22). It is telling that the supposed "contradiction" is explained later in section 130, but the critics ignore it.
4	One God creates 2 Nephi 2꞉14 Jacob 4꞉9 Moses 2	Multiple Gods create Abraham 3-4	As discussed in point #1, LDS doctrine sees God as one, but not one in substance. In LDS doctrine, God may be properly spoken of as one and as consisting of more than one person or being. This is not a contradiction; it merely demonstrates that the Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene trinitarianism. To learn more Multiple versus single creators? Godhead and the Trinity
5	God Cannot Lie 2 Nephi 9꞉34 Ether 3꞉12	God Commands Lying Abraham 2꞉22-25 ...22 And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon; 23 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise: 24 Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live. 25 And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee.	Abraham misled the Egyptians by not disclosing all the facts. He did not disclose that Sarai was his wife. It was, however, true that she was his sister—more specifically, she was what anthropologists call a "parallel cousin," who under Jewish levirate law was considered his sister. Conservative protestant critics are disingenuous in posing this question, since Abraham twice uses this tactic in the Bible (though God is not said to explicitly command it). God no where condemns Abraham for this supposed "lie." Furthermore, the explanation for Abraham's claim is also included in the Bible—see Genesis 11:25-29 and Genesis 20꞉11-12). The Bible also contains similar examples of God commanding a prophet to make a "strictly true" statement intended to deceive the wicked and protect the lives of the innocent, and other cases in which God ratified a decision to withhold the truth to save innocents.
6	God's Word Unchangeable Alma 41꞉8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.	God's Word Can Change Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord. D&C 56꞉4-5	Column A speaks of "decrees of God"—the commandments which God has given about how to return to him, and the consequences for disobedience. The speaker is the prophet Alma, addressing a sinful son who has left the ministry in pursuit of a harlot. Column B notes that humans may be in changing circumstances. Thus, God may give specific commands in one situation, and different commands in a different situation necessary for carrying out His work. God will not force men to obey—if some disobey, then God may need to alter commands. If he tells John to go on a mission, and John refuses, then God may need to "reassign" someone else to carry out John's former task. As the scripture says, the consequences of this will "be answered upon the heads of the rebellious"—there is still a penalty for disobedience, but God's plans cannot be thwarted by mortal disobedience. Neither scripture mentions "God's word" (which conservative Protestants would associate with scripture), but this terminology allows the critic to give the misleading impression that the verses are discussing the alteration of scripture, instead of on-going revelation adapted to the good and bad choices which mortals make.
7	No Pre-Existence of Man Jacob 4꞉9 For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure? Alma 18꞉28,34-36 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?....34 Ammon said unto him: I am a man; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God, and I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people, that they may be brought to a knowledge of that which is just and true;	Pre-Existence D&C 93꞉23,29-33 Abraham 3꞉21-23	The scriptures in Column A say nothing about pre-mortal existence. Jacob 4 asserts that God spoke and created man's body "upon the face of the earth." Alma says that man's body was created after the image of God. None of these says anything about a pre-existence. Abraham 4꞉27 goes on to describe the creation of the body of mankind after the image of God—the same doctrines taught in column A. This criticism assumes creation out of nothing—creatio ex nihilo—another unbiblical doctrine which conservative Protestants criticize Latter-day Saints for not accepting. For the critics, any creation must be ex nihilo creation; Latter-day Saint doctrine does not require this. To learn more: Creatio ex nihilo
8	Death seals man's fate Mosiah 2꞉36-39 And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom's paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved—I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples. Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. Alma 34꞉32-35 32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors. 33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. 34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. 35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.	Chance for repentance after death D&C 128꞉5	Column A scriptures speak of those who have had the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, and have rejected it. Such people lose their chance for exaltation in LDS doctrine (see D&C 76꞉73-78). They are those who "have known and...been taught all these things....[coming] out in open rebellion against God." Alma cautions those who "have had so many witnesses" against putting off the repentance and conversion which they know they need to undertake. Column B describes those who have never had this opportunity. If one cannot accept the gospel beyond the grave, then all those who have not heard of Christ in this life must be damned for all eternity—the critics may be comfortable with such an outcome, but the Latter-day Saints do not believe that a merciful God would condemn His children for that which they never had the full chance to receive.
9	Heathen Saved Without Baptism 2 Nephi 9꞉25-26 Mosiah 15꞉24-27 Moroni 8꞉22-23	Baptism for the Dead D&C 128꞉5,17-18	The scriptures in column B explain how the results in column A are accomplished. The heathen who choose to accept Christ will be saved, without baptism in their mortal life, because of vicarious baptism in their behalf, which they may accept or reject. The scriptures are clear that without baptism, no one may be saved (John 3꞉5). Yet, the majority who have lived on the earth have not had the opportunity for baptism. Without vicarious baptism and preaching Christ in the post-mortal world, God would be said to eternally damn the majority of mankind for something they never had the chance to receive. Note: 2 Nephi is not necessarily targeted at "the heathen"—it is targeted at those who have not been given the law. The Book of Mormon teaches elsewhere that all normal people have the spirit of Christ given them, and know good from evil (Moroni 7꞉16). "Heathen" peoples would still be responsible for the degree to which they observed the law which they had been given through the spirit of Christ, and would require forgiveness of sins against that law—through Christ and post-mortal acceptance of vicarious ordinances. Those who have not received any law would probably be restricted to little children, and others with physical or mental handicaps that render them essentially "child-like." Note: Moroni 8 is likewise discussing little children and others who have no law, not necessarily "the heathen." To learn more: Baptism for the dead
10	Only options are heaven or hell 1 Nephi 15꞉35 2 Nephi 28꞉22 Mosiah 16꞉11 Mosiah 27꞉31 Alma 41꞉4-8 Alma 42꞉16	Three degrees of glory, with most people "saved" D&C 76꞉43,70-112	The Book of Mormon teaches that one must accept Christ's sacrifice, or be damned: its focus is on either exaltation, or damnation. The Doctrine and Covenants explains how those who do not accept exaltation through Christ are judged according to their works. All who do not fully accept Christ will be blocked ("damned") from receiving some of the gifts which they could have enjoyed. Yet, it would be unjust for God to impose identical punishment on the vast range of human sins. The Book of Mormon focuses the new or potential Christian on the absolute necessity of accepting Christ and His gospel. The Doctrine and Covenants explains how God remains merciful and just as he judges those who have not fully accepted Christ's gospel by their works. Once again, we see the critics upset because more information which complements—not contradicts—earlier scripture is given. The table is also misleading, since Latter-day Saints use the term "saved" in a variety of ways, and would not regard most of those discussed in the Column B as "saved" in the same sense discussed in Column A. 'To learn more: Dallin H. Oaks, "Have You Been Saved?," Ensign (May 1998): 55.off-site Elder Oaks discusses at least six senses in which Latter-day Saints use the term 'saved' in their theology.
11	Murder can be forgiven 3 Nephi 30꞉2 Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel.	'Murder cannot be forgiven D&C 42꞉18 ...And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.	Column A is addressed to those who have not yet accepted and covenanted with Christ—"ye Gentiles." Column B is addressed "unto the Church." Those who have a certain minimum of spiritual knowledge cannot commit murder and be completely absolved of the consequences. Those with less spiritual knowledge may be forgiven of murder following sincere repentance (Alma 24꞉9-11). Once again, two different doctrines are being taught, but the critics ignore this.
12	Polygamy condemned Jacob 1꞉15 Jacob 2꞉24 Jacob 3꞉5 Mosiah 11꞉2	Polygamy commanded D&C 132꞉1,37-39	The critics are careful to omit the verse of scripture that explains this apparent contradiction, Jacob 2꞉30. This scripture from column A makes it clear that God may, under some conditions, command polygamy: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." Scriptures in column A show the "default" command to practice monogamy, which God may alter according to His plan and circumstance as described in column B. This is a tired, well-worn anti-Mormon attack—its dishonesty should be clear. To learn more: Book of Mormon Condemns Polygamy? Contradiction between D&C 132 and Jacob 2? Plural marriage is not Biblical?
13	Against Paid Ministries 2 Nephi 26꞉31 ...But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish. Mosiah 27꞉5 ...Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."	For Paid Ministries D&C 42꞉71-73 those working full-time in the Church's temporal affairs are "to have a just remuneration" for their work. [Bishops and councilors, at the time, were full-time jobs. Many bishops today would probably agree that such callings could be full time nowadays as well!] D&C 43꞉12-13 D&C 51꞉13-14	Column A does not reject having someone be paid in a religious capacity. Column A insist that the motivation for those working must always be God's glory and the benefit of the Church. If they are working for money, or to get gain, there are grave spiritual risks for teacher and listener. The second scripture in column A reflects this, since the religious community described had just escaped a wicked society in which a king and his hand-picked priests had used religion for gain and the satisfaction of their lusts, not teaching of the truth. The second scripture also acknowledges, however, that there may be circumstances in which religious leaders may need financial help or support, as described in the Column B scriptures. Again, these scriptures are complimentary and addressing different aspects of an issue. The critics omit the scripture from the Book of Mormon that describe the problem: He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion. (2 Nephi 26꞉29) The problem is priestcraft—to do religious acts for the purpose of getting gain or glory. Priestcraft is a problem of attitude, and can happen whether one is paid or not. To learn more: David A. Bednar, "Seek Learning By Faith," (3 February 2006), Address to CES Religious Educators, Jordan Institute of Religion. off-site Dallin H. Oaks, "Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall," Ensign (October 1994): 15.off-site Elder Bednar and Elder Oaks discuss the risks of priestcraft for Church teachers, paid or unpaid.
14	Corrupt Churches Promise Forgiveness For Money Mormon 8꞉32 31 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it mattereth not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day. But wo unto such, for they are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity. 32 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.	Church Members Who Pay Tithing Will Not Burn D&C 64꞉23 23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming. 24 For after today cometh the burning—this is speaking after the manner of the Lord—for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.	Column B has had the next verse (v. 24) omitted, which is need to properly interpret verse 23. Nothing in column B promises forgiveness of sins. Rather, column B points out that if members of the Church refuse to tithe, this is good evidence that they are proud and wicked—they remain committed to Babylon, a symbol of worldliness. Tithing thus prepares us and helps transform us. It weans us from worldliness, and helps remake us into the type of people who will not be consumed at God's appearance. It does not purchase forgiveness—but, if offered in the proper spirit, it will transform us from the type of people who will not seek Christ's atonement with humility into those who will. Churches described in column A offer forgiveness and absolution with no change in behavior or character. Column B calls for a change in behavior, which can transform character. Those thus transformed may then seek and receive forgiveness. The approaches are mirror opposites.
15	Adam in the Americas D&C 107꞉53 D&C 116꞉1 D&C 117꞉8	Adam in the Old World Moses 3꞉8,10-15	Moses is based upon the Bible narrative of Genesis. While the Genesis/Moses account describes the Garden of Eden in relation to four rivers—Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and the Euphrates. The first three rivers are related to the lands of Havilah, Ethiopia, and Assyria (see Genesis 2:11). This organization corresponds to no known geographical location, in the old or new worlds. Since Genesis does not match a real world geography, rather than seeing these descriptions as literal, most Bible scholars have seen them as a symbolic tool to place Eden at the "center" of creation. Given that the Bible was written in the Old World, it is unsurprising that the symbols therein use Old World sites. Such symbols, however, are of little use in establishing a literal geographic location in either the Old or New World. To learn more: Location of the Garden of Eden?

As we have seen, none of these paired scriptures contradict each other. This list misunderstands and misrepresents LDS doctrine.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

The table is found, with few if any variations, on multiple internet sites. FAIR does not link to anti-Mormon sites, but a Google search makes it easy to find. Some sources credit the initial table to: Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). Other sources that use it, with and without attribution to Tanner, include: Bill Donohue, "The Book of Mormon Contradictions [sic] Itself; The Book of Mormon contradicts other Standard Works!" 2004; (accessed 22 May 2009). Richard Deem, "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," Evidence for God from Science (accessed 22 May 2009) Ex-Mormons for Jesus, "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). H.I.S. (He Is Savior) Ministries, "H.I.S. Ministries-Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). ICARE (Institute for Christian Awareness and Responsible Evangelism) Ministries, Inc., "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). The Interactive Bible, "The Book of Mormon contradicts Itself! The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible!" (accessed 22 May 2009). Jesus Christ Saves Ministries, San Diego, California; "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). "Mormon Theology: Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith," at Religion & Spirituality at Squidoo (accessed 22 May 2009). RiverValley Church, 1331 High Avenue, Oshkosh, Wisconsin; On-line in section "Other religions," where "we will from time to time publish documents that look at what other religions believe and how they contradict Christianity. Use these resources to understand what others believe and strengthen your belief in our holy and good God. Please do not use these documents as tools to segregate or cause prejudice against others with opposing beliefs." (italics in original) No author, "Investigation into Mormonism," 3-4 (the table is followed by a pages 5-10, which contain Sandra Tanner, "Sharing Your Faith with Latter-day Saints.") (accessed 22 May 2009)

Details on alleged contradictions

Alleged contradictions in the Doctrine and Covenants

Do D&C 20:37 and 2 Nephi 31:17 or 3 Nephi 12:2 contradict one another regarding the order in which one receives baptism and a remission of sins?

These scriptures are not contradictory, for at least three reasons

It is claimed that LDS scriptures such as D&C 20꞉37 (first case) and 2 Nephi 31꞉17, 3 Nephi 12꞉2, and Moroni 8꞉11 (second case) are contradictory about the order in which one receives baptism and a remission of sins and that that "Mormon theologians" have ignored this issue.

As is typical in such charges of self-contradiction, the critics either:

• misinterpret LDS scripture;
• compare verses of scripture which are not speaking about identical issues;
• read Protestant terminology or theology into LDS scripture.

In this case, the critics have committed all three mistakes. As such, it is not surprising if "Mormon theologians" have spent little on the issues. The critics are looking to find fault, and so strain at gnats. LDS thinkers understand LDS doctrine, and so see clearly that there is no contradiction.

These scriptures are not contradictory, for at least three reasons—any one of which is sufficient to disprove the critics' claim. We will first list the scriptural texts, and then discuss each of the three reasons for which they are not properly seen as contradictory.

Scriptures to be considered

The first case

And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church (D&C 20꞉37).

The second case

Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost (2 Nephi 31꞉17).

...Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins (3 Nephi 12꞉2).

And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins (Moroni 8꞉11).

Reason #1: The scriptures are discussing two slightly different issues

There is a difference between "received of the Spirit of Christ" (which is given to every man—see Moroni 7꞉16—but may be received or not depending on choices and heed paid to it) and the baptism of "fire and the Holy Ghost" which happens after baptism, as Joseph Smith taught:

There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him.

Reason #2: The audience and presumed intent for the audience are slightly different

Note too that those in the first instance have repented and expressed a desire to be baptized, which desire and sincerity can then lead to a remission of their sins, (i.e., the intent is what matters, and a willingness to follow through on that intent).

In the second case, Nephi is encouraging those who may not have accepted the Messiah to do so, and to obey the commandments and example given by the Messiah—including baptism. So, his target audience is those who have perhaps not yet "desire[d] to be baptized." When they have that desire (by hearkening to the Spirit of Christ), they will then repent and hearken to it, and will choose to be baptized. This decision to repent and follow Jesus will ultimately lead to forgiveness, and the baptism of fire and the purging out of sin that comes with the receipt of the Holy Ghost (after baptism).

In short, the audience in the first case is further along in the process than the audience in the second.

Reason #3: The question presupposes that "forgiveness" is a single, unique event, when in fact it is an on-going process

Here, we see that the critics are viewing this question through the lenses of conservative protestantism.

The critics are assuming that the Book of Mormon matches their view of salvation, in which someone is "saved" once and finally by some type of "altar call" or confession. By contrast, LDS theology sees salvation, repentance, forgiveness, and purification and transformation by the Holy Ghost as on-going processes. The experience begins before baptism, leads us to baptism, and is the fulfillment of the promises and covenants of baptism, which must then be persisted in as we "endure to the end."

As the second case scriptures explain, as we learn of Jesus we are humbled and desire to repent. Repentance requires that we appreciate that we have not kept all of God's commandments, and we regret not doing so. We become resolved to keep God's commandments from henceforth, and the first commandment which we can obey is to choose baptism. The baptism is an outward sign of our repentance and determination to keep God's commandments, and this willingness to covenant with Jesus allows us (as the first case notes) to "receive...of the Spirit of Christ," which begins the process of remitting our sins. If we do not persist in our intention to follow Jesus, however, and were to suddenly choose not to be baptized, we would have returned to sin.

When we have been baptized, we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, which purifies us as if by fire, as sin and evil are burned out of us, and we walk in newness of life, following Jesus. We must then endure to the end, for if we do not, the remission of our sins (which we have only received because we have chosen to enter a covenant with Christ) will be null and void. The subsequent verses of 2 Nephi 1 explain this clearly:

And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive. And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save. Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the FatherYe shall have eternal life (2 Nephi 31꞉18-20).

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources	Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 207. ( Index of claims ) La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 6 (10 February 1838), 22. off-site Rather than contrasting the Book of Mormon and D&C, this author contrasts the D&C with Parley P. Pratt's Voice of Warning, 105 which echoes the Book of Mormon.
Past responses	John Taylor, Calumny Refuted and the Truth Defended (Liverpool: J. Tompkins, 1840), 1–12. Full title

Alleged contradiction between Book of Mormon, Book of Moses and Book of Abraham on number of Creators

Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses describe "God" as creating, while the Book of Abraham describes "Gods?"

Summary: Protestant critics do not like the fact that Latter-day Saints reject the nonbiblical Nicene Creed, which teaches a oneness of substance. Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see John 17꞉22-23). Thus, it is proper to speak of "God" in a singular sense, but Latter-day Saints also recognize that there is more than one divine person—for example, the Father and the Son. This is not a contradiction; it merely demonstrates that the Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene trinitarianism.

Does Lehi contradict Jeremiah 7 and prove himself a false prophet?

One critic has claimed that Jeremiah 7 proves that Lehi wasn’t a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon’s authenticity is thus affected negatively.

Jeremiah 7 contains Jeremiah’s pleas before the kings of Israel to not fight back against Babylon. Babylon was forming a then-impending invasion on Israel. Certain prophets like Hananiah in Jeremiah 8 were prophesying that Jerusalem and Israel should fight back against Babylon and that the Lord would carry them to victory over Babylon.

Jeremiah receives revelation that those prophecies are not from the Lord. He is instructed to tell the kings of Israel to surrender willfully to Babylon and allow themselves to be carried away to Babylon for 70 years. As verse 8 of chapter 27 of Jeremiah says:

And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.

Further, any prophet claiming otherwise should not be listened to. Chapter 27꞉12-18:

¶ I spake also to Zedekiah king of Judah according to all these words, saying, Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live. Why will ye die, thou and thy people, by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, as the Lord hath spoken against the nation that will not serve the king of Babylon? Therefore hearken not unto the words of the prophets that speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylonfor they prophesy a lie unto you. For I have not sent them, saith the Lord, yet they prophesy a lie in my name; that I might drive you out, and that ye might perish, ye, and the prophets that prophesy unto you.

Also I spake to the priests and to all this people, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Hearken not to the words of your prophets that prophesy unto you, saying, Behold, the vessels of the Lord’s house shall now shortly be brought again from Babylonfor they prophesy a lie unto you. Hearken not unto them; serve the king of Babylon, and livewherefore should this city be laid waste? But if they be prophets, and if the word of the Lord be with them, let them now make intercession to the Lord of hosts, that the vessels which are left in the house of the Lord, and in the house of the king of Judah, and at Jerusalem, go not to Babylon.

Lehi, the critic asserts, is given revelation to leave Jerusalem. Thus, he remains outside of Jeremiah’s instruction from God via revelation to submit and be slaves to Babylon. Thus either both prophets aren’t actually prophets or one is right and the other is a false prophet.

Response to Question

It’s important to keep in mind exactly what Jeremiah is responding to. Jeremiah is responding to the wickedness of Israel and the city Jerusalem. He believes that Israel and Jerusalem are so wicked that the Lord must punish them and, indeed, he has received revelation from God that God is going to do just that: punish Israel via the Babylonian invasion. If they resist the Babylonian invasion, they face the sword, famine, and pestilence until they die. If they don’t resist, they face the 70 years of punishment via slavery in Babylon. Much nicer.

Lehi heard prophets in Jerusalem saying that "the people must repent, or that great city Jerusalem must be destroyed" (1 Nephi 1꞉4). He also read a book in vision that said that Jerusalem "should be destroyed, and the inhabitants thereof; many should perish by the sword, and many should be carried away captive into Babylon" (1 Nephi 1꞉13). Jerusalem could be saved if they repented. As Lehi exclaimed "Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty ! Thy throne is high in the heavens, and thy power, and goodness, and mercy are over all the inhabitants of the earth; and, because thou art merciful, thou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish" (1 Nephi 1꞉14). Lehi told his contemporaries of this way out of destruction via repentance, but, according to Nephi’s account of Lehi’s ministry, Lehi was mocked and his people sought to take away his life (1 Nephi 1꞉20). Lehi is then commanded personally in a dream to take his family and depart into the wilderness (1 Nephi 2꞉2).

Thus, Jeremiah is telling people to not actively resist the Babylonian invasion whether by violence or some other means but to submit to their rule. Otherwise they face destruction. Lehi is saying that if the people repent they don’t have to face each other. The two prophets don’t necessarily make it explicit in both of their messages that both of these options were available to the people, but that does not make their messages conflicting.

Why does the Church teach that man first existed as spirits in heaven when 1 Corinthians 15:46 says that the physical body comes before the spiritual?

When Latter-day Saints speak of God creating our "spirit bodies," we do not mean the glorified, physical "spiritual body" of the resurrected

When Latter-day Saints speak of God creating our "spirit bodies," we do not mean the glorified, physical "spiritual body" of the resurrected. We refer to God's role as our Heavenly Father before our mortal lives.

Biblical statements indicate that God is the father of our spirits and we were known to him before our birth (e.g., Jeremiah 1:5). This is a separate doctrine from the doctrine of a glorious resurrection, which is clearly Paul's topic.

It is unfortunate that critics find it necessary to distort and twist the clear meaning of scripture in an attempt to make the Latter-day Saints "offenders for a word."

In context, Paul is clearly talking about the physical resurrection from the dead

In context, Paul is clearly talking about the physical resurrection from the dead. For example, earlier in the chapter he has written:

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christwhom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own orderChrist the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. .. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die... (1 Corinthians 15:12-36)

Paul clearly believes, then, that the physical body with which we die will be resurrected.

He then tells the Saints that:

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption... It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:40-43.)

The "spiritual body" to which Paul refers is the resurrected physical body which has been glorified

The "spiritual body" to which Paul refers is the resurrected physical body which has been glorified.

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:52-53.)

The "natural" body is the weak, corruptible mortal body that is "sown in weakness." The "spiritual body" is the glorified, resurrected body "raised in power." But, this does not mean that it is not also a physical, or corporeal body—Paul has just spent several verses insisting upon the reality of Christ's resurrection, and using Him as a model for the resurrection of the Saints. And, clearly Jesus' body was tangible and physical following the resurrection:

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have''. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. (Luke 24:39-42, (emphasis added).)

⍗

Learn more about premortal life

Key sources	Kevin L. Barney, "On Preexistence in the Bible" FAIR link
FAIR links	Barry Robert Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church, Chapter 3. FAIR link Terryl Givens, "When Souls Had Wings: What the Western Tradition Has to teach Us About Pre-Existence," Proceedings of the 2007 FAIR Conference (August 2007). link
Online	Terryl Givens, "When Souls Had Wings: What the Western Tradition Has to teach Us About Pre-Existence," FAIR Conference 2007 off-site Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, "Premortal Life and Mortal Life: A Fearful Symmetry," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60/0 (15 March 2024). [vii–xxii] link Dana M. Pike, "Formed in and Called from the Womb," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 41/8 (30 November 2020). [153–168] link Russell C. McGregor, "The Anti-Mormon Attackers (Review of The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible)," FARMS Review 14/1 (2003). [315–320] link
Print	Barry Robert Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity, 2nd edition (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2013). Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999). Terryl L. Givens, When Souls Had Wings: Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought (Oxford University Press, 2009). Richard R. Hopkins Biblical Mormonism (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1994). Truman G. Madsen in Eternal Man (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1966). Boyd K. Packer in Our Father's Plan (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1984). Joseph Fielding Smith in Man, His Origin and Destiny (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1954). Brent L. Top The Life Before (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988).
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers

How is John 4:24 used as a proof-text by critics of the Church's doctrine of God having a body?

Critics read into the passage what is not there. This passage in John does not assert anything about God's corporeal nature or lack thereof

King James Version

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4꞉24

Other translation(s)

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (NASB)

God is Spirit, and only by the power of his Spirit can people worship him as he really is." (TEV)

God is Spirit, and those who worship God must be led by the Spirit to worship him according to the truth. (CEV)

Critics read into the passage what is not there. This passage in John does not assert anything about God's corporeal nature or lack thereof. The Latter-day Saint belief that God is an embodied spirit is perfectly consistent with the passage in question and critics are in error to insist that the passage must be interpreted as "God is a disembodied spirit."

Use or misuse by Church critics

This verse is used as a proof-text by critics of the LDS doctrine of the corporeal nature of God. Critics argue that this passage proves that God does not have a physical body.

Commentary

The context of this verse is that Jesus is explaining to a Samaritan woman how one must worship. Jesus teaches that the place of worship, whether Samaria or Jerusalem, is not important, but rather the way one worships. By teaching attributes of God, Jesus teaches how His children can and should relate to Him and worship Him. Latter-day Saints emphatically agree that God is indeed spirit, just as He is love 1 Jn 1:5, light 1 Jn 4:8, and a consuming fire Deuteronomy 4:24, but He is not only spirit, love, light, or fire.

The Greek language has no indefinite article ("a" or "an") and so the translator must decide whether to include that word in the English text. But for Latter-day Saints, the presence or absence of the article makes no difference. Latter-day Saints believe both that God is spirit (as an attribute) and that God is a spirit (as a statement of His nature). Similarly, Latter-day Saints believe that all people are also spirits, but spirits housed within a physical body.

In the chapter immediately preceding this scripture, in John 3:5-6 , Jesus says the following:

John 3꞉5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3꞉6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (NASB)

It is clear from the above verse that Jesus considered it entirely possible for a mortal human with a physical body to be spirit. Likewise, it is not inconsistent to believe that God the Father simultaneously has a physical body and "is spirit."

⍗

Learn more about God as embodied

Online	David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link
Print	Barry R. Bickmore, "Does God Have a Body In Human Form?" Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen, "Augustine and the Corporeality of God," Harvard Theological Review 95/1 (2002): 97–118. Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Baker Academic, 2001), 33–34. Daniel C. Peterson, "On the Motif of the Weeping God in Moses 7," in Revelation, Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen, ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002), 285–317. ISBN 0934893713. David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83/2 (1990): 105–116. Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier, "In Defense of Anthropomorphism," in Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 155–173. ISBN 0884943585. James L. Kugel, The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible (Free Press, 2003), xi–xii, 5–6, 104–106, 134–135. Roger Cook, "God's 'Glory:' More Evidence for the Anthropomorphic Nature of God in the Bible." Roland J. Teske, "Divine Immutability in Saint Augustine," Modern Schoolman 63 (May 1986): 233. Barry R. Bickmore, "The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man," in Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999).
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young God

How is Isaiah 43:10 used as a proof-text by critics of the Church doctrines of humans' ability to become like God through Christ's atonement?

The context of this passage makes it clear that the issue being addressed is not one of general theology but rather a very specific and practical command to recognize YHWH as Israel's only god and the only god to be worshipped

King James Version

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. Isaiah 43꞉10

Other translation(s)

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. (NIV)

Use or misuse by Church critics

This verse is used as a proof-text by critics of the LDS doctrines of the plurality of gods and the deification of man. It is claimed that this verse proves that there never has been or ever will be another being who could properly be called a god.

Commentary

This passage and other similar proof texts from the Hebrew scriptures are misused by critics. When read in context, it is clear that the intent of the passage is to differentiate YHWH from the foreign gods and idols in the cultures surrounding the Jews.

Verses 43꞉11-13 are a continuation of the statement by God:

I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "that I am God.

Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?" (NIV)

The context of this passage makes it clear that the issue being addressed is not one of general theology but rather a very specific and practical command to recognize YHWH as Israel's only god and the only god to be worshiped.

In addition to misapplying this passage, critics also fail to recognize the growing body of evidence that shows that the Jewish religion was not strictly monotheistic until quite late in its development, certainly after the era in which Isaiah was written. When this evidence is considered, it appears that Judaism originally taught that though there are indeed other divine beings, some of whom are called gods, none of these are to be worshiped except for the God of gods who created all things and who revealed Himself to Moses.

⍗

Learn more about theosis or humans becoming like God

Key sources	Michael W. Fordham, "Does President Gordon B. Hinckley Understand LDS Doctrine?" FAIR link
FAIR links	Roger Cook, "'Christ, the Firstfruits of Theosis'," Proceedings of the 2002 FAIR Conference (August 2002). link D. Charles Pyle, "'I Have Said, ‘Ye are Gods’'," Proceedings of the 1999 FAIR Conference (August 1999). link
Online	Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site Jeff Lindsay, "The Divine Potential of Human Beings: The Latter-day Saint Perspective," JeffLindsay.com (accessed 30 March 2007)off-site Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2002).off-site Keith Norman, "Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2000).off-site Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 179. PDF link Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 209. PDF link David Bokovoy, "'Ye Really Are Gods: A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John; Review of You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82, by Michael S. Heiser'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [267–313] link Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye Are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in The Disciple As Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000),471–594. direct off-site Gerald N. Lund, "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement 'As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be'] accepted as official doctrine by the Church?," Ensign (February 1982): 38.off-site Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign 19 (January 1989): 27. off-site Keith E. Norman, "Deification, Early Christian," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:369–370.off-site Michael S. Heiser, "'Israel's Divine Counsel, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [315–323] link Michael S. Heiser, "'You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [221–266] link John C. Hancock, "A Compelling Case for Theosis," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30/3 (14 September 2018). [43–48] link Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text"," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 193. PDF link Daniel O. McClellan, "Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/8 (8 May 2015). [79–96] link Neal Rappleye, "'With the Tongue of Angels': Angelic Speech as a Form of Deification," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21/11 (2 September 2016). [303–324] link Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [99–146] link David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link Tom Rosson, "'Deification: Fulness and Remnant, A Review of Deification and Grace by Daniel A. Keating'," FARMS Review 20/1 (2008). [195–218] link Keith Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity," Sunstone no. (Issue #1) (Winter 1975), 14–19. off-siteoff-site Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
Video	Christ, The Firstfruits of Theosis: Early Christian Theosis, Roger Cook, 2002 FAIR Conference Part 1:Early Christian Theosis Part 2:Early Christian Theosis Part 3:Early Christian Theosis Part 4:Early Christian Theosis
Print	Daniel H. Ludlow, "Eternal Life or Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow: Gospel Scholars Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 416-20. David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 108–109. Extensive non-LDS bibliography available here. K. Codell Carter, "Godhood," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 553-55. Lorenzo Snow, "As God Is, Man May Be," in Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, compiled by Clyde J. Williams, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 2–9. ISBN 0884945170. Robert L. Millet, "Do the Mormons really believe that men and women can become gods?" in Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 175-77, 192-94. Robert L. Millet, "The Doctrine of Godhood in the New Testament," in The Principles of the Gospel in Practice (Sandy, UT: Randall Book, 1985), 21-37. Thomas S. Monson, An Invitation to Exaltation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 18 pp.
Bibliography on human deification	Aden, Ross, “Justification and Divinization,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 102-7. Aden, Ross, “Justification and Sanctification. A Conversation between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 87-109. Allchin, A.M., Participation in God. A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Connecticut 1988). Andia, Ysabel de, Homo vivens. Incorruptibilite et divinisation de l’homme selon Irenee de Lyon (Paris 1986). Andia, Ysabel de, “Mysteres, unification et divinisation de l’homme selon Denys l’areopagite,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome) 63 (1997): 273-332. Arroniz, J., “La immortalidad como deificacion en S. Ireneo,” Scriptorium Victoriense (Vitoria, Spain) 8 (1961): 262-87. Asendorf, Ulrich, “The Embeddedment of Theosis in the Theology of Martin Luther,” in Luther Digest 3 (1996): 159-61; English abridgment from Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990). Aubineau, M., “Incorruptibilite et divinisation selon saint Irenee,” Recherches de science religieuse 44 (1956): 25-52. Bakken, Kenneth L., “Holy Spirit and Theosis. Toward a Lutheran Theology of Healing,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 409-423. Balas, David L., Metousia Theou. Man’s participation in God’s Perfections according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Studia Anselmiana, volume 55 (Rome 1966). Bardy, Gustave, “Divinisation: According to the Latin Fathers,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, ascetique et mystique doctrine et histoire (Paris 1957): 3, Columns 1389-1398. Baur, L., “Untersuchungen uber die Vergottlichungslehre in der Theologie der grieschischen Vater,” Theologische Quartalschrift 98 (1916): 467-91; 99 (1917): 225-252; 100 (1919): 426-444; 101 (1920): 28-64, 155-186. Bielfeldt, Dennis, “Deification as a Motif in Luther’s Dictata super psalterium,” Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997): 401-420. Bilaniuk, Petro B.T., “The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization,” in The Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky, ed. David Nieman and Margaret Schatkin; Orientalia Christiana Analecta, volume 195 (Rome 1973): 337-359. Blowers, Paul M., “Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Concept of ‘Perpetual Progress,’” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 151-71. Bonner, Gerald, “Augustine’s Conception of Deification,” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986): 369-85. Bonner, Gerald, “Deification, Divinization,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A. (W.B. Eerdmans 1999): 265-6. Bonner, Gerald, “’Deificare,’” in Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (1996): columns 265-7. Bornhauser, K., Die Vergottungslehre des Athanasius und Johannes Damascenus (Gutersloh 1903). Braaten, Carl E., ”The Finnish Breakthrough in Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 141-3. Bratsiotis, P., “Die Lehre der orthodoxen Kirche uber die Theosis des Menschen,” Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie. Klasse der Letteren XXIII/1 (Brussels 1961): 1-13. Brecht, Martin, “Neue Ansatze der Lutherforshung in Finnland,” Luther (1990): 36-40. Breck, John, “Divine Initiative. Salvation in Orthodox Theology,” in Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 105-120. Butterworth, George W., ”The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 157-69. Capanaga, Victorino, “La deificacion en la soteriologia agostiniana,” in Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 745-754. Carabine, Deirdre, “Five Wise Virgins. Theosis and Return in Periphyseon V,” in Iohannes Scottus Eriugena, ed. G. van Riel, J.C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven 1996): 195-207. Cavanagh, William T., “A Joint Declaration?” Justification as theosis in Aquinas and Luther,” Heythrop Journal 41 (London 2000): 265-280. Christensen, Michael J., “Theosis and Sanctification. John Wesley’s Reformulation of a Patristic Doctrine,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 31 (1996): 71-94. Congar, Yves M.-J. (later Cardinal), Dialogue Between Christians. Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism (Newman Press 1966; 1st Paris 1964). Chapter 8 is entitled: “Deification in the Spiritual Tradition of the East’: 217-231; first published in La Vie Spirituelle 43 (1935): 91-107. Congar, Yves M.-J., The Mystery of the Temple (Newman Press 1962; Paris 1958); Appendix III: “God’s presence and his dwelling among men under the old and under the new and definitive dispensation,” 262-99. Corneanu, Nicolae, “The Jesus Prayer and Deification,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 39 (1995): 3-24. Daley, Brian E., S.J., The Hope of the Early Church. A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge University Press 1991). Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Divinisation,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite (Paris 1957) 3: columns 1376-1389. Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Mystere liturgique et divinisation dans la Mystagogie de saint Maxime le Confesseur,’ in Epektasis. Melanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Danielou (Paris 1972): 55-62. Davies, Brian, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford 1992). Chapter 13 entitled “How to be Holy,” 250-273. Deseille, P., “L’eucharistie et la divinisation des chretiens selon les Peres de l’Eglise,” Le Messager orthodoxe 87 (1981): 40-56. Drewery, Benjamin, “Deification,” in Christian Spirituality. Essays in Honor of Gordon Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks (London 1975): 35-62. Edwards, Henry, “Justification, Sanctification, and the Eastern Concept of Theosis,” Consensus. A Canadian Lutheran Journal of Theology 14 (1988): 65-88. Ermoni, V., “La deification de l’homme chez les Peres de l’Eglise,” Revue du clerge francais 11 (1897): 509-519. Fairbairn, Don, “Salvation as Theosis. The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy,” Themelios 23 (1998): 42-54. Faller, O., “Grieschischen Vergottung und christliche Vergottlichung,” Gregorianum 6 (1925): 405-35. Ferguson, Everett, “God’s Infinity and Man’s Mutability. Perpetual Progress according to Gregory of Nyssa,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 18 (1973): 59-78. Ferguson, Everett, “Progress in Perfection. Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita Moysis,” Studia Patristica 14 (1976): 307-14. Festugiere, A.-J., “Divinisation du Chretien,” La Vie Spirituelle 59 (1939): 90-99. Finger, Thomas, “Anabaptism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Some Unexpected Similarities,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994): 67-91. Finger, Thomas, “Post-Chalcedonian Christology. Some Reflections on Oriental Orthodox Christology from a Mennonite Perspective,” in Christ in East and West, ed. Paul Fries and Tiran Nersoyan (Mercer University Press 1987): 155-69. Flew, Robert Newton, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology. An Historical Study of the Christian Ideal for the Present Life (Oxford 1968; 1st 1934). Flogaus, R., Theosis bei Palamas und Luther (Gottingen 1997). Flogaus, R., “Agreement on the Issues of Deification and Synergy?,” Luther Digest. An Annual Abridgement of Luther Studies 7 (1999): 99-105; English abridgement of “Einig in Sachen Theosis und Synergie?,” Kerygma und Dogma 42 (1996): 225-243. Folliet, Georges, “’Deificari in otio,’ Augustin, Epistula 10.2,” Recherches Augustiniennes 2 (1962): 225-236. Ford, David C., “Saint Makarios of Egypt and John Wesley. Variations on the Theme of Sanctification,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 33 (1988): 288. Fortino, Eleuterio F., “Sanctification and Deification,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 192-200. Franks, R.S., “The Idea of Salvation in the Theology of the Eastern Church,” in Mansfield College Essays. Presented to Rev. Andrew Martin Fairbairn (London 1909): 249-264. Frary, Joseph, “Deification and Human Freedom,” Sobornost (London) 7 (1975): 117-126. Gross, Jules, La divinisation du Chretien d’apres les peres Grecs (Paris 1938). Recently translated. Gross, Jules, “Die Vergottlichung des Christen nach den grieschischen Vatern,” Zeitschrift fur Askese und Mystik 14 (1939): 79-94. Hartin, Patrick J., “Call to be Perfect through Suffering (James 1.2-4). The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount,” Biblica (Rome) 77 (1996): 477-492. Hartnett, Joanne J., Doctrina S. Bonaventurae de deiformitate (Mundelein 1936). Heine, Ronald E., Perfection in the Virtuous Life A Study in the Relationship between Edification and Polemical Theology in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Vita Moysis (Philadelphia 1975). Heintjes, J., “De opgang van den manschelijken Geest tot God volgens sint Maximus Confessor,” Bijdragen van de Philosophische en Theologische Faculteiten der Nederlandsche Jezuieten 5 (1942): 260-302; 6 (1943): 64-123. Hess, Hamilton, “The Place of Divinization in Athanasian Soteriology,” Studia Patristica 26 (1993): 369-374. Hinlicky, Paul R., “Theological Anthropology. Toward integrating theosis and Justification by Faith,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34 (1997): 38-73. Janssens, L., “Notre filiation divine d’apres S. Cyrille d’ Alexandrie,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensae 15 (1938): 233-78. Jenson, Robert W., Triune Identity (Philadelphia 1982): 103-148. Jenson, Robert W., “Theosis,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 108-112. Kamppuri, Hannu T., editor, Dialogue between Neighbors. The Theological Conversations between the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church 1970-1986 (Helsinki 1986), passim. Kamppuri, Hannu T., “Theosis in the Theology of Gregory Palamas,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 153-6. Kantorowicz, Ernst H., “Deus per naturam, Deus per gratiam. A Note on Mediaeval Political Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952): 253-77. Khairallah, Philip A., “The Sanctification of Life,” Emmanuel 96 (1990): 323-333; 394-397; 403-406. Kinghorn, Kenneth C., “Holiness: The Central Plan of God,” Evangelical Journal 15 (1997): 57-70. Kolp, A. L., “Partakers of the Divine Nature. The Use of II Peter 1.4 by Athanasius,” Studia Patristica 17 (1979): 1018-1023. Kretschmar, Georg, “The Reception of the Orthodox Teaching of Divinization in Protestant Theology,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 61-80; English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 156-9. Ladner, Gerhard T., “St. Augustine’s Conception of the Reformation of Man to the Image of God,” Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 867-888. Ladner, Gerhart B., The Idea of Reform. Its impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (Harvard 1959). Larchet, Jean-Claude, La Divinisation de l’homme selon Saint Maxime le Confesseur (Paris 1996). Lattey, Cuthbert, “The Deification of man in Clement of Alexandria. Some further notes,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 257-62. Lawrenz, Melvin E., The Christology of John Chrysostom (Mellen Press 1996). Section entitled: “The Way of Salvation—Moral Accomplishment and Divinization:” 146-54. Linforth, Ivan M., “’oi athanatizontes:’ (Herodotus 4.93-96),” Classical Philology 13 (1918): 23-33. Lossky, Vladimir, “Redemption and Deification,” in In the Image and Likeness of God (London 1975; New York 1974; from the French of 1967): 97-110; article first published as “Redemption et deification,” in Messager de l’Exarchat du Patrarche russe en Europe occidental 15 (1953): 161-70. Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, La Deification de l’homme selon la doctrine des Peres grecs (Paris 1970), edited and introduced by Jean Danielou. These three articles were first published as “La Doctrine de la Deification dans l’Eglise Grecque jusqu’au xie Siecle,” Revue d’Histoire des Religions 105 (1932): 5-43; 106 (1932): 525-74; 107 (1933): 8-55; “La Doctrine de la Grace et de la Liberte dans l’Orthodoxie Greco-orientale,” Oecumenica 6 (1939); “La Beatitude dans l’Orient Chretien,” Dieu Vivant 15 (1950). Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, “La grace deifiante des sacraments d’apres Nicolas Cabasilas,” Revue des sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques 25 (1936): 299-330; 26 (1937): 693-717. Maddox, Randy L., “John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy. Influences, convergences and Differences,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 29-53. Mahe, J., S.J., “La sanctification d’apres saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique 10 (1909): 30-40; 469-492. Mannermaa, Tuomo, “Theosis as a subject of Finnish Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 37-48; first published in Luther und Theosis: Vergottlichung als Thema der abendlandischen Theologie, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 11-26; an English abridgment appeared in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 145-9. Mantzaridis, Georgios, The Deification of Man. St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, translated by Liadain Sherrard (New York 1984). Marquart, Kurt E., “Luther and Theosis,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (Fort Wayne, Indiana 2000): 182-205. Marshall, Bruce D., “Ex Occidente Lux? Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology,” Modern Theology 20.1 (January 2004): 23-50. Marshall, Bruce D., “Justification as Declaration and Deification,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 4.1 (March 2002): 3-28. Martikainen, Jouko, “Man’s Salvation. Deification or Justification?,” Sobornost 7 (London: 1976): 180-192. Mayo, Harold, John Wesley and the Christian East: on the subject of Christian Perfection, Masters Thesis, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, New York 1980. McCormick, K. Steve, “Theosis in Chrysostom and Wesley: an Eastern paradigm on faith and love,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 26 (1991): 38-103. McCoy, J. D., “Philosophical influences on the doctrine of the Incarnation in Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria,” Encounter 38 (Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis: 1977): 362-91. McDaniel, Michael C.D., “Salvation as Justification and Theosis,” in Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 67-83; abridged in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 142-4. McDonald, Peter, “To become Gods: a saintly teaching,” Faith Magazine 30 (1998): 13-17. McDonnell, Kilian, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 1996). Chapter 9: “Taking the Robe of Glory from the Jordan--Divinization”; Chapter 10: “The Cosmic Jordan and the Robe of Glory—Divinization and Eschatology,” 128-55; and passim. McGuckin, John A., St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its history, theology and texts (E.J. Brill 1994). Chapter Three: “The Christology of Cyril: 1. Redemptive Deification: Cyril’s presuppositions and major concerns”: 175-226. Merritt, John G., “’Dialogue’ within a Tradition: John Wesley and Gregory of Nyssa discuss Christian Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22 (1987): 92-116. Messner, R., “Rechtfertigung und Vergottlichung—und die Kirche. Zur okumenischen Bedeutung neuerer Tendenzen in der Lutherforschung,” Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 118 (1996): 23-35. Meyendorff, John, “Remarks on Eastern Patristic Thought in John Scottus Eriugena,” in Eriugena: East and West, edited by Bernard McGinn and Willemien Otten (University of Notre Dame 1994): 51-68. Meyendorff, John, “Theosis in the Eastern Christian Tradition,” in Christian Spirituality III: Post Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupre and Don Saliers (New York 1989): 470-6. Moore, D. Marselle, “Development in Wesley’s thought on Sanctification and Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 20 (1985): 29-53. Morse, Jonathan, “Fruits of the Eucharist: Henosis and Theosis,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 127-42. Mosser, Carl, “The Greatest possible blessing: Calvin and deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55.1 (2002): 36-57. Musurillo, Herbert, From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings, with Introduction by Jean Danielou (New York 1979). Nellas, Panayiotis, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, translated by Norman Russell (New York 1987). Newman, John Henry Cardinal, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians (1895; 1st 1841 ff.). Chapter on Deification. Nispel, Mark D., “Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia,” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 289-304. Based on Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska. Nock, Arthur Darby, review article, in Journal of Religion 31 (1951): 214-6. Norman, Keith E., Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University 1980. Norris, Frederick W., “Deification: Consensual and Cogent,” Scottish Journal of Theology 49 (1996): 411-428. Oroz Reta, Jose, “De l’illumination a la deification de l’ame selon saint Augustin,” Studia Patristica 27 (1993): 364-82. O’Collins, Gerald, S.J., Christology. A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford University Press 1995). Passim O’Keefe, Mark, “Theosis and the Christian Life. Toward Integrating Roman Catholic Ethics and Spirituality,” Eglise et Theologie (Ottawa, Canada) 25 (1994): 47-63. O’Shea, Kevin F., “Divinization: a Study in Theological Analogy,” The Thomist 29 (1965): 1-45. Perkins, Harold William, The Doctrine of Christian or Evangelical Perfection (London 1927). Peura, Simo, “Participation in Christ according to Luther,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 164-8. Peura, Simo, “The Deification of Man as Being in God,” Luther Digest 5 (1997): 168-72; English abridgment of “Die Vergottlichung des Menschen als Sein in God,” Lutherjahrbuch 60 (1993): 39-71. Phan, Peter C., Grace and the Human Condition (Michael Glazier 1988): 132-138; 171-176. Piolanti, A., “La Grazia come participazione della Natura Divina,” Euntes Docete 10 (1957): 34-50. Places, Eduard des, “Divinization,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualite 3 (Paris 1957): columns 1370-1375. Plass, Paul, “Transcendent Time in Maximus the Confessor,” The Thomist 44 (1980): 259-77. Plass, Paul, “’Moving Rest’ in Maximus the Confessor,” Classica et Mediaevalia 35 (1984): 177-90. Popov, I.V., “Ideja obozenija v drevne-vostocnoi cerkvi” (‘The idea of divinization in the Ancient Eastern Church’), in Voprosi filosofij i psixogij 97 (1909): 165-213. Posset, Franz, “’Deification’ in the German Spirituality of the Late Middle Ages and in Luther: An Ecumenical Historical Perspective,” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 84 (1993): 103-25. Preuss, K.F.A., Ad Maximi Confessoris de Deo hominisque deificatione doctrinam abnotationum pars I (Schneeberg 1894). Rakestraw, Robert V., “Becoming like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 257-69. Randenborg, G. van, Vergottung und Erlosung (Berlin). Rechtfertigung und Verherrlichung (Theosis) des Menschen durch Jesus Christus (‘Justification and Glorification (Theosis) of the Human Person through Jesus Christ’) (Germany, 1995). Ritschl, Dietrich, “Hippolytus’ Conception of Deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 12 (1959): 388-99. Rius-Camps, J., El dinamismo trinitario en la divinizacion de los seres racionales segun Origenes (Rome 1970). Rondet, Henri, The Grace of Christ (Newman Press 1967; Paris 1948). Chapter Five: “The Greek Fathers: The Divinization of the Christian”: 65-88; and passim. Rondet, Henri, S.J., “La divinization du Chretien,” Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 71 (1949): 449-476; 561-588; reprinted and expanded in Rondet, Essais sur la Theologie de la Grace (Paris 1964): 107-200. Rufner, V., “Homo secundus Deus,” Philosophisches Jahrbuch 63 (1955): 248-91. Rusch, William G., “How the Eastern Fathers understood what the Western Church meant by Justification,” Justification by Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, ed. H.G. Andersen, T. A. Murphy, J. A. Burgess (Augsburg Press 1985): 131-142, notes 347-8. Russell, Norman, “’Partakers of the Divine Nature’ (II Peter 1.4) in the Byzantine Tradition,” in J. Hussey Festschrift (1998). off-site Ryk, Marta, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in the Deification of Man according to Contemporary Orthodox Theology,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 10 (1975): 24-39; 109-130. Saarinen, Risto, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogues 1959-1994 (Gottingen 1997). Saarinen, Risto, “Salvation in the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue. A Comparative Perspective,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 202-213. Saarinen, Risto, “The Presence of God in Luther’s Theology,” Lutheran Quarterly 8 (1994): 3-13. Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992) Sartorius, B., La doctrine de la deification de l’homme d’apres les Peres grecs en general et Gregoire Palamas en particulier, (Doctoral Thesis, Geneva 1965). Schmitz-Perrin, Rudolf, “’Theosis hoc est deification’. Depassement et paradoxe de l’apophase chez Jean Scot Erigene,” Revue des sciences religieuses 72 (1998): 420-445. Schonborn, Christoph, From Death to Life. The Christian Journey (Ignatius Press 1995; 1st German 1988). Chapter Two: “Is Man to become God? On the meaning of the Christian Doctrine of Deification”: 41-63, and passim. Schonborn, Christoph, God’s Human Face: The Christ-Icon (Ignatius Press 1994; 1st French 1976, 1978; 2nd German 1984). Passim. Schonborn, Christoph, “L’homme est-il fait pour devenir Dieu? Notes sur le sense chretien de la ‘deification’ or ‘divinisation’ de l’homme,’ Omnis Terra 22 (1983): 53-64. Schonborn, Christoph, “Uber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs der Vergottlichung des Menschen,” Jahrbuch fur Philosophie und Spekulative Theologie (Freiburg) 34 (1987): 3-47. Schurr, George M., “On the Logic of Ante-Nicene affirmations of the ‘Deification’ of the Christian,” Anglican Theological Review 51 (1969): 97-105. Schwarzwaller, Klaus, “Verantwortung des Glaubens,” in Freiheit als Liebe bei Martin Luther, ed. Dennis Bielfeldt and Klaus Schwarzwaller (Frankfurt, 1995): 133-158. Sheldon-Williams, I. P., review article of M. Lot-Borodine, La Deification de l’Homme, in Downside Review 89 (1971): 90-93. Slenczka, Reinhard, “Communion with God as Foundation and object of theology--deification as an ontological problem,” Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 149-53. Snyder, Howard A., ”John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 55-60. Staniloae, Dumitru, “Image, Likeness, and Deification in the Human Person,” Communio 13 (1986): 64-83. Steely, John E., Gnosis: The Doctrine of Christian Perfection in the Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Th. D. Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky 1954). Stephen E. Robinson, "The Doctrine of Deification," in Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993),60–65. off-site FAIR link Stolz, Anselm, The Doctrine of Spiritual Perfection (St. Louis 1946; 1st German). Stoop, Jan A. A., Die Deification Hominis in Die Sermones en Epistolae van Augustinus (Leiden 1952). Strange, C. Roderick, “Athanasius on Divinization,” Studia Patristica 16 (1985): 342-346. Stuckwisch, Richard, “Justification and Deification in the Dialogue between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremias II,” Logia. A Journal of Lutheran Theology 9 (2000): 17-28. off-site Telepneff, Gregory, and James Thornton, “Arian Transcendence and the Notion of Theosis in Saint Athanasios,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987): 271-77. Theodorou, A., “Die Lehre von der Vergottung des Menschen bei den grieschischen Kirchenvater,” Kerygma und Dogma (Zeitschrift fur theologische Forschung und Kirchliche lehre) 7 (1961): 283-310. Thunberg, Lars, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (Open Court 1995; 1st Sweden 1965): especially 427-32. Thuren, Jukka, “Justification and participation in the Divine Nature,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja (Theological Journal of Finland: 1977): 483-99. Tsirpanlis, Constantine N., Greek Patristic Theology, Volume I: Basic Doctrine in Eastern Church Fathers (New York 1979); Chapter entitled: “Aspects of Athanasian Soteriology”: 25-40. Turcescu, Lucian, “Soteriological Issues in the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification: an Orthodox Perspective,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 64-72. Turner, H.E.W., The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption. A Study of the Development of Doctrine during the First Five Centuries (London 1952). Union with Christ. The new Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Eerdmans 1998). Several papers, by Mannermaa, Peura, Raunio, Juntunen, Jenson, Braaten, Bielfeldt, all dealing with Theosis. Vandervelde, George, “Justification and Deification—Problematic Synthesis: A Response to Lucian Turcescu”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 73-78. Volz, Carl A., Faith and Practice in the Early Church. Foundations for Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis 1983). Volz has a section entitled “Christ, the Giver of Deification”: 76-9. Wakefield, Gordon S., “Perfection,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 297-9. Walland, F., La grazia divinizzante (Asti 1949). Watson, Nicholas, “Melting into God the English Way: Deification in the Middle English Version of Marguerite Porete’s Mirouer des simples ames anienties,” in Prophets Abroad. The Reception of Continental Holy Women in late Medieval England, ed. Rosalynn Voader (Cambridge 1996): 19-49. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “Eastern Orthodox Spirituality: Union with God in Theosis,” Theology Today (Princeton, NJ) 56 (1999): 29-43. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “The Union of God and man in Jesus Christ in the Thought of Gregory of Nazianzus,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28 (1982): 83-98. Weser, H., S. Maximi Confessoris praecepta de incarnatione Dei et deificatione hominis exponuntur et examinantur (Dissertation, Berlin 1869). Wild, P. T., Divinization of Man according to St. Hilary of Poitiers (Mundelein 1950). Williams, A.N., “Deification in the Summa Theologiae. A Structural Interpretation of the Prima Pars,” The Thomist 61 (1997): 219-255. Williams, A.N., “Light from Byzantium: The Significance of Palamas’ Doctrine of Theosis,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 483-496. Williams, Anna Ngaire, The Ground of Union. Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (Oxford University Press 1999). Williams, Rowan, “Deification,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 106-8. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “A Note on the Iconoclastic Controversy: Greek and Latin disagreements about Matter and Deification,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 18 (1980): 139-48. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “Grace as participation in the Divine Life in the Theology of Augustine of Hippo,” Augustinian Studies 7 (1976): 135-52. Winslow, Donald F., Dynamics of Salvation: A Study of Gregory of Nazianzus (1979); Passim. Wolters, Al, “’Partners of the Deity:’ A Covenantal Reading of II Peter 1.4,” Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 28-44; with postscript 26 (1991): 418-420 Zwanepol, Klaas, “Luther en Theosis,” Luther-Bulletin. Tijdschrift voor interconfessioneel Lutheronderzoek 2 (1993): 48-73; English abridgment in Luther Digest 5 (1995): 177-81.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

How is Genesis 3:5 used by critics who claim that the doctrine of deification (theosis) is a teaching of Satan?

The use of Genesis 3 to counter the doctrine of deification/theosis has two problems associated with it:

First: Satan never claimed that Adam and Eve would be gods, just that they would be "as gods, knowing good and evil."

King James Version (KJV) 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. Genesis 3:5

New American Standard Bible (NASB) For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

Contemporary English Version (CEV) God understands what will happen on the day you eat fruit from that tree. You will see what you have done, and you will know the difference between right and wrong, just as God does.

Bible in Basic English (BBE) For God sees that on the day when you take of its fruit, your eyes will be open, and you will be as gods, having knowledge of good and evil.

Use or misuse by Church critics

This verse is used by critics to attempt to show that the LDS doctrine of deification is a teaching of Satan.

Commentary

The critics seriously misunderstand and misinterpret this passage of scripture.

Note that the serpent makes two claims:

(1) "ye shall not surely die" and

(2) "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

But if one looks forward to Genesis 3:22:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:"

Second problem: The second and bigger problem is that Satan was, in fact, telling the truth on this point, as God confirms.

God announces that Adam and Eve did indeed become as gods, knowing good and evil. As usual, Satan mixes lies and truth. In this case he said that Adam and Eve wouldn't die (a lie) but he also said that their eating would make them "as gods, knowing good and evil" (a truth).

So the lie of Satan in the Garden of Eden was that transgressing God's law would not bring death (with the implication that Adam and Eve could have the god-like ability to know good and evil without paying a terrible price).

This chapter isn't even relevant to beliefs about deification.

⍗

Learn more about theosis or humans becoming like God

Key sources	Michael W. Fordham, "Does President Gordon B. Hinckley Understand LDS Doctrine?" FAIR link
FAIR links	Roger Cook, "'Christ, the Firstfruits of Theosis'," Proceedings of the 2002 FAIR Conference (August 2002). link D. Charles Pyle, "'I Have Said, ‘Ye are Gods’'," Proceedings of the 1999 FAIR Conference (August 1999). link
Online	Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site Jeff Lindsay, "The Divine Potential of Human Beings: The Latter-day Saint Perspective," JeffLindsay.com (accessed 30 March 2007)off-site Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2002).off-site Keith Norman, "Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2000).off-site Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 179. PDF link Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 209. PDF link David Bokovoy, "'Ye Really Are Gods: A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John; Review of You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82, by Michael S. Heiser'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [267–313] link Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye Are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in The Disciple As Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000),471–594. direct off-site Gerald N. Lund, "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement 'As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be'] accepted as official doctrine by the Church?," Ensign (February 1982): 38.off-site Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign 19 (January 1989): 27. off-site Keith E. Norman, "Deification, Early Christian," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:369–370.off-site Michael S. Heiser, "'Israel's Divine Counsel, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [315–323] link Michael S. Heiser, "'You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [221–266] link John C. Hancock, "A Compelling Case for Theosis," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30/3 (14 September 2018). [43–48] link Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text"," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 193. PDF link Daniel O. McClellan, "Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/8 (8 May 2015). [79–96] link Neal Rappleye, "'With the Tongue of Angels': Angelic Speech as a Form of Deification," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21/11 (2 September 2016). [303–324] link Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [99–146] link David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link Tom Rosson, "'Deification: Fulness and Remnant, A Review of Deification and Grace by Daniel A. Keating'," FARMS Review 20/1 (2008). [195–218] link Keith Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity," Sunstone no. (Issue #1) (Winter 1975), 14–19. off-siteoff-site Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
Video	Christ, The Firstfruits of Theosis: Early Christian Theosis, Roger Cook, 2002 FAIR Conference Part 1:Early Christian Theosis Part 2:Early Christian Theosis Part 3:Early Christian Theosis Part 4:Early Christian Theosis
Print	Daniel H. Ludlow, "Eternal Life or Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow: Gospel Scholars Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 416-20. David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 108–109. Extensive non-LDS bibliography available here. K. Codell Carter, "Godhood," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 553-55. Lorenzo Snow, "As God Is, Man May Be," in Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, compiled by Clyde J. Williams, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 2–9. ISBN 0884945170. Robert L. Millet, "Do the Mormons really believe that men and women can become gods?" in Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 175-77, 192-94. Robert L. Millet, "The Doctrine of Godhood in the New Testament," in The Principles of the Gospel in Practice (Sandy, UT: Randall Book, 1985), 21-37. Thomas S. Monson, An Invitation to Exaltation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 18 pp.
Bibliography on human deification	Aden, Ross, “Justification and Divinization,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 102-7. Aden, Ross, “Justification and Sanctification. A Conversation between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 87-109. Allchin, A.M., Participation in God. A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Connecticut 1988). Andia, Ysabel de, Homo vivens. Incorruptibilite et divinisation de l’homme selon Irenee de Lyon (Paris 1986). Andia, Ysabel de, “Mysteres, unification et divinisation de l’homme selon Denys l’areopagite,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome) 63 (1997): 273-332. Arroniz, J., “La immortalidad como deificacion en S. Ireneo,” Scriptorium Victoriense (Vitoria, Spain) 8 (1961): 262-87. Asendorf, Ulrich, “The Embeddedment of Theosis in the Theology of Martin Luther,” in Luther Digest 3 (1996): 159-61; English abridgment from Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990). Aubineau, M., “Incorruptibilite et divinisation selon saint Irenee,” Recherches de science religieuse 44 (1956): 25-52. Bakken, Kenneth L., “Holy Spirit and Theosis. Toward a Lutheran Theology of Healing,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 409-423. Balas, David L., Metousia Theou. Man’s participation in God’s Perfections according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Studia Anselmiana, volume 55 (Rome 1966). Bardy, Gustave, “Divinisation: According to the Latin Fathers,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, ascetique et mystique doctrine et histoire (Paris 1957): 3, Columns 1389-1398. Baur, L., “Untersuchungen uber die Vergottlichungslehre in der Theologie der grieschischen Vater,” Theologische Quartalschrift 98 (1916): 467-91; 99 (1917): 225-252; 100 (1919): 426-444; 101 (1920): 28-64, 155-186. Bielfeldt, Dennis, “Deification as a Motif in Luther’s Dictata super psalterium,” Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997): 401-420. Bilaniuk, Petro B.T., “The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization,” in The Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky, ed. David Nieman and Margaret Schatkin; Orientalia Christiana Analecta, volume 195 (Rome 1973): 337-359. Blowers, Paul M., “Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Concept of ‘Perpetual Progress,’” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 151-71. Bonner, Gerald, “Augustine’s Conception of Deification,” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986): 369-85. Bonner, Gerald, “Deification, Divinization,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A. (W.B. Eerdmans 1999): 265-6. Bonner, Gerald, “’Deificare,’” in Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (1996): columns 265-7. Bornhauser, K., Die Vergottungslehre des Athanasius und Johannes Damascenus (Gutersloh 1903). Braaten, Carl E., ”The Finnish Breakthrough in Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 141-3. Bratsiotis, P., “Die Lehre der orthodoxen Kirche uber die Theosis des Menschen,” Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie. Klasse der Letteren XXIII/1 (Brussels 1961): 1-13. Brecht, Martin, “Neue Ansatze der Lutherforshung in Finnland,” Luther (1990): 36-40. Breck, John, “Divine Initiative. Salvation in Orthodox Theology,” in Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 105-120. Butterworth, George W., ”The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 157-69. Capanaga, Victorino, “La deificacion en la soteriologia agostiniana,” in Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 745-754. Carabine, Deirdre, “Five Wise Virgins. Theosis and Return in Periphyseon V,” in Iohannes Scottus Eriugena, ed. G. van Riel, J.C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven 1996): 195-207. Cavanagh, William T., “A Joint Declaration?” Justification as theosis in Aquinas and Luther,” Heythrop Journal 41 (London 2000): 265-280. Christensen, Michael J., “Theosis and Sanctification. John Wesley’s Reformulation of a Patristic Doctrine,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 31 (1996): 71-94. Congar, Yves M.-J. (later Cardinal), Dialogue Between Christians. Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism (Newman Press 1966; 1st Paris 1964). Chapter 8 is entitled: “Deification in the Spiritual Tradition of the East’: 217-231; first published in La Vie Spirituelle 43 (1935): 91-107. Congar, Yves M.-J., The Mystery of the Temple (Newman Press 1962; Paris 1958); Appendix III: “God’s presence and his dwelling among men under the old and under the new and definitive dispensation,” 262-99. Corneanu, Nicolae, “The Jesus Prayer and Deification,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 39 (1995): 3-24. Daley, Brian E., S.J., The Hope of the Early Church. A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge University Press 1991). Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Divinisation,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite (Paris 1957) 3: columns 1376-1389. Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Mystere liturgique et divinisation dans la Mystagogie de saint Maxime le Confesseur,’ in Epektasis. Melanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Danielou (Paris 1972): 55-62. Davies, Brian, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford 1992). Chapter 13 entitled “How to be Holy,” 250-273. Deseille, P., “L’eucharistie et la divinisation des chretiens selon les Peres de l’Eglise,” Le Messager orthodoxe 87 (1981): 40-56. Drewery, Benjamin, “Deification,” in Christian Spirituality. Essays in Honor of Gordon Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks (London 1975): 35-62. Edwards, Henry, “Justification, Sanctification, and the Eastern Concept of Theosis,” Consensus. A Canadian Lutheran Journal of Theology 14 (1988): 65-88. Ermoni, V., “La deification de l’homme chez les Peres de l’Eglise,” Revue du clerge francais 11 (1897): 509-519. Fairbairn, Don, “Salvation as Theosis. The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy,” Themelios 23 (1998): 42-54. Faller, O., “Grieschischen Vergottung und christliche Vergottlichung,” Gregorianum 6 (1925): 405-35. Ferguson, Everett, “God’s Infinity and Man’s Mutability. Perpetual Progress according to Gregory of Nyssa,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 18 (1973): 59-78. Ferguson, Everett, “Progress in Perfection. Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita Moysis,” Studia Patristica 14 (1976): 307-14. Festugiere, A.-J., “Divinisation du Chretien,” La Vie Spirituelle 59 (1939): 90-99. Finger, Thomas, “Anabaptism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Some Unexpected Similarities,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994): 67-91. Finger, Thomas, “Post-Chalcedonian Christology. Some Reflections on Oriental Orthodox Christology from a Mennonite Perspective,” in Christ in East and West, ed. Paul Fries and Tiran Nersoyan (Mercer University Press 1987): 155-69. Flew, Robert Newton, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology. An Historical Study of the Christian Ideal for the Present Life (Oxford 1968; 1st 1934). Flogaus, R., Theosis bei Palamas und Luther (Gottingen 1997). Flogaus, R., “Agreement on the Issues of Deification and Synergy?,” Luther Digest. An Annual Abridgement of Luther Studies 7 (1999): 99-105; English abridgement of “Einig in Sachen Theosis und Synergie?,” Kerygma und Dogma 42 (1996): 225-243. Folliet, Georges, “’Deificari in otio,’ Augustin, Epistula 10.2,” Recherches Augustiniennes 2 (1962): 225-236. Ford, David C., “Saint Makarios of Egypt and John Wesley. Variations on the Theme of Sanctification,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 33 (1988): 288. Fortino, Eleuterio F., “Sanctification and Deification,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 192-200. Franks, R.S., “The Idea of Salvation in the Theology of the Eastern Church,” in Mansfield College Essays. Presented to Rev. Andrew Martin Fairbairn (London 1909): 249-264. Frary, Joseph, “Deification and Human Freedom,” Sobornost (London) 7 (1975): 117-126. Gross, Jules, La divinisation du Chretien d’apres les peres Grecs (Paris 1938). Recently translated. Gross, Jules, “Die Vergottlichung des Christen nach den grieschischen Vatern,” Zeitschrift fur Askese und Mystik 14 (1939): 79-94. Hartin, Patrick J., “Call to be Perfect through Suffering (James 1.2-4). The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount,” Biblica (Rome) 77 (1996): 477-492. Hartnett, Joanne J., Doctrina S. Bonaventurae de deiformitate (Mundelein 1936). Heine, Ronald E., Perfection in the Virtuous Life A Study in the Relationship between Edification and Polemical Theology in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Vita Moysis (Philadelphia 1975). Heintjes, J., “De opgang van den manschelijken Geest tot God volgens sint Maximus Confessor,” Bijdragen van de Philosophische en Theologische Faculteiten der Nederlandsche Jezuieten 5 (1942): 260-302; 6 (1943): 64-123. Hess, Hamilton, “The Place of Divinization in Athanasian Soteriology,” Studia Patristica 26 (1993): 369-374. Hinlicky, Paul R., “Theological Anthropology. Toward integrating theosis and Justification by Faith,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34 (1997): 38-73. Janssens, L., “Notre filiation divine d’apres S. Cyrille d’ Alexandrie,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensae 15 (1938): 233-78. Jenson, Robert W., Triune Identity (Philadelphia 1982): 103-148. Jenson, Robert W., “Theosis,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 108-112. Kamppuri, Hannu T., editor, Dialogue between Neighbors. The Theological Conversations between the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church 1970-1986 (Helsinki 1986), passim. Kamppuri, Hannu T., “Theosis in the Theology of Gregory Palamas,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 153-6. Kantorowicz, Ernst H., “Deus per naturam, Deus per gratiam. A Note on Mediaeval Political Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952): 253-77. Khairallah, Philip A., “The Sanctification of Life,” Emmanuel 96 (1990): 323-333; 394-397; 403-406. Kinghorn, Kenneth C., “Holiness: The Central Plan of God,” Evangelical Journal 15 (1997): 57-70. Kolp, A. L., “Partakers of the Divine Nature. The Use of II Peter 1.4 by Athanasius,” Studia Patristica 17 (1979): 1018-1023. Kretschmar, Georg, “The Reception of the Orthodox Teaching of Divinization in Protestant Theology,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 61-80; English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 156-9. Ladner, Gerhard T., “St. Augustine’s Conception of the Reformation of Man to the Image of God,” Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 867-888. Ladner, Gerhart B., The Idea of Reform. Its impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (Harvard 1959). Larchet, Jean-Claude, La Divinisation de l’homme selon Saint Maxime le Confesseur (Paris 1996). Lattey, Cuthbert, “The Deification of man in Clement of Alexandria. Some further notes,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 257-62. Lawrenz, Melvin E., The Christology of John Chrysostom (Mellen Press 1996). Section entitled: “The Way of Salvation—Moral Accomplishment and Divinization:” 146-54. Linforth, Ivan M., “’oi athanatizontes:’ (Herodotus 4.93-96),” Classical Philology 13 (1918): 23-33. Lossky, Vladimir, “Redemption and Deification,” in In the Image and Likeness of God (London 1975; New York 1974; from the French of 1967): 97-110; article first published as “Redemption et deification,” in Messager de l’Exarchat du Patrarche russe en Europe occidental 15 (1953): 161-70. Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, La Deification de l’homme selon la doctrine des Peres grecs (Paris 1970), edited and introduced by Jean Danielou. These three articles were first published as “La Doctrine de la Deification dans l’Eglise Grecque jusqu’au xie Siecle,” Revue d’Histoire des Religions 105 (1932): 5-43; 106 (1932): 525-74; 107 (1933): 8-55; “La Doctrine de la Grace et de la Liberte dans l’Orthodoxie Greco-orientale,” Oecumenica 6 (1939); “La Beatitude dans l’Orient Chretien,” Dieu Vivant 15 (1950). Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, “La grace deifiante des sacraments d’apres Nicolas Cabasilas,” Revue des sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques 25 (1936): 299-330; 26 (1937): 693-717. Maddox, Randy L., “John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy. Influences, convergences and Differences,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 29-53. Mahe, J., S.J., “La sanctification d’apres saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique 10 (1909): 30-40; 469-492. Mannermaa, Tuomo, “Theosis as a subject of Finnish Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 37-48; first published in Luther und Theosis: Vergottlichung als Thema der abendlandischen Theologie, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 11-26; an English abridgment appeared in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 145-9. Mantzaridis, Georgios, The Deification of Man. St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, translated by Liadain Sherrard (New York 1984). Marquart, Kurt E., “Luther and Theosis,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (Fort Wayne, Indiana 2000): 182-205. Marshall, Bruce D., “Ex Occidente Lux? Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology,” Modern Theology 20.1 (January 2004): 23-50. Marshall, Bruce D., “Justification as Declaration and Deification,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 4.1 (March 2002): 3-28. Martikainen, Jouko, “Man’s Salvation. Deification or Justification?,” Sobornost 7 (London: 1976): 180-192. Mayo, Harold, John Wesley and the Christian East: on the subject of Christian Perfection, Masters Thesis, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, New York 1980. McCormick, K. Steve, “Theosis in Chrysostom and Wesley: an Eastern paradigm on faith and love,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 26 (1991): 38-103. McCoy, J. D., “Philosophical influences on the doctrine of the Incarnation in Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria,” Encounter 38 (Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis: 1977): 362-91. McDaniel, Michael C.D., “Salvation as Justification and Theosis,” in Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 67-83; abridged in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 142-4. McDonald, Peter, “To become Gods: a saintly teaching,” Faith Magazine 30 (1998): 13-17. McDonnell, Kilian, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 1996). Chapter 9: “Taking the Robe of Glory from the Jordan--Divinization”; Chapter 10: “The Cosmic Jordan and the Robe of Glory—Divinization and Eschatology,” 128-55; and passim. McGuckin, John A., St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its history, theology and texts (E.J. Brill 1994). Chapter Three: “The Christology of Cyril: 1. Redemptive Deification: Cyril’s presuppositions and major concerns”: 175-226. Merritt, John G., “’Dialogue’ within a Tradition: John Wesley and Gregory of Nyssa discuss Christian Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22 (1987): 92-116. Messner, R., “Rechtfertigung und Vergottlichung—und die Kirche. Zur okumenischen Bedeutung neuerer Tendenzen in der Lutherforschung,” Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 118 (1996): 23-35. Meyendorff, John, “Remarks on Eastern Patristic Thought in John Scottus Eriugena,” in Eriugena: East and West, edited by Bernard McGinn and Willemien Otten (University of Notre Dame 1994): 51-68. Meyendorff, John, “Theosis in the Eastern Christian Tradition,” in Christian Spirituality III: Post Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupre and Don Saliers (New York 1989): 470-6. Moore, D. Marselle, “Development in Wesley’s thought on Sanctification and Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 20 (1985): 29-53. Morse, Jonathan, “Fruits of the Eucharist: Henosis and Theosis,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 127-42. Mosser, Carl, “The Greatest possible blessing: Calvin and deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55.1 (2002): 36-57. Musurillo, Herbert, From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings, with Introduction by Jean Danielou (New York 1979). Nellas, Panayiotis, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, translated by Norman Russell (New York 1987). Newman, John Henry Cardinal, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians (1895; 1st 1841 ff.). Chapter on Deification. Nispel, Mark D., “Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia,” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 289-304. Based on Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska. Nock, Arthur Darby, review article, in Journal of Religion 31 (1951): 214-6. Norman, Keith E., Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University 1980. Norris, Frederick W., “Deification: Consensual and Cogent,” Scottish Journal of Theology 49 (1996): 411-428. Oroz Reta, Jose, “De l’illumination a la deification de l’ame selon saint Augustin,” Studia Patristica 27 (1993): 364-82. O’Collins, Gerald, S.J., Christology. A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford University Press 1995). Passim O’Keefe, Mark, “Theosis and the Christian Life. Toward Integrating Roman Catholic Ethics and Spirituality,” Eglise et Theologie (Ottawa, Canada) 25 (1994): 47-63. O’Shea, Kevin F., “Divinization: a Study in Theological Analogy,” The Thomist 29 (1965): 1-45. Perkins, Harold William, The Doctrine of Christian or Evangelical Perfection (London 1927). Peura, Simo, “Participation in Christ according to Luther,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 164-8. Peura, Simo, “The Deification of Man as Being in God,” Luther Digest 5 (1997): 168-72; English abridgment of “Die Vergottlichung des Menschen als Sein in God,” Lutherjahrbuch 60 (1993): 39-71. Phan, Peter C., Grace and the Human Condition (Michael Glazier 1988): 132-138; 171-176. Piolanti, A., “La Grazia come participazione della Natura Divina,” Euntes Docete 10 (1957): 34-50. Places, Eduard des, “Divinization,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualite 3 (Paris 1957): columns 1370-1375. Plass, Paul, “Transcendent Time in Maximus the Confessor,” The Thomist 44 (1980): 259-77. Plass, Paul, “’Moving Rest’ in Maximus the Confessor,” Classica et Mediaevalia 35 (1984): 177-90. Popov, I.V., “Ideja obozenija v drevne-vostocnoi cerkvi” (‘The idea of divinization in the Ancient Eastern Church’), in Voprosi filosofij i psixogij 97 (1909): 165-213. Posset, Franz, “’Deification’ in the German Spirituality of the Late Middle Ages and in Luther: An Ecumenical Historical Perspective,” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 84 (1993): 103-25. Preuss, K.F.A., Ad Maximi Confessoris de Deo hominisque deificatione doctrinam abnotationum pars I (Schneeberg 1894). Rakestraw, Robert V., “Becoming like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 257-69. Randenborg, G. van, Vergottung und Erlosung (Berlin). Rechtfertigung und Verherrlichung (Theosis) des Menschen durch Jesus Christus (‘Justification and Glorification (Theosis) of the Human Person through Jesus Christ’) (Germany, 1995). Ritschl, Dietrich, “Hippolytus’ Conception of Deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 12 (1959): 388-99. Rius-Camps, J., El dinamismo trinitario en la divinizacion de los seres racionales segun Origenes (Rome 1970). Rondet, Henri, The Grace of Christ (Newman Press 1967; Paris 1948). Chapter Five: “The Greek Fathers: The Divinization of the Christian”: 65-88; and passim. Rondet, Henri, S.J., “La divinization du Chretien,” Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 71 (1949): 449-476; 561-588; reprinted and expanded in Rondet, Essais sur la Theologie de la Grace (Paris 1964): 107-200. Rufner, V., “Homo secundus Deus,” Philosophisches Jahrbuch 63 (1955): 248-91. Rusch, William G., “How the Eastern Fathers understood what the Western Church meant by Justification,” Justification by Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, ed. H.G. Andersen, T. A. Murphy, J. A. Burgess (Augsburg Press 1985): 131-142, notes 347-8. Russell, Norman, “’Partakers of the Divine Nature’ (II Peter 1.4) in the Byzantine Tradition,” in J. Hussey Festschrift (1998). off-site Ryk, Marta, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in the Deification of Man according to Contemporary Orthodox Theology,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 10 (1975): 24-39; 109-130. Saarinen, Risto, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogues 1959-1994 (Gottingen 1997). Saarinen, Risto, “Salvation in the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue. A Comparative Perspective,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 202-213. Saarinen, Risto, “The Presence of God in Luther’s Theology,” Lutheran Quarterly 8 (1994): 3-13. Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992) Sartorius, B., La doctrine de la deification de l’homme d’apres les Peres grecs en general et Gregoire Palamas en particulier, (Doctoral Thesis, Geneva 1965). Schmitz-Perrin, Rudolf, “’Theosis hoc est deification’. Depassement et paradoxe de l’apophase chez Jean Scot Erigene,” Revue des sciences religieuses 72 (1998): 420-445. Schonborn, Christoph, From Death to Life. The Christian Journey (Ignatius Press 1995; 1st German 1988). Chapter Two: “Is Man to become God? On the meaning of the Christian Doctrine of Deification”: 41-63, and passim. Schonborn, Christoph, God’s Human Face: The Christ-Icon (Ignatius Press 1994; 1st French 1976, 1978; 2nd German 1984). Passim. Schonborn, Christoph, “L’homme est-il fait pour devenir Dieu? Notes sur le sense chretien de la ‘deification’ or ‘divinisation’ de l’homme,’ Omnis Terra 22 (1983): 53-64. Schonborn, Christoph, “Uber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs der Vergottlichung des Menschen,” Jahrbuch fur Philosophie und Spekulative Theologie (Freiburg) 34 (1987): 3-47. Schurr, George M., “On the Logic of Ante-Nicene affirmations of the ‘Deification’ of the Christian,” Anglican Theological Review 51 (1969): 97-105. Schwarzwaller, Klaus, “Verantwortung des Glaubens,” in Freiheit als Liebe bei Martin Luther, ed. Dennis Bielfeldt and Klaus Schwarzwaller (Frankfurt, 1995): 133-158. Sheldon-Williams, I. P., review article of M. Lot-Borodine, La Deification de l’Homme, in Downside Review 89 (1971): 90-93. Slenczka, Reinhard, “Communion with God as Foundation and object of theology--deification as an ontological problem,” Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 149-53. Snyder, Howard A., ”John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 55-60. Staniloae, Dumitru, “Image, Likeness, and Deification in the Human Person,” Communio 13 (1986): 64-83. Steely, John E., Gnosis: The Doctrine of Christian Perfection in the Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Th. D. Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky 1954). Stephen E. Robinson, "The Doctrine of Deification," in Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993),60–65. off-site FAIR link Stolz, Anselm, The Doctrine of Spiritual Perfection (St. Louis 1946; 1st German). Stoop, Jan A. A., Die Deification Hominis in Die Sermones en Epistolae van Augustinus (Leiden 1952). Strange, C. Roderick, “Athanasius on Divinization,” Studia Patristica 16 (1985): 342-346. Stuckwisch, Richard, “Justification and Deification in the Dialogue between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremias II,” Logia. A Journal of Lutheran Theology 9 (2000): 17-28. off-site Telepneff, Gregory, and James Thornton, “Arian Transcendence and the Notion of Theosis in Saint Athanasios,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987): 271-77. Theodorou, A., “Die Lehre von der Vergottung des Menschen bei den grieschischen Kirchenvater,” Kerygma und Dogma (Zeitschrift fur theologische Forschung und Kirchliche lehre) 7 (1961): 283-310. Thunberg, Lars, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (Open Court 1995; 1st Sweden 1965): especially 427-32. Thuren, Jukka, “Justification and participation in the Divine Nature,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja (Theological Journal of Finland: 1977): 483-99. Tsirpanlis, Constantine N., Greek Patristic Theology, Volume I: Basic Doctrine in Eastern Church Fathers (New York 1979); Chapter entitled: “Aspects of Athanasian Soteriology”: 25-40. Turcescu, Lucian, “Soteriological Issues in the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification: an Orthodox Perspective,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 64-72. Turner, H.E.W., The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption. A Study of the Development of Doctrine during the First Five Centuries (London 1952). Union with Christ. The new Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Eerdmans 1998). Several papers, by Mannermaa, Peura, Raunio, Juntunen, Jenson, Braaten, Bielfeldt, all dealing with Theosis. Vandervelde, George, “Justification and Deification—Problematic Synthesis: A Response to Lucian Turcescu”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 73-78. Volz, Carl A., Faith and Practice in the Early Church. Foundations for Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis 1983). Volz has a section entitled “Christ, the Giver of Deification”: 76-9. Wakefield, Gordon S., “Perfection,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 297-9. Walland, F., La grazia divinizzante (Asti 1949). Watson, Nicholas, “Melting into God the English Way: Deification in the Middle English Version of Marguerite Porete’s Mirouer des simples ames anienties,” in Prophets Abroad. The Reception of Continental Holy Women in late Medieval England, ed. Rosalynn Voader (Cambridge 1996): 19-49. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “Eastern Orthodox Spirituality: Union with God in Theosis,” Theology Today (Princeton, NJ) 56 (1999): 29-43. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “The Union of God and man in Jesus Christ in the Thought of Gregory of Nazianzus,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28 (1982): 83-98. Weser, H., S. Maximi Confessoris praecepta de incarnatione Dei et deificatione hominis exponuntur et examinantur (Dissertation, Berlin 1869). Wild, P. T., Divinization of Man according to St. Hilary of Poitiers (Mundelein 1950). Williams, A.N., “Deification in the Summa Theologiae. A Structural Interpretation of the Prima Pars,” The Thomist 61 (1997): 219-255. Williams, A.N., “Light from Byzantium: The Significance of Palamas’ Doctrine of Theosis,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 483-496. Williams, Anna Ngaire, The Ground of Union. Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (Oxford University Press 1999). Williams, Rowan, “Deification,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 106-8. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “A Note on the Iconoclastic Controversy: Greek and Latin disagreements about Matter and Deification,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 18 (1980): 139-48. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “Grace as participation in the Divine Life in the Theology of Augustine of Hippo,” Augustinian Studies 7 (1976): 135-52. Winslow, Donald F., Dynamics of Salvation: A Study of Gregory of Nazianzus (1979); Passim. Wolters, Al, “’Partners of the Deity:’ A Covenantal Reading of II Peter 1.4,” Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 28-44; with postscript 26 (1991): 418-420 Zwanepol, Klaas, “Luther en Theosis,” Luther-Bulletin. Tijdschrift voor interconfessioneel Lutheronderzoek 2 (1993): 48-73; English abridgment in Luther Digest 5 (1995): 177-81.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Latter-day Saint scripture

Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ	The Holy Bible Book of Mormon Doctrine and Covenants Pearl of Great Price Book of Moses Book of Abraham The Family: A Proclamation to the World
Nature of scripture	Open vs closed canon Understanding revelation
Interpretation of scripture	Tips for studying scripture Leaders on scripture interpretation Common issues in interpretation and proof-texting Alleged contradictions in scripture Violence in the scriptures Slavery in the scriptures Sexism in the scriptures Racism and the scriptures

Is the Church's "open canon" evidence of error because Christianity requires a "closed canon"?

The doctrine of a closed canon and the end of authoritative revelation is not found in the Bible

Other churches sometimes claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in error because Christianity requires a "closed canon" (no more authoritative revelation) instead of the Church's "open canon" (potential for more binding revelation).

The doctrine of a closed canon and the end of authoritative revelation is not found in the Bible. To insist upon this doctrine is to place a non-Biblical doctrine in a place of pre-eminence, and insist that God must be bound by it. Such a doctrine would require the very revelation it denies to be authoritative. Even the proper interpretation of Biblical teachings requires authoritative revelation, which are necessarily extra-Biblical.

Critics are free to hold these beliefs if they wish, but they ought not to criticize the LDS for believing extra-Biblical doctrines when they themselves insist upon the non-Biblical closed canon.

God is superior even to His Word

The Bible is an important record of God's message to humanity. However, the Bible—or any other written text—cannot be the focus of the Christian's life or faith. Only one deserves that place: God.

One non-LDS Christian author cautioned believers from placing the Bible 'ahead' of God:

It is possible, however, to stress the Bible so much and give it so central a place that the sensitive Christian conscience must rebel. We may illustrate such overstress on the Bible by the often-used (and perhaps misused) quotation from Chillingworth: "The Bible alone is the religion of Protestantism." Or we may recall how often it has been said that the Bible is the final authority for the Christian. If it will not seem too facetious, I would like to put in a good word for God. It is God and not the Bible who is the central fact for the Christian. When we speak of "the Word of God" we use a phrase which, properly used, may apply to the Bible, but it has a deeper primary meaning. It is God who speaks to man. But he does not do so only through the Bible. He speaks through prophets and apostles. He speaks through specific events. And while his unique message to the Church finds its central record and written expression in the Bible, this very reference to the Bible reminds us that Christ is the Word of God in a living, personal way which surpasses what we have even in this unique book. Even the Bible proves to be the Word of God only when the Holy Spirit working within us attests the truth and divine authority of what the Scripture says. Faith must not give to the aids that God provides the reverence and attention that Belong only to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Our hope is in God; our life is in Christ; our power is in the Spirit. The Bible speaks to us of the divine center of all life and help and power, but it is not the center. The Christian teaching about the canon must not deify the Scripture.

To argue that the canon is closed effectively seeks to place God's written word (the Bible) above God Himself. Some have even called this practice "bibolatry" or "bibliolatry." Critics are effectively ordering God not to reveal anything further, or refusing to even consider that He might choose to speak again.

Closed canon is not a Biblical doctrine

The idea of a closed canon is not a Biblical doctrine. The Bible bears record that God called prophets in the past. Why could He not—indeed, why would He not—continue to do so?

Ironically, it would seem that the only way to know that there can be no extra-Biblical revelation is via revelation: otherwise, decisions about God's Word are being made by human intellect alone. Yet, since the Bible does not claim that it is the sole source of revealed truth, the only potential source of a revelation to close the canon would be extra-Biblical. Thus, those who insist on a closed canon are in the uncomfortable position of requiring extra-Biblical revelation to rule out extra-Biblical revelation!

As one non-LDS scholar observed: "For evidence about what was within the canon, one had to go outside the canon itself." After all, there was "no scriptural evidence to decide what were the exact limits of the canon."

Throughout Biblical history, the canon was clearly not closed. New prophets were called, and new authoritative writing was made. It would seem strange for this to cease without revelatory notice being given that God's practices were about to change.

Some authors are even now asking if the decision to close the canon was a mistake:

The first question, and the most important one, is whether the church was right in perceiving the need for a closed canon of scriptures....did such a move toward a closed canon of scriptures ultimately (and unconsciously) limit the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the church?...Does God act in the church today and by the same Spirit? On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents that the Church now calls its Bible?...one must surely ask about the appropriateness of tying the church of the twentieth century to a canon that emerged out of the historical circumstances in the second to the fifth centuries CE. How are we supposed to make the experience of that church absolute for all time?...Was the church in the Nicene and post-Nicene eras infallible in its decisions or not? Finally, if the Spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same Spirit does not speak today in the church about matters that are of significant concern, for example, the use of contraceptives, abortion, liberation, ecological irresponsibility, equal rights, euthanasia, nuclear proliferation, global genocide, economic and social justice, and so on?...

These are striking questions, and those who insist upon a closed canon may have difficulty resolving the issues which they raise. Joseph Smith's insistence that God did not cease to speak, and that the canon was not closed, resolved these issues many decades before modern Christians began to grapple with them.

Early Christians did not have a closed canon

The early Christian Church did not have a fixed canon, nor did it restrict itself to the canon used by most modern Christian churches:

If the term "Christian" is defined by the examples and beliefs passed on by earliest followers of Jesus, then we must at least ponder the question of whether the notion of a biblical canon is necessarily "Christian." They did not have such canons as the church possesses today, nor did they indicate that their successors should draw them up....

Even in regard to the OT canon, it has been shown that the early church’s collections of scriptures were considerably broader in scope than those presently found in either the Catholic or Protestant canons and that they demonstrated much more flexibility than our present collections allow....in regard to the OT, should the church be limited to an OT canon to which Jesus and his first disciples were clearly not limited?

Scriptural interpretation requires revelation

Even if one were to grant that the Bible contains all necessary teachings, it is clear from Christian history that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways by sincere readers. What else but additional, on-going revelation can settle legitimate questions of interpretation and application of God's word? Are we to rely on human reason alone to do so? Does this not in essence turn to an extra-Biblical source for information about divine matters?

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism—Open versus closed canon of scripture

Critical sources

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 7. ( Index of claims ) La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 6 (10 February 1838): 22off-site Luke P. Wilson, “Lost Books & Latter-Day Revelation: A Response to Mormon Views of the New Testament Canon,” Christian Research Journal (Fall 1996): 27–33.

What does the Book of Mormon mean when it says that "plain and precious" things have been taken out of the bible?

So called "lost scripture" is in reference to writings mentioned or cited within the present Biblical record, but which are not in the Bible itself

I've heard about "lost scripture" mentioned in the Bible. What is this about, and what implications does it have for the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and sufficiency?

1. Biblical writers considered writings not in the present canon to be scriptural writings.
2. Christian groups do not agree on what constitutes the Biblical canon—any claim that the canon is closed, complete, and sufficient must answer:

a) which canon?

b) what establishes this canon as authoritative and not some other?

3. Differences in canon between Christian groups and Biblical authors' clear belief in the scriptural status of other non-Biblical texts argue against a coherent doctrine of Biblical sufficiency and inerrancy drawn from the Bible itself. Such a claim must come from outside the Bible.

Stephen E. Robinson said of this subject:

The Book of Mormon teaches that "plain and precious" things have been taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13꞉24-29). Both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals often assume this means that the present biblical books went through a cut-and-paste process to remove these things...However, I see no reason to understand things this way, and in fact I it is largely erroneous. The pertinent passages from the Book of Mormon give no reason to assume that the process of removing plain and precious things from Scripture was one exclusively or even primarily of editing the books of the present canon. The bulk of the text-critical evidence is against a process of wholesale cutting and pasting...

It is clear to me, therefore, that "the plain and precious truths" were not necessarily in the originals of the present biblical books, and I suspect that the editing process that excised them did not consist solely or even primarily of cutting and pasting the present books, but rather largely in keeping other apostolic or prophetic writings from being included in the canon. In other words, "the plain and precious truths" were primarily excised not by means of controlling the text, but by means of controlling the canon."

So called "lost scripture" is in reference to writings mentioned or cited within the present Biblical record, but which are not in the Bible itself. Some of these writings are known from other sources, and some are not.

Examples of "lost scripture"

Lost writing	Biblical citation to the lost writing
Book of the Wars of the Lord	Numbers 21:14
Book of Jasher	Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18
Book of the Acts of Solomon	1 Kings 11:41
Book of Samuel the Seer	1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Gad the Seer	1 Chronicles 29:29
Book of Nathan the Prophet	1 Chronicles 29:29, 2 Chronicles 9:29
Prophecy of Ahijah	2 Chronicles 9:29
Visions of Iddo the Seer	2 Chronicles 9:29, 2 Chronicles 12:15, 2 Chronicles 13:22
Book of Shemaiah	2 Chronicles 12:15
Book of Jehu	2 Chronicles 20:34
Sayings of the Seers	2 Chronicles 33:19
Lament for Josiah	2 Chronicles 35:25
Paul's epistle to Corinthians before our "1 Corinthians"	1 Corinthians 5:9
Paul's possible earlier Ephesians epistle	Ephesians 3:3
Paul's epistle to Church at Laodicea	Colossians 4:16
1 Enoch 1:19 and The Assumption of Moses	Jude 1:14-15
1 Enoch	"It influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, Jude (which quotes it directly) and Revelation (with numerous points of contact)…in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, the final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism."

Examples of canonical differences among Bibles

The picture is further complicated by the fact that Christians have not always agreed on the "canon"—that is, they have not always agreed upon which writings were "scripture" and which were not.

Some examples of these variations:

Christian Person or Group	Difference in canon from Protestant Bible (e.g., the KJV)
Catholics	Apocrypha is canonical
Orthodox	Apocrypha is canonical
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 200)	Included in canon: Epistle of Barnabas Epistle of Clement The Preaching of Peter
Roman Christians (circa A.D. 200)	Included in canon: Revelation of Peter Wisdom of Solomon Excluded from canon: Hebrews 1 Peter 2 Peter 3 John
Origen (date)	Included in canon: Epistle of Barnabas Shepherd of Hermas Excluded from canon: James Jude 2 John Those disputed by Rome (see above)
Syriac Peshitta	Excluded from the canon: 2 Peter 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation of St. John
Armenian Church	Included in canon: 3 Corinthians Excluded from canon: Revelation of St. John prior to 12th century
Ethiopian Church	Included in canon: Sinodos Clement Book of the Covenant Didascalia
Martin Luther	Considered Epistle of James "a right strawy epistle." Also didn't agree with Sermon on the Mount because didn't match his "grace only" theology.

Implications for inerrancy and sufficiency doctrine of the Bible

All these canons cannot be correct. Why must we accept that the critic's Bible is complete and inerrant? By what authority is this declared? Such an authority would have to be outside the Bible, thus demonstrating that there is some other source for the Word of God besides the Bible.

Furthermore, one should remember that Biblical writers were not aware of the Bible canon, because the Bible was not compiled until centuries later. Thus, Biblical writers cannot have referred to completeness and sufficiency of the canon, because the canon did not exist.

The clear evidence of "lost scripture" from the Bible was a common early LDS argument.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism—Lost scripture in the Bible

Critical sources

Samuel Haining, Mormonism Weighed in the Balances of the Sanctuary, and Found Wanting: The Substance of Four Lectures (Douglas: Robert Fargher, 1840), 11¬-13. off-site Claims there are no books of scripture on matters of importance mentioned in the Bible that are not found in the Bible.

Past responses

Parley P. Pratt, Plain Facts (Manchester: W. R. Thomas, 1840), 1. off-site Full title John Taylor, Truth Defended and Methodism Weighed in the Balance and Found Wanting (Liverpool: J. Tompkins, 1840), 3. Full title John Taylor, "To the Editor of the Star," Millennial Star 1 no. 11 (March 1841), 276-80.. off-site Benjamin Winchester, “The Object of a Continuation of Revelation,” The Gospel Reflector (Philadelphia) 1, no. 5 (1 March 1841): 89-96. off-site

Does the Bible alone contain all necessary or essential knowledge to assure salvation, thus making the Book of Mormon and modern prophets unnecessary?

The Bible nowhere makes the claim for sufficiency or completeness

Other churches claim the Bible contains all necessary or essential knowledge to assure salvation. Therefore, things like modern prophets or additional scripture (such as the Book of Mormon) are unnecessary or even blasphemous.

Claiming inerrancy and completeness:

• is not a Biblical doctrine
• has not been sufficient to prevent a vast range of Biblical interpretations and Christian practices, all of which cannot be correct
• ignores that the Biblical canon is not unanimous among Christians, and ignores non-canonical books which the Bible itself cites as being authoritative
• ignores that the Bible contains some errors and internal inconsistencies

However, Mormons cherish the Bible. Those who claim otherwise are mistaken. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell said:

Occasionally, a few in the Church let the justified caveat about the Bible—"as far as it is translated correctly"—diminish their exultation over the New Testament. Inaccuracy of some translating must not, however, diminish our appreciation for the powerful testimony and ample historicity of the New Testament...

So when we read and turn the pages of the precious New Testament, there is a barely audible rustling like the quiet stirrings of the Spirit, something to be 'spiritually discerned.' (1 Corinthians 2:14). The witnessing words came to us—not slowly, laboriously, or equivocally through the corridors of the centuries, but rather, swiftly, deftly, and clearly. Upon the wings of the Spirit these words proclaim, again and anew, "JESUS LIVED. JESUS LIVES!"

The Bible nowhere makes the claim for sufficiency or completeness.

Furthermore, the thousands of Christian sects and groups provide ample testimony that the Bible has not been sufficient to encourage unanimity among Christians about proper authority, doctrine, or practice. Critics would like us to accept that their reading is the correct one, but this means we must appeal to some other standard—one cannot use their reading of the Bible to prove their reading of the Bible!

There is also no unanimity among Christians concerning what constitutes the "true" Bible canon—once again, some other standard is needed to determine which Bible is the "true" or "inerrant" version.

There are also other writings which the Bible itself refers to as authoritative, and yet these books are not in the present Bible canon. Either the Bible is wrong in referring to these writings as authoritative, or some modern Christians are wrong for arguing that the Bible is a complete record of all God's word to His children.

Mormons consider the Bible an inspired volume of scripture of great value, but they also recognize that there are some errors and contradictions

While the LDS do not like to denigrate the Bible or call attention to its errors, since they consider it an inspired volume of scripture of great value, they also recognize that there are some errors and contradictions in the Bible which are the result of human error or tampering. This does not reduce the Bible's value in their estimation, but it does call into question any claims for the Bible's "inerrancy."

Said early LDS leader George Q. Cannon:

This book [the Bible] is of priceless worth; its value cannot estimated by anything that is known among men upon which value is fixed. ... But in the Latter-day Saints it should always be a precious treasure. Beyond any people now upon the face of the earth, they should value it, for the reason that from its pages, from the doctrines set forth by its writers, the epitome of the plan of salvation which is there given unto us, we derive the highest consolation, we obtain the greatest strength. It is, as it were, a constant fountain sending forth streams of living life to satisfy the souls of all who peruse its pages.

∗       ∗       ∗

We are not called to teach the errors of translators but the truth of God's word. It is our mission to develop faith in the revelations from God in the hearts of the children, and "How can that best be done?" is the question that confronts us. Certainly not by emphasizing doubts, creating difficulties or teaching negations.... The clause in the Articles of Faith regarding mistakes in the translation of the Bible was never intended to encourage us to spend our time in searching out and studying those errors, but to emphasize the idea that it is the truth and the truth only that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts, no matter where it is found.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism—Biblical sufficiency

Critical sources

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 97. ( Index of claims ) La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 6 (10 February 1838): 22off-site

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism—Biblical completeness

Critical sources

A Little Talk, Between John Robinson and his Master about Mormonism, Shewing its Origin, Absurdity, and Impiety (Bedford: W. White, 1840), 1–8. off-site Doctrine of the Mormonites (London: J. Wertheimer & Company, 1842.), 1-4. off-site “Blasphemy–‘Book of Mormon,’ alias The Golden Bible,” Rochester Daily Advertiser (New York) (2 April 1830). off-site “An Extract,” The Reflector (Palmyra, New York) 1, no. 5 (30 September 1829): 18. off-site “The Book of Mormon, or Golden Bible,” Village Chronicle (Dansville, New York) (27 April 1830). off-site A.W.B., “Mormonites,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate (Utica, New York) 2, no. 15 (9 April 1831): 120. off-site Alexander Campbell, “Signs of the Times,” Millennial Harbinger 5, no. 4 (April 1834): 148, note. off-site Thomas Campbell, “The Mormon Challenge,” Painesville Telegraph (Painesville, Ohio) 2, no. 35 (15 February 1831): 2. off-site John A. Clark, “Gleanings by the way. No. VIII,” Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (26 September 1840): 106–07. off-site John A. Clark, “Gleanings by the Way No. X,” Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (10 October 1840): 114-115. off-site Samuel Haining, Mormonism Weighed in the Balances of the Sanctuary, and Found Wanting: The Substance of Four Lectures (Douglas: Robert Fargher, 1840), 4, 7-9, 14, 19, 56, 64. off-site Eber D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, OH, 1834), 50. (Affidavits examined) off-site W. J. Morrish, The Latter-day Saints and the Book of Mormon. A Second Warning from a Minister to his Flock (Ledbury: J. Gibbs, 1840), 1-4 off-site Philanthropist of Chester County, Mormonism Unmasked, Showed to be an Impious Imposture, and Mr. Bennett’s Reply Answered and Refuted (Philadelphia: T. K. & P. G. Collins, 1840), 6. off-site Response Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 6 (10 February 1838), 22. off-site Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers Benjamin Winchester, “The Object of a Continuation of Revelation,” The Gospel Reflector (Philadelphia) 1, no. 5 (1 March 1841): 89-96. off-site LDS missionary discusses the charge

Past responses

Parley P. Pratt, Plain Facts (Manchester: W. R. Thomas, 1840), 1. off-site Full title John Taylor, An Answer to Some False Statements and Misrepresentations Made by the Rev. Robert Heys... (Douglas: Penrice and Wallace, 1840), 1–12. Full title John Taylor, "Elder J. Taylor’s Closing Reply to Mr. Curran [reprinted from Manx Sun (Isle of Man) (30 October 1840)]," Millennial Star 1 no. 8 (December 1840), 197-202. off-site

Does the fact that the Bible states that nothing should be "added to" or "taken away" from the book mean that the Book of Mormon is false?

Misuse of the Book of Revelation

Some Christians claim that the Book of Mormon cannot be true because nothing should be "added to" or "taken away from" the Holy Bible. However, those who claim this misuse Revelation, misunderstand the process by which the Bible canon was formed, and must ignore other, earlier scriptures to maintain their position. Their use of this argument is a form of begging the question whereby they presume at the outset that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures are not the Word of God, which is precisely the point under debate.

The verse often cited (as by Martin, above) is Revelation 22:18-19:

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

The book of Revelation was written prior to some of the other biblical books

Some claim that this verse states that the Bible is complete, and no other scripture exists or will be forthcoming.

However, the critics ignore that:

• The book of Revelation was written prior to some of the other biblical books, and prior the Bible being assembled into a collection of texts. Therefore, this verse can only apply to the Book of Revelation, and not the Bible as a whole (some of which was unwritten and none of which was yet assembled together into 'the Bible'). While the traditional date of the book of Revelation is A.D. 95 or 96 (primarily based on a statement by Irenaeus), many scholars now date it as early as A.D. 68 or 69. The Gospel of John is generally dated A.D. 95-100.
• The New Testament was organized by placing the gospels first, and then the letters of apostles and other leaders in order of decreasing length.

Since the book of Revelation is neither a gospel nor an epistle, it was placed at the end of the canon in its own category. Therefore, John cannot have intended the last few sentences of Revelation to apply to the entire Bible, since he was not writing a 'final chapter' for the New Testament and since the Bible would not be completed and canonized for some centuries later.

• Other scriptures (such as Deuteronomy 4꞉2, 12꞉32, and Proverbs 30꞉6) likewise forbid additions. If the critics' arguments were self-consistent, they would have to then discard everything in the New Testament and much of the Old, since these verses predate "other scripture" added by God through later prophets.
• Further evidence that Rev. 22꞉19 is not referring to the entire bible when it reads "words of the book of this prophecy" is found if one reads Revelation 1:3,11:

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand...Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

It is clear that the book referred to at the beginning of Revelation is the same book being referred to at the end.

Everything that John saw and heard in between these two statements are the contents of that book.

Many biblical authors warned against editing their work

Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman wrote:

The very real danger that [New Testament] texts could be modified at will, by scribes who did not approve of their wording, is evident in other ways as well. We need always to remember that the copyists of the early Christian writings were reproducing their texts in a world in which there were not only no printing presses or publishing houses but also no such thing as copyright law. How could authors guarantee that their texts were not modified once put into circulation? The short answer is that they could not. That explains why authors would sometimes call curses down on any copyists who modified their texts without permission. We find this kind of imprecation already in one early Christian writing that made it into the New Testament, the book of Revelation, whose author, near the end of his text, utters a dire warning [quotes Revelation 22꞉18-19].

This is not a threat that the reader has to accept or believe everything written in this book of prophecy, as it is sometimes interpreted; rather, it is a typical threat to copyists of the book, that they are not to add to or remove any of its words. Similar imprecations can be found scattered throughout the range of early Christian writings.

God may add to God's word

Even if the passage in Revelation meant that no man could add to scripture; it does not forbid that God may, through a prophet, add to the Word of God. If this were not possible, then the Bible could never have come into existence—the Old Testament, for example, would have precluded having the New Testament.

⍗

Learn more about "adding to" or "taking away from" the Bible

Online	Scott Gordon, "To Add To or To Take From," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2002) PDF link Howard W. Hunter, "No Man Shall Add to or Take Away," Ensign (May 1981): 64. off-site Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993). off-site FAIR linkoff-site
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

“Mormonism in America,” The Christian Witness (Plymouth, England) 5, no. 1 (January 1838): 23–24. off-site Anon., "Difference Between the Baptists & Latter-Day Saints. From the North Staffordshire Mercury," Millennial Star 1 no. 12 (April 1841), 296–99. off-site George J. Adams, "[Letter to Parley P. Pratt, 14 December 1841]," Millennial Star 2 no. 9 (January 1842), 141-43. off-site M.S.C., “Mormonism,” Painesville Telegraph (Painesville, Ohio) 2, no. 35 (15 February 1831): 1-2. off-site Philander Chase, A Pastoral Letter of Bishop Chase, to the Clergy of His Diocese of Illinois (1843), 1-8. off-site John A. Clark, “Gleanings by the way. No. VIII,” Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (26 September 1840): 106–07. off-site John A. Clark, “Gleanings by the Way No. X,” Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (10 October 1840): 114-115. off-site* H., Letter to the Editor, Observer and Telegraph (Hudson, Ohio) (30 December 1830). off-site Samuel Haining, Mormonism Weighed in the Balances of the Sanctuary, and Found Wanting: The Substance of Four Lectures (Douglas: Robert Fargher, 1840), 4, 15-16. off-site Walter Martin, Mormonism (Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers, 1976), 29. "[Joseph] Smith apparently was either oblivious to the expressed warning about adding to or subtracting from the Word of God, or willfully disobedient to it (see Rev. 22:18,19)." Philanthropist of Chester County, Mormonism Unmasked, Showed to be an Impious Imposture, and Mr. Bennett’s Reply Answered and Refuted (Philadelphia: T. K. & P. G. Collins, 1840), 6. off-site Response Erastus Fairbanks Snow, E. Snow’s Reply to the Self-Styled Philanthropist, of Chester County (Philadelphia?: s.n., 1840?), ??. off-site La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 6 (10 February 1838), 22. off-site

Past responses

Anon, "Reply To Mr. J. B. Rollo’s ‘Mormonism Exposed.'," Millennial Star 2 no. 3 (July 1841), 43–48. [{{{1}}} off-site] Parley P. Pratt, Plain Facts (Manchester: W. R. Thomas, 1840), 2. off-site Full title John Taylor, Calumny Refuted and the Truth Defended (Liverpool: J. Tompkins, 1840), 1–12. Full title John Taylor, Truth Defended and Methodism Weighed in the Balance and Found Wanting (Liverpool: J. Tompkins, 1840), 2. Full title Benjamin Winchester, “The Object of a Continuation of Revelation,” The Gospel Reflector (Philadelphia) 1, no. 5 (1 March 1841): 89-96. off-site

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Latter-day Saint scripture

Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ	The Holy Bible Book of Mormon Doctrine and Covenants Pearl of Great Price Book of Moses Book of Abraham The Family: A Proclamation to the World
Nature of scripture	Open vs closed canon Understanding revelation
Interpretation of scripture	Tips for studying scripture Leaders on scripture interpretation Common issues in interpretation and proof-texting Alleged contradictions in scripture Violence in the scriptures Slavery in the scriptures Sexism in the scriptures Racism and the scriptures

Specific alleged contradictions in scripture

The challenge of Latter-day Saint scripture and an open canon to the rest of the christian world means that there is a long history of polemics targeted at the Church of Jesus Christ. These are well-worn "chestnuts" and standard biblical issues that have been repeatedly "asked and answered" for Latter-day Saints over nearly two centuries.

Table summary

The supposed contradictions arise from 1) misinterpretation, 2) comparing two verses when are speaking of different things and 3) reading Protestant meanings into scriptural terminology

Many conservative Protestant critics have reproduced a table which purports to show how LDS scripture contradicts itself.

The table below examines the supposed contradictions, presents the scriptures cited in context, and demonstrates that claims of contradiction rest on:

1. a misinterpretation of LDS scripture
2. comparing two verses which are speaking about different things
3. reading Protestant meanings into scriptural terminology

Supposed Contradictions in LDS scripture

Number	Column A: Book of Mormon...	Column B: "Contrasting" scripture...	Response and Comments
1	One God 2 Nephi 31꞉21 Alma 11꞉27-39,44 3 Nephi 11꞉27 Mormon 7꞉7	Plural Gods D&C 121꞉32 D&C 132꞉18-20,37	The scriptures in Column A all state that there is "One God" consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Column B scriptures explain the nature of this oneness. Protestant critics do not like the fact that Latter-day Saints reject the nonbiblical Nicene Creed, which teaches a oneness of substance. Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see John 17꞉22-23). To learn more: Godhead and the Trinity
2	God is a Spirit Alma 18꞉26-28 Alma 22꞉8-11	God Has A Body D&C 130꞉22	The scriptures in Column A describe missionary efforts to teach the pagan Lamanites about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Missionaries begin their efforts by explaining that what the Lamanites called "The Great Spirit" was God. This is not an attempt to give a theological description of God's nature, but to build on common beliefs. To the Lamanites, being "The Great Spirit" did not preclude being corporeal—Ammon was mistaken for the great spirit, and yet he clearly had a body, could perform physical actions, etc. So, the concept of "spirit" used by the Lamanites is not (as the critics assume) the same as the "spirit" of Nicene trinitarianism. The God to which the Column A scriptures refer is Jesus Christ, or Jehovah. In LDS doctrine, Jesus Christ was a premortal spirit that did not yet have a physical body when the scriptures in Column A were given. Thus, the description of Christ as a Spirit was accurate before His birth even in LDS terms. To learn more Book of Mormon teaches God is a spirit? Premortal Jesus divine without physical body God is a Spirit God has a physical body
3	God dwells in the heart Alma 34꞉36 ...35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. 36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell....	God does not dwell in the heart D&C 130꞉3 The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse [John 14:23], is a personal appearance; the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man's heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false."	Column B explains that when Jesus says that He and the Father will "make our abode" with those who "keep my words," this means that the righteous may physically behold them. It targets the false idea that God does not have any physicality, and cannot be seen. Column A describes the fact that the spirit of Satan or the Spirit of the Lord (i.e., the Holy Ghost) will "possess" or influence mortals depending upon their choices. The Holy Ghost can dwell in the heart of man, since he is a spirit (see 2 Timothy 1:14 and D&C 130꞉22). It is telling that the supposed "contradiction" is explained later in section 130, but the critics ignore it.
4	One God creates 2 Nephi 2꞉14 Jacob 4꞉9 Moses 2	Multiple Gods create Abraham 3-4	As discussed in point #1, LDS doctrine sees God as one, but not one in substance. In LDS doctrine, God may be properly spoken of as one and as consisting of more than one person or being. This is not a contradiction; it merely demonstrates that the Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene trinitarianism. To learn more Multiple versus single creators? Godhead and the Trinity
5	God Cannot Lie 2 Nephi 9꞉34 Ether 3꞉12	God Commands Lying Abraham 2꞉22-25 ...22 And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon; 23 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise: 24 Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live. 25 And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee.	Abraham misled the Egyptians by not disclosing all the facts. He did not disclose that Sarai was his wife. It was, however, true that she was his sister—more specifically, she was what anthropologists call a "parallel cousin," who under Jewish levirate law was considered his sister. Conservative protestant critics are disingenuous in posing this question, since Abraham twice uses this tactic in the Bible (though God is not said to explicitly command it). God no where condemns Abraham for this supposed "lie." Furthermore, the explanation for Abraham's claim is also included in the Bible—see Genesis 11:25-29 and Genesis 20꞉11-12). The Bible also contains similar examples of God commanding a prophet to make a "strictly true" statement intended to deceive the wicked and protect the lives of the innocent, and other cases in which God ratified a decision to withhold the truth to save innocents.
6	God's Word Unchangeable Alma 41꞉8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.	God's Word Can Change Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord. D&C 56꞉4-5	Column A speaks of "decrees of God"—the commandments which God has given about how to return to him, and the consequences for disobedience. The speaker is the prophet Alma, addressing a sinful son who has left the ministry in pursuit of a harlot. Column B notes that humans may be in changing circumstances. Thus, God may give specific commands in one situation, and different commands in a different situation necessary for carrying out His work. God will not force men to obey—if some disobey, then God may need to alter commands. If he tells John to go on a mission, and John refuses, then God may need to "reassign" someone else to carry out John's former task. As the scripture says, the consequences of this will "be answered upon the heads of the rebellious"—there is still a penalty for disobedience, but God's plans cannot be thwarted by mortal disobedience. Neither scripture mentions "God's word" (which conservative Protestants would associate with scripture), but this terminology allows the critic to give the misleading impression that the verses are discussing the alteration of scripture, instead of on-going revelation adapted to the good and bad choices which mortals make.
7	No Pre-Existence of Man Jacob 4꞉9 For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure? Alma 18꞉28,34-36 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?....34 Ammon said unto him: I am a man; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God, and I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people, that they may be brought to a knowledge of that which is just and true;	Pre-Existence D&C 93꞉23,29-33 Abraham 3꞉21-23	The scriptures in Column A say nothing about pre-mortal existence. Jacob 4 asserts that God spoke and created man's body "upon the face of the earth." Alma says that man's body was created after the image of God. None of these says anything about a pre-existence. Abraham 4꞉27 goes on to describe the creation of the body of mankind after the image of God—the same doctrines taught in column A. This criticism assumes creation out of nothing—creatio ex nihilo—another unbiblical doctrine which conservative Protestants criticize Latter-day Saints for not accepting. For the critics, any creation must be ex nihilo creation; Latter-day Saint doctrine does not require this. To learn more: Creatio ex nihilo
8	Death seals man's fate Mosiah 2꞉36-39 And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom's paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved—I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples. Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. Alma 34꞉32-35 32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors. 33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. 34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. 35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.	Chance for repentance after death D&C 128꞉5	Column A scriptures speak of those who have had the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, and have rejected it. Such people lose their chance for exaltation in LDS doctrine (see D&C 76꞉73-78). They are those who "have known and...been taught all these things....[coming] out in open rebellion against God." Alma cautions those who "have had so many witnesses" against putting off the repentance and conversion which they know they need to undertake. Column B describes those who have never had this opportunity. If one cannot accept the gospel beyond the grave, then all those who have not heard of Christ in this life must be damned for all eternity—the critics may be comfortable with such an outcome, but the Latter-day Saints do not believe that a merciful God would condemn His children for that which they never had the full chance to receive.
9	Heathen Saved Without Baptism 2 Nephi 9꞉25-26 Mosiah 15꞉24-27 Moroni 8꞉22-23	Baptism for the Dead D&C 128꞉5,17-18	The scriptures in column B explain how the results in column A are accomplished. The heathen who choose to accept Christ will be saved, without baptism in their mortal life, because of vicarious baptism in their behalf, which they may accept or reject. The scriptures are clear that without baptism, no one may be saved (John 3꞉5). Yet, the majority who have lived on the earth have not had the opportunity for baptism. Without vicarious baptism and preaching Christ in the post-mortal world, God would be said to eternally damn the majority of mankind for something they never had the chance to receive. Note: 2 Nephi is not necessarily targeted at "the heathen"—it is targeted at those who have not been given the law. The Book of Mormon teaches elsewhere that all normal people have the spirit of Christ given them, and know good from evil (Moroni 7꞉16). "Heathen" peoples would still be responsible for the degree to which they observed the law which they had been given through the spirit of Christ, and would require forgiveness of sins against that law—through Christ and post-mortal acceptance of vicarious ordinances. Those who have not received any law would probably be restricted to little children, and others with physical or mental handicaps that render them essentially "child-like." Note: Moroni 8 is likewise discussing little children and others who have no law, not necessarily "the heathen." To learn more: Baptism for the dead
10	Only options are heaven or hell 1 Nephi 15꞉35 2 Nephi 28꞉22 Mosiah 16꞉11 Mosiah 27꞉31 Alma 41꞉4-8 Alma 42꞉16	Three degrees of glory, with most people "saved" D&C 76꞉43,70-112	The Book of Mormon teaches that one must accept Christ's sacrifice, or be damned: its focus is on either exaltation, or damnation. The Doctrine and Covenants explains how those who do not accept exaltation through Christ are judged according to their works. All who do not fully accept Christ will be blocked ("damned") from receiving some of the gifts which they could have enjoyed. Yet, it would be unjust for God to impose identical punishment on the vast range of human sins. The Book of Mormon focuses the new or potential Christian on the absolute necessity of accepting Christ and His gospel. The Doctrine and Covenants explains how God remains merciful and just as he judges those who have not fully accepted Christ's gospel by their works. Once again, we see the critics upset because more information which complements—not contradicts—earlier scripture is given. The table is also misleading, since Latter-day Saints use the term "saved" in a variety of ways, and would not regard most of those discussed in the Column B as "saved" in the same sense discussed in Column A. 'To learn more: Dallin H. Oaks, "Have You Been Saved?," Ensign (May 1998): 55.off-site Elder Oaks discusses at least six senses in which Latter-day Saints use the term 'saved' in their theology.
11	Murder can be forgiven 3 Nephi 30꞉2 Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel.	'Murder cannot be forgiven D&C 42꞉18 ...And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.	Column A is addressed to those who have not yet accepted and covenanted with Christ—"ye Gentiles." Column B is addressed "unto the Church." Those who have a certain minimum of spiritual knowledge cannot commit murder and be completely absolved of the consequences. Those with less spiritual knowledge may be forgiven of murder following sincere repentance (Alma 24꞉9-11). Once again, two different doctrines are being taught, but the critics ignore this.
12	Polygamy condemned Jacob 1꞉15 Jacob 2꞉24 Jacob 3꞉5 Mosiah 11꞉2	Polygamy commanded D&C 132꞉1,37-39	The critics are careful to omit the verse of scripture that explains this apparent contradiction, Jacob 2꞉30. This scripture from column A makes it clear that God may, under some conditions, command polygamy: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." Scriptures in column A show the "default" command to practice monogamy, which God may alter according to His plan and circumstance as described in column B. This is a tired, well-worn anti-Mormon attack—its dishonesty should be clear. To learn more: Book of Mormon Condemns Polygamy? Contradiction between D&C 132 and Jacob 2? Plural marriage is not Biblical?
13	Against Paid Ministries 2 Nephi 26꞉31 ...But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish. Mosiah 27꞉5 ...Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."	For Paid Ministries D&C 42꞉71-73 those working full-time in the Church's temporal affairs are "to have a just remuneration" for their work. [Bishops and councilors, at the time, were full-time jobs. Many bishops today would probably agree that such callings could be full time nowadays as well!] D&C 43꞉12-13 D&C 51꞉13-14	Column A does not reject having someone be paid in a religious capacity. Column A insist that the motivation for those working must always be God's glory and the benefit of the Church. If they are working for money, or to get gain, there are grave spiritual risks for teacher and listener. The second scripture in column A reflects this, since the religious community described had just escaped a wicked society in which a king and his hand-picked priests had used religion for gain and the satisfaction of their lusts, not teaching of the truth. The second scripture also acknowledges, however, that there may be circumstances in which religious leaders may need financial help or support, as described in the Column B scriptures. Again, these scriptures are complimentary and addressing different aspects of an issue. The critics omit the scripture from the Book of Mormon that describe the problem: He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion. (2 Nephi 26꞉29) The problem is priestcraft—to do religious acts for the purpose of getting gain or glory. Priestcraft is a problem of attitude, and can happen whether one is paid or not. To learn more: David A. Bednar, "Seek Learning By Faith," (3 February 2006), Address to CES Religious Educators, Jordan Institute of Religion. off-site Dallin H. Oaks, "Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall," Ensign (October 1994): 15.off-site Elder Bednar and Elder Oaks discuss the risks of priestcraft for Church teachers, paid or unpaid.
14	Corrupt Churches Promise Forgiveness For Money Mormon 8꞉32 31 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it mattereth not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day. But wo unto such, for they are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity. 32 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.	Church Members Who Pay Tithing Will Not Burn D&C 64꞉23 23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming. 24 For after today cometh the burning—this is speaking after the manner of the Lord—for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.	Column B has had the next verse (v. 24) omitted, which is need to properly interpret verse 23. Nothing in column B promises forgiveness of sins. Rather, column B points out that if members of the Church refuse to tithe, this is good evidence that they are proud and wicked—they remain committed to Babylon, a symbol of worldliness. Tithing thus prepares us and helps transform us. It weans us from worldliness, and helps remake us into the type of people who will not be consumed at God's appearance. It does not purchase forgiveness—but, if offered in the proper spirit, it will transform us from the type of people who will not seek Christ's atonement with humility into those who will. Churches described in column A offer forgiveness and absolution with no change in behavior or character. Column B calls for a change in behavior, which can transform character. Those thus transformed may then seek and receive forgiveness. The approaches are mirror opposites.
15	Adam in the Americas D&C 107꞉53 D&C 116꞉1 D&C 117꞉8	Adam in the Old World Moses 3꞉8,10-15	Moses is based upon the Bible narrative of Genesis. While the Genesis/Moses account describes the Garden of Eden in relation to four rivers—Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and the Euphrates. The first three rivers are related to the lands of Havilah, Ethiopia, and Assyria (see Genesis 2:11). This organization corresponds to no known geographical location, in the old or new worlds. Since Genesis does not match a real world geography, rather than seeing these descriptions as literal, most Bible scholars have seen them as a symbolic tool to place Eden at the "center" of creation. Given that the Bible was written in the Old World, it is unsurprising that the symbols therein use Old World sites. Such symbols, however, are of little use in establishing a literal geographic location in either the Old or New World. To learn more: Location of the Garden of Eden?

As we have seen, none of these paired scriptures contradict each other. This list misunderstands and misrepresents LDS doctrine.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

The table is found, with few if any variations, on multiple internet sites. FAIR does not link to anti-Mormon sites, but a Google search makes it easy to find. Some sources credit the initial table to: Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). Other sources that use it, with and without attribution to Tanner, include: Bill Donohue, "The Book of Mormon Contradictions [sic] Itself; The Book of Mormon contradicts other Standard Works!" 2004; (accessed 22 May 2009). Richard Deem, "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," Evidence for God from Science (accessed 22 May 2009) Ex-Mormons for Jesus, "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). H.I.S. (He Is Savior) Ministries, "H.I.S. Ministries-Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). ICARE (Institute for Christian Awareness and Responsible Evangelism) Ministries, Inc., "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). The Interactive Bible, "The Book of Mormon contradicts Itself! The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible!" (accessed 22 May 2009). Jesus Christ Saves Ministries, San Diego, California; "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). "Mormon Theology: Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith," at Religion & Spirituality at Squidoo (accessed 22 May 2009). RiverValley Church, 1331 High Avenue, Oshkosh, Wisconsin; On-line in section "Other religions," where "we will from time to time publish documents that look at what other religions believe and how they contradict Christianity. Use these resources to understand what others believe and strengthen your belief in our holy and good God. Please do not use these documents as tools to segregate or cause prejudice against others with opposing beliefs." (italics in original) No author, "Investigation into Mormonism," 3-4 (the table is followed by a pages 5-10, which contain Sandra Tanner, "Sharing Your Faith with Latter-day Saints.") (accessed 22 May 2009)

Details on alleged contradictions

Alleged contradictions in the Doctrine and Covenants

Do D&C 20:37 and 2 Nephi 31:17 or 3 Nephi 12:2 contradict one another regarding the order in which one receives baptism and a remission of sins?

These scriptures are not contradictory, for at least three reasons

It is claimed that LDS scriptures such as D&C 20꞉37 (first case) and 2 Nephi 31꞉17, 3 Nephi 12꞉2, and Moroni 8꞉11 (second case) are contradictory about the order in which one receives baptism and a remission of sins and that that "Mormon theologians" have ignored this issue.

As is typical in such charges of self-contradiction, the critics either:

• misinterpret LDS scripture;
• compare verses of scripture which are not speaking about identical issues;
• read Protestant terminology or theology into LDS scripture.

In this case, the critics have committed all three mistakes. As such, it is not surprising if "Mormon theologians" have spent little on the issues. The critics are looking to find fault, and so strain at gnats. LDS thinkers understand LDS doctrine, and so see clearly that there is no contradiction.

These scriptures are not contradictory, for at least three reasons—any one of which is sufficient to disprove the critics' claim. We will first list the scriptural texts, and then discuss each of the three reasons for which they are not properly seen as contradictory.

Scriptures to be considered

The first case

And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church (D&C 20꞉37).

The second case

Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost (2 Nephi 31꞉17).

...Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins (3 Nephi 12꞉2).

And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins (Moroni 8꞉11).

Reason #1: The scriptures are discussing two slightly different issues

There is a difference between "received of the Spirit of Christ" (which is given to every man—see Moroni 7꞉16—but may be received or not depending on choices and heed paid to it) and the baptism of "fire and the Holy Ghost" which happens after baptism, as Joseph Smith taught:

There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him.

Reason #2: The audience and presumed intent for the audience are slightly different

Note too that those in the first instance have repented and expressed a desire to be baptized, which desire and sincerity can then lead to a remission of their sins, (i.e., the intent is what matters, and a willingness to follow through on that intent).

In the second case, Nephi is encouraging those who may not have accepted the Messiah to do so, and to obey the commandments and example given by the Messiah—including baptism. So, his target audience is those who have perhaps not yet "desire[d] to be baptized." When they have that desire (by hearkening to the Spirit of Christ), they will then repent and hearken to it, and will choose to be baptized. This decision to repent and follow Jesus will ultimately lead to forgiveness, and the baptism of fire and the purging out of sin that comes with the receipt of the Holy Ghost (after baptism).

In short, the audience in the first case is further along in the process than the audience in the second.

Reason #3: The question presupposes that "forgiveness" is a single, unique event, when in fact it is an on-going process

Here, we see that the critics are viewing this question through the lenses of conservative protestantism.

The critics are assuming that the Book of Mormon matches their view of salvation, in which someone is "saved" once and finally by some type of "altar call" or confession. By contrast, LDS theology sees salvation, repentance, forgiveness, and purification and transformation by the Holy Ghost as on-going processes. The experience begins before baptism, leads us to baptism, and is the fulfillment of the promises and covenants of baptism, which must then be persisted in as we "endure to the end."

As the second case scriptures explain, as we learn of Jesus we are humbled and desire to repent. Repentance requires that we appreciate that we have not kept all of God's commandments, and we regret not doing so. We become resolved to keep God's commandments from henceforth, and the first commandment which we can obey is to choose baptism. The baptism is an outward sign of our repentance and determination to keep God's commandments, and this willingness to covenant with Jesus allows us (as the first case notes) to "receive...of the Spirit of Christ," which begins the process of remitting our sins. If we do not persist in our intention to follow Jesus, however, and were to suddenly choose not to be baptized, we would have returned to sin.

When we have been baptized, we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, which purifies us as if by fire, as sin and evil are burned out of us, and we walk in newness of life, following Jesus. We must then endure to the end, for if we do not, the remission of our sins (which we have only received because we have chosen to enter a covenant with Christ) will be null and void. The subsequent verses of 2 Nephi 1 explain this clearly:

And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive. And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save. Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the FatherYe shall have eternal life (2 Nephi 31꞉18-20).

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources	Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 207. ( Index of claims ) La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 6 (10 February 1838), 22. off-site Rather than contrasting the Book of Mormon and D&C, this author contrasts the D&C with Parley P. Pratt's Voice of Warning, 105 which echoes the Book of Mormon.
Past responses	John Taylor, Calumny Refuted and the Truth Defended (Liverpool: J. Tompkins, 1840), 1–12. Full title

Alleged contradiction between Book of Mormon, Book of Moses and Book of Abraham on number of Creators

Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses describe "God" as creating, while the Book of Abraham describes "Gods?"

Summary: Protestant critics do not like the fact that Latter-day Saints reject the nonbiblical Nicene Creed, which teaches a oneness of substance. Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see John 17꞉22-23). Thus, it is proper to speak of "God" in a singular sense, but Latter-day Saints also recognize that there is more than one divine person—for example, the Father and the Son. This is not a contradiction; it merely demonstrates that the Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene trinitarianism.

Does Lehi contradict Jeremiah 7 and prove himself a false prophet?

One critic has claimed that Jeremiah 7 proves that Lehi wasn’t a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon’s authenticity is thus affected negatively.

Jeremiah 7 contains Jeremiah’s pleas before the kings of Israel to not fight back against Babylon. Babylon was forming a then-impending invasion on Israel. Certain prophets like Hananiah in Jeremiah 8 were prophesying that Jerusalem and Israel should fight back against Babylon and that the Lord would carry them to victory over Babylon.

Jeremiah receives revelation that those prophecies are not from the Lord. He is instructed to tell the kings of Israel to surrender willfully to Babylon and allow themselves to be carried away to Babylon for 70 years. As verse 8 of chapter 27 of Jeremiah says:

And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.

Further, any prophet claiming otherwise should not be listened to. Chapter 27꞉12-18:

¶ I spake also to Zedekiah king of Judah according to all these words, saying, Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live. Why will ye die, thou and thy people, by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, as the Lord hath spoken against the nation that will not serve the king of Babylon? Therefore hearken not unto the words of the prophets that speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylonfor they prophesy a lie unto you. For I have not sent them, saith the Lord, yet they prophesy a lie in my name; that I might drive you out, and that ye might perish, ye, and the prophets that prophesy unto you.

Also I spake to the priests and to all this people, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Hearken not to the words of your prophets that prophesy unto you, saying, Behold, the vessels of the Lord’s house shall now shortly be brought again from Babylonfor they prophesy a lie unto you. Hearken not unto them; serve the king of Babylon, and livewherefore should this city be laid waste? But if they be prophets, and if the word of the Lord be with them, let them now make intercession to the Lord of hosts, that the vessels which are left in the house of the Lord, and in the house of the king of Judah, and at Jerusalem, go not to Babylon.

Lehi, the critic asserts, is given revelation to leave Jerusalem. Thus, he remains outside of Jeremiah’s instruction from God via revelation to submit and be slaves to Babylon. Thus either both prophets aren’t actually prophets or one is right and the other is a false prophet.

Response to Question

It’s important to keep in mind exactly what Jeremiah is responding to. Jeremiah is responding to the wickedness of Israel and the city Jerusalem. He believes that Israel and Jerusalem are so wicked that the Lord must punish them and, indeed, he has received revelation from God that God is going to do just that: punish Israel via the Babylonian invasion. If they resist the Babylonian invasion, they face the sword, famine, and pestilence until they die. If they don’t resist, they face the 70 years of punishment via slavery in Babylon. Much nicer.

Lehi heard prophets in Jerusalem saying that "the people must repent, or that great city Jerusalem must be destroyed" (1 Nephi 1꞉4). He also read a book in vision that said that Jerusalem "should be destroyed, and the inhabitants thereof; many should perish by the sword, and many should be carried away captive into Babylon" (1 Nephi 1꞉13). Jerusalem could be saved if they repented. As Lehi exclaimed "Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty ! Thy throne is high in the heavens, and thy power, and goodness, and mercy are over all the inhabitants of the earth; and, because thou art merciful, thou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish" (1 Nephi 1꞉14). Lehi told his contemporaries of this way out of destruction via repentance, but, according to Nephi’s account of Lehi’s ministry, Lehi was mocked and his people sought to take away his life (1 Nephi 1꞉20). Lehi is then commanded personally in a dream to take his family and depart into the wilderness (1 Nephi 2꞉2).

Thus, Jeremiah is telling people to not actively resist the Babylonian invasion whether by violence or some other means but to submit to their rule. Otherwise they face destruction. Lehi is saying that if the people repent they don’t have to face each other. The two prophets don’t necessarily make it explicit in both of their messages that both of these options were available to the people, but that does not make their messages conflicting.

Why does the Church teach that man first existed as spirits in heaven when 1 Corinthians 15:46 says that the physical body comes before the spiritual?

When Latter-day Saints speak of God creating our "spirit bodies," we do not mean the glorified, physical "spiritual body" of the resurrected

When Latter-day Saints speak of God creating our "spirit bodies," we do not mean the glorified, physical "spiritual body" of the resurrected. We refer to God's role as our Heavenly Father before our mortal lives.

Biblical statements indicate that God is the father of our spirits and we were known to him before our birth (e.g., Jeremiah 1:5). This is a separate doctrine from the doctrine of a glorious resurrection, which is clearly Paul's topic.

It is unfortunate that critics find it necessary to distort and twist the clear meaning of scripture in an attempt to make the Latter-day Saints "offenders for a word."

In context, Paul is clearly talking about the physical resurrection from the dead

In context, Paul is clearly talking about the physical resurrection from the dead. For example, earlier in the chapter he has written:

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christwhom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own orderChrist the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. .. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die... (1 Corinthians 15:12-36)

Paul clearly believes, then, that the physical body with which we die will be resurrected.

He then tells the Saints that:

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption... It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:40-43.)

The "spiritual body" to which Paul refers is the resurrected physical body which has been glorified

The "spiritual body" to which Paul refers is the resurrected physical body which has been glorified.

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:52-53.)

The "natural" body is the weak, corruptible mortal body that is "sown in weakness." The "spiritual body" is the glorified, resurrected body "raised in power." But, this does not mean that it is not also a physical, or corporeal body—Paul has just spent several verses insisting upon the reality of Christ's resurrection, and using Him as a model for the resurrection of the Saints. And, clearly Jesus' body was tangible and physical following the resurrection:

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have''. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. (Luke 24:39-42, (emphasis added).)

⍗

Learn more about premortal life

Key sources	Kevin L. Barney, "On Preexistence in the Bible" FAIR link
FAIR links	Barry Robert Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church, Chapter 3. FAIR link Terryl Givens, "When Souls Had Wings: What the Western Tradition Has to teach Us About Pre-Existence," Proceedings of the 2007 FAIR Conference (August 2007). link
Online	Terryl Givens, "When Souls Had Wings: What the Western Tradition Has to teach Us About Pre-Existence," FAIR Conference 2007 off-site Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, "Premortal Life and Mortal Life: A Fearful Symmetry," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60/0 (15 March 2024). [vii–xxii] link Dana M. Pike, "Formed in and Called from the Womb," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 41/8 (30 November 2020). [153–168] link Russell C. McGregor, "The Anti-Mormon Attackers (Review of The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible)," FARMS Review 14/1 (2003). [315–320] link
Print	Barry Robert Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity, 2nd edition (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2013). Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999). Terryl L. Givens, When Souls Had Wings: Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought (Oxford University Press, 2009). Richard R. Hopkins Biblical Mormonism (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1994). Truman G. Madsen in Eternal Man (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1966). Boyd K. Packer in Our Father's Plan (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1984). Joseph Fielding Smith in Man, His Origin and Destiny (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1954). Brent L. Top The Life Before (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988).
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers

How is John 4:24 used as a proof-text by critics of the Church's doctrine of God having a body?

Critics read into the passage what is not there. This passage in John does not assert anything about God's corporeal nature or lack thereof

King James Version

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4꞉24

Other translation(s)

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (NASB)

God is Spirit, and only by the power of his Spirit can people worship him as he really is." (TEV)

God is Spirit, and those who worship God must be led by the Spirit to worship him according to the truth. (CEV)

Critics read into the passage what is not there. This passage in John does not assert anything about God's corporeal nature or lack thereof. The Latter-day Saint belief that God is an embodied spirit is perfectly consistent with the passage in question and critics are in error to insist that the passage must be interpreted as "God is a disembodied spirit."

Use or misuse by Church critics

This verse is used as a proof-text by critics of the LDS doctrine of the corporeal nature of God. Critics argue that this passage proves that God does not have a physical body.

Commentary

The context of this verse is that Jesus is explaining to a Samaritan woman how one must worship. Jesus teaches that the place of worship, whether Samaria or Jerusalem, is not important, but rather the way one worships. By teaching attributes of God, Jesus teaches how His children can and should relate to Him and worship Him. Latter-day Saints emphatically agree that God is indeed spirit, just as He is love 1 Jn 1:5, light 1 Jn 4:8, and a consuming fire Deuteronomy 4:24, but He is not only spirit, love, light, or fire.

The Greek language has no indefinite article ("a" or "an") and so the translator must decide whether to include that word in the English text. But for Latter-day Saints, the presence or absence of the article makes no difference. Latter-day Saints believe both that God is spirit (as an attribute) and that God is a spirit (as a statement of His nature). Similarly, Latter-day Saints believe that all people are also spirits, but spirits housed within a physical body.

In the chapter immediately preceding this scripture, in John 3:5-6 , Jesus says the following:

John 3꞉5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3꞉6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (NASB)

It is clear from the above verse that Jesus considered it entirely possible for a mortal human with a physical body to be spirit. Likewise, it is not inconsistent to believe that God the Father simultaneously has a physical body and "is spirit."

⍗

Learn more about God as embodied

Online	David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link
Print	Barry R. Bickmore, "Does God Have a Body In Human Form?" Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen, "Augustine and the Corporeality of God," Harvard Theological Review 95/1 (2002): 97–118. Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Baker Academic, 2001), 33–34. Daniel C. Peterson, "On the Motif of the Weeping God in Moses 7," in Revelation, Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen, ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002), 285–317. ISBN 0934893713. David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83/2 (1990): 105–116. Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier, "In Defense of Anthropomorphism," in Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 155–173. ISBN 0884943585. James L. Kugel, The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible (Free Press, 2003), xi–xii, 5–6, 104–106, 134–135. Roger Cook, "God's 'Glory:' More Evidence for the Anthropomorphic Nature of God in the Bible." Roland J. Teske, "Divine Immutability in Saint Augustine," Modern Schoolman 63 (May 1986): 233. Barry R. Bickmore, "The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man," in Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999).
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young God

How is Isaiah 43:10 used as a proof-text by critics of the Church doctrines of humans' ability to become like God through Christ's atonement?

The context of this passage makes it clear that the issue being addressed is not one of general theology but rather a very specific and practical command to recognize YHWH as Israel's only god and the only god to be worshipped

King James Version

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. Isaiah 43꞉10

Other translation(s)

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. (NIV)

Use or misuse by Church critics

This verse is used as a proof-text by critics of the LDS doctrines of the plurality of gods and the deification of man. It is claimed that this verse proves that there never has been or ever will be another being who could properly be called a god.

Commentary

This passage and other similar proof texts from the Hebrew scriptures are misused by critics. When read in context, it is clear that the intent of the passage is to differentiate YHWH from the foreign gods and idols in the cultures surrounding the Jews.

Verses 43꞉11-13 are a continuation of the statement by God:

I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "that I am God.

Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?" (NIV)

The context of this passage makes it clear that the issue being addressed is not one of general theology but rather a very specific and practical command to recognize YHWH as Israel's only god and the only god to be worshiped.

In addition to misapplying this passage, critics also fail to recognize the growing body of evidence that shows that the Jewish religion was not strictly monotheistic until quite late in its development, certainly after the era in which Isaiah was written. When this evidence is considered, it appears that Judaism originally taught that though there are indeed other divine beings, some of whom are called gods, none of these are to be worshiped except for the God of gods who created all things and who revealed Himself to Moses.

⍗

Learn more about theosis or humans becoming like God

Key sources	Michael W. Fordham, "Does President Gordon B. Hinckley Understand LDS Doctrine?" FAIR link
FAIR links	Roger Cook, "'Christ, the Firstfruits of Theosis'," Proceedings of the 2002 FAIR Conference (August 2002). link D. Charles Pyle, "'I Have Said, ‘Ye are Gods’'," Proceedings of the 1999 FAIR Conference (August 1999). link
Online	Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site Jeff Lindsay, "The Divine Potential of Human Beings: The Latter-day Saint Perspective," JeffLindsay.com (accessed 30 March 2007)off-site Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2002).off-site Keith Norman, "Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2000).off-site Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 179. PDF link Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 209. PDF link David Bokovoy, "'Ye Really Are Gods: A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John; Review of You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82, by Michael S. Heiser'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [267–313] link Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye Are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in The Disciple As Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000),471–594. direct off-site Gerald N. Lund, "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement 'As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be'] accepted as official doctrine by the Church?," Ensign (February 1982): 38.off-site Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign 19 (January 1989): 27. off-site Keith E. Norman, "Deification, Early Christian," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:369–370.off-site Michael S. Heiser, "'Israel's Divine Counsel, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [315–323] link Michael S. Heiser, "'You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [221–266] link John C. Hancock, "A Compelling Case for Theosis," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30/3 (14 September 2018). [43–48] link Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text"," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 193. PDF link Daniel O. McClellan, "Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/8 (8 May 2015). [79–96] link Neal Rappleye, "'With the Tongue of Angels': Angelic Speech as a Form of Deification," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21/11 (2 September 2016). [303–324] link Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [99–146] link David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link Tom Rosson, "'Deification: Fulness and Remnant, A Review of Deification and Grace by Daniel A. Keating'," FARMS Review 20/1 (2008). [195–218] link Keith Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity," Sunstone no. (Issue #1) (Winter 1975), 14–19. off-siteoff-site Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
Video	Christ, The Firstfruits of Theosis: Early Christian Theosis, Roger Cook, 2002 FAIR Conference Part 1:Early Christian Theosis Part 2:Early Christian Theosis Part 3:Early Christian Theosis Part 4:Early Christian Theosis
Print	Daniel H. Ludlow, "Eternal Life or Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow: Gospel Scholars Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 416-20. David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 108–109. Extensive non-LDS bibliography available here. K. Codell Carter, "Godhood," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 553-55. Lorenzo Snow, "As God Is, Man May Be," in Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, compiled by Clyde J. Williams, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 2–9. ISBN 0884945170. Robert L. Millet, "Do the Mormons really believe that men and women can become gods?" in Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 175-77, 192-94. Robert L. Millet, "The Doctrine of Godhood in the New Testament," in The Principles of the Gospel in Practice (Sandy, UT: Randall Book, 1985), 21-37. Thomas S. Monson, An Invitation to Exaltation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 18 pp.
Bibliography on human deification	Aden, Ross, “Justification and Divinization,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 102-7. Aden, Ross, “Justification and Sanctification. A Conversation between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 87-109. Allchin, A.M., Participation in God. A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Connecticut 1988). Andia, Ysabel de, Homo vivens. Incorruptibilite et divinisation de l’homme selon Irenee de Lyon (Paris 1986). Andia, Ysabel de, “Mysteres, unification et divinisation de l’homme selon Denys l’areopagite,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome) 63 (1997): 273-332. Arroniz, J., “La immortalidad como deificacion en S. Ireneo,” Scriptorium Victoriense (Vitoria, Spain) 8 (1961): 262-87. Asendorf, Ulrich, “The Embeddedment of Theosis in the Theology of Martin Luther,” in Luther Digest 3 (1996): 159-61; English abridgment from Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990). Aubineau, M., “Incorruptibilite et divinisation selon saint Irenee,” Recherches de science religieuse 44 (1956): 25-52. Bakken, Kenneth L., “Holy Spirit and Theosis. Toward a Lutheran Theology of Healing,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 409-423. Balas, David L., Metousia Theou. Man’s participation in God’s Perfections according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Studia Anselmiana, volume 55 (Rome 1966). Bardy, Gustave, “Divinisation: According to the Latin Fathers,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, ascetique et mystique doctrine et histoire (Paris 1957): 3, Columns 1389-1398. Baur, L., “Untersuchungen uber die Vergottlichungslehre in der Theologie der grieschischen Vater,” Theologische Quartalschrift 98 (1916): 467-91; 99 (1917): 225-252; 100 (1919): 426-444; 101 (1920): 28-64, 155-186. Bielfeldt, Dennis, “Deification as a Motif in Luther’s Dictata super psalterium,” Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997): 401-420. Bilaniuk, Petro B.T., “The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization,” in The Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky, ed. David Nieman and Margaret Schatkin; Orientalia Christiana Analecta, volume 195 (Rome 1973): 337-359. Blowers, Paul M., “Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Concept of ‘Perpetual Progress,’” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 151-71. Bonner, Gerald, “Augustine’s Conception of Deification,” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986): 369-85. Bonner, Gerald, “Deification, Divinization,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A. (W.B. Eerdmans 1999): 265-6. Bonner, Gerald, “’Deificare,’” in Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (1996): columns 265-7. Bornhauser, K., Die Vergottungslehre des Athanasius und Johannes Damascenus (Gutersloh 1903). Braaten, Carl E., ”The Finnish Breakthrough in Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 141-3. Bratsiotis, P., “Die Lehre der orthodoxen Kirche uber die Theosis des Menschen,” Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie. Klasse der Letteren XXIII/1 (Brussels 1961): 1-13. Brecht, Martin, “Neue Ansatze der Lutherforshung in Finnland,” Luther (1990): 36-40. Breck, John, “Divine Initiative. Salvation in Orthodox Theology,” in Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 105-120. Butterworth, George W., ”The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 157-69. Capanaga, Victorino, “La deificacion en la soteriologia agostiniana,” in Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 745-754. Carabine, Deirdre, “Five Wise Virgins. Theosis and Return in Periphyseon V,” in Iohannes Scottus Eriugena, ed. G. van Riel, J.C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven 1996): 195-207. Cavanagh, William T., “A Joint Declaration?” Justification as theosis in Aquinas and Luther,” Heythrop Journal 41 (London 2000): 265-280. Christensen, Michael J., “Theosis and Sanctification. John Wesley’s Reformulation of a Patristic Doctrine,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 31 (1996): 71-94. Congar, Yves M.-J. (later Cardinal), Dialogue Between Christians. Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism (Newman Press 1966; 1st Paris 1964). Chapter 8 is entitled: “Deification in the Spiritual Tradition of the East’: 217-231; first published in La Vie Spirituelle 43 (1935): 91-107. Congar, Yves M.-J., The Mystery of the Temple (Newman Press 1962; Paris 1958); Appendix III: “God’s presence and his dwelling among men under the old and under the new and definitive dispensation,” 262-99. Corneanu, Nicolae, “The Jesus Prayer and Deification,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 39 (1995): 3-24. Daley, Brian E., S.J., The Hope of the Early Church. A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge University Press 1991). Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Divinisation,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite (Paris 1957) 3: columns 1376-1389. Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Mystere liturgique et divinisation dans la Mystagogie de saint Maxime le Confesseur,’ in Epektasis. Melanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Danielou (Paris 1972): 55-62. Davies, Brian, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford 1992). Chapter 13 entitled “How to be Holy,” 250-273. Deseille, P., “L’eucharistie et la divinisation des chretiens selon les Peres de l’Eglise,” Le Messager orthodoxe 87 (1981): 40-56. Drewery, Benjamin, “Deification,” in Christian Spirituality. Essays in Honor of Gordon Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks (London 1975): 35-62. Edwards, Henry, “Justification, Sanctification, and the Eastern Concept of Theosis,” Consensus. A Canadian Lutheran Journal of Theology 14 (1988): 65-88. Ermoni, V., “La deification de l’homme chez les Peres de l’Eglise,” Revue du clerge francais 11 (1897): 509-519. Fairbairn, Don, “Salvation as Theosis. The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy,” Themelios 23 (1998): 42-54. Faller, O., “Grieschischen Vergottung und christliche Vergottlichung,” Gregorianum 6 (1925): 405-35. Ferguson, Everett, “God’s Infinity and Man’s Mutability. Perpetual Progress according to Gregory of Nyssa,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 18 (1973): 59-78. Ferguson, Everett, “Progress in Perfection. Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita Moysis,” Studia Patristica 14 (1976): 307-14. Festugiere, A.-J., “Divinisation du Chretien,” La Vie Spirituelle 59 (1939): 90-99. Finger, Thomas, “Anabaptism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Some Unexpected Similarities,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994): 67-91. Finger, Thomas, “Post-Chalcedonian Christology. Some Reflections on Oriental Orthodox Christology from a Mennonite Perspective,” in Christ in East and West, ed. Paul Fries and Tiran Nersoyan (Mercer University Press 1987): 155-69. Flew, Robert Newton, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology. An Historical Study of the Christian Ideal for the Present Life (Oxford 1968; 1st 1934). Flogaus, R., Theosis bei Palamas und Luther (Gottingen 1997). Flogaus, R., “Agreement on the Issues of Deification and Synergy?,” Luther Digest. An Annual Abridgement of Luther Studies 7 (1999): 99-105; English abridgement of “Einig in Sachen Theosis und Synergie?,” Kerygma und Dogma 42 (1996): 225-243. Folliet, Georges, “’Deificari in otio,’ Augustin, Epistula 10.2,” Recherches Augustiniennes 2 (1962): 225-236. Ford, David C., “Saint Makarios of Egypt and John Wesley. Variations on the Theme of Sanctification,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 33 (1988): 288. Fortino, Eleuterio F., “Sanctification and Deification,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 192-200. Franks, R.S., “The Idea of Salvation in the Theology of the Eastern Church,” in Mansfield College Essays. Presented to Rev. Andrew Martin Fairbairn (London 1909): 249-264. Frary, Joseph, “Deification and Human Freedom,” Sobornost (London) 7 (1975): 117-126. Gross, Jules, La divinisation du Chretien d’apres les peres Grecs (Paris 1938). Recently translated. Gross, Jules, “Die Vergottlichung des Christen nach den grieschischen Vatern,” Zeitschrift fur Askese und Mystik 14 (1939): 79-94. Hartin, Patrick J., “Call to be Perfect through Suffering (James 1.2-4). The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount,” Biblica (Rome) 77 (1996): 477-492. Hartnett, Joanne J., Doctrina S. Bonaventurae de deiformitate (Mundelein 1936). Heine, Ronald E., Perfection in the Virtuous Life A Study in the Relationship between Edification and Polemical Theology in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Vita Moysis (Philadelphia 1975). Heintjes, J., “De opgang van den manschelijken Geest tot God volgens sint Maximus Confessor,” Bijdragen van de Philosophische en Theologische Faculteiten der Nederlandsche Jezuieten 5 (1942): 260-302; 6 (1943): 64-123. Hess, Hamilton, “The Place of Divinization in Athanasian Soteriology,” Studia Patristica 26 (1993): 369-374. Hinlicky, Paul R., “Theological Anthropology. Toward integrating theosis and Justification by Faith,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34 (1997): 38-73. Janssens, L., “Notre filiation divine d’apres S. Cyrille d’ Alexandrie,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensae 15 (1938): 233-78. Jenson, Robert W., Triune Identity (Philadelphia 1982): 103-148. Jenson, Robert W., “Theosis,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 108-112. Kamppuri, Hannu T., editor, Dialogue between Neighbors. The Theological Conversations between the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church 1970-1986 (Helsinki 1986), passim. Kamppuri, Hannu T., “Theosis in the Theology of Gregory Palamas,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 153-6. Kantorowicz, Ernst H., “Deus per naturam, Deus per gratiam. A Note on Mediaeval Political Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952): 253-77. Khairallah, Philip A., “The Sanctification of Life,” Emmanuel 96 (1990): 323-333; 394-397; 403-406. Kinghorn, Kenneth C., “Holiness: The Central Plan of God,” Evangelical Journal 15 (1997): 57-70. Kolp, A. L., “Partakers of the Divine Nature. The Use of II Peter 1.4 by Athanasius,” Studia Patristica 17 (1979): 1018-1023. Kretschmar, Georg, “The Reception of the Orthodox Teaching of Divinization in Protestant Theology,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 61-80; English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 156-9. Ladner, Gerhard T., “St. Augustine’s Conception of the Reformation of Man to the Image of God,” Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 867-888. Ladner, Gerhart B., The Idea of Reform. Its impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (Harvard 1959). Larchet, Jean-Claude, La Divinisation de l’homme selon Saint Maxime le Confesseur (Paris 1996). Lattey, Cuthbert, “The Deification of man in Clement of Alexandria. Some further notes,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 257-62. Lawrenz, Melvin E., The Christology of John Chrysostom (Mellen Press 1996). Section entitled: “The Way of Salvation—Moral Accomplishment and Divinization:” 146-54. Linforth, Ivan M., “’oi athanatizontes:’ (Herodotus 4.93-96),” Classical Philology 13 (1918): 23-33. Lossky, Vladimir, “Redemption and Deification,” in In the Image and Likeness of God (London 1975; New York 1974; from the French of 1967): 97-110; article first published as “Redemption et deification,” in Messager de l’Exarchat du Patrarche russe en Europe occidental 15 (1953): 161-70. Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, La Deification de l’homme selon la doctrine des Peres grecs (Paris 1970), edited and introduced by Jean Danielou. These three articles were first published as “La Doctrine de la Deification dans l’Eglise Grecque jusqu’au xie Siecle,” Revue d’Histoire des Religions 105 (1932): 5-43; 106 (1932): 525-74; 107 (1933): 8-55; “La Doctrine de la Grace et de la Liberte dans l’Orthodoxie Greco-orientale,” Oecumenica 6 (1939); “La Beatitude dans l’Orient Chretien,” Dieu Vivant 15 (1950). Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, “La grace deifiante des sacraments d’apres Nicolas Cabasilas,” Revue des sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques 25 (1936): 299-330; 26 (1937): 693-717. Maddox, Randy L., “John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy. Influences, convergences and Differences,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 29-53. Mahe, J., S.J., “La sanctification d’apres saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique 10 (1909): 30-40; 469-492. Mannermaa, Tuomo, “Theosis as a subject of Finnish Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 37-48; first published in Luther und Theosis: Vergottlichung als Thema der abendlandischen Theologie, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 11-26; an English abridgment appeared in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 145-9. Mantzaridis, Georgios, The Deification of Man. St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, translated by Liadain Sherrard (New York 1984). Marquart, Kurt E., “Luther and Theosis,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (Fort Wayne, Indiana 2000): 182-205. Marshall, Bruce D., “Ex Occidente Lux? Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology,” Modern Theology 20.1 (January 2004): 23-50. Marshall, Bruce D., “Justification as Declaration and Deification,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 4.1 (March 2002): 3-28. Martikainen, Jouko, “Man’s Salvation. Deification or Justification?,” Sobornost 7 (London: 1976): 180-192. Mayo, Harold, John Wesley and the Christian East: on the subject of Christian Perfection, Masters Thesis, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, New York 1980. McCormick, K. Steve, “Theosis in Chrysostom and Wesley: an Eastern paradigm on faith and love,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 26 (1991): 38-103. McCoy, J. D., “Philosophical influences on the doctrine of the Incarnation in Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria,” Encounter 38 (Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis: 1977): 362-91. McDaniel, Michael C.D., “Salvation as Justification and Theosis,” in Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 67-83; abridged in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 142-4. McDonald, Peter, “To become Gods: a saintly teaching,” Faith Magazine 30 (1998): 13-17. McDonnell, Kilian, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 1996). Chapter 9: “Taking the Robe of Glory from the Jordan--Divinization”; Chapter 10: “The Cosmic Jordan and the Robe of Glory—Divinization and Eschatology,” 128-55; and passim. McGuckin, John A., St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its history, theology and texts (E.J. Brill 1994). Chapter Three: “The Christology of Cyril: 1. Redemptive Deification: Cyril’s presuppositions and major concerns”: 175-226. Merritt, John G., “’Dialogue’ within a Tradition: John Wesley and Gregory of Nyssa discuss Christian Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22 (1987): 92-116. Messner, R., “Rechtfertigung und Vergottlichung—und die Kirche. Zur okumenischen Bedeutung neuerer Tendenzen in der Lutherforschung,” Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 118 (1996): 23-35. Meyendorff, John, “Remarks on Eastern Patristic Thought in John Scottus Eriugena,” in Eriugena: East and West, edited by Bernard McGinn and Willemien Otten (University of Notre Dame 1994): 51-68. Meyendorff, John, “Theosis in the Eastern Christian Tradition,” in Christian Spirituality III: Post Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupre and Don Saliers (New York 1989): 470-6. Moore, D. Marselle, “Development in Wesley’s thought on Sanctification and Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 20 (1985): 29-53. Morse, Jonathan, “Fruits of the Eucharist: Henosis and Theosis,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 127-42. Mosser, Carl, “The Greatest possible blessing: Calvin and deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55.1 (2002): 36-57. Musurillo, Herbert, From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings, with Introduction by Jean Danielou (New York 1979). Nellas, Panayiotis, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, translated by Norman Russell (New York 1987). Newman, John Henry Cardinal, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians (1895; 1st 1841 ff.). Chapter on Deification. Nispel, Mark D., “Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia,” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 289-304. Based on Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska. Nock, Arthur Darby, review article, in Journal of Religion 31 (1951): 214-6. Norman, Keith E., Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University 1980. Norris, Frederick W., “Deification: Consensual and Cogent,” Scottish Journal of Theology 49 (1996): 411-428. Oroz Reta, Jose, “De l’illumination a la deification de l’ame selon saint Augustin,” Studia Patristica 27 (1993): 364-82. O’Collins, Gerald, S.J., Christology. A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford University Press 1995). Passim O’Keefe, Mark, “Theosis and the Christian Life. Toward Integrating Roman Catholic Ethics and Spirituality,” Eglise et Theologie (Ottawa, Canada) 25 (1994): 47-63. O’Shea, Kevin F., “Divinization: a Study in Theological Analogy,” The Thomist 29 (1965): 1-45. Perkins, Harold William, The Doctrine of Christian or Evangelical Perfection (London 1927). Peura, Simo, “Participation in Christ according to Luther,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 164-8. Peura, Simo, “The Deification of Man as Being in God,” Luther Digest 5 (1997): 168-72; English abridgment of “Die Vergottlichung des Menschen als Sein in God,” Lutherjahrbuch 60 (1993): 39-71. Phan, Peter C., Grace and the Human Condition (Michael Glazier 1988): 132-138; 171-176. Piolanti, A., “La Grazia come participazione della Natura Divina,” Euntes Docete 10 (1957): 34-50. Places, Eduard des, “Divinization,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualite 3 (Paris 1957): columns 1370-1375. Plass, Paul, “Transcendent Time in Maximus the Confessor,” The Thomist 44 (1980): 259-77. Plass, Paul, “’Moving Rest’ in Maximus the Confessor,” Classica et Mediaevalia 35 (1984): 177-90. Popov, I.V., “Ideja obozenija v drevne-vostocnoi cerkvi” (‘The idea of divinization in the Ancient Eastern Church’), in Voprosi filosofij i psixogij 97 (1909): 165-213. Posset, Franz, “’Deification’ in the German Spirituality of the Late Middle Ages and in Luther: An Ecumenical Historical Perspective,” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 84 (1993): 103-25. Preuss, K.F.A., Ad Maximi Confessoris de Deo hominisque deificatione doctrinam abnotationum pars I (Schneeberg 1894). Rakestraw, Robert V., “Becoming like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 257-69. Randenborg, G. van, Vergottung und Erlosung (Berlin). Rechtfertigung und Verherrlichung (Theosis) des Menschen durch Jesus Christus (‘Justification and Glorification (Theosis) of the Human Person through Jesus Christ’) (Germany, 1995). Ritschl, Dietrich, “Hippolytus’ Conception of Deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 12 (1959): 388-99. Rius-Camps, J., El dinamismo trinitario en la divinizacion de los seres racionales segun Origenes (Rome 1970). Rondet, Henri, The Grace of Christ (Newman Press 1967; Paris 1948). Chapter Five: “The Greek Fathers: The Divinization of the Christian”: 65-88; and passim. Rondet, Henri, S.J., “La divinization du Chretien,” Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 71 (1949): 449-476; 561-588; reprinted and expanded in Rondet, Essais sur la Theologie de la Grace (Paris 1964): 107-200. Rufner, V., “Homo secundus Deus,” Philosophisches Jahrbuch 63 (1955): 248-91. Rusch, William G., “How the Eastern Fathers understood what the Western Church meant by Justification,” Justification by Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, ed. H.G. Andersen, T. A. Murphy, J. A. Burgess (Augsburg Press 1985): 131-142, notes 347-8. Russell, Norman, “’Partakers of the Divine Nature’ (II Peter 1.4) in the Byzantine Tradition,” in J. Hussey Festschrift (1998). off-site Ryk, Marta, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in the Deification of Man according to Contemporary Orthodox Theology,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 10 (1975): 24-39; 109-130. Saarinen, Risto, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogues 1959-1994 (Gottingen 1997). Saarinen, Risto, “Salvation in the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue. A Comparative Perspective,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 202-213. Saarinen, Risto, “The Presence of God in Luther’s Theology,” Lutheran Quarterly 8 (1994): 3-13. Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992) Sartorius, B., La doctrine de la deification de l’homme d’apres les Peres grecs en general et Gregoire Palamas en particulier, (Doctoral Thesis, Geneva 1965). Schmitz-Perrin, Rudolf, “’Theosis hoc est deification’. Depassement et paradoxe de l’apophase chez Jean Scot Erigene,” Revue des sciences religieuses 72 (1998): 420-445. Schonborn, Christoph, From Death to Life. The Christian Journey (Ignatius Press 1995; 1st German 1988). Chapter Two: “Is Man to become God? On the meaning of the Christian Doctrine of Deification”: 41-63, and passim. Schonborn, Christoph, God’s Human Face: The Christ-Icon (Ignatius Press 1994; 1st French 1976, 1978; 2nd German 1984). Passim. Schonborn, Christoph, “L’homme est-il fait pour devenir Dieu? Notes sur le sense chretien de la ‘deification’ or ‘divinisation’ de l’homme,’ Omnis Terra 22 (1983): 53-64. Schonborn, Christoph, “Uber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs der Vergottlichung des Menschen,” Jahrbuch fur Philosophie und Spekulative Theologie (Freiburg) 34 (1987): 3-47. Schurr, George M., “On the Logic of Ante-Nicene affirmations of the ‘Deification’ of the Christian,” Anglican Theological Review 51 (1969): 97-105. Schwarzwaller, Klaus, “Verantwortung des Glaubens,” in Freiheit als Liebe bei Martin Luther, ed. Dennis Bielfeldt and Klaus Schwarzwaller (Frankfurt, 1995): 133-158. Sheldon-Williams, I. P., review article of M. Lot-Borodine, La Deification de l’Homme, in Downside Review 89 (1971): 90-93. Slenczka, Reinhard, “Communion with God as Foundation and object of theology--deification as an ontological problem,” Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 149-53. Snyder, Howard A., ”John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 55-60. Staniloae, Dumitru, “Image, Likeness, and Deification in the Human Person,” Communio 13 (1986): 64-83. Steely, John E., Gnosis: The Doctrine of Christian Perfection in the Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Th. D. Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky 1954). Stephen E. Robinson, "The Doctrine of Deification," in Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993),60–65. off-site FAIR link Stolz, Anselm, The Doctrine of Spiritual Perfection (St. Louis 1946; 1st German). Stoop, Jan A. A., Die Deification Hominis in Die Sermones en Epistolae van Augustinus (Leiden 1952). Strange, C. Roderick, “Athanasius on Divinization,” Studia Patristica 16 (1985): 342-346. Stuckwisch, Richard, “Justification and Deification in the Dialogue between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremias II,” Logia. A Journal of Lutheran Theology 9 (2000): 17-28. off-site Telepneff, Gregory, and James Thornton, “Arian Transcendence and the Notion of Theosis in Saint Athanasios,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987): 271-77. Theodorou, A., “Die Lehre von der Vergottung des Menschen bei den grieschischen Kirchenvater,” Kerygma und Dogma (Zeitschrift fur theologische Forschung und Kirchliche lehre) 7 (1961): 283-310. Thunberg, Lars, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (Open Court 1995; 1st Sweden 1965): especially 427-32. Thuren, Jukka, “Justification and participation in the Divine Nature,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja (Theological Journal of Finland: 1977): 483-99. Tsirpanlis, Constantine N., Greek Patristic Theology, Volume I: Basic Doctrine in Eastern Church Fathers (New York 1979); Chapter entitled: “Aspects of Athanasian Soteriology”: 25-40. Turcescu, Lucian, “Soteriological Issues in the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification: an Orthodox Perspective,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 64-72. Turner, H.E.W., The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption. A Study of the Development of Doctrine during the First Five Centuries (London 1952). Union with Christ. The new Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Eerdmans 1998). Several papers, by Mannermaa, Peura, Raunio, Juntunen, Jenson, Braaten, Bielfeldt, all dealing with Theosis. Vandervelde, George, “Justification and Deification—Problematic Synthesis: A Response to Lucian Turcescu”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 73-78. Volz, Carl A., Faith and Practice in the Early Church. Foundations for Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis 1983). Volz has a section entitled “Christ, the Giver of Deification”: 76-9. Wakefield, Gordon S., “Perfection,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 297-9. Walland, F., La grazia divinizzante (Asti 1949). Watson, Nicholas, “Melting into God the English Way: Deification in the Middle English Version of Marguerite Porete’s Mirouer des simples ames anienties,” in Prophets Abroad. The Reception of Continental Holy Women in late Medieval England, ed. Rosalynn Voader (Cambridge 1996): 19-49. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “Eastern Orthodox Spirituality: Union with God in Theosis,” Theology Today (Princeton, NJ) 56 (1999): 29-43. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “The Union of God and man in Jesus Christ in the Thought of Gregory of Nazianzus,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28 (1982): 83-98. Weser, H., S. Maximi Confessoris praecepta de incarnatione Dei et deificatione hominis exponuntur et examinantur (Dissertation, Berlin 1869). Wild, P. T., Divinization of Man according to St. Hilary of Poitiers (Mundelein 1950). Williams, A.N., “Deification in the Summa Theologiae. A Structural Interpretation of the Prima Pars,” The Thomist 61 (1997): 219-255. Williams, A.N., “Light from Byzantium: The Significance of Palamas’ Doctrine of Theosis,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 483-496. Williams, Anna Ngaire, The Ground of Union. Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (Oxford University Press 1999). Williams, Rowan, “Deification,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 106-8. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “A Note on the Iconoclastic Controversy: Greek and Latin disagreements about Matter and Deification,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 18 (1980): 139-48. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “Grace as participation in the Divine Life in the Theology of Augustine of Hippo,” Augustinian Studies 7 (1976): 135-52. Winslow, Donald F., Dynamics of Salvation: A Study of Gregory of Nazianzus (1979); Passim. Wolters, Al, “’Partners of the Deity:’ A Covenantal Reading of II Peter 1.4,” Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 28-44; with postscript 26 (1991): 418-420 Zwanepol, Klaas, “Luther en Theosis,” Luther-Bulletin. Tijdschrift voor interconfessioneel Lutheronderzoek 2 (1993): 48-73; English abridgment in Luther Digest 5 (1995): 177-81.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

How is Genesis 3:5 used by critics who claim that the doctrine of deification (theosis) is a teaching of Satan?

The use of Genesis 3 to counter the doctrine of deification/theosis has two problems associated with it:

First: Satan never claimed that Adam and Eve would be gods, just that they would be "as gods, knowing good and evil."

King James Version (KJV) 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. Genesis 3:5

New American Standard Bible (NASB) For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

Contemporary English Version (CEV) God understands what will happen on the day you eat fruit from that tree. You will see what you have done, and you will know the difference between right and wrong, just as God does.

Bible in Basic English (BBE) For God sees that on the day when you take of its fruit, your eyes will be open, and you will be as gods, having knowledge of good and evil.

Use or misuse by Church critics

This verse is used by critics to attempt to show that the LDS doctrine of deification is a teaching of Satan.

Commentary

The critics seriously misunderstand and misinterpret this passage of scripture.

Note that the serpent makes two claims:

(1) "ye shall not surely die" and

(2) "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

But if one looks forward to Genesis 3:22:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:"

Second problem: The second and bigger problem is that Satan was, in fact, telling the truth on this point, as God confirms.

God announces that Adam and Eve did indeed become as gods, knowing good and evil. As usual, Satan mixes lies and truth. In this case he said that Adam and Eve wouldn't die (a lie) but he also said that their eating would make them "as gods, knowing good and evil" (a truth).

So the lie of Satan in the Garden of Eden was that transgressing God's law would not bring death (with the implication that Adam and Eve could have the god-like ability to know good and evil without paying a terrible price).

This chapter isn't even relevant to beliefs about deification.

⍗

Learn more about theosis or humans becoming like God

Key sources	Michael W. Fordham, "Does President Gordon B. Hinckley Understand LDS Doctrine?" FAIR link
FAIR links	Roger Cook, "'Christ, the Firstfruits of Theosis'," Proceedings of the 2002 FAIR Conference (August 2002). link D. Charles Pyle, "'I Have Said, ‘Ye are Gods’'," Proceedings of the 1999 FAIR Conference (August 1999). link
Online	Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site Jeff Lindsay, "The Divine Potential of Human Beings: The Latter-day Saint Perspective," JeffLindsay.com (accessed 30 March 2007)off-site Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2002).off-site Keith Norman, "Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2000).off-site Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 179. PDF link Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 209. PDF link David Bokovoy, "'Ye Really Are Gods: A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John; Review of You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82, by Michael S. Heiser'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [267–313] link Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye Are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in The Disciple As Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000),471–594. direct off-site Gerald N. Lund, "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement 'As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be'] accepted as official doctrine by the Church?," Ensign (February 1982): 38.off-site Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign 19 (January 1989): 27. off-site Keith E. Norman, "Deification, Early Christian," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:369–370.off-site Michael S. Heiser, "'Israel's Divine Counsel, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [315–323] link Michael S. Heiser, "'You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [221–266] link John C. Hancock, "A Compelling Case for Theosis," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30/3 (14 September 2018). [43–48] link Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text"," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 193. PDF link Daniel O. McClellan, "Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/8 (8 May 2015). [79–96] link Neal Rappleye, "'With the Tongue of Angels': Angelic Speech as a Form of Deification," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21/11 (2 September 2016). [303–324] link Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [99–146] link David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link Tom Rosson, "'Deification: Fulness and Remnant, A Review of Deification and Grace by Daniel A. Keating'," FARMS Review 20/1 (2008). [195–218] link Keith Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity," Sunstone no. (Issue #1) (Winter 1975), 14–19. off-siteoff-site Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
Video	Christ, The Firstfruits of Theosis: Early Christian Theosis, Roger Cook, 2002 FAIR Conference Part 1:Early Christian Theosis Part 2:Early Christian Theosis Part 3:Early Christian Theosis Part 4:Early Christian Theosis
Print	Daniel H. Ludlow, "Eternal Life or Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow: Gospel Scholars Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 416-20. David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 108–109. Extensive non-LDS bibliography available here. K. Codell Carter, "Godhood," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 553-55. Lorenzo Snow, "As God Is, Man May Be," in Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, compiled by Clyde J. Williams, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 2–9. ISBN 0884945170. Robert L. Millet, "Do the Mormons really believe that men and women can become gods?" in Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 175-77, 192-94. Robert L. Millet, "The Doctrine of Godhood in the New Testament," in The Principles of the Gospel in Practice (Sandy, UT: Randall Book, 1985), 21-37. Thomas S. Monson, An Invitation to Exaltation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 18 pp.
Bibliography on human deification	Aden, Ross, “Justification and Divinization,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 102-7. Aden, Ross, “Justification and Sanctification. A Conversation between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 87-109. Allchin, A.M., Participation in God. A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Connecticut 1988). Andia, Ysabel de, Homo vivens. Incorruptibilite et divinisation de l’homme selon Irenee de Lyon (Paris 1986). Andia, Ysabel de, “Mysteres, unification et divinisation de l’homme selon Denys l’areopagite,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome) 63 (1997): 273-332. Arroniz, J., “La immortalidad como deificacion en S. Ireneo,” Scriptorium Victoriense (Vitoria, Spain) 8 (1961): 262-87. Asendorf, Ulrich, “The Embeddedment of Theosis in the Theology of Martin Luther,” in Luther Digest 3 (1996): 159-61; English abridgment from Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990). Aubineau, M., “Incorruptibilite et divinisation selon saint Irenee,” Recherches de science religieuse 44 (1956): 25-52. Bakken, Kenneth L., “Holy Spirit and Theosis. Toward a Lutheran Theology of Healing,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 409-423. Balas, David L., Metousia Theou. Man’s participation in God’s Perfections according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Studia Anselmiana, volume 55 (Rome 1966). Bardy, Gustave, “Divinisation: According to the Latin Fathers,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, ascetique et mystique doctrine et histoire (Paris 1957): 3, Columns 1389-1398. Baur, L., “Untersuchungen uber die Vergottlichungslehre in der Theologie der grieschischen Vater,” Theologische Quartalschrift 98 (1916): 467-91; 99 (1917): 225-252; 100 (1919): 426-444; 101 (1920): 28-64, 155-186. Bielfeldt, Dennis, “Deification as a Motif in Luther’s Dictata super psalterium,” Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997): 401-420. Bilaniuk, Petro B.T., “The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization,” in The Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky, ed. David Nieman and Margaret Schatkin; Orientalia Christiana Analecta, volume 195 (Rome 1973): 337-359. Blowers, Paul M., “Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Concept of ‘Perpetual Progress,’” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 151-71. Bonner, Gerald, “Augustine’s Conception of Deification,” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986): 369-85. Bonner, Gerald, “Deification, Divinization,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A. (W.B. Eerdmans 1999): 265-6. Bonner, Gerald, “’Deificare,’” in Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (1996): columns 265-7. Bornhauser, K., Die Vergottungslehre des Athanasius und Johannes Damascenus (Gutersloh 1903). Braaten, Carl E., ”The Finnish Breakthrough in Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 141-3. Bratsiotis, P., “Die Lehre der orthodoxen Kirche uber die Theosis des Menschen,” Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie. Klasse der Letteren XXIII/1 (Brussels 1961): 1-13. Brecht, Martin, “Neue Ansatze der Lutherforshung in Finnland,” Luther (1990): 36-40. Breck, John, “Divine Initiative. Salvation in Orthodox Theology,” in Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 105-120. Butterworth, George W., ”The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 157-69. Capanaga, Victorino, “La deificacion en la soteriologia agostiniana,” in Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 745-754. Carabine, Deirdre, “Five Wise Virgins. Theosis and Return in Periphyseon V,” in Iohannes Scottus Eriugena, ed. G. van Riel, J.C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven 1996): 195-207. Cavanagh, William T., “A Joint Declaration?” Justification as theosis in Aquinas and Luther,” Heythrop Journal 41 (London 2000): 265-280. Christensen, Michael J., “Theosis and Sanctification. John Wesley’s Reformulation of a Patristic Doctrine,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 31 (1996): 71-94. Congar, Yves M.-J. (later Cardinal), Dialogue Between Christians. Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism (Newman Press 1966; 1st Paris 1964). Chapter 8 is entitled: “Deification in the Spiritual Tradition of the East’: 217-231; first published in La Vie Spirituelle 43 (1935): 91-107. Congar, Yves M.-J., The Mystery of the Temple (Newman Press 1962; Paris 1958); Appendix III: “God’s presence and his dwelling among men under the old and under the new and definitive dispensation,” 262-99. Corneanu, Nicolae, “The Jesus Prayer and Deification,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 39 (1995): 3-24. Daley, Brian E., S.J., The Hope of the Early Church. A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge University Press 1991). Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Divinisation,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite (Paris 1957) 3: columns 1376-1389. Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Mystere liturgique et divinisation dans la Mystagogie de saint Maxime le Confesseur,’ in Epektasis. Melanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Danielou (Paris 1972): 55-62. Davies, Brian, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford 1992). Chapter 13 entitled “How to be Holy,” 250-273. Deseille, P., “L’eucharistie et la divinisation des chretiens selon les Peres de l’Eglise,” Le Messager orthodoxe 87 (1981): 40-56. Drewery, Benjamin, “Deification,” in Christian Spirituality. Essays in Honor of Gordon Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks (London 1975): 35-62. Edwards, Henry, “Justification, Sanctification, and the Eastern Concept of Theosis,” Consensus. A Canadian Lutheran Journal of Theology 14 (1988): 65-88. Ermoni, V., “La deification de l’homme chez les Peres de l’Eglise,” Revue du clerge francais 11 (1897): 509-519. Fairbairn, Don, “Salvation as Theosis. The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy,” Themelios 23 (1998): 42-54. Faller, O., “Grieschischen Vergottung und christliche Vergottlichung,” Gregorianum 6 (1925): 405-35. Ferguson, Everett, “God’s Infinity and Man’s Mutability. Perpetual Progress according to Gregory of Nyssa,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 18 (1973): 59-78. Ferguson, Everett, “Progress in Perfection. Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita Moysis,” Studia Patristica 14 (1976): 307-14. Festugiere, A.-J., “Divinisation du Chretien,” La Vie Spirituelle 59 (1939): 90-99. Finger, Thomas, “Anabaptism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Some Unexpected Similarities,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994): 67-91. Finger, Thomas, “Post-Chalcedonian Christology. Some Reflections on Oriental Orthodox Christology from a Mennonite Perspective,” in Christ in East and West, ed. Paul Fries and Tiran Nersoyan (Mercer University Press 1987): 155-69. Flew, Robert Newton, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology. An Historical Study of the Christian Ideal for the Present Life (Oxford 1968; 1st 1934). Flogaus, R., Theosis bei Palamas und Luther (Gottingen 1997). Flogaus, R., “Agreement on the Issues of Deification and Synergy?,” Luther Digest. An Annual Abridgement of Luther Studies 7 (1999): 99-105; English abridgement of “Einig in Sachen Theosis und Synergie?,” Kerygma und Dogma 42 (1996): 225-243. Folliet, Georges, “’Deificari in otio,’ Augustin, Epistula 10.2,” Recherches Augustiniennes 2 (1962): 225-236. Ford, David C., “Saint Makarios of Egypt and John Wesley. Variations on the Theme of Sanctification,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 33 (1988): 288. Fortino, Eleuterio F., “Sanctification and Deification,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 192-200. Franks, R.S., “The Idea of Salvation in the Theology of the Eastern Church,” in Mansfield College Essays. Presented to Rev. Andrew Martin Fairbairn (London 1909): 249-264. Frary, Joseph, “Deification and Human Freedom,” Sobornost (London) 7 (1975): 117-126. Gross, Jules, La divinisation du Chretien d’apres les peres Grecs (Paris 1938). Recently translated. Gross, Jules, “Die Vergottlichung des Christen nach den grieschischen Vatern,” Zeitschrift fur Askese und Mystik 14 (1939): 79-94. Hartin, Patrick J., “Call to be Perfect through Suffering (James 1.2-4). The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount,” Biblica (Rome) 77 (1996): 477-492. Hartnett, Joanne J., Doctrina S. Bonaventurae de deiformitate (Mundelein 1936). Heine, Ronald E., Perfection in the Virtuous Life A Study in the Relationship between Edification and Polemical Theology in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Vita Moysis (Philadelphia 1975). Heintjes, J., “De opgang van den manschelijken Geest tot God volgens sint Maximus Confessor,” Bijdragen van de Philosophische en Theologische Faculteiten der Nederlandsche Jezuieten 5 (1942): 260-302; 6 (1943): 64-123. Hess, Hamilton, “The Place of Divinization in Athanasian Soteriology,” Studia Patristica 26 (1993): 369-374. Hinlicky, Paul R., “Theological Anthropology. Toward integrating theosis and Justification by Faith,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34 (1997): 38-73. Janssens, L., “Notre filiation divine d’apres S. Cyrille d’ Alexandrie,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensae 15 (1938): 233-78. Jenson, Robert W., Triune Identity (Philadelphia 1982): 103-148. Jenson, Robert W., “Theosis,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 108-112. Kamppuri, Hannu T., editor, Dialogue between Neighbors. The Theological Conversations between the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church 1970-1986 (Helsinki 1986), passim. Kamppuri, Hannu T., “Theosis in the Theology of Gregory Palamas,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 153-6. Kantorowicz, Ernst H., “Deus per naturam, Deus per gratiam. A Note on Mediaeval Political Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952): 253-77. Khairallah, Philip A., “The Sanctification of Life,” Emmanuel 96 (1990): 323-333; 394-397; 403-406. Kinghorn, Kenneth C., “Holiness: The Central Plan of God,” Evangelical Journal 15 (1997): 57-70. Kolp, A. L., “Partakers of the Divine Nature. The Use of II Peter 1.4 by Athanasius,” Studia Patristica 17 (1979): 1018-1023. Kretschmar, Georg, “The Reception of the Orthodox Teaching of Divinization in Protestant Theology,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 61-80; English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 156-9. Ladner, Gerhard T., “St. Augustine’s Conception of the Reformation of Man to the Image of God,” Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 867-888. Ladner, Gerhart B., The Idea of Reform. Its impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (Harvard 1959). Larchet, Jean-Claude, La Divinisation de l’homme selon Saint Maxime le Confesseur (Paris 1996). Lattey, Cuthbert, “The Deification of man in Clement of Alexandria. Some further notes,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 257-62. Lawrenz, Melvin E., The Christology of John Chrysostom (Mellen Press 1996). Section entitled: “The Way of Salvation—Moral Accomplishment and Divinization:” 146-54. Linforth, Ivan M., “’oi athanatizontes:’ (Herodotus 4.93-96),” Classical Philology 13 (1918): 23-33. Lossky, Vladimir, “Redemption and Deification,” in In the Image and Likeness of God (London 1975; New York 1974; from the French of 1967): 97-110; article first published as “Redemption et deification,” in Messager de l’Exarchat du Patrarche russe en Europe occidental 15 (1953): 161-70. Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, La Deification de l’homme selon la doctrine des Peres grecs (Paris 1970), edited and introduced by Jean Danielou. These three articles were first published as “La Doctrine de la Deification dans l’Eglise Grecque jusqu’au xie Siecle,” Revue d’Histoire des Religions 105 (1932): 5-43; 106 (1932): 525-74; 107 (1933): 8-55; “La Doctrine de la Grace et de la Liberte dans l’Orthodoxie Greco-orientale,” Oecumenica 6 (1939); “La Beatitude dans l’Orient Chretien,” Dieu Vivant 15 (1950). Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, “La grace deifiante des sacraments d’apres Nicolas Cabasilas,” Revue des sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques 25 (1936): 299-330; 26 (1937): 693-717. Maddox, Randy L., “John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy. Influences, convergences and Differences,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 29-53. Mahe, J., S.J., “La sanctification d’apres saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique 10 (1909): 30-40; 469-492. Mannermaa, Tuomo, “Theosis as a subject of Finnish Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 37-48; first published in Luther und Theosis: Vergottlichung als Thema der abendlandischen Theologie, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 11-26; an English abridgment appeared in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 145-9. Mantzaridis, Georgios, The Deification of Man. St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, translated by Liadain Sherrard (New York 1984). Marquart, Kurt E., “Luther and Theosis,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (Fort Wayne, Indiana 2000): 182-205. Marshall, Bruce D., “Ex Occidente Lux? Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology,” Modern Theology 20.1 (January 2004): 23-50. Marshall, Bruce D., “Justification as Declaration and Deification,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 4.1 (March 2002): 3-28. Martikainen, Jouko, “Man’s Salvation. Deification or Justification?,” Sobornost 7 (London: 1976): 180-192. Mayo, Harold, John Wesley and the Christian East: on the subject of Christian Perfection, Masters Thesis, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, New York 1980. McCormick, K. Steve, “Theosis in Chrysostom and Wesley: an Eastern paradigm on faith and love,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 26 (1991): 38-103. McCoy, J. D., “Philosophical influences on the doctrine of the Incarnation in Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria,” Encounter 38 (Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis: 1977): 362-91. McDaniel, Michael C.D., “Salvation as Justification and Theosis,” in Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 67-83; abridged in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 142-4. McDonald, Peter, “To become Gods: a saintly teaching,” Faith Magazine 30 (1998): 13-17. McDonnell, Kilian, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 1996). Chapter 9: “Taking the Robe of Glory from the Jordan--Divinization”; Chapter 10: “The Cosmic Jordan and the Robe of Glory—Divinization and Eschatology,” 128-55; and passim. McGuckin, John A., St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its history, theology and texts (E.J. Brill 1994). Chapter Three: “The Christology of Cyril: 1. Redemptive Deification: Cyril’s presuppositions and major concerns”: 175-226. Merritt, John G., “’Dialogue’ within a Tradition: John Wesley and Gregory of Nyssa discuss Christian Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22 (1987): 92-116. Messner, R., “Rechtfertigung und Vergottlichung—und die Kirche. Zur okumenischen Bedeutung neuerer Tendenzen in der Lutherforschung,” Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 118 (1996): 23-35. Meyendorff, John, “Remarks on Eastern Patristic Thought in John Scottus Eriugena,” in Eriugena: East and West, edited by Bernard McGinn and Willemien Otten (University of Notre Dame 1994): 51-68. Meyendorff, John, “Theosis in the Eastern Christian Tradition,” in Christian Spirituality III: Post Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupre and Don Saliers (New York 1989): 470-6. Moore, D. Marselle, “Development in Wesley’s thought on Sanctification and Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 20 (1985): 29-53. Morse, Jonathan, “Fruits of the Eucharist: Henosis and Theosis,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 127-42. Mosser, Carl, “The Greatest possible blessing: Calvin and deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55.1 (2002): 36-57. Musurillo, Herbert, From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings, with Introduction by Jean Danielou (New York 1979). Nellas, Panayiotis, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, translated by Norman Russell (New York 1987). Newman, John Henry Cardinal, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians (1895; 1st 1841 ff.). Chapter on Deification. Nispel, Mark D., “Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia,” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 289-304. Based on Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska. Nock, Arthur Darby, review article, in Journal of Religion 31 (1951): 214-6. Norman, Keith E., Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University 1980. Norris, Frederick W., “Deification: Consensual and Cogent,” Scottish Journal of Theology 49 (1996): 411-428. Oroz Reta, Jose, “De l’illumination a la deification de l’ame selon saint Augustin,” Studia Patristica 27 (1993): 364-82. O’Collins, Gerald, S.J., Christology. A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford University Press 1995). Passim O’Keefe, Mark, “Theosis and the Christian Life. Toward Integrating Roman Catholic Ethics and Spirituality,” Eglise et Theologie (Ottawa, Canada) 25 (1994): 47-63. O’Shea, Kevin F., “Divinization: a Study in Theological Analogy,” The Thomist 29 (1965): 1-45. Perkins, Harold William, The Doctrine of Christian or Evangelical Perfection (London 1927). Peura, Simo, “Participation in Christ according to Luther,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 164-8. Peura, Simo, “The Deification of Man as Being in God,” Luther Digest 5 (1997): 168-72; English abridgment of “Die Vergottlichung des Menschen als Sein in God,” Lutherjahrbuch 60 (1993): 39-71. Phan, Peter C., Grace and the Human Condition (Michael Glazier 1988): 132-138; 171-176. Piolanti, A., “La Grazia come participazione della Natura Divina,” Euntes Docete 10 (1957): 34-50. Places, Eduard des, “Divinization,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualite 3 (Paris 1957): columns 1370-1375. Plass, Paul, “Transcendent Time in Maximus the Confessor,” The Thomist 44 (1980): 259-77. Plass, Paul, “’Moving Rest’ in Maximus the Confessor,” Classica et Mediaevalia 35 (1984): 177-90. Popov, I.V., “Ideja obozenija v drevne-vostocnoi cerkvi” (‘The idea of divinization in the Ancient Eastern Church’), in Voprosi filosofij i psixogij 97 (1909): 165-213. Posset, Franz, “’Deification’ in the German Spirituality of the Late Middle Ages and in Luther: An Ecumenical Historical Perspective,” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 84 (1993): 103-25. Preuss, K.F.A., Ad Maximi Confessoris de Deo hominisque deificatione doctrinam abnotationum pars I (Schneeberg 1894). Rakestraw, Robert V., “Becoming like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 257-69. Randenborg, G. van, Vergottung und Erlosung (Berlin). Rechtfertigung und Verherrlichung (Theosis) des Menschen durch Jesus Christus (‘Justification and Glorification (Theosis) of the Human Person through Jesus Christ’) (Germany, 1995). Ritschl, Dietrich, “Hippolytus’ Conception of Deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 12 (1959): 388-99. Rius-Camps, J., El dinamismo trinitario en la divinizacion de los seres racionales segun Origenes (Rome 1970). Rondet, Henri, The Grace of Christ (Newman Press 1967; Paris 1948). Chapter Five: “The Greek Fathers: The Divinization of the Christian”: 65-88; and passim. Rondet, Henri, S.J., “La divinization du Chretien,” Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 71 (1949): 449-476; 561-588; reprinted and expanded in Rondet, Essais sur la Theologie de la Grace (Paris 1964): 107-200. Rufner, V., “Homo secundus Deus,” Philosophisches Jahrbuch 63 (1955): 248-91. Rusch, William G., “How the Eastern Fathers understood what the Western Church meant by Justification,” Justification by Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, ed. H.G. Andersen, T. A. Murphy, J. A. Burgess (Augsburg Press 1985): 131-142, notes 347-8. Russell, Norman, “’Partakers of the Divine Nature’ (II Peter 1.4) in the Byzantine Tradition,” in J. Hussey Festschrift (1998). off-site Ryk, Marta, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in the Deification of Man according to Contemporary Orthodox Theology,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 10 (1975): 24-39; 109-130. Saarinen, Risto, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogues 1959-1994 (Gottingen 1997). Saarinen, Risto, “Salvation in the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue. A Comparative Perspective,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 202-213. Saarinen, Risto, “The Presence of God in Luther’s Theology,” Lutheran Quarterly 8 (1994): 3-13. Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992) Sartorius, B., La doctrine de la deification de l’homme d’apres les Peres grecs en general et Gregoire Palamas en particulier, (Doctoral Thesis, Geneva 1965). Schmitz-Perrin, Rudolf, “’Theosis hoc est deification’. Depassement et paradoxe de l’apophase chez Jean Scot Erigene,” Revue des sciences religieuses 72 (1998): 420-445. Schonborn, Christoph, From Death to Life. The Christian Journey (Ignatius Press 1995; 1st German 1988). Chapter Two: “Is Man to become God? On the meaning of the Christian Doctrine of Deification”: 41-63, and passim. Schonborn, Christoph, God’s Human Face: The Christ-Icon (Ignatius Press 1994; 1st French 1976, 1978; 2nd German 1984). Passim. Schonborn, Christoph, “L’homme est-il fait pour devenir Dieu? Notes sur le sense chretien de la ‘deification’ or ‘divinisation’ de l’homme,’ Omnis Terra 22 (1983): 53-64. Schonborn, Christoph, “Uber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs der Vergottlichung des Menschen,” Jahrbuch fur Philosophie und Spekulative Theologie (Freiburg) 34 (1987): 3-47. Schurr, George M., “On the Logic of Ante-Nicene affirmations of the ‘Deification’ of the Christian,” Anglican Theological Review 51 (1969): 97-105. Schwarzwaller, Klaus, “Verantwortung des Glaubens,” in Freiheit als Liebe bei Martin Luther, ed. Dennis Bielfeldt and Klaus Schwarzwaller (Frankfurt, 1995): 133-158. Sheldon-Williams, I. P., review article of M. Lot-Borodine, La Deification de l’Homme, in Downside Review 89 (1971): 90-93. Slenczka, Reinhard, “Communion with God as Foundation and object of theology--deification as an ontological problem,” Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 149-53. Snyder, Howard A., ”John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 55-60. Staniloae, Dumitru, “Image, Likeness, and Deification in the Human Person,” Communio 13 (1986): 64-83. Steely, John E., Gnosis: The Doctrine of Christian Perfection in the Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Th. D. Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky 1954). Stephen E. Robinson, "The Doctrine of Deification," in Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993),60–65. off-site FAIR link Stolz, Anselm, The Doctrine of Spiritual Perfection (St. Louis 1946; 1st German). Stoop, Jan A. A., Die Deification Hominis in Die Sermones en Epistolae van Augustinus (Leiden 1952). Strange, C. Roderick, “Athanasius on Divinization,” Studia Patristica 16 (1985): 342-346. Stuckwisch, Richard, “Justification and Deification in the Dialogue between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremias II,” Logia. A Journal of Lutheran Theology 9 (2000): 17-28. off-site Telepneff, Gregory, and James Thornton, “Arian Transcendence and the Notion of Theosis in Saint Athanasios,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987): 271-77. Theodorou, A., “Die Lehre von der Vergottung des Menschen bei den grieschischen Kirchenvater,” Kerygma und Dogma (Zeitschrift fur theologische Forschung und Kirchliche lehre) 7 (1961): 283-310. Thunberg, Lars, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (Open Court 1995; 1st Sweden 1965): especially 427-32. Thuren, Jukka, “Justification and participation in the Divine Nature,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja (Theological Journal of Finland: 1977): 483-99. Tsirpanlis, Constantine N., Greek Patristic Theology, Volume I: Basic Doctrine in Eastern Church Fathers (New York 1979); Chapter entitled: “Aspects of Athanasian Soteriology”: 25-40. Turcescu, Lucian, “Soteriological Issues in the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification: an Orthodox Perspective,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 64-72. Turner, H.E.W., The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption. A Study of the Development of Doctrine during the First Five Centuries (London 1952). Union with Christ. The new Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Eerdmans 1998). Several papers, by Mannermaa, Peura, Raunio, Juntunen, Jenson, Braaten, Bielfeldt, all dealing with Theosis. Vandervelde, George, “Justification and Deification—Problematic Synthesis: A Response to Lucian Turcescu”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 73-78. Volz, Carl A., Faith and Practice in the Early Church. Foundations for Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis 1983). Volz has a section entitled “Christ, the Giver of Deification”: 76-9. Wakefield, Gordon S., “Perfection,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 297-9. Walland, F., La grazia divinizzante (Asti 1949). Watson, Nicholas, “Melting into God the English Way: Deification in the Middle English Version of Marguerite Porete’s Mirouer des simples ames anienties,” in Prophets Abroad. The Reception of Continental Holy Women in late Medieval England, ed. Rosalynn Voader (Cambridge 1996): 19-49. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “Eastern Orthodox Spirituality: Union with God in Theosis,” Theology Today (Princeton, NJ) 56 (1999): 29-43. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “The Union of God and man in Jesus Christ in the Thought of Gregory of Nazianzus,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28 (1982): 83-98. Weser, H., S. Maximi Confessoris praecepta de incarnatione Dei et deificatione hominis exponuntur et examinantur (Dissertation, Berlin 1869). Wild, P. T., Divinization of Man according to St. Hilary of Poitiers (Mundelein 1950). Williams, A.N., “Deification in the Summa Theologiae. A Structural Interpretation of the Prima Pars,” The Thomist 61 (1997): 219-255. Williams, A.N., “Light from Byzantium: The Significance of Palamas’ Doctrine of Theosis,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 483-496. Williams, Anna Ngaire, The Ground of Union. Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (Oxford University Press 1999). Williams, Rowan, “Deification,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 106-8. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “A Note on the Iconoclastic Controversy: Greek and Latin disagreements about Matter and Deification,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 18 (1980): 139-48. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “Grace as participation in the Divine Life in the Theology of Augustine of Hippo,” Augustinian Studies 7 (1976): 135-52. Winslow, Donald F., Dynamics of Salvation: A Study of Gregory of Nazianzus (1979); Passim. Wolters, Al, “’Partners of the Deity:’ A Covenantal Reading of II Peter 1.4,” Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 28-44; with postscript 26 (1991): 418-420 Zwanepol, Klaas, “Luther en Theosis,” Luther-Bulletin. Tijdschrift voor interconfessioneel Lutheronderzoek 2 (1993): 48-73; English abridgment in Luther Digest 5 (1995): 177-81.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

Notes

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Latter-day Saint scripture

Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ	The Holy Bible Book of Mormon Doctrine and Covenants Pearl of Great Price Book of Moses Book of Abraham The Family: A Proclamation to the World
Nature of scripture	Open vs closed canon Understanding revelation
Interpretation of scripture	Tips for studying scripture Leaders on scripture interpretation Common issues in interpretation and proof-texting Alleged contradictions in scripture Violence in the scriptures Slavery in the scriptures Sexism in the scriptures Racism and the scriptures

Specific alleged contradictions in scripture

The challenge of Latter-day Saint scripture and an open canon to the rest of the christian world means that there is a long history of polemics targeted at the Church of Jesus Christ. These are well-worn "chestnuts" and standard biblical issues that have been repeatedly "asked and answered" for Latter-day Saints over nearly two centuries.

Table summary

The supposed contradictions arise from 1) misinterpretation, 2) comparing two verses when are speaking of different things and 3) reading Protestant meanings into scriptural terminology

Many conservative Protestant critics have reproduced a table which purports to show how LDS scripture contradicts itself.

The table below examines the supposed contradictions, presents the scriptures cited in context, and demonstrates that claims of contradiction rest on:

1. a misinterpretation of LDS scripture
2. comparing two verses which are speaking about different things
3. reading Protestant meanings into scriptural terminology

Supposed Contradictions in LDS scripture

Number	Column A: Book of Mormon...	Column B: "Contrasting" scripture...	Response and Comments
1	One God 2 Nephi 31꞉21 Alma 11꞉27-39,44 3 Nephi 11꞉27 Mormon 7꞉7	Plural Gods D&C 121꞉32 D&C 132꞉18-20,37	The scriptures in Column A all state that there is "One God" consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Column B scriptures explain the nature of this oneness. Protestant critics do not like the fact that Latter-day Saints reject the nonbiblical Nicene Creed, which teaches a oneness of substance. Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see John 17꞉22-23). To learn more: Godhead and the Trinity
2	God is a Spirit Alma 18꞉26-28 Alma 22꞉8-11	God Has A Body D&C 130꞉22	The scriptures in Column A describe missionary efforts to teach the pagan Lamanites about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Missionaries begin their efforts by explaining that what the Lamanites called "The Great Spirit" was God. This is not an attempt to give a theological description of God's nature, but to build on common beliefs. To the Lamanites, being "The Great Spirit" did not preclude being corporeal—Ammon was mistaken for the great spirit, and yet he clearly had a body, could perform physical actions, etc. So, the concept of "spirit" used by the Lamanites is not (as the critics assume) the same as the "spirit" of Nicene trinitarianism. The God to which the Column A scriptures refer is Jesus Christ, or Jehovah. In LDS doctrine, Jesus Christ was a premortal spirit that did not yet have a physical body when the scriptures in Column A were given. Thus, the description of Christ as a Spirit was accurate before His birth even in LDS terms. To learn more Book of Mormon teaches God is a spirit? Premortal Jesus divine without physical body God is a Spirit God has a physical body
3	God dwells in the heart Alma 34꞉36 ...35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. 36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell....	God does not dwell in the heart D&C 130꞉3 The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse [John 14:23], is a personal appearance; the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man's heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false."	Column B explains that when Jesus says that He and the Father will "make our abode" with those who "keep my words," this means that the righteous may physically behold them. It targets the false idea that God does not have any physicality, and cannot be seen. Column A describes the fact that the spirit of Satan or the Spirit of the Lord (i.e., the Holy Ghost) will "possess" or influence mortals depending upon their choices. The Holy Ghost can dwell in the heart of man, since he is a spirit (see 2 Timothy 1:14 and D&C 130꞉22). It is telling that the supposed "contradiction" is explained later in section 130, but the critics ignore it.
4	One God creates 2 Nephi 2꞉14 Jacob 4꞉9 Moses 2	Multiple Gods create Abraham 3-4	As discussed in point #1, LDS doctrine sees God as one, but not one in substance. In LDS doctrine, God may be properly spoken of as one and as consisting of more than one person or being. This is not a contradiction; it merely demonstrates that the Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene trinitarianism. To learn more Multiple versus single creators? Godhead and the Trinity
5	God Cannot Lie 2 Nephi 9꞉34 Ether 3꞉12	God Commands Lying Abraham 2꞉22-25 ...22 And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon; 23 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise: 24 Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live. 25 And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee.	Abraham misled the Egyptians by not disclosing all the facts. He did not disclose that Sarai was his wife. It was, however, true that she was his sister—more specifically, she was what anthropologists call a "parallel cousin," who under Jewish levirate law was considered his sister. Conservative protestant critics are disingenuous in posing this question, since Abraham twice uses this tactic in the Bible (though God is not said to explicitly command it). God no where condemns Abraham for this supposed "lie." Furthermore, the explanation for Abraham's claim is also included in the Bible—see Genesis 11:25-29 and Genesis 20꞉11-12). The Bible also contains similar examples of God commanding a prophet to make a "strictly true" statement intended to deceive the wicked and protect the lives of the innocent, and other cases in which God ratified a decision to withhold the truth to save innocents.
6	God's Word Unchangeable Alma 41꞉8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.	God's Word Can Change Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord. D&C 56꞉4-5	Column A speaks of "decrees of God"—the commandments which God has given about how to return to him, and the consequences for disobedience. The speaker is the prophet Alma, addressing a sinful son who has left the ministry in pursuit of a harlot. Column B notes that humans may be in changing circumstances. Thus, God may give specific commands in one situation, and different commands in a different situation necessary for carrying out His work. God will not force men to obey—if some disobey, then God may need to alter commands. If he tells John to go on a mission, and John refuses, then God may need to "reassign" someone else to carry out John's former task. As the scripture says, the consequences of this will "be answered upon the heads of the rebellious"—there is still a penalty for disobedience, but God's plans cannot be thwarted by mortal disobedience. Neither scripture mentions "God's word" (which conservative Protestants would associate with scripture), but this terminology allows the critic to give the misleading impression that the verses are discussing the alteration of scripture, instead of on-going revelation adapted to the good and bad choices which mortals make.
7	No Pre-Existence of Man Jacob 4꞉9 For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure? Alma 18꞉28,34-36 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?....34 Ammon said unto him: I am a man; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God, and I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people, that they may be brought to a knowledge of that which is just and true;	Pre-Existence D&C 93꞉23,29-33 Abraham 3꞉21-23	The scriptures in Column A say nothing about pre-mortal existence. Jacob 4 asserts that God spoke and created man's body "upon the face of the earth." Alma says that man's body was created after the image of God. None of these says anything about a pre-existence. Abraham 4꞉27 goes on to describe the creation of the body of mankind after the image of God—the same doctrines taught in column A. This criticism assumes creation out of nothing—creatio ex nihilo—another unbiblical doctrine which conservative Protestants criticize Latter-day Saints for not accepting. For the critics, any creation must be ex nihilo creation; Latter-day Saint doctrine does not require this. To learn more: Creatio ex nihilo
8	Death seals man's fate Mosiah 2꞉36-39 And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom's paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved—I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples. Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. Alma 34꞉32-35 32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors. 33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. 34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. 35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.	Chance for repentance after death D&C 128꞉5	Column A scriptures speak of those who have had the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life, and have rejected it. Such people lose their chance for exaltation in LDS doctrine (see D&C 76꞉73-78). They are those who "have known and...been taught all these things....[coming] out in open rebellion against God." Alma cautions those who "have had so many witnesses" against putting off the repentance and conversion which they know they need to undertake. Column B describes those who have never had this opportunity. If one cannot accept the gospel beyond the grave, then all those who have not heard of Christ in this life must be damned for all eternity—the critics may be comfortable with such an outcome, but the Latter-day Saints do not believe that a merciful God would condemn His children for that which they never had the full chance to receive.
9	Heathen Saved Without Baptism 2 Nephi 9꞉25-26 Mosiah 15꞉24-27 Moroni 8꞉22-23	Baptism for the Dead D&C 128꞉5,17-18	The scriptures in column B explain how the results in column A are accomplished. The heathen who choose to accept Christ will be saved, without baptism in their mortal life, because of vicarious baptism in their behalf, which they may accept or reject. The scriptures are clear that without baptism, no one may be saved (John 3꞉5). Yet, the majority who have lived on the earth have not had the opportunity for baptism. Without vicarious baptism and preaching Christ in the post-mortal world, God would be said to eternally damn the majority of mankind for something they never had the chance to receive. Note: 2 Nephi is not necessarily targeted at "the heathen"—it is targeted at those who have not been given the law. The Book of Mormon teaches elsewhere that all normal people have the spirit of Christ given them, and know good from evil (Moroni 7꞉16). "Heathen" peoples would still be responsible for the degree to which they observed the law which they had been given through the spirit of Christ, and would require forgiveness of sins against that law—through Christ and post-mortal acceptance of vicarious ordinances. Those who have not received any law would probably be restricted to little children, and others with physical or mental handicaps that render them essentially "child-like." Note: Moroni 8 is likewise discussing little children and others who have no law, not necessarily "the heathen." To learn more: Baptism for the dead
10	Only options are heaven or hell 1 Nephi 15꞉35 2 Nephi 28꞉22 Mosiah 16꞉11 Mosiah 27꞉31 Alma 41꞉4-8 Alma 42꞉16	Three degrees of glory, with most people "saved" D&C 76꞉43,70-112	The Book of Mormon teaches that one must accept Christ's sacrifice, or be damned: its focus is on either exaltation, or damnation. The Doctrine and Covenants explains how those who do not accept exaltation through Christ are judged according to their works. All who do not fully accept Christ will be blocked ("damned") from receiving some of the gifts which they could have enjoyed. Yet, it would be unjust for God to impose identical punishment on the vast range of human sins. The Book of Mormon focuses the new or potential Christian on the absolute necessity of accepting Christ and His gospel. The Doctrine and Covenants explains how God remains merciful and just as he judges those who have not fully accepted Christ's gospel by their works. Once again, we see the critics upset because more information which complements—not contradicts—earlier scripture is given. The table is also misleading, since Latter-day Saints use the term "saved" in a variety of ways, and would not regard most of those discussed in the Column B as "saved" in the same sense discussed in Column A. 'To learn more: Dallin H. Oaks, "Have You Been Saved?," Ensign (May 1998): 55.off-site Elder Oaks discusses at least six senses in which Latter-day Saints use the term 'saved' in their theology.
11	Murder can be forgiven 3 Nephi 30꞉2 Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel.	'Murder cannot be forgiven D&C 42꞉18 ...And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.	Column A is addressed to those who have not yet accepted and covenanted with Christ—"ye Gentiles." Column B is addressed "unto the Church." Those who have a certain minimum of spiritual knowledge cannot commit murder and be completely absolved of the consequences. Those with less spiritual knowledge may be forgiven of murder following sincere repentance (Alma 24꞉9-11). Once again, two different doctrines are being taught, but the critics ignore this.
12	Polygamy condemned Jacob 1꞉15 Jacob 2꞉24 Jacob 3꞉5 Mosiah 11꞉2	Polygamy commanded D&C 132꞉1,37-39	The critics are careful to omit the verse of scripture that explains this apparent contradiction, Jacob 2꞉30. This scripture from column A makes it clear that God may, under some conditions, command polygamy: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." Scriptures in column A show the "default" command to practice monogamy, which God may alter according to His plan and circumstance as described in column B. This is a tired, well-worn anti-Mormon attack—its dishonesty should be clear. To learn more: Book of Mormon Condemns Polygamy? Contradiction between D&C 132 and Jacob 2? Plural marriage is not Biblical?
13	Against Paid Ministries 2 Nephi 26꞉31 ...But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish. Mosiah 27꞉5 ...Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."	For Paid Ministries D&C 42꞉71-73 those working full-time in the Church's temporal affairs are "to have a just remuneration" for their work. [Bishops and councilors, at the time, were full-time jobs. Many bishops today would probably agree that such callings could be full time nowadays as well!] D&C 43꞉12-13 D&C 51꞉13-14	Column A does not reject having someone be paid in a religious capacity. Column A insist that the motivation for those working must always be God's glory and the benefit of the Church. If they are working for money, or to get gain, there are grave spiritual risks for teacher and listener. The second scripture in column A reflects this, since the religious community described had just escaped a wicked society in which a king and his hand-picked priests had used religion for gain and the satisfaction of their lusts, not teaching of the truth. The second scripture also acknowledges, however, that there may be circumstances in which religious leaders may need financial help or support, as described in the Column B scriptures. Again, these scriptures are complimentary and addressing different aspects of an issue. The critics omit the scripture from the Book of Mormon that describe the problem: He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion. (2 Nephi 26꞉29) The problem is priestcraft—to do religious acts for the purpose of getting gain or glory. Priestcraft is a problem of attitude, and can happen whether one is paid or not. To learn more: David A. Bednar, "Seek Learning By Faith," (3 February 2006), Address to CES Religious Educators, Jordan Institute of Religion. off-site Dallin H. Oaks, "Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall," Ensign (October 1994): 15.off-site Elder Bednar and Elder Oaks discuss the risks of priestcraft for Church teachers, paid or unpaid.
14	Corrupt Churches Promise Forgiveness For Money Mormon 8꞉32 31 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it mattereth not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day. But wo unto such, for they are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity. 32 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.	Church Members Who Pay Tithing Will Not Burn D&C 64꞉23 23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming. 24 For after today cometh the burning—this is speaking after the manner of the Lord—for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.	Column B has had the next verse (v. 24) omitted, which is need to properly interpret verse 23. Nothing in column B promises forgiveness of sins. Rather, column B points out that if members of the Church refuse to tithe, this is good evidence that they are proud and wicked—they remain committed to Babylon, a symbol of worldliness. Tithing thus prepares us and helps transform us. It weans us from worldliness, and helps remake us into the type of people who will not be consumed at God's appearance. It does not purchase forgiveness—but, if offered in the proper spirit, it will transform us from the type of people who will not seek Christ's atonement with humility into those who will. Churches described in column A offer forgiveness and absolution with no change in behavior or character. Column B calls for a change in behavior, which can transform character. Those thus transformed may then seek and receive forgiveness. The approaches are mirror opposites.
15	Adam in the Americas D&C 107꞉53 D&C 116꞉1 D&C 117꞉8	Adam in the Old World Moses 3꞉8,10-15	Moses is based upon the Bible narrative of Genesis. While the Genesis/Moses account describes the Garden of Eden in relation to four rivers—Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and the Euphrates. The first three rivers are related to the lands of Havilah, Ethiopia, and Assyria (see Genesis 2:11). This organization corresponds to no known geographical location, in the old or new worlds. Since Genesis does not match a real world geography, rather than seeing these descriptions as literal, most Bible scholars have seen them as a symbolic tool to place Eden at the "center" of creation. Given that the Bible was written in the Old World, it is unsurprising that the symbols therein use Old World sites. Such symbols, however, are of little use in establishing a literal geographic location in either the Old or New World. To learn more: Location of the Garden of Eden?

As we have seen, none of these paired scriptures contradict each other. This list misunderstands and misrepresents LDS doctrine.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

The table is found, with few if any variations, on multiple internet sites. FAIR does not link to anti-Mormon sites, but a Google search makes it easy to find. Some sources credit the initial table to: Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). Other sources that use it, with and without attribution to Tanner, include: Bill Donohue, "The Book of Mormon Contradictions [sic] Itself; The Book of Mormon contradicts other Standard Works!" 2004; (accessed 22 May 2009). Richard Deem, "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," Evidence for God from Science (accessed 22 May 2009) Ex-Mormons for Jesus, "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). H.I.S. (He Is Savior) Ministries, "H.I.S. Ministries-Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). ICARE (Institute for Christian Awareness and Responsible Evangelism) Ministries, Inc., "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). The Interactive Bible, "The Book of Mormon contradicts Itself! The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible!" (accessed 22 May 2009). Jesus Christ Saves Ministries, San Diego, California; "Contradictions in LDS Scripture," (accessed 22 May 2009). "Mormon Theology: Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith," at Religion & Spirituality at Squidoo (accessed 22 May 2009). RiverValley Church, 1331 High Avenue, Oshkosh, Wisconsin; On-line in section "Other religions," where "we will from time to time publish documents that look at what other religions believe and how they contradict Christianity. Use these resources to understand what others believe and strengthen your belief in our holy and good God. Please do not use these documents as tools to segregate or cause prejudice against others with opposing beliefs." (italics in original) No author, "Investigation into Mormonism," 3-4 (the table is followed by a pages 5-10, which contain Sandra Tanner, "Sharing Your Faith with Latter-day Saints.") (accessed 22 May 2009)

Details on alleged contradictions

Alleged contradictions in the Doctrine and Covenants

Do D&C 20:37 and 2 Nephi 31:17 or 3 Nephi 12:2 contradict one another regarding the order in which one receives baptism and a remission of sins?

These scriptures are not contradictory, for at least three reasons

It is claimed that LDS scriptures such as D&C 20꞉37 (first case) and 2 Nephi 31꞉17, 3 Nephi 12꞉2, and Moroni 8꞉11 (second case) are contradictory about the order in which one receives baptism and a remission of sins and that that "Mormon theologians" have ignored this issue.

As is typical in such charges of self-contradiction, the critics either:

• misinterpret LDS scripture;
• compare verses of scripture which are not speaking about identical issues;
• read Protestant terminology or theology into LDS scripture.

In this case, the critics have committed all three mistakes. As such, it is not surprising if "Mormon theologians" have spent little on the issues. The critics are looking to find fault, and so strain at gnats. LDS thinkers understand LDS doctrine, and so see clearly that there is no contradiction.

These scriptures are not contradictory, for at least three reasons—any one of which is sufficient to disprove the critics' claim. We will first list the scriptural texts, and then discuss each of the three reasons for which they are not properly seen as contradictory.

Scriptures to be considered

The first case

And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church (D&C 20꞉37).

The second case

Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost (2 Nephi 31꞉17).

...Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins (3 Nephi 12꞉2).

And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins (Moroni 8꞉11).

Reason #1: The scriptures are discussing two slightly different issues

There is a difference between "received of the Spirit of Christ" (which is given to every man—see Moroni 7꞉16—but may be received or not depending on choices and heed paid to it) and the baptism of "fire and the Holy Ghost" which happens after baptism, as Joseph Smith taught:

There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him.

Reason #2: The audience and presumed intent for the audience are slightly different

Note too that those in the first instance have repented and expressed a desire to be baptized, which desire and sincerity can then lead to a remission of their sins, (i.e., the intent is what matters, and a willingness to follow through on that intent).

In the second case, Nephi is encouraging those who may not have accepted the Messiah to do so, and to obey the commandments and example given by the Messiah—including baptism. So, his target audience is those who have perhaps not yet "desire[d] to be baptized." When they have that desire (by hearkening to the Spirit of Christ), they will then repent and hearken to it, and will choose to be baptized. This decision to repent and follow Jesus will ultimately lead to forgiveness, and the baptism of fire and the purging out of sin that comes with the receipt of the Holy Ghost (after baptism).

In short, the audience in the first case is further along in the process than the audience in the second.

Reason #3: The question presupposes that "forgiveness" is a single, unique event, when in fact it is an on-going process

Here, we see that the critics are viewing this question through the lenses of conservative protestantism.

The critics are assuming that the Book of Mormon matches their view of salvation, in which someone is "saved" once and finally by some type of "altar call" or confession. By contrast, LDS theology sees salvation, repentance, forgiveness, and purification and transformation by the Holy Ghost as on-going processes. The experience begins before baptism, leads us to baptism, and is the fulfillment of the promises and covenants of baptism, which must then be persisted in as we "endure to the end."

As the second case scriptures explain, as we learn of Jesus we are humbled and desire to repent. Repentance requires that we appreciate that we have not kept all of God's commandments, and we regret not doing so. We become resolved to keep God's commandments from henceforth, and the first commandment which we can obey is to choose baptism. The baptism is an outward sign of our repentance and determination to keep God's commandments, and this willingness to covenant with Jesus allows us (as the first case notes) to "receive...of the Spirit of Christ," which begins the process of remitting our sins. If we do not persist in our intention to follow Jesus, however, and were to suddenly choose not to be baptized, we would have returned to sin.

When we have been baptized, we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, which purifies us as if by fire, as sin and evil are burned out of us, and we walk in newness of life, following Jesus. We must then endure to the end, for if we do not, the remission of our sins (which we have only received because we have chosen to enter a covenant with Christ) will be null and void. The subsequent verses of 2 Nephi 1 explain this clearly:

And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive. And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save. Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the FatherYe shall have eternal life (2 Nephi 31꞉18-20).

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources	Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 207. ( Index of claims ) La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 6 (10 February 1838), 22. off-site Rather than contrasting the Book of Mormon and D&C, this author contrasts the D&C with Parley P. Pratt's Voice of Warning, 105 which echoes the Book of Mormon.
Past responses	John Taylor, Calumny Refuted and the Truth Defended (Liverpool: J. Tompkins, 1840), 1–12. Full title

Alleged contradiction between Book of Mormon, Book of Moses and Book of Abraham on number of Creators

Why does the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses describe "God" as creating, while the Book of Abraham describes "Gods?"

Summary: Protestant critics do not like the fact that Latter-day Saints reject the nonbiblical Nicene Creed, which teaches a oneness of substance. Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see John 17꞉22-23). Thus, it is proper to speak of "God" in a singular sense, but Latter-day Saints also recognize that there is more than one divine person—for example, the Father and the Son. This is not a contradiction; it merely demonstrates that the Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene trinitarianism.

Does Lehi contradict Jeremiah 7 and prove himself a false prophet?

One critic has claimed that Jeremiah 7 proves that Lehi wasn’t a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon’s authenticity is thus affected negatively.

Jeremiah 7 contains Jeremiah’s pleas before the kings of Israel to not fight back against Babylon. Babylon was forming a then-impending invasion on Israel. Certain prophets like Hananiah in Jeremiah 8 were prophesying that Jerusalem and Israel should fight back against Babylon and that the Lord would carry them to victory over Babylon.

Jeremiah receives revelation that those prophecies are not from the Lord. He is instructed to tell the kings of Israel to surrender willfully to Babylon and allow themselves to be carried away to Babylon for 70 years. As verse 8 of chapter 27 of Jeremiah says:

And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.

Further, any prophet claiming otherwise should not be listened to. Chapter 27꞉12-18:

¶ I spake also to Zedekiah king of Judah according to all these words, saying, Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live. Why will ye die, thou and thy people, by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, as the Lord hath spoken against the nation that will not serve the king of Babylon? Therefore hearken not unto the words of the prophets that speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylonfor they prophesy a lie unto you. For I have not sent them, saith the Lord, yet they prophesy a lie in my name; that I might drive you out, and that ye might perish, ye, and the prophets that prophesy unto you.

Also I spake to the priests and to all this people, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Hearken not to the words of your prophets that prophesy unto you, saying, Behold, the vessels of the Lord’s house shall now shortly be brought again from Babylonfor they prophesy a lie unto you. Hearken not unto them; serve the king of Babylon, and livewherefore should this city be laid waste? But if they be prophets, and if the word of the Lord be with them, let them now make intercession to the Lord of hosts, that the vessels which are left in the house of the Lord, and in the house of the king of Judah, and at Jerusalem, go not to Babylon.

Lehi, the critic asserts, is given revelation to leave Jerusalem. Thus, he remains outside of Jeremiah’s instruction from God via revelation to submit and be slaves to Babylon. Thus either both prophets aren’t actually prophets or one is right and the other is a false prophet.

Response to Question

It’s important to keep in mind exactly what Jeremiah is responding to. Jeremiah is responding to the wickedness of Israel and the city Jerusalem. He believes that Israel and Jerusalem are so wicked that the Lord must punish them and, indeed, he has received revelation from God that God is going to do just that: punish Israel via the Babylonian invasion. If they resist the Babylonian invasion, they face the sword, famine, and pestilence until they die. If they don’t resist, they face the 70 years of punishment via slavery in Babylon. Much nicer.

Lehi heard prophets in Jerusalem saying that "the people must repent, or that great city Jerusalem must be destroyed" (1 Nephi 1꞉4). He also read a book in vision that said that Jerusalem "should be destroyed, and the inhabitants thereof; many should perish by the sword, and many should be carried away captive into Babylon" (1 Nephi 1꞉13). Jerusalem could be saved if they repented. As Lehi exclaimed "Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty ! Thy throne is high in the heavens, and thy power, and goodness, and mercy are over all the inhabitants of the earth; and, because thou art merciful, thou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish" (1 Nephi 1꞉14). Lehi told his contemporaries of this way out of destruction via repentance, but, according to Nephi’s account of Lehi’s ministry, Lehi was mocked and his people sought to take away his life (1 Nephi 1꞉20). Lehi is then commanded personally in a dream to take his family and depart into the wilderness (1 Nephi 2꞉2).

Thus, Jeremiah is telling people to not actively resist the Babylonian invasion whether by violence or some other means but to submit to their rule. Otherwise they face destruction. Lehi is saying that if the people repent they don’t have to face each other. The two prophets don’t necessarily make it explicit in both of their messages that both of these options were available to the people, but that does not make their messages conflicting.

Why does the Church teach that man first existed as spirits in heaven when 1 Corinthians 15:46 says that the physical body comes before the spiritual?

When Latter-day Saints speak of God creating our "spirit bodies," we do not mean the glorified, physical "spiritual body" of the resurrected

When Latter-day Saints speak of God creating our "spirit bodies," we do not mean the glorified, physical "spiritual body" of the resurrected. We refer to God's role as our Heavenly Father before our mortal lives.

Biblical statements indicate that God is the father of our spirits and we were known to him before our birth (e.g., Jeremiah 1:5). This is a separate doctrine from the doctrine of a glorious resurrection, which is clearly Paul's topic.

It is unfortunate that critics find it necessary to distort and twist the clear meaning of scripture in an attempt to make the Latter-day Saints "offenders for a word."

In context, Paul is clearly talking about the physical resurrection from the dead

In context, Paul is clearly talking about the physical resurrection from the dead. For example, earlier in the chapter he has written:

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christwhom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own orderChrist the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. .. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die... (1 Corinthians 15:12-36)

Paul clearly believes, then, that the physical body with which we die will be resurrected.

He then tells the Saints that:

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption... It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:40-43.)

The "spiritual body" to which Paul refers is the resurrected physical body which has been glorified

The "spiritual body" to which Paul refers is the resurrected physical body which has been glorified.

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:52-53.)

The "natural" body is the weak, corruptible mortal body that is "sown in weakness." The "spiritual body" is the glorified, resurrected body "raised in power." But, this does not mean that it is not also a physical, or corporeal body—Paul has just spent several verses insisting upon the reality of Christ's resurrection, and using Him as a model for the resurrection of the Saints. And, clearly Jesus' body was tangible and physical following the resurrection:

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have''. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. (Luke 24:39-42, (emphasis added).)

⍗

Learn more about premortal life

Key sources	Kevin L. Barney, "On Preexistence in the Bible" FAIR link
FAIR links	Barry Robert Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church, Chapter 3. FAIR link Terryl Givens, "When Souls Had Wings: What the Western Tradition Has to teach Us About Pre-Existence," Proceedings of the 2007 FAIR Conference (August 2007). link
Online	Terryl Givens, "When Souls Had Wings: What the Western Tradition Has to teach Us About Pre-Existence," FAIR Conference 2007 off-site Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, "Premortal Life and Mortal Life: A Fearful Symmetry," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60/0 (15 March 2024). [vii–xxii] link Dana M. Pike, "Formed in and Called from the Womb," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 41/8 (30 November 2020). [153–168] link Russell C. McGregor, "The Anti-Mormon Attackers (Review of The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible)," FARMS Review 14/1 (2003). [315–320] link
Print	Barry Robert Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity, 2nd edition (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2013). Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999). Terryl L. Givens, When Souls Had Wings: Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought (Oxford University Press, 2009). Richard R. Hopkins Biblical Mormonism (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1994). Truman G. Madsen in Eternal Man (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1966). Boyd K. Packer in Our Father's Plan (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1984). Joseph Fielding Smith in Man, His Origin and Destiny (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1954). Brent L. Top The Life Before (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988).
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers

How is John 4:24 used as a proof-text by critics of the Church's doctrine of God having a body?

Critics read into the passage what is not there. This passage in John does not assert anything about God's corporeal nature or lack thereof

King James Version

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4꞉24

Other translation(s)

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (NASB)

God is Spirit, and only by the power of his Spirit can people worship him as he really is." (TEV)

God is Spirit, and those who worship God must be led by the Spirit to worship him according to the truth. (CEV)

Critics read into the passage what is not there. This passage in John does not assert anything about God's corporeal nature or lack thereof. The Latter-day Saint belief that God is an embodied spirit is perfectly consistent with the passage in question and critics are in error to insist that the passage must be interpreted as "God is a disembodied spirit."

Use or misuse by Church critics

This verse is used as a proof-text by critics of the LDS doctrine of the corporeal nature of God. Critics argue that this passage proves that God does not have a physical body.

Commentary

The context of this verse is that Jesus is explaining to a Samaritan woman how one must worship. Jesus teaches that the place of worship, whether Samaria or Jerusalem, is not important, but rather the way one worships. By teaching attributes of God, Jesus teaches how His children can and should relate to Him and worship Him. Latter-day Saints emphatically agree that God is indeed spirit, just as He is love 1 Jn 1:5, light 1 Jn 4:8, and a consuming fire Deuteronomy 4:24, but He is not only spirit, love, light, or fire.

The Greek language has no indefinite article ("a" or "an") and so the translator must decide whether to include that word in the English text. But for Latter-day Saints, the presence or absence of the article makes no difference. Latter-day Saints believe both that God is spirit (as an attribute) and that God is a spirit (as a statement of His nature). Similarly, Latter-day Saints believe that all people are also spirits, but spirits housed within a physical body.

In the chapter immediately preceding this scripture, in John 3:5-6 , Jesus says the following:

John 3꞉5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3꞉6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (NASB)

It is clear from the above verse that Jesus considered it entirely possible for a mortal human with a physical body to be spirit. Likewise, it is not inconsistent to believe that God the Father simultaneously has a physical body and "is spirit."

⍗

Learn more about God as embodied

Online	David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link
Print	Barry R. Bickmore, "Does God Have a Body In Human Form?" Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen, "Augustine and the Corporeality of God," Harvard Theological Review 95/1 (2002): 97–118. Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Baker Academic, 2001), 33–34. Daniel C. Peterson, "On the Motif of the Weeping God in Moses 7," in Revelation, Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen, ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002), 285–317. ISBN 0934893713. David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83/2 (1990): 105–116. Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier, "In Defense of Anthropomorphism," in Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 155–173. ISBN 0884943585. James L. Kugel, The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible (Free Press, 2003), xi–xii, 5–6, 104–106, 134–135. Roger Cook, "God's 'Glory:' More Evidence for the Anthropomorphic Nature of God in the Bible." Roland J. Teske, "Divine Immutability in Saint Augustine," Modern Schoolman 63 (May 1986): 233. Barry R. Bickmore, "The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man," in Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999).
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young God

How is Isaiah 43:10 used as a proof-text by critics of the Church doctrines of humans' ability to become like God through Christ's atonement?

The context of this passage makes it clear that the issue being addressed is not one of general theology but rather a very specific and practical command to recognize YHWH as Israel's only god and the only god to be worshipped

King James Version

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. Isaiah 43꞉10

Other translation(s)

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. (NIV)

Use or misuse by Church critics

This verse is used as a proof-text by critics of the LDS doctrines of the plurality of gods and the deification of man. It is claimed that this verse proves that there never has been or ever will be another being who could properly be called a god.

Commentary

This passage and other similar proof texts from the Hebrew scriptures are misused by critics. When read in context, it is clear that the intent of the passage is to differentiate YHWH from the foreign gods and idols in the cultures surrounding the Jews.

Verses 43꞉11-13 are a continuation of the statement by God:

I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "that I am God.

Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?" (NIV)

The context of this passage makes it clear that the issue being addressed is not one of general theology but rather a very specific and practical command to recognize YHWH as Israel's only god and the only god to be worshiped.

In addition to misapplying this passage, critics also fail to recognize the growing body of evidence that shows that the Jewish religion was not strictly monotheistic until quite late in its development, certainly after the era in which Isaiah was written. When this evidence is considered, it appears that Judaism originally taught that though there are indeed other divine beings, some of whom are called gods, none of these are to be worshiped except for the God of gods who created all things and who revealed Himself to Moses.

⍗

Learn more about theosis or humans becoming like God

Key sources	Michael W. Fordham, "Does President Gordon B. Hinckley Understand LDS Doctrine?" FAIR link
FAIR links	Roger Cook, "'Christ, the Firstfruits of Theosis'," Proceedings of the 2002 FAIR Conference (August 2002). link D. Charles Pyle, "'I Have Said, ‘Ye are Gods’'," Proceedings of the 1999 FAIR Conference (August 1999). link
Online	Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site Jeff Lindsay, "The Divine Potential of Human Beings: The Latter-day Saint Perspective," JeffLindsay.com (accessed 30 March 2007)off-site Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2002).off-site Keith Norman, "Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2000).off-site Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 179. PDF link Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 209. PDF link David Bokovoy, "'Ye Really Are Gods: A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John; Review of You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82, by Michael S. Heiser'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [267–313] link Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye Are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in The Disciple As Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000),471–594. direct off-site Gerald N. Lund, "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement 'As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be'] accepted as official doctrine by the Church?," Ensign (February 1982): 38.off-site Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign 19 (January 1989): 27. off-site Keith E. Norman, "Deification, Early Christian," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:369–370.off-site Michael S. Heiser, "'Israel's Divine Counsel, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [315–323] link Michael S. Heiser, "'You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [221–266] link John C. Hancock, "A Compelling Case for Theosis," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30/3 (14 September 2018). [43–48] link Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text"," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 193. PDF link Daniel O. McClellan, "Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/8 (8 May 2015). [79–96] link Neal Rappleye, "'With the Tongue of Angels': Angelic Speech as a Form of Deification," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21/11 (2 September 2016). [303–324] link Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [99–146] link David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link Tom Rosson, "'Deification: Fulness and Remnant, A Review of Deification and Grace by Daniel A. Keating'," FARMS Review 20/1 (2008). [195–218] link Keith Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity," Sunstone no. (Issue #1) (Winter 1975), 14–19. off-siteoff-site Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
Video	Christ, The Firstfruits of Theosis: Early Christian Theosis, Roger Cook, 2002 FAIR Conference Part 1:Early Christian Theosis Part 2:Early Christian Theosis Part 3:Early Christian Theosis Part 4:Early Christian Theosis
Print	Daniel H. Ludlow, "Eternal Life or Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow: Gospel Scholars Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 416-20. David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 108–109. Extensive non-LDS bibliography available here. K. Codell Carter, "Godhood," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 553-55. Lorenzo Snow, "As God Is, Man May Be," in Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, compiled by Clyde J. Williams, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 2–9. ISBN 0884945170. Robert L. Millet, "Do the Mormons really believe that men and women can become gods?" in Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 175-77, 192-94. Robert L. Millet, "The Doctrine of Godhood in the New Testament," in The Principles of the Gospel in Practice (Sandy, UT: Randall Book, 1985), 21-37. Thomas S. Monson, An Invitation to Exaltation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 18 pp.
Bibliography on human deification	Aden, Ross, “Justification and Divinization,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 102-7. Aden, Ross, “Justification and Sanctification. A Conversation between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 87-109. Allchin, A.M., Participation in God. A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Connecticut 1988). Andia, Ysabel de, Homo vivens. Incorruptibilite et divinisation de l’homme selon Irenee de Lyon (Paris 1986). Andia, Ysabel de, “Mysteres, unification et divinisation de l’homme selon Denys l’areopagite,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome) 63 (1997): 273-332. Arroniz, J., “La immortalidad como deificacion en S. Ireneo,” Scriptorium Victoriense (Vitoria, Spain) 8 (1961): 262-87. Asendorf, Ulrich, “The Embeddedment of Theosis in the Theology of Martin Luther,” in Luther Digest 3 (1996): 159-61; English abridgment from Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990). Aubineau, M., “Incorruptibilite et divinisation selon saint Irenee,” Recherches de science religieuse 44 (1956): 25-52. Bakken, Kenneth L., “Holy Spirit and Theosis. Toward a Lutheran Theology of Healing,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 409-423. Balas, David L., Metousia Theou. Man’s participation in God’s Perfections according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Studia Anselmiana, volume 55 (Rome 1966). Bardy, Gustave, “Divinisation: According to the Latin Fathers,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, ascetique et mystique doctrine et histoire (Paris 1957): 3, Columns 1389-1398. Baur, L., “Untersuchungen uber die Vergottlichungslehre in der Theologie der grieschischen Vater,” Theologische Quartalschrift 98 (1916): 467-91; 99 (1917): 225-252; 100 (1919): 426-444; 101 (1920): 28-64, 155-186. Bielfeldt, Dennis, “Deification as a Motif in Luther’s Dictata super psalterium,” Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997): 401-420. Bilaniuk, Petro B.T., “The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization,” in The Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky, ed. David Nieman and Margaret Schatkin; Orientalia Christiana Analecta, volume 195 (Rome 1973): 337-359. Blowers, Paul M., “Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Concept of ‘Perpetual Progress,’” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 151-71. Bonner, Gerald, “Augustine’s Conception of Deification,” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986): 369-85. Bonner, Gerald, “Deification, Divinization,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A. (W.B. Eerdmans 1999): 265-6. Bonner, Gerald, “’Deificare,’” in Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (1996): columns 265-7. Bornhauser, K., Die Vergottungslehre des Athanasius und Johannes Damascenus (Gutersloh 1903). Braaten, Carl E., ”The Finnish Breakthrough in Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 141-3. Bratsiotis, P., “Die Lehre der orthodoxen Kirche uber die Theosis des Menschen,” Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie. Klasse der Letteren XXIII/1 (Brussels 1961): 1-13. Brecht, Martin, “Neue Ansatze der Lutherforshung in Finnland,” Luther (1990): 36-40. Breck, John, “Divine Initiative. Salvation in Orthodox Theology,” in Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 105-120. Butterworth, George W., ”The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 157-69. Capanaga, Victorino, “La deificacion en la soteriologia agostiniana,” in Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 745-754. Carabine, Deirdre, “Five Wise Virgins. Theosis and Return in Periphyseon V,” in Iohannes Scottus Eriugena, ed. G. van Riel, J.C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven 1996): 195-207. Cavanagh, William T., “A Joint Declaration?” Justification as theosis in Aquinas and Luther,” Heythrop Journal 41 (London 2000): 265-280. Christensen, Michael J., “Theosis and Sanctification. John Wesley’s Reformulation of a Patristic Doctrine,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 31 (1996): 71-94. Congar, Yves M.-J. (later Cardinal), Dialogue Between Christians. Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism (Newman Press 1966; 1st Paris 1964). Chapter 8 is entitled: “Deification in the Spiritual Tradition of the East’: 217-231; first published in La Vie Spirituelle 43 (1935): 91-107. Congar, Yves M.-J., The Mystery of the Temple (Newman Press 1962; Paris 1958); Appendix III: “God’s presence and his dwelling among men under the old and under the new and definitive dispensation,” 262-99. Corneanu, Nicolae, “The Jesus Prayer and Deification,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 39 (1995): 3-24. Daley, Brian E., S.J., The Hope of the Early Church. A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge University Press 1991). Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Divinisation,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite (Paris 1957) 3: columns 1376-1389. Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Mystere liturgique et divinisation dans la Mystagogie de saint Maxime le Confesseur,’ in Epektasis. Melanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Danielou (Paris 1972): 55-62. Davies, Brian, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford 1992). Chapter 13 entitled “How to be Holy,” 250-273. Deseille, P., “L’eucharistie et la divinisation des chretiens selon les Peres de l’Eglise,” Le Messager orthodoxe 87 (1981): 40-56. Drewery, Benjamin, “Deification,” in Christian Spirituality. Essays in Honor of Gordon Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks (London 1975): 35-62. Edwards, Henry, “Justification, Sanctification, and the Eastern Concept of Theosis,” Consensus. A Canadian Lutheran Journal of Theology 14 (1988): 65-88. Ermoni, V., “La deification de l’homme chez les Peres de l’Eglise,” Revue du clerge francais 11 (1897): 509-519. Fairbairn, Don, “Salvation as Theosis. The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy,” Themelios 23 (1998): 42-54. Faller, O., “Grieschischen Vergottung und christliche Vergottlichung,” Gregorianum 6 (1925): 405-35. Ferguson, Everett, “God’s Infinity and Man’s Mutability. Perpetual Progress according to Gregory of Nyssa,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 18 (1973): 59-78. Ferguson, Everett, “Progress in Perfection. Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita Moysis,” Studia Patristica 14 (1976): 307-14. Festugiere, A.-J., “Divinisation du Chretien,” La Vie Spirituelle 59 (1939): 90-99. Finger, Thomas, “Anabaptism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Some Unexpected Similarities,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994): 67-91. Finger, Thomas, “Post-Chalcedonian Christology. Some Reflections on Oriental Orthodox Christology from a Mennonite Perspective,” in Christ in East and West, ed. Paul Fries and Tiran Nersoyan (Mercer University Press 1987): 155-69. Flew, Robert Newton, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology. An Historical Study of the Christian Ideal for the Present Life (Oxford 1968; 1st 1934). Flogaus, R., Theosis bei Palamas und Luther (Gottingen 1997). Flogaus, R., “Agreement on the Issues of Deification and Synergy?,” Luther Digest. An Annual Abridgement of Luther Studies 7 (1999): 99-105; English abridgement of “Einig in Sachen Theosis und Synergie?,” Kerygma und Dogma 42 (1996): 225-243. Folliet, Georges, “’Deificari in otio,’ Augustin, Epistula 10.2,” Recherches Augustiniennes 2 (1962): 225-236. Ford, David C., “Saint Makarios of Egypt and John Wesley. Variations on the Theme of Sanctification,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 33 (1988): 288. Fortino, Eleuterio F., “Sanctification and Deification,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 192-200. Franks, R.S., “The Idea of Salvation in the Theology of the Eastern Church,” in Mansfield College Essays. Presented to Rev. Andrew Martin Fairbairn (London 1909): 249-264. Frary, Joseph, “Deification and Human Freedom,” Sobornost (London) 7 (1975): 117-126. Gross, Jules, La divinisation du Chretien d’apres les peres Grecs (Paris 1938). Recently translated. Gross, Jules, “Die Vergottlichung des Christen nach den grieschischen Vatern,” Zeitschrift fur Askese und Mystik 14 (1939): 79-94. Hartin, Patrick J., “Call to be Perfect through Suffering (James 1.2-4). The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount,” Biblica (Rome) 77 (1996): 477-492. Hartnett, Joanne J., Doctrina S. Bonaventurae de deiformitate (Mundelein 1936). Heine, Ronald E., Perfection in the Virtuous Life A Study in the Relationship between Edification and Polemical Theology in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Vita Moysis (Philadelphia 1975). Heintjes, J., “De opgang van den manschelijken Geest tot God volgens sint Maximus Confessor,” Bijdragen van de Philosophische en Theologische Faculteiten der Nederlandsche Jezuieten 5 (1942): 260-302; 6 (1943): 64-123. Hess, Hamilton, “The Place of Divinization in Athanasian Soteriology,” Studia Patristica 26 (1993): 369-374. Hinlicky, Paul R., “Theological Anthropology. Toward integrating theosis and Justification by Faith,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34 (1997): 38-73. Janssens, L., “Notre filiation divine d’apres S. Cyrille d’ Alexandrie,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensae 15 (1938): 233-78. Jenson, Robert W., Triune Identity (Philadelphia 1982): 103-148. Jenson, Robert W., “Theosis,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 108-112. Kamppuri, Hannu T., editor, Dialogue between Neighbors. The Theological Conversations between the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church 1970-1986 (Helsinki 1986), passim. Kamppuri, Hannu T., “Theosis in the Theology of Gregory Palamas,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 153-6. Kantorowicz, Ernst H., “Deus per naturam, Deus per gratiam. A Note on Mediaeval Political Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952): 253-77. Khairallah, Philip A., “The Sanctification of Life,” Emmanuel 96 (1990): 323-333; 394-397; 403-406. Kinghorn, Kenneth C., “Holiness: The Central Plan of God,” Evangelical Journal 15 (1997): 57-70. Kolp, A. L., “Partakers of the Divine Nature. The Use of II Peter 1.4 by Athanasius,” Studia Patristica 17 (1979): 1018-1023. Kretschmar, Georg, “The Reception of the Orthodox Teaching of Divinization in Protestant Theology,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 61-80; English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 156-9. Ladner, Gerhard T., “St. Augustine’s Conception of the Reformation of Man to the Image of God,” Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 867-888. Ladner, Gerhart B., The Idea of Reform. Its impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (Harvard 1959). Larchet, Jean-Claude, La Divinisation de l’homme selon Saint Maxime le Confesseur (Paris 1996). Lattey, Cuthbert, “The Deification of man in Clement of Alexandria. Some further notes,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 257-62. Lawrenz, Melvin E., The Christology of John Chrysostom (Mellen Press 1996). Section entitled: “The Way of Salvation—Moral Accomplishment and Divinization:” 146-54. Linforth, Ivan M., “’oi athanatizontes:’ (Herodotus 4.93-96),” Classical Philology 13 (1918): 23-33. Lossky, Vladimir, “Redemption and Deification,” in In the Image and Likeness of God (London 1975; New York 1974; from the French of 1967): 97-110; article first published as “Redemption et deification,” in Messager de l’Exarchat du Patrarche russe en Europe occidental 15 (1953): 161-70. Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, La Deification de l’homme selon la doctrine des Peres grecs (Paris 1970), edited and introduced by Jean Danielou. These three articles were first published as “La Doctrine de la Deification dans l’Eglise Grecque jusqu’au xie Siecle,” Revue d’Histoire des Religions 105 (1932): 5-43; 106 (1932): 525-74; 107 (1933): 8-55; “La Doctrine de la Grace et de la Liberte dans l’Orthodoxie Greco-orientale,” Oecumenica 6 (1939); “La Beatitude dans l’Orient Chretien,” Dieu Vivant 15 (1950). Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, “La grace deifiante des sacraments d’apres Nicolas Cabasilas,” Revue des sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques 25 (1936): 299-330; 26 (1937): 693-717. Maddox, Randy L., “John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy. Influences, convergences and Differences,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 29-53. Mahe, J., S.J., “La sanctification d’apres saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique 10 (1909): 30-40; 469-492. Mannermaa, Tuomo, “Theosis as a subject of Finnish Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 37-48; first published in Luther und Theosis: Vergottlichung als Thema der abendlandischen Theologie, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 11-26; an English abridgment appeared in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 145-9. Mantzaridis, Georgios, The Deification of Man. St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, translated by Liadain Sherrard (New York 1984). Marquart, Kurt E., “Luther and Theosis,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (Fort Wayne, Indiana 2000): 182-205. Marshall, Bruce D., “Ex Occidente Lux? Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology,” Modern Theology 20.1 (January 2004): 23-50. Marshall, Bruce D., “Justification as Declaration and Deification,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 4.1 (March 2002): 3-28. Martikainen, Jouko, “Man’s Salvation. Deification or Justification?,” Sobornost 7 (London: 1976): 180-192. Mayo, Harold, John Wesley and the Christian East: on the subject of Christian Perfection, Masters Thesis, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, New York 1980. McCormick, K. Steve, “Theosis in Chrysostom and Wesley: an Eastern paradigm on faith and love,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 26 (1991): 38-103. McCoy, J. D., “Philosophical influences on the doctrine of the Incarnation in Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria,” Encounter 38 (Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis: 1977): 362-91. McDaniel, Michael C.D., “Salvation as Justification and Theosis,” in Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 67-83; abridged in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 142-4. McDonald, Peter, “To become Gods: a saintly teaching,” Faith Magazine 30 (1998): 13-17. McDonnell, Kilian, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 1996). Chapter 9: “Taking the Robe of Glory from the Jordan--Divinization”; Chapter 10: “The Cosmic Jordan and the Robe of Glory—Divinization and Eschatology,” 128-55; and passim. McGuckin, John A., St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its history, theology and texts (E.J. Brill 1994). Chapter Three: “The Christology of Cyril: 1. Redemptive Deification: Cyril’s presuppositions and major concerns”: 175-226. Merritt, John G., “’Dialogue’ within a Tradition: John Wesley and Gregory of Nyssa discuss Christian Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22 (1987): 92-116. Messner, R., “Rechtfertigung und Vergottlichung—und die Kirche. Zur okumenischen Bedeutung neuerer Tendenzen in der Lutherforschung,” Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 118 (1996): 23-35. Meyendorff, John, “Remarks on Eastern Patristic Thought in John Scottus Eriugena,” in Eriugena: East and West, edited by Bernard McGinn and Willemien Otten (University of Notre Dame 1994): 51-68. Meyendorff, John, “Theosis in the Eastern Christian Tradition,” in Christian Spirituality III: Post Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupre and Don Saliers (New York 1989): 470-6. Moore, D. Marselle, “Development in Wesley’s thought on Sanctification and Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 20 (1985): 29-53. Morse, Jonathan, “Fruits of the Eucharist: Henosis and Theosis,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 127-42. Mosser, Carl, “The Greatest possible blessing: Calvin and deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55.1 (2002): 36-57. Musurillo, Herbert, From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings, with Introduction by Jean Danielou (New York 1979). Nellas, Panayiotis, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, translated by Norman Russell (New York 1987). Newman, John Henry Cardinal, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians (1895; 1st 1841 ff.). Chapter on Deification. Nispel, Mark D., “Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia,” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 289-304. Based on Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska. Nock, Arthur Darby, review article, in Journal of Religion 31 (1951): 214-6. Norman, Keith E., Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University 1980. Norris, Frederick W., “Deification: Consensual and Cogent,” Scottish Journal of Theology 49 (1996): 411-428. Oroz Reta, Jose, “De l’illumination a la deification de l’ame selon saint Augustin,” Studia Patristica 27 (1993): 364-82. O’Collins, Gerald, S.J., Christology. A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford University Press 1995). Passim O’Keefe, Mark, “Theosis and the Christian Life. Toward Integrating Roman Catholic Ethics and Spirituality,” Eglise et Theologie (Ottawa, Canada) 25 (1994): 47-63. O’Shea, Kevin F., “Divinization: a Study in Theological Analogy,” The Thomist 29 (1965): 1-45. Perkins, Harold William, The Doctrine of Christian or Evangelical Perfection (London 1927). Peura, Simo, “Participation in Christ according to Luther,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 164-8. Peura, Simo, “The Deification of Man as Being in God,” Luther Digest 5 (1997): 168-72; English abridgment of “Die Vergottlichung des Menschen als Sein in God,” Lutherjahrbuch 60 (1993): 39-71. Phan, Peter C., Grace and the Human Condition (Michael Glazier 1988): 132-138; 171-176. Piolanti, A., “La Grazia come participazione della Natura Divina,” Euntes Docete 10 (1957): 34-50. Places, Eduard des, “Divinization,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualite 3 (Paris 1957): columns 1370-1375. Plass, Paul, “Transcendent Time in Maximus the Confessor,” The Thomist 44 (1980): 259-77. Plass, Paul, “’Moving Rest’ in Maximus the Confessor,” Classica et Mediaevalia 35 (1984): 177-90. Popov, I.V., “Ideja obozenija v drevne-vostocnoi cerkvi” (‘The idea of divinization in the Ancient Eastern Church’), in Voprosi filosofij i psixogij 97 (1909): 165-213. Posset, Franz, “’Deification’ in the German Spirituality of the Late Middle Ages and in Luther: An Ecumenical Historical Perspective,” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 84 (1993): 103-25. Preuss, K.F.A., Ad Maximi Confessoris de Deo hominisque deificatione doctrinam abnotationum pars I (Schneeberg 1894). Rakestraw, Robert V., “Becoming like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 257-69. Randenborg, G. van, Vergottung und Erlosung (Berlin). Rechtfertigung und Verherrlichung (Theosis) des Menschen durch Jesus Christus (‘Justification and Glorification (Theosis) of the Human Person through Jesus Christ’) (Germany, 1995). Ritschl, Dietrich, “Hippolytus’ Conception of Deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 12 (1959): 388-99. Rius-Camps, J., El dinamismo trinitario en la divinizacion de los seres racionales segun Origenes (Rome 1970). Rondet, Henri, The Grace of Christ (Newman Press 1967; Paris 1948). Chapter Five: “The Greek Fathers: The Divinization of the Christian”: 65-88; and passim. Rondet, Henri, S.J., “La divinization du Chretien,” Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 71 (1949): 449-476; 561-588; reprinted and expanded in Rondet, Essais sur la Theologie de la Grace (Paris 1964): 107-200. Rufner, V., “Homo secundus Deus,” Philosophisches Jahrbuch 63 (1955): 248-91. Rusch, William G., “How the Eastern Fathers understood what the Western Church meant by Justification,” Justification by Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, ed. H.G. Andersen, T. A. Murphy, J. A. Burgess (Augsburg Press 1985): 131-142, notes 347-8. Russell, Norman, “’Partakers of the Divine Nature’ (II Peter 1.4) in the Byzantine Tradition,” in J. Hussey Festschrift (1998). off-site Ryk, Marta, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in the Deification of Man according to Contemporary Orthodox Theology,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 10 (1975): 24-39; 109-130. Saarinen, Risto, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogues 1959-1994 (Gottingen 1997). Saarinen, Risto, “Salvation in the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue. A Comparative Perspective,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 202-213. Saarinen, Risto, “The Presence of God in Luther’s Theology,” Lutheran Quarterly 8 (1994): 3-13. Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992) Sartorius, B., La doctrine de la deification de l’homme d’apres les Peres grecs en general et Gregoire Palamas en particulier, (Doctoral Thesis, Geneva 1965). Schmitz-Perrin, Rudolf, “’Theosis hoc est deification’. Depassement et paradoxe de l’apophase chez Jean Scot Erigene,” Revue des sciences religieuses 72 (1998): 420-445. Schonborn, Christoph, From Death to Life. The Christian Journey (Ignatius Press 1995; 1st German 1988). Chapter Two: “Is Man to become God? On the meaning of the Christian Doctrine of Deification”: 41-63, and passim. Schonborn, Christoph, God’s Human Face: The Christ-Icon (Ignatius Press 1994; 1st French 1976, 1978; 2nd German 1984). Passim. Schonborn, Christoph, “L’homme est-il fait pour devenir Dieu? Notes sur le sense chretien de la ‘deification’ or ‘divinisation’ de l’homme,’ Omnis Terra 22 (1983): 53-64. Schonborn, Christoph, “Uber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs der Vergottlichung des Menschen,” Jahrbuch fur Philosophie und Spekulative Theologie (Freiburg) 34 (1987): 3-47. Schurr, George M., “On the Logic of Ante-Nicene affirmations of the ‘Deification’ of the Christian,” Anglican Theological Review 51 (1969): 97-105. Schwarzwaller, Klaus, “Verantwortung des Glaubens,” in Freiheit als Liebe bei Martin Luther, ed. Dennis Bielfeldt and Klaus Schwarzwaller (Frankfurt, 1995): 133-158. Sheldon-Williams, I. P., review article of M. Lot-Borodine, La Deification de l’Homme, in Downside Review 89 (1971): 90-93. Slenczka, Reinhard, “Communion with God as Foundation and object of theology--deification as an ontological problem,” Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 149-53. Snyder, Howard A., ”John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 55-60. Staniloae, Dumitru, “Image, Likeness, and Deification in the Human Person,” Communio 13 (1986): 64-83. Steely, John E., Gnosis: The Doctrine of Christian Perfection in the Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Th. D. Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky 1954). Stephen E. Robinson, "The Doctrine of Deification," in Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993),60–65. off-site FAIR link Stolz, Anselm, The Doctrine of Spiritual Perfection (St. Louis 1946; 1st German). Stoop, Jan A. A., Die Deification Hominis in Die Sermones en Epistolae van Augustinus (Leiden 1952). Strange, C. Roderick, “Athanasius on Divinization,” Studia Patristica 16 (1985): 342-346. Stuckwisch, Richard, “Justification and Deification in the Dialogue between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremias II,” Logia. A Journal of Lutheran Theology 9 (2000): 17-28. off-site Telepneff, Gregory, and James Thornton, “Arian Transcendence and the Notion of Theosis in Saint Athanasios,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987): 271-77. Theodorou, A., “Die Lehre von der Vergottung des Menschen bei den grieschischen Kirchenvater,” Kerygma und Dogma (Zeitschrift fur theologische Forschung und Kirchliche lehre) 7 (1961): 283-310. Thunberg, Lars, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (Open Court 1995; 1st Sweden 1965): especially 427-32. Thuren, Jukka, “Justification and participation in the Divine Nature,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja (Theological Journal of Finland: 1977): 483-99. Tsirpanlis, Constantine N., Greek Patristic Theology, Volume I: Basic Doctrine in Eastern Church Fathers (New York 1979); Chapter entitled: “Aspects of Athanasian Soteriology”: 25-40. Turcescu, Lucian, “Soteriological Issues in the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification: an Orthodox Perspective,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 64-72. Turner, H.E.W., The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption. A Study of the Development of Doctrine during the First Five Centuries (London 1952). Union with Christ. The new Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Eerdmans 1998). Several papers, by Mannermaa, Peura, Raunio, Juntunen, Jenson, Braaten, Bielfeldt, all dealing with Theosis. Vandervelde, George, “Justification and Deification—Problematic Synthesis: A Response to Lucian Turcescu”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 73-78. Volz, Carl A., Faith and Practice in the Early Church. Foundations for Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis 1983). Volz has a section entitled “Christ, the Giver of Deification”: 76-9. Wakefield, Gordon S., “Perfection,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 297-9. Walland, F., La grazia divinizzante (Asti 1949). Watson, Nicholas, “Melting into God the English Way: Deification in the Middle English Version of Marguerite Porete’s Mirouer des simples ames anienties,” in Prophets Abroad. The Reception of Continental Holy Women in late Medieval England, ed. Rosalynn Voader (Cambridge 1996): 19-49. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “Eastern Orthodox Spirituality: Union with God in Theosis,” Theology Today (Princeton, NJ) 56 (1999): 29-43. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “The Union of God and man in Jesus Christ in the Thought of Gregory of Nazianzus,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28 (1982): 83-98. Weser, H., S. Maximi Confessoris praecepta de incarnatione Dei et deificatione hominis exponuntur et examinantur (Dissertation, Berlin 1869). Wild, P. T., Divinization of Man according to St. Hilary of Poitiers (Mundelein 1950). Williams, A.N., “Deification in the Summa Theologiae. A Structural Interpretation of the Prima Pars,” The Thomist 61 (1997): 219-255. Williams, A.N., “Light from Byzantium: The Significance of Palamas’ Doctrine of Theosis,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 483-496. Williams, Anna Ngaire, The Ground of Union. Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (Oxford University Press 1999). Williams, Rowan, “Deification,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 106-8. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “A Note on the Iconoclastic Controversy: Greek and Latin disagreements about Matter and Deification,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 18 (1980): 139-48. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “Grace as participation in the Divine Life in the Theology of Augustine of Hippo,” Augustinian Studies 7 (1976): 135-52. Winslow, Donald F., Dynamics of Salvation: A Study of Gregory of Nazianzus (1979); Passim. Wolters, Al, “’Partners of the Deity:’ A Covenantal Reading of II Peter 1.4,” Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 28-44; with postscript 26 (1991): 418-420 Zwanepol, Klaas, “Luther en Theosis,” Luther-Bulletin. Tijdschrift voor interconfessioneel Lutheronderzoek 2 (1993): 48-73; English abridgment in Luther Digest 5 (1995): 177-81.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

How is Genesis 3:5 used by critics who claim that the doctrine of deification (theosis) is a teaching of Satan?

The use of Genesis 3 to counter the doctrine of deification/theosis has two problems associated with it:

First: Satan never claimed that Adam and Eve would be gods, just that they would be "as gods, knowing good and evil."

King James Version (KJV) 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. Genesis 3:5

New American Standard Bible (NASB) For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

Contemporary English Version (CEV) God understands what will happen on the day you eat fruit from that tree. You will see what you have done, and you will know the difference between right and wrong, just as God does.

Bible in Basic English (BBE) For God sees that on the day when you take of its fruit, your eyes will be open, and you will be as gods, having knowledge of good and evil.

Use or misuse by Church critics

This verse is used by critics to attempt to show that the LDS doctrine of deification is a teaching of Satan.

Commentary

The critics seriously misunderstand and misinterpret this passage of scripture.

Note that the serpent makes two claims:

(1) "ye shall not surely die" and

(2) "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

But if one looks forward to Genesis 3:22:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:"

Second problem: The second and bigger problem is that Satan was, in fact, telling the truth on this point, as God confirms.

God announces that Adam and Eve did indeed become as gods, knowing good and evil. As usual, Satan mixes lies and truth. In this case he said that Adam and Eve wouldn't die (a lie) but he also said that their eating would make them "as gods, knowing good and evil" (a truth).

So the lie of Satan in the Garden of Eden was that transgressing God's law would not bring death (with the implication that Adam and Eve could have the god-like ability to know good and evil without paying a terrible price).

This chapter isn't even relevant to beliefs about deification.

⍗

Learn more about theosis or humans becoming like God

Key sources	Michael W. Fordham, "Does President Gordon B. Hinckley Understand LDS Doctrine?" FAIR link
FAIR links	Roger Cook, "'Christ, the Firstfruits of Theosis'," Proceedings of the 2002 FAIR Conference (August 2002). link D. Charles Pyle, "'I Have Said, ‘Ye are Gods’'," Proceedings of the 1999 FAIR Conference (August 1999). link
Online	Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site Jeff Lindsay, "The Divine Potential of Human Beings: The Latter-day Saint Perspective," JeffLindsay.com (accessed 30 March 2007)off-site Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2002).off-site Keith Norman, "Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2000).off-site Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 179. PDF link Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 209. PDF link David Bokovoy, "'Ye Really Are Gods: A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John; Review of You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82, by Michael S. Heiser'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [267–313] link Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye Are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in The Disciple As Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000),471–594. direct off-site Gerald N. Lund, "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement 'As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be'] accepted as official doctrine by the Church?," Ensign (February 1982): 38.off-site Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign 19 (January 1989): 27. off-site Keith E. Norman, "Deification, Early Christian," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:369–370.off-site Michael S. Heiser, "'Israel's Divine Counsel, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [315–323] link Michael S. Heiser, "'You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [221–266] link John C. Hancock, "A Compelling Case for Theosis," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30/3 (14 September 2018). [43–48] link Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text"," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 193. PDF link Daniel O. McClellan, "Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/8 (8 May 2015). [79–96] link Neal Rappleye, "'With the Tongue of Angels': Angelic Speech as a Form of Deification," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21/11 (2 September 2016). [303–324] link Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [99–146] link David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link Tom Rosson, "'Deification: Fulness and Remnant, A Review of Deification and Grace by Daniel A. Keating'," FARMS Review 20/1 (2008). [195–218] link Keith Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity," Sunstone no. (Issue #1) (Winter 1975), 14–19. off-siteoff-site Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
Video	Christ, The Firstfruits of Theosis: Early Christian Theosis, Roger Cook, 2002 FAIR Conference Part 1:Early Christian Theosis Part 2:Early Christian Theosis Part 3:Early Christian Theosis Part 4:Early Christian Theosis
Print	Daniel H. Ludlow, "Eternal Life or Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow: Gospel Scholars Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 416-20. David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 108–109. Extensive non-LDS bibliography available here. K. Codell Carter, "Godhood," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 553-55. Lorenzo Snow, "As God Is, Man May Be," in Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, compiled by Clyde J. Williams, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 2–9. ISBN 0884945170. Robert L. Millet, "Do the Mormons really believe that men and women can become gods?" in Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 175-77, 192-94. Robert L. Millet, "The Doctrine of Godhood in the New Testament," in The Principles of the Gospel in Practice (Sandy, UT: Randall Book, 1985), 21-37. Thomas S. Monson, An Invitation to Exaltation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 18 pp.
Bibliography on human deification	Aden, Ross, “Justification and Divinization,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 102-7. Aden, Ross, “Justification and Sanctification. A Conversation between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 87-109. Allchin, A.M., Participation in God. A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Connecticut 1988). Andia, Ysabel de, Homo vivens. Incorruptibilite et divinisation de l’homme selon Irenee de Lyon (Paris 1986). Andia, Ysabel de, “Mysteres, unification et divinisation de l’homme selon Denys l’areopagite,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome) 63 (1997): 273-332. Arroniz, J., “La immortalidad como deificacion en S. Ireneo,” Scriptorium Victoriense (Vitoria, Spain) 8 (1961): 262-87. Asendorf, Ulrich, “The Embeddedment of Theosis in the Theology of Martin Luther,” in Luther Digest 3 (1996): 159-61; English abridgment from Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990). Aubineau, M., “Incorruptibilite et divinisation selon saint Irenee,” Recherches de science religieuse 44 (1956): 25-52. Bakken, Kenneth L., “Holy Spirit and Theosis. Toward a Lutheran Theology of Healing,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 409-423. Balas, David L., Metousia Theou. Man’s participation in God’s Perfections according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Studia Anselmiana, volume 55 (Rome 1966). Bardy, Gustave, “Divinisation: According to the Latin Fathers,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, ascetique et mystique doctrine et histoire (Paris 1957): 3, Columns 1389-1398. Baur, L., “Untersuchungen uber die Vergottlichungslehre in der Theologie der grieschischen Vater,” Theologische Quartalschrift 98 (1916): 467-91; 99 (1917): 225-252; 100 (1919): 426-444; 101 (1920): 28-64, 155-186. Bielfeldt, Dennis, “Deification as a Motif in Luther’s Dictata super psalterium,” Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997): 401-420. Bilaniuk, Petro B.T., “The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization,” in The Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky, ed. David Nieman and Margaret Schatkin; Orientalia Christiana Analecta, volume 195 (Rome 1973): 337-359. Blowers, Paul M., “Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Concept of ‘Perpetual Progress,’” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 151-71. Bonner, Gerald, “Augustine’s Conception of Deification,” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986): 369-85. Bonner, Gerald, “Deification, Divinization,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A. (W.B. Eerdmans 1999): 265-6. Bonner, Gerald, “’Deificare,’” in Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (1996): columns 265-7. Bornhauser, K., Die Vergottungslehre des Athanasius und Johannes Damascenus (Gutersloh 1903). Braaten, Carl E., ”The Finnish Breakthrough in Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 141-3. Bratsiotis, P., “Die Lehre der orthodoxen Kirche uber die Theosis des Menschen,” Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie. Klasse der Letteren XXIII/1 (Brussels 1961): 1-13. Brecht, Martin, “Neue Ansatze der Lutherforshung in Finnland,” Luther (1990): 36-40. Breck, John, “Divine Initiative. Salvation in Orthodox Theology,” in Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 105-120. Butterworth, George W., ”The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 157-69. Capanaga, Victorino, “La deificacion en la soteriologia agostiniana,” in Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 745-754. Carabine, Deirdre, “Five Wise Virgins. Theosis and Return in Periphyseon V,” in Iohannes Scottus Eriugena, ed. G. van Riel, J.C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven 1996): 195-207. Cavanagh, William T., “A Joint Declaration?” Justification as theosis in Aquinas and Luther,” Heythrop Journal 41 (London 2000): 265-280. Christensen, Michael J., “Theosis and Sanctification. John Wesley’s Reformulation of a Patristic Doctrine,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 31 (1996): 71-94. Congar, Yves M.-J. (later Cardinal), Dialogue Between Christians. Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism (Newman Press 1966; 1st Paris 1964). Chapter 8 is entitled: “Deification in the Spiritual Tradition of the East’: 217-231; first published in La Vie Spirituelle 43 (1935): 91-107. Congar, Yves M.-J., The Mystery of the Temple (Newman Press 1962; Paris 1958); Appendix III: “God’s presence and his dwelling among men under the old and under the new and definitive dispensation,” 262-99. Corneanu, Nicolae, “The Jesus Prayer and Deification,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 39 (1995): 3-24. Daley, Brian E., S.J., The Hope of the Early Church. A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge University Press 1991). Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Divinisation,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite (Paris 1957) 3: columns 1376-1389. Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Mystere liturgique et divinisation dans la Mystagogie de saint Maxime le Confesseur,’ in Epektasis. Melanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Danielou (Paris 1972): 55-62. Davies, Brian, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford 1992). Chapter 13 entitled “How to be Holy,” 250-273. Deseille, P., “L’eucharistie et la divinisation des chretiens selon les Peres de l’Eglise,” Le Messager orthodoxe 87 (1981): 40-56. Drewery, Benjamin, “Deification,” in Christian Spirituality. Essays in Honor of Gordon Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks (London 1975): 35-62. Edwards, Henry, “Justification, Sanctification, and the Eastern Concept of Theosis,” Consensus. A Canadian Lutheran Journal of Theology 14 (1988): 65-88. Ermoni, V., “La deification de l’homme chez les Peres de l’Eglise,” Revue du clerge francais 11 (1897): 509-519. Fairbairn, Don, “Salvation as Theosis. The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy,” Themelios 23 (1998): 42-54. Faller, O., “Grieschischen Vergottung und christliche Vergottlichung,” Gregorianum 6 (1925): 405-35. Ferguson, Everett, “God’s Infinity and Man’s Mutability. Perpetual Progress according to Gregory of Nyssa,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 18 (1973): 59-78. Ferguson, Everett, “Progress in Perfection. Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita Moysis,” Studia Patristica 14 (1976): 307-14. Festugiere, A.-J., “Divinisation du Chretien,” La Vie Spirituelle 59 (1939): 90-99. Finger, Thomas, “Anabaptism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Some Unexpected Similarities,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994): 67-91. Finger, Thomas, “Post-Chalcedonian Christology. Some Reflections on Oriental Orthodox Christology from a Mennonite Perspective,” in Christ in East and West, ed. Paul Fries and Tiran Nersoyan (Mercer University Press 1987): 155-69. Flew, Robert Newton, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology. An Historical Study of the Christian Ideal for the Present Life (Oxford 1968; 1st 1934). Flogaus, R., Theosis bei Palamas und Luther (Gottingen 1997). Flogaus, R., “Agreement on the Issues of Deification and Synergy?,” Luther Digest. An Annual Abridgement of Luther Studies 7 (1999): 99-105; English abridgement of “Einig in Sachen Theosis und Synergie?,” Kerygma und Dogma 42 (1996): 225-243. Folliet, Georges, “’Deificari in otio,’ Augustin, Epistula 10.2,” Recherches Augustiniennes 2 (1962): 225-236. Ford, David C., “Saint Makarios of Egypt and John Wesley. Variations on the Theme of Sanctification,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 33 (1988): 288. Fortino, Eleuterio F., “Sanctification and Deification,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 192-200. Franks, R.S., “The Idea of Salvation in the Theology of the Eastern Church,” in Mansfield College Essays. Presented to Rev. Andrew Martin Fairbairn (London 1909): 249-264. Frary, Joseph, “Deification and Human Freedom,” Sobornost (London) 7 (1975): 117-126. Gross, Jules, La divinisation du Chretien d’apres les peres Grecs (Paris 1938). Recently translated. Gross, Jules, “Die Vergottlichung des Christen nach den grieschischen Vatern,” Zeitschrift fur Askese und Mystik 14 (1939): 79-94. Hartin, Patrick J., “Call to be Perfect through Suffering (James 1.2-4). The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount,” Biblica (Rome) 77 (1996): 477-492. Hartnett, Joanne J., Doctrina S. Bonaventurae de deiformitate (Mundelein 1936). Heine, Ronald E., Perfection in the Virtuous Life A Study in the Relationship between Edification and Polemical Theology in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Vita Moysis (Philadelphia 1975). Heintjes, J., “De opgang van den manschelijken Geest tot God volgens sint Maximus Confessor,” Bijdragen van de Philosophische en Theologische Faculteiten der Nederlandsche Jezuieten 5 (1942): 260-302; 6 (1943): 64-123. Hess, Hamilton, “The Place of Divinization in Athanasian Soteriology,” Studia Patristica 26 (1993): 369-374. Hinlicky, Paul R., “Theological Anthropology. Toward integrating theosis and Justification by Faith,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34 (1997): 38-73. Janssens, L., “Notre filiation divine d’apres S. Cyrille d’ Alexandrie,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensae 15 (1938): 233-78. Jenson, Robert W., Triune Identity (Philadelphia 1982): 103-148. Jenson, Robert W., “Theosis,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 108-112. Kamppuri, Hannu T., editor, Dialogue between Neighbors. The Theological Conversations between the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church 1970-1986 (Helsinki 1986), passim. Kamppuri, Hannu T., “Theosis in the Theology of Gregory Palamas,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 153-6. Kantorowicz, Ernst H., “Deus per naturam, Deus per gratiam. A Note on Mediaeval Political Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952): 253-77. Khairallah, Philip A., “The Sanctification of Life,” Emmanuel 96 (1990): 323-333; 394-397; 403-406. Kinghorn, Kenneth C., “Holiness: The Central Plan of God,” Evangelical Journal 15 (1997): 57-70. Kolp, A. L., “Partakers of the Divine Nature. The Use of II Peter 1.4 by Athanasius,” Studia Patristica 17 (1979): 1018-1023. Kretschmar, Georg, “The Reception of the Orthodox Teaching of Divinization in Protestant Theology,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 61-80; English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 156-9. Ladner, Gerhard T., “St. Augustine’s Conception of the Reformation of Man to the Image of God,” Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 867-888. Ladner, Gerhart B., The Idea of Reform. Its impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (Harvard 1959). Larchet, Jean-Claude, La Divinisation de l’homme selon Saint Maxime le Confesseur (Paris 1996). Lattey, Cuthbert, “The Deification of man in Clement of Alexandria. Some further notes,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 257-62. Lawrenz, Melvin E., The Christology of John Chrysostom (Mellen Press 1996). Section entitled: “The Way of Salvation—Moral Accomplishment and Divinization:” 146-54. Linforth, Ivan M., “’oi athanatizontes:’ (Herodotus 4.93-96),” Classical Philology 13 (1918): 23-33. Lossky, Vladimir, “Redemption and Deification,” in In the Image and Likeness of God (London 1975; New York 1974; from the French of 1967): 97-110; article first published as “Redemption et deification,” in Messager de l’Exarchat du Patrarche russe en Europe occidental 15 (1953): 161-70. Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, La Deification de l’homme selon la doctrine des Peres grecs (Paris 1970), edited and introduced by Jean Danielou. These three articles were first published as “La Doctrine de la Deification dans l’Eglise Grecque jusqu’au xie Siecle,” Revue d’Histoire des Religions 105 (1932): 5-43; 106 (1932): 525-74; 107 (1933): 8-55; “La Doctrine de la Grace et de la Liberte dans l’Orthodoxie Greco-orientale,” Oecumenica 6 (1939); “La Beatitude dans l’Orient Chretien,” Dieu Vivant 15 (1950). Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, “La grace deifiante des sacraments d’apres Nicolas Cabasilas,” Revue des sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques 25 (1936): 299-330; 26 (1937): 693-717. Maddox, Randy L., “John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy. Influences, convergences and Differences,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 29-53. Mahe, J., S.J., “La sanctification d’apres saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique 10 (1909): 30-40; 469-492. Mannermaa, Tuomo, “Theosis as a subject of Finnish Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 37-48; first published in Luther und Theosis: Vergottlichung als Thema der abendlandischen Theologie, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 11-26; an English abridgment appeared in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 145-9. Mantzaridis, Georgios, The Deification of Man. St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, translated by Liadain Sherrard (New York 1984). Marquart, Kurt E., “Luther and Theosis,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (Fort Wayne, Indiana 2000): 182-205. Marshall, Bruce D., “Ex Occidente Lux? Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology,” Modern Theology 20.1 (January 2004): 23-50. Marshall, Bruce D., “Justification as Declaration and Deification,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 4.1 (March 2002): 3-28. Martikainen, Jouko, “Man’s Salvation. Deification or Justification?,” Sobornost 7 (London: 1976): 180-192. Mayo, Harold, John Wesley and the Christian East: on the subject of Christian Perfection, Masters Thesis, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, New York 1980. McCormick, K. Steve, “Theosis in Chrysostom and Wesley: an Eastern paradigm on faith and love,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 26 (1991): 38-103. McCoy, J. D., “Philosophical influences on the doctrine of the Incarnation in Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria,” Encounter 38 (Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis: 1977): 362-91. McDaniel, Michael C.D., “Salvation as Justification and Theosis,” in Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 67-83; abridged in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 142-4. McDonald, Peter, “To become Gods: a saintly teaching,” Faith Magazine 30 (1998): 13-17. McDonnell, Kilian, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 1996). Chapter 9: “Taking the Robe of Glory from the Jordan--Divinization”; Chapter 10: “The Cosmic Jordan and the Robe of Glory—Divinization and Eschatology,” 128-55; and passim. McGuckin, John A., St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its history, theology and texts (E.J. Brill 1994). Chapter Three: “The Christology of Cyril: 1. Redemptive Deification: Cyril’s presuppositions and major concerns”: 175-226. Merritt, John G., “’Dialogue’ within a Tradition: John Wesley and Gregory of Nyssa discuss Christian Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22 (1987): 92-116. Messner, R., “Rechtfertigung und Vergottlichung—und die Kirche. Zur okumenischen Bedeutung neuerer Tendenzen in der Lutherforschung,” Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 118 (1996): 23-35. Meyendorff, John, “Remarks on Eastern Patristic Thought in John Scottus Eriugena,” in Eriugena: East and West, edited by Bernard McGinn and Willemien Otten (University of Notre Dame 1994): 51-68. Meyendorff, John, “Theosis in the Eastern Christian Tradition,” in Christian Spirituality III: Post Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupre and Don Saliers (New York 1989): 470-6. Moore, D. Marselle, “Development in Wesley’s thought on Sanctification and Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 20 (1985): 29-53. Morse, Jonathan, “Fruits of the Eucharist: Henosis and Theosis,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 127-42. Mosser, Carl, “The Greatest possible blessing: Calvin and deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55.1 (2002): 36-57. Musurillo, Herbert, From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings, with Introduction by Jean Danielou (New York 1979). Nellas, Panayiotis, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, translated by Norman Russell (New York 1987). Newman, John Henry Cardinal, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians (1895; 1st 1841 ff.). Chapter on Deification. Nispel, Mark D., “Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia,” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 289-304. Based on Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska. Nock, Arthur Darby, review article, in Journal of Religion 31 (1951): 214-6. Norman, Keith E., Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University 1980. Norris, Frederick W., “Deification: Consensual and Cogent,” Scottish Journal of Theology 49 (1996): 411-428. Oroz Reta, Jose, “De l’illumination a la deification de l’ame selon saint Augustin,” Studia Patristica 27 (1993): 364-82. O’Collins, Gerald, S.J., Christology. A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford University Press 1995). Passim O’Keefe, Mark, “Theosis and the Christian Life. Toward Integrating Roman Catholic Ethics and Spirituality,” Eglise et Theologie (Ottawa, Canada) 25 (1994): 47-63. O’Shea, Kevin F., “Divinization: a Study in Theological Analogy,” The Thomist 29 (1965): 1-45. Perkins, Harold William, The Doctrine of Christian or Evangelical Perfection (London 1927). Peura, Simo, “Participation in Christ according to Luther,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 164-8. Peura, Simo, “The Deification of Man as Being in God,” Luther Digest 5 (1997): 168-72; English abridgment of “Die Vergottlichung des Menschen als Sein in God,” Lutherjahrbuch 60 (1993): 39-71. Phan, Peter C., Grace and the Human Condition (Michael Glazier 1988): 132-138; 171-176. Piolanti, A., “La Grazia come participazione della Natura Divina,” Euntes Docete 10 (1957): 34-50. Places, Eduard des, “Divinization,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualite 3 (Paris 1957): columns 1370-1375. Plass, Paul, “Transcendent Time in Maximus the Confessor,” The Thomist 44 (1980): 259-77. Plass, Paul, “’Moving Rest’ in Maximus the Confessor,” Classica et Mediaevalia 35 (1984): 177-90. Popov, I.V., “Ideja obozenija v drevne-vostocnoi cerkvi” (‘The idea of divinization in the Ancient Eastern Church’), in Voprosi filosofij i psixogij 97 (1909): 165-213. Posset, Franz, “’Deification’ in the German Spirituality of the Late Middle Ages and in Luther: An Ecumenical Historical Perspective,” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 84 (1993): 103-25. Preuss, K.F.A., Ad Maximi Confessoris de Deo hominisque deificatione doctrinam abnotationum pars I (Schneeberg 1894). Rakestraw, Robert V., “Becoming like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 257-69. Randenborg, G. van, Vergottung und Erlosung (Berlin). Rechtfertigung und Verherrlichung (Theosis) des Menschen durch Jesus Christus (‘Justification and Glorification (Theosis) of the Human Person through Jesus Christ’) (Germany, 1995). Ritschl, Dietrich, “Hippolytus’ Conception of Deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 12 (1959): 388-99. Rius-Camps, J., El dinamismo trinitario en la divinizacion de los seres racionales segun Origenes (Rome 1970). Rondet, Henri, The Grace of Christ (Newman Press 1967; Paris 1948). Chapter Five: “The Greek Fathers: The Divinization of the Christian”: 65-88; and passim. Rondet, Henri, S.J., “La divinization du Chretien,” Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 71 (1949): 449-476; 561-588; reprinted and expanded in Rondet, Essais sur la Theologie de la Grace (Paris 1964): 107-200. Rufner, V., “Homo secundus Deus,” Philosophisches Jahrbuch 63 (1955): 248-91. Rusch, William G., “How the Eastern Fathers understood what the Western Church meant by Justification,” Justification by Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, ed. H.G. Andersen, T. A. Murphy, J. A. Burgess (Augsburg Press 1985): 131-142, notes 347-8. Russell, Norman, “’Partakers of the Divine Nature’ (II Peter 1.4) in the Byzantine Tradition,” in J. Hussey Festschrift (1998). off-site Ryk, Marta, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in the Deification of Man according to Contemporary Orthodox Theology,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 10 (1975): 24-39; 109-130. Saarinen, Risto, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogues 1959-1994 (Gottingen 1997). Saarinen, Risto, “Salvation in the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue. A Comparative Perspective,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 202-213. Saarinen, Risto, “The Presence of God in Luther’s Theology,” Lutheran Quarterly 8 (1994): 3-13. Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992) Sartorius, B., La doctrine de la deification de l’homme d’apres les Peres grecs en general et Gregoire Palamas en particulier, (Doctoral Thesis, Geneva 1965). Schmitz-Perrin, Rudolf, “’Theosis hoc est deification’. Depassement et paradoxe de l’apophase chez Jean Scot Erigene,” Revue des sciences religieuses 72 (1998): 420-445. Schonborn, Christoph, From Death to Life. The Christian Journey (Ignatius Press 1995; 1st German 1988). Chapter Two: “Is Man to become God? On the meaning of the Christian Doctrine of Deification”: 41-63, and passim. Schonborn, Christoph, God’s Human Face: The Christ-Icon (Ignatius Press 1994; 1st French 1976, 1978; 2nd German 1984). Passim. Schonborn, Christoph, “L’homme est-il fait pour devenir Dieu? Notes sur le sense chretien de la ‘deification’ or ‘divinisation’ de l’homme,’ Omnis Terra 22 (1983): 53-64. Schonborn, Christoph, “Uber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs der Vergottlichung des Menschen,” Jahrbuch fur Philosophie und Spekulative Theologie (Freiburg) 34 (1987): 3-47. Schurr, George M., “On the Logic of Ante-Nicene affirmations of the ‘Deification’ of the Christian,” Anglican Theological Review 51 (1969): 97-105. Schwarzwaller, Klaus, “Verantwortung des Glaubens,” in Freiheit als Liebe bei Martin Luther, ed. Dennis Bielfeldt and Klaus Schwarzwaller (Frankfurt, 1995): 133-158. Sheldon-Williams, I. P., review article of M. Lot-Borodine, La Deification de l’Homme, in Downside Review 89 (1971): 90-93. Slenczka, Reinhard, “Communion with God as Foundation and object of theology--deification as an ontological problem,” Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 149-53. Snyder, Howard A., ”John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 55-60. Staniloae, Dumitru, “Image, Likeness, and Deification in the Human Person,” Communio 13 (1986): 64-83. Steely, John E., Gnosis: The Doctrine of Christian Perfection in the Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Th. D. Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky 1954). Stephen E. Robinson, "The Doctrine of Deification," in Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993),60–65. off-site FAIR link Stolz, Anselm, The Doctrine of Spiritual Perfection (St. Louis 1946; 1st German). Stoop, Jan A. A., Die Deification Hominis in Die Sermones en Epistolae van Augustinus (Leiden 1952). Strange, C. Roderick, “Athanasius on Divinization,” Studia Patristica 16 (1985): 342-346. Stuckwisch, Richard, “Justification and Deification in the Dialogue between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremias II,” Logia. A Journal of Lutheran Theology 9 (2000): 17-28. off-site Telepneff, Gregory, and James Thornton, “Arian Transcendence and the Notion of Theosis in Saint Athanasios,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987): 271-77. Theodorou, A., “Die Lehre von der Vergottung des Menschen bei den grieschischen Kirchenvater,” Kerygma und Dogma (Zeitschrift fur theologische Forschung und Kirchliche lehre) 7 (1961): 283-310. Thunberg, Lars, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (Open Court 1995; 1st Sweden 1965): especially 427-32. Thuren, Jukka, “Justification and participation in the Divine Nature,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja (Theological Journal of Finland: 1977): 483-99. Tsirpanlis, Constantine N., Greek Patristic Theology, Volume I: Basic Doctrine in Eastern Church Fathers (New York 1979); Chapter entitled: “Aspects of Athanasian Soteriology”: 25-40. Turcescu, Lucian, “Soteriological Issues in the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification: an Orthodox Perspective,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 64-72. Turner, H.E.W., The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption. A Study of the Development of Doctrine during the First Five Centuries (London 1952). Union with Christ. The new Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Eerdmans 1998). Several papers, by Mannermaa, Peura, Raunio, Juntunen, Jenson, Braaten, Bielfeldt, all dealing with Theosis. Vandervelde, George, “Justification and Deification—Problematic Synthesis: A Response to Lucian Turcescu”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 73-78. Volz, Carl A., Faith and Practice in the Early Church. Foundations for Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis 1983). Volz has a section entitled “Christ, the Giver of Deification”: 76-9. Wakefield, Gordon S., “Perfection,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 297-9. Walland, F., La grazia divinizzante (Asti 1949). Watson, Nicholas, “Melting into God the English Way: Deification in the Middle English Version of Marguerite Porete’s Mirouer des simples ames anienties,” in Prophets Abroad. The Reception of Continental Holy Women in late Medieval England, ed. Rosalynn Voader (Cambridge 1996): 19-49. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “Eastern Orthodox Spirituality: Union with God in Theosis,” Theology Today (Princeton, NJ) 56 (1999): 29-43. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “The Union of God and man in Jesus Christ in the Thought of Gregory of Nazianzus,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28 (1982): 83-98. Weser, H., S. Maximi Confessoris praecepta de incarnatione Dei et deificatione hominis exponuntur et examinantur (Dissertation, Berlin 1869). Wild, P. T., Divinization of Man according to St. Hilary of Poitiers (Mundelein 1950). Williams, A.N., “Deification in the Summa Theologiae. A Structural Interpretation of the Prima Pars,” The Thomist 61 (1997): 219-255. Williams, A.N., “Light from Byzantium: The Significance of Palamas’ Doctrine of Theosis,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 483-496. Williams, Anna Ngaire, The Ground of Union. Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (Oxford University Press 1999). Williams, Rowan, “Deification,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 106-8. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “A Note on the Iconoclastic Controversy: Greek and Latin disagreements about Matter and Deification,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 18 (1980): 139-48. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “Grace as participation in the Divine Life in the Theology of Augustine of Hippo,” Augustinian Studies 7 (1976): 135-52. Winslow, Donald F., Dynamics of Salvation: A Study of Gregory of Nazianzus (1979); Passim. Wolters, Al, “’Partners of the Deity:’ A Covenantal Reading of II Peter 1.4,” Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 28-44; with postscript 26 (1991): 418-420 Zwanepol, Klaas, “Luther en Theosis,” Luther-Bulletin. Tijdschrift voor interconfessioneel Lutheronderzoek 2 (1993): 48-73; English abridgment in Luther Digest 5 (1995): 177-81.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

Notes

Source(s) of the criticism

• George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), 446. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review))

FAIR Answers—back to home page

The Bible/Scripture interpretation

Note: From 1897 to 1933, the volumes begin each November. For example, October 1900 is volume 3 number 12, while November 1900 is volume 4 number 1. Beginning in 1934, the volume begins each January.

1897–1899, volumes 1–3

1897

• November 1897, Vol. 1, No. 1
• December 1897, Vol. 1, No. 2

1898

• January 1898, Vol. 1, No. 3
• February 1898, Vol. 1, No. 4
• March 1898, Vol. 1, No. 5
• April 1898, Vol. 1, No. 6
• May 1898, Vol. 1, No. 7
• June 1898, Vol. 1, No. 8
• July 1898, Vol. 1, No. 9
• August 1898, Vol. 1, No. 10
• September 1898, Vol. 1, No. 11
• October 1898, Vol. 1, No. 12
• November 1898, Vol. 2, No. 1
• December 1898, Vol. 2, No. 2

1899

• January 1899, Vol. 2, No. 3
• February 1899, Vol. 2, No. 4
• March 1899, Vol. 2, No. 5
• April 1899, Vol. 2, No. 6
• May 1899, Vol. 2, No. 7
• June 1899, Vol. 2, No. 8
• July 1899, Vol. 2, No. 9
• August 1899, Vol. 2, No. 10
• September 1899, Vol. 2, No. 11
• October 1899, Vol. 2, No. 12
• November 1899, Vol. 3, No. 1
• December 1899, Vol. 3, No. 2

1900–1909, volumes 3–13

1900

• January 1900, Vol. 3, No. 3
• February 1900, Vol. 3, No. 4
• March 1900, Vol. 3, No. 5
• April 1900, Vol. 3, No. 6
• May 1900, Vol. 3, No. 7
• June 1900, Vol. 3, No. 8
• July 1900, Vol. 3, No. 9
• August 1900, Vol. 3, No. 10
• September 1900, Vol. 3, No. 11
• October 1900, Vol. 3, No. 12
• November 1900, Vol. 4, No. 1
• December 1900, Vol. 4, No. 2

1901

• January 1901, Vol. 4, No. 3
• February 1901, Vol. 4, No. 4
• March 1901, Vol. 4, No. 5
• April 1901, Vol. 4, No. 6
• May 1901, Vol. 4, No. 7
• June 1901, Vol. 4, No. 8
• July 1901, Vol. 4, No. 9
• August 1901, Vol. 4, No. 10
• September 1901, Vol. 4, No. 11
• October 1901, Vol. 4, No. 12
• November 1901, Vol. 5, No. 1
• December 1901, Vol. 5, No. 2

1902

• January 1902, Vol. 5, No. 3
• February 1902, Vol. 5, No. 4
• March 1902, Vol. 5, No. 5
• April 1902, Vol. 5, No. 6
• May 1902, Vol. 5, No. 7
• June 1902, Vol. 5, No. 8
• July 1902, Vol. 5, No. 9
• August 1902, Vol. 5, No. 10
• September 1902, Vol. 5, No. 11
• October 1902, Vol. 5, No. 12
• November 1902, Vol. 6, No. 1
• December 1902, Vol. 6, No. 2

1903

• January 1903, Vol. 6, No. 3
• February 1903, Vol. 6, No. 4
• March 1903, Vol. 6, No. 5
• April 1903, Vol. 6, No. 6
• May 1903, Vol. 6, No. 7
• June 1903, Vol. 6, No. 8
• July 1903, Vol. 6, No. 9
• August 1903, Vol. 6, No. 10
• September 1903, Vol. 6, No. 11
• October 1903, Vol. 6, No. 12
• November 1903, Vol. 7, No. 1
• December 1903, Vol. 7, No. 2

1904

• January 1904, Vol. 7, No. 3
• February 1904, Vol. 7, No. 4
• March 1904, Vol. 7, No. 5
• April 1904, Vol. 7, No. 6
• May 1904, Vol. 7, No. 7
• June 1904, Vol. 7, No. 8
• July 1904, Vol. 7, No. 9
• August 1904, Vol. 7, No. 10
• September 1904, Vol. 7, No. 11
• October 1904, Vol. 7, No. 12
• November 1904, Vol. 8, No. 1
• December 1904, Vol. 8, No. 2

1905

• January 1905, Vol. 8, No. 3
• February 1905, Vol. 8, No. 4
• March 1905, Vol. 8, No. 5
• April 1905, Vol. 8, No. 6
• May 1905, Vol. 8, No. 7
• June 1905, Vol. 8, No. 8
• July 1905, Vol. 8, No. 9
• August 1905, Vol. 8, No. 10
• September 1905, Vol. 8, No. 11
• October 1905, Vol. 8, No. 12
• November 1905, Vol. 9, No. 1
• December 1905, Vol. 9, No. 2

1906

• January 1906, Vol. 9, No. 3
• February 1906, Vol. 9, No. 4
• March 1906, Vol. 9, No. 5
• April 1906, Vol. 9, No. 6
• May 1906, Vol. 9, No. 7
• June 1906, Vol. 9, No. 8
• July 1906, Vol. 9, No. 9
• August 1906, Vol. 9, No. 10
• September 1906, Vol. 9, No. 11
• October 1906, Vol. 9, No. 12
• November 1906, Vol. 10, No. 1
• December 1906, Vol. 10, No. 2

1907

• January 1907, Vol. 10, No. 3
• February 1907, Vol. 10, No. 4
• March 1907, Vol. 10, No. 5
• April 1907, Vol. 10, No. 6
• May 1907, Vol. 10, No. 7
• June 1907, Vol. 10, No. 8
• July 1907, Vol. 10, No. 9
• August 1907, Vol. 10, No. 10
• September 1907, Vol. 10, No. 11
• October 1907, Vol. 10, No. 12
• November 1907, Vol. 11, No. 1
• December 1907, Vol. 11, No. 2

1908

• January 1908, Vol. 11, No. 3
• February 1908, Vol. 11, No. 4
• March 1908, Vol. 11, No. 5
• April 1908, Vol. 11, No. 6
• May 1908, Vol. 11, No. 7
• June 1908, Vol. 11, No. 8
• July 1908, Vol. 11, No. 9
• August 1908, Vol. 11, No. 10
• September 1908, Vol. 11, No. 11
• October 1908, Vol. 11, No. 12
• November 1908, Vol. 12, No. 1
• December 1908, Vol. 12, No. 2

1909

• January 1909, Vol. 12, No. 3
• February 1909, Vol. 12, No. 4
• March 1909, Vol. 12, No. 5
• April 1909, Vol. 12, No. 6
• May 1909, Vol. 12, No. 7
• June 1909, Vol. 12, No. 8
• July 1909, Vol. 12, No. 9
• August 1909, Vol. 12, No. 10
• September 1909, Vol. 12, No. 11
• October 1909, Vol. 12, No. 12
• November 1909, Vol. 13, No. 1
• December 1909, Vol. 13, No. 2

1910–1919, volumes 13–23

1910

• January 1910, Vol. 13, No. 3
• February 1910, Vol. 13, No. 4
• March 1910, Vol. 13, No. 5
• April 1910, Vol. 13, No. 6
• May 1910, Vol. 13, No. 7
• June 1910, Vol. 13, No. 8
• July 1910, Vol. 13, No. 9
• August 1910, Vol. 13, No. 10
• September 1910, Vol. 13, No. 11
• October 1910, Vol. 13, No. 12
• November 1910, Vol. 14, No. 1
• December 1910, Vol. 14, No. 2

1911

• January 1911, Vol. 14, No. 3
• February 1911, Vol. 14, No. 4
• March 1911, Vol. 14, No. 5
• April 1911, Vol. 14, No. 6
• May 1911, Vol. 14, No. 7
• June 1911, Vol. 14, No. 8
• July 1911, Vol. 14, No. 9
• August 1911, Vol. 14, No. 10
• September 1911, Vol. 14, No. 11
• October 1911, Vol. 14, No. 12
• November 1911, Vol. 15, No. 1
• December 1911, Vol. 15, No. 2

1912

• January 1912, Vol. 15, No. 3
• February 1912, Vol. 15, No. 4
• March 1912, Vol. 15, No. 5
• April 1912, Vol. 15, No. 6
• May 1912, Vol. 15, No. 7
• June 1912, Vol. 15, No. 8
• July 1912, Vol. 15, No. 9
• August 1912, Vol. 15, No. 10
• September 1912, Vol. 15, No. 11
• October 1912, Vol. 15, No. 12
• November 1912, Vol. 16, No. 1
• December 1912, Vol. 16, No. 2

1913

• January 1913, Vol. 16, No. 3
• February 1913, Vol. 16, No. 4
• March 1913, Vol. 16, No. 5
• April 1913, Vol. 16, No. 6
• May 1913, Vol. 16, No. 7
• June 1913, Vol. 16, No. 8
• July 1913, Vol. 16, No. 9
• August 1913, Vol. 16, No. 10
• September 1913, Vol. 16, No. 11
• October 1913, Vol. 16, No. 12
• November 1913, Vol. 17, No. 1
• December 1913, Vol. 17, No. 2

1914

• January 1914, Vol. 17, No. 3
• February 1914, Vol. 17, No. 4
• March 1914, Vol. 17, No. 5
• April 1914, Vol. 17, No. 6
• May 1914, Vol. 17, No. 7
• June 1914, Vol. 17, No. 8
• July 1914, Vol. 17, No. 9
• August 1914, Vol. 17, No. 10
• September 1914, Vol. 17, No. 11
• October 1914, Vol. 17, No. 12
• November 1914, Vol. 18, No. 1
• December 1914, Vol. 18, No. 2

1915

• January 1915, Vol. 18, No. 3
• February 1915, Vol. 18, No. 4
• March 1915, Vol. 18, No. 5
• April 1915, Vol. 18, No. 6
• May 1915, Vol. 18, No. 7
• June 1915, Vol. 18, No. 8
• July 1915, Vol. 18, No. 9
• August 1915, Vol. 18, No. 10
• September 1915, Vol. 18, No. 11
• October 1915, Vol. 18, No. 12
• November 1915, Vol. 19, No. 1
• December 1915, Vol. 19, No. 2

1916

• January 1916, Vol. 19, No. 3
• February 1916, Vol. 19, No. 4
• March 1916, Vol. 19, No. 5
• April 1916, Vol. 19, No. 6
• May 1916, Vol. 19, No. 7
• June 1916, Vol. 19, No. 8
• July 1916, Vol. 19, No. 9
• August 1916, Vol. 19, No. 10
• September 1916, Vol. 19, No. 11
• October 1916, Vol. 19, No. 12
• November 1916, Vol. 20, No. 1
• December 1916, Vol. 20, No. 2

1917

• January 1917, Vol. 20, No. 3
• February 1917, Vol. 20, No. 4
• March 1917, Vol. 20, No. 5
• April 1917, Vol. 20, No. 6
• May 1917, Vol. 20, No. 7
• June 1917, Vol. 20, No. 8
• July 1917, Vol. 20, No. 9
• August 1917, Vol. 20, No. 10
• September 1917, Vol. 20, No. 11
• October 1917, Vol. 20, No. 12
• November 1917, Vol. 21, No. 1
• December 1917, Vol. 21, No. 2

1918

• January 1918, Vol. 21, No. 3
• February 1918, Vol. 21, No. 4
• March 1918, Vol. 21, No. 5
• April 1918, Vol. 21, No. 6
• May 1918, Vol. 21, No. 7
• June 1918, Vol. 21, No. 8
• July 1918, Vol. 21, No. 9
• August 1918, Vol. 21, No. 10
• September 1918, Vol. 21, No. 11
• October 1918, Vol. 21, No. 12
• November 1918, Vol. 22, No. 1
• December 1918, Vol. 22, No. 2

1919

• January 1919, Vol. 22, No. 3
• February 1919, Vol. 22, No. 4
• March 1919, Vol. 22, No. 5
• April 1919, Vol. 22, No. 6
• May 1919, Vol. 22, No. 7
• June 1919, Vol. 22, No. 8
• July 1919, Vol. 22, No. 9
• August 1919, Vol. 22, No. 10
• September 1919, Vol. 22, No. 11
• October 1919, Vol. 22, No. 12
• November 1919, Vol. 23, No. 1
• December 1919, Vol. 23, No. 2

1920–1929, volumes 23–33

1920

• January 1920, Vol. 23, No. 3
• February 1920, Vol. 23, No. 4
• March 1920, Vol. 23, No. 5
• April 1920, Vol. 23, No. 6
• May 1920, Vol. 23, No. 7
• June 1920, Vol. 23, No. 8
• July 1920, Vol. 23, No. 9
• August 1920, Vol. 23, No. 10
• September 1920, Vol. 23, No. 11
• October 1920, Vol. 23, No. 12
• November 1920, Vol. 24, No. 1
• December 1920, Vol. 24, No. 2

1921

• January 1921, Vol. 24, No. 3
• February 1921, Vol. 24, No. 4
• March 1921, Vol. 24, No. 5
• April 1921, Vol. 24, No. 6
• May 1921, Vol. 24, No. 7
• June 1921, Vol. 24, No. 8
• July 1921, Vol. 24, No. 9
• August 1921, Vol. 24, No. 10
• September 1921, Vol. 24, No. 11
• October 1921, Vol. 24, No. 12
• November 1921, Vol. 25, No. 1
• December 1921, Vol. 25, No. 2

1922

• January 1922, Vol. 25, No. 3
• February 1922, Vol. 25, No. 4
• March 1922, Vol. 25, No. 5
• April 1922, Vol. 25, No. 6
• May 1922, Vol. 25, No. 7
• June 1922, Vol. 25, No. 8
• July 1922, Vol. 25, No. 9
• August 1922, Vol. 25, No. 10
• September 1922, Vol. 25, No. 11
• October 1922, Vol. 25, No. 12
• November 1922, Vol. 26, No. 1
• December 1922, Vol. 26, No. 2

1923

• January 1923, Vol. 26, No. 3
• February 1923, Vol. 26, No. 4
• March 1923, Vol. 26, No. 5
• April 1923, Vol. 26, No. 6
• May 1923, Vol. 26, No. 7
• June 1923, Vol. 26, No. 8
• July 1923, Vol. 26, No. 9
• August 1923, Vol. 26, No. 10
• September 1923, Vol. 26, No. 11
• October 1923, Vol. 26, No. 12
• November 1923, Vol. 27, No. 1
• December 1923, Vol. 27, No. 2

1924

• January 1924, Vol. 27, No. 3
• February 1924, Vol. 27, No. 4
• March 1924, Vol. 27, No. 5
• April 1924, Vol. 27, No. 6
• May 1924, Vol. 27, No. 7
• June 1924, Vol. 27, No. 8
• July 1924, Vol. 27, No. 9
• August 1924, Vol. 27, No. 10
• September 1924, Vol. 27, No. 11
• October 1924, Vol. 27, No. 12
• November 1924, Vol. 28, No. 1
• December 1924, Vol. 28, No. 2

1925

• January 1925, Vol. 28, No. 3
• February 1925, Vol. 28, No. 4
• March 1925, Vol. 28, No. 5
• April 1925, Vol. 28, No. 6
• May 1925, Vol. 28, No. 7
• June 1925, Vol. 28, No. 8
• July 1925, Vol. 28, No. 9
• August 1925, Vol. 28, No. 10
• September 1925, Vol. 28, No. 11
• October 1925, Vol. 28, No. 12
• November 1925, Vol. 29, No. 1
• December 1925, Vol. 29, No. 2

1926

• January 1926, Vol. 29, No. 3
• February 1926, Vol. 29, No. 4
• March 1926, Vol. 29, No. 5
• April 1926, Vol. 29, No. 6
• May 1926, Vol. 29, No. 7
• June 1926, Vol. 29, No. 8
• July 1926, Vol. 29, No. 9
• August 1926, Vol. 29, No. 10
• September 1926, Vol. 29, No. 11
• October 1926, Vol. 29, No. 12
• November 1926, Vol. 30, No. 1
• December 1926, Vol. 30, No. 2

1927

• January 1927, Vol. 30, No. 3
• February 1927, Vol. 30, No. 4
• March 1927, Vol. 30, No. 5
• April 1927, Vol. 30, No. 6
• May 1927, Vol. 30, No. 7
• June 1927, Vol. 30, No. 8
• July 1927, Vol. 30, No. 9
• August 1927, Vol. 30, No. 10
• September 1927, Vol. 30, No. 11
• October 1927, Vol. 30, No. 12
• November 1927, Vol. 31, No. 1
• December 1927, Vol. 31, No. 2

1928

• January 1928, Vol. 31, No. 3
• February 1928, Vol. 31, No. 4
• March 1928, Vol. 31, No. 5
• April 1928, Vol. 31, No. 6
• May 1928, Vol. 31, No. 7
• June 1928, Vol. 31, No. 8
• July 1928, Vol. 31, No. 9
• August 1928, Vol. 31, No. 10
• September 1928, Vol. 31, No. 11
• October 1928, Vol. 31, No. 12
• November 1928, Vol. 32, No. 1
• December 1928, Vol. 32, No. 2

1929

• January 1929, Vol. 32, No. 3
• February 1929, Vol. 32, No. 4
• March 1929, Vol. 32, No. 5
• April 1929, Vol. 32, No. 6
• May 1929, Vol. 32, No. 7
• June 1929, Vol. 32, No. 8
• July 1929, Vol. 32, No. 9
• August 1929, Vol. 32, No. 10
• September 1929, Vol. 32, No. 11
• October 1929, Vol. 32, No. 12
• November 1929, Vol. 33, No. 1
• December 1929, Vol. 33, No. 2

1930–1939, volumes 33–42

1930

• January 1930, Vol. 33, No. 3
• February 1930, Vol. 33, No. 4
• March 1930, Vol. 33, No. 5
• April 1930, Vol. 33, No. 6
• May 1930, Vol. 33, No. 7
• June 1930, Vol. 33, No. 8
• July 1930, Vol. 33, No. 9
• August 1930, Vol. 33, No. 10
• September 1930, Vol. 33, No. 11
• October 1930, Vol. 33, No. 12
• November 1930, Vol. 34, No. 1
• December 1930, Vol. 34, No. 2

1931

• January 1931, Vol. 34, No. 3
• February 1931, Vol. 34, No. 4
• March 1931, Vol. 34, No. 5
• April 1931, Vol. 34, No. 6
• May 1931, Vol. 34, No. 7
• June 1931, Vol. 34, No. 8
• July 1931, Vol. 34, No. 9
• August 1931, Vol. 34, No. 10
• September 1931, Vol. 34, No. 11
• October 1931, Vol. 34, No. 12
• November 1931, Vol. 35, No. 1
• December 1931, Vol. 35, No. 2

1932

• January 1932, Vol. 35, No. 3
• February 1932, Vol. 35, No. 4
• March 1932, Vol. 35, No. 5
• April 1932, Vol. 35, No. 6
• May 1932, Vol. 35, No. 7
• June 1932, Vol. 35, No. 8
• July 1932, Vol. 35, No. 9
• August 1932, Vol. 35, No. 10
• September 1932, Vol. 35, No. 11
• October 1932, Vol. 35, No. 12
• November 1932, Vol. 36, No. 1
• December 1932, Vol. 36, No. 2

1933

• January 1933, Vol. 36, No. 3
• February 1933, Vol. 36, No. 4
• March 1933, Vol. 36, No. 5
• April 1933, Vol. 36, No. 6
• May 1933, Vol. 36, No. 7
• June 1933, Vol. 36, No. 8
• July 1933, Vol. 36, No. 9
• August 1933, Vol. 36, No. 10
• September 1933, Vol. 36, No. 11
• October 1933, Vol. 36, No. 12
• November 1933, Vol. 36, No. 13
• December 1933, Vol. 36, No. 14

1934

• January 1934, Vol. 37, No. 1
• February 1934, Vol. 37, No. 2
• March 1934, Vol. 37, No. 3
• April 1934, Vol. 37, No. 4
• May 1934, Vol. 37, No. 5
• June 1934, Vol. 37, No. 6
• July 1934, Vol. 37, No. 7
• August 1934, Vol. 37, No. 8
• September 1934, Vol. 37, No. 9
• October 1934, Vol. 37, No. 10
• November 1934, Vol. 37, No. 11
• December 1934, Vol. 37, No. 12

1935

• January 1935, Vol. 38, No. 1
• February 1935, Vol. 38, No. 2
• March 1935, Vol. 38, No. 3
• April 1935, Vol. 38, No. 4
• May 1935, Vol. 38, No. 5
• June 1935, Vol. 38, No. 6
• July 1935, Vol. 38, No. 7
• August 1935, Vol. 38, No. 8
• September 1935, Vol. 38, No. 9
• October 1935, Vol. 38, No. 10
• November 1935, Vol. 38, No. 11
• December 1935, Vol. 38, No. 12

1936

• January 1936, Vol. 39, No. 1
• February 1936, Vol. 39, No. 2
• March 1936, Vol. 39, No. 3
• April 1936, Vol. 39, No. 4
• May 1936, Vol. 39, No. 5
• June 1936, Vol. 39, No. 6
• July 1936, Vol. 39, No. 7
• August 1936, Vol. 39, No. 8
• September 1936, Vol. 39, No. 9
• October 1936, Vol. 39, No. 10
• November 1936, Vol. 39, No. 11
• December 1936, Vol. 39, No. 12

1937

• January 1937, Vol. 40, No. 1
• February 1937, Vol. 40, No. 2
• March 1937, Vol. 40, No. 3
• April 1937, Vol. 40, No. 4
• May 1937, Vol. 40, No. 5
• June 1937, Vol. 40, No. 6
• July 1937, Vol. 40, No. 7
• August 1937, Vol. 40, No. 8
• September 1937, Vol. 40, No. 9
• October 1937, Vol. 40, No. 10
• November 1937, Vol. 40, No. 11
• December 1937, Vol. 40, No. 12

1938

• January 1938, Vol. 41, No. 1
• February 1938, Vol. 41, No. 2
• March 1938, Vol. 41, No. 3
• April 1938, Vol. 41, No. 4
• May 1938, Vol. 41, No. 5
• June 1938, Vol. 41, No. 6
• July 1938, Vol. 41, No. 7
• August 1938, Vol. 41, No. 8
• September 1938, Vol. 41, No. 9
• October 1938, Vol. 41, No. 10
• November 1938, Vol. 41, No. 11
• December 1938, Vol. 41, No. 12

1939

• January 1939, Vol. 42, No. 1
• February 1939, Vol. 42, No. 2
• March 1939, Vol. 42, No. 3
• April 1939, Vol. 42, No. 4
• May 1939, Vol. 42, No. 5
• June 1939, Vol. 42, No. 6
• July 1939, Vol. 42, No. 7
• August 1939, Vol. 42, No. 8
• September 1939, Vol. 42, No. 9
• October 1939, Vol. 42, No. 10
• November 1939, Vol. 42, No. 11
• December 1939, Vol. 42, No. 12

1940–1949, volumes 43–52

1940

• January 1940, Vol. 43, No. 1
• February 1940, Vol. 43, No. 2
• March 1940, Vol. 43, No. 3
• April 1940, Vol. 43, No. 4
• May 1940, Vol. 43, No. 5
• June 1940, Vol. 43, No. 6
• July 1940, Vol. 43, No. 7
• August 1940, Vol. 43, No. 8
• September 1940, Vol. 43, No. 9
• October 1940, Vol. 43, No. 10
• November 1940, Vol. 43, No. 11
• December 1940, Vol. 43, No. 12

1941

• January 1941, Vol. 44, No. 1
• February 1941, Vol. 44, No. 2
• March 1941, Vol. 44, No. 3
• April 1941, Vol. 44, No. 4
• May 1941, Vol. 44, No. 5
• June 1941, Vol. 44, No. 6
• July 1941, Vol. 44, No. 7
• August 1941, Vol. 44, No. 8
• September 1941, Vol. 44, No. 9
• October 1941, Vol. 44, No. 10
• November 1941, Vol. 44, No. 11
• December 1941, Vol. 44, No. 12

1942

• January 1942, Vol. 45, No. 1
• February 1942, Vol. 45, No. 2
• March 1942, Vol. 45, No. 3
• April 1942, Vol. 45, No. 4
• May 1942, Vol. 45, No. 5
• June 1942, Vol. 45, No. 6
• July 1942, Vol. 45, No. 7
• August 1942, Vol. 45, No. 8
• September 1942, Vol. 45, No. 9
• October 1942, Vol. 45, No. 10
• November 1942, Vol. 45, No. 11
• December 1942, Vol. 45, No. 12

1943

• January 1943, Vol. 46, No. 1
• February 1943, Vol. 46, No. 2
• March 1943, Vol. 46, No. 3
• April 1943, Vol. 46, No. 4
• May 1943, Vol. 46, No. 5
• June 1943, Vol. 46, No. 6
• July 1943, Vol. 46, No. 7
• August 1943, Vol. 46, No. 8
• September 1943, Vol. 46, No. 9
• October 1943, Vol. 46, No. 10
• November 1943, Vol. 46, No. 11
• December 1943, Vol. 46, No. 12

1944

• January 1944, Vol. 47, No. 1
• February 1944, Vol. 47, No. 2
• March 1944, Vol. 47, No. 3
• April 1944, Vol. 47, No. 4
• May 1944, Vol. 47, No. 5
• June 1944, Vol. 47, No. 6
• July 1944, Vol. 47, No. 7
• August 1944, Vol. 47, No. 8
• September 1944, Vol. 47, No. 9
• October 1944, Vol. 47, No. 10
• November 1944, Vol. 47, No. 11
• December 1944, Vol. 47, No. 12

1945

• January 1945, Vol. 48, No. 1
• February 1945, Vol. 48, No. 2
• March 1945, Vol. 48, No. 3
• April 1945, Vol. 48, No. 4
• May 1945, Vol. 48, No. 5
• June 1945, Vol. 48, No. 6
• July 1945, Vol. 48, No. 7
• August 1945, Vol. 48, No. 8
• September 1945, Vol. 48, No. 9
• October 1945, Vol. 48, No. 10
• November 1945, Vol. 48, No. 11
• December 1945, Vol. 48, No. 12

1946

• January 1946, Vol. 49, No. 1
• February 1946, Vol. 49, No. 2
• March 1946, Vol. 49, No. 3
• April 1946, Vol. 49, No. 4
• May 1946, Vol. 49, No. 5
• June 1946, Vol. 49, No. 6
• July 1946, Vol. 49, No. 7
• August 1946, Vol. 49, No. 8
• September 1946, Vol. 49, No. 9
• October 1946, Vol. 49, No. 10
• November 1946, Vol. 49, No. 11
• December 1946, Vol. 49, No. 12

1947

• January 1947, Vol. 50, No. 1
• February 1947, Vol. 50, No. 2
• March 1947, Vol. 50, No. 3
• April 1947, Vol. 50, No. 4
• May 1947, Vol. 50, No. 5
• June 1947, Vol. 50, No. 6
• July 1947, Vol. 50, No. 7
• August 1947, Vol. 50, No. 8
• September 1947, Vol. 50, No. 9
• October 1947, Vol. 50, No. 10
• November 1947, Vol. 50, No. 11
• December 1947, Vol. 50, No. 12

1948

• January 1948, Vol. 51, No. 1
• February 1948, Vol. 51, No. 2
• March 1948, Vol. 51, No. 3
• April 1948, Vol. 51, No. 4
• May 1948, Vol. 51, No. 5
• June 1948, Vol. 51, No. 6
• July 1948, Vol. 51, No. 7
• August 1948, Vol. 51, No. 8
• September 1948, Vol. 51, No. 9
• October 1948, Vol. 51, No. 10
• November 1948, Vol. 51, No. 11
• December 1948, Vol. 51, No. 12

1949

• January 1949, Vol. 52, No. 1
• February 1949, Vol. 52, No. 2
• March 1949, Vol. 52, No. 3
• April 1949, Vol. 52, No. 4
• May 1949, Vol. 52, No. 5
• June 1949, Vol. 52, No. 6
• July 1949, Vol. 52, No. 7
• August 1949, Vol. 52, No. 8
• September 1949, Vol. 52, No. 9
• October 1949, Vol. 52, No. 10
• November 1949, Vol. 52, No. 11
• December 1949, Vol. 52, No. 12

1950–1959, volumes 53–62

1950

• January 1950, Vol. 53, No. 1
• February 1950, Vol. 53, No. 2
• March 1950, Vol. 53, No. 3
• April 1950, Vol. 53, No. 4
• May 1950, Vol. 53, No. 5
• June 1950, Vol. 53, No. 6
• July 1950, Vol. 53, No. 7
• August 1950, Vol. 53, No. 8
• September 1950, Vol. 53, No. 9
• October 1950, Vol. 53, No. 10
• November 1950, Vol. 53, No. 11
• December 1950, Vol. 53, No. 12

1951

• January 1951, Vol. 54, No. 1
• February 1951, Vol. 54, No. 2
• March 1951, Vol. 54, No. 3
• April 1951, Vol. 54, No. 4
• May 1951, Vol. 54, No. 5
• June 1951, Vol. 54, No. 6
• July 1951, Vol. 54, No. 7
• August 1951, Vol. 54, No. 8
• September 1951, Vol. 54, No. 9
• October 1951, Vol. 54, No. 10
• November 1951, Vol. 54, No. 11
• December 1951, Vol. 54, No. 12

1952

• January 1952, Vol. 55, No. 1
• February 1952, Vol. 55, No. 2
• March 1952, Vol. 55, No. 3
• April 1952, Vol. 55, No. 4
• May 1952, Vol. 55, No. 5
• June 1952, Vol. 55, No. 6
• July 1952, Vol. 55, No. 7
• August 1952, Vol. 55, No. 8
• September 1952, Vol. 55, No. 9
• October 1952, Vol. 55, No. 10
• November 1952, Vol. 55, No. 11
• December 1952, Vol. 55, No. 12

1953

• January 1953, Vol. 56, No. 1
• February 1953, Vol. 56, No. 2
• March 1953, Vol. 56, No. 3
• April 1953, Vol. 56, No. 4
• May 1953, Vol. 56, No. 5
• June 1953, Vol. 56, No. 6
• July 1953, Vol. 56, No. 7
• August 1953, Vol. 56, No. 8
• September 1953, Vol. 56, No. 9
• October 1953, Vol. 56, No. 10
• November 1953, Vol. 56, No. 11
• December 1953, Vol. 56, No. 12

1954

• January 1954, Vol. 57, No. 1
• February 1954, Vol. 57, No. 2
• March 1954, Vol. 57, No. 3
• April 1954, Vol. 57, No. 4
• May 1954, Vol. 57, No. 5
• June 1954, Vol. 57, No. 6
• July 1954, Vol. 57, No. 7
• August 1954, Vol. 57, No. 8
• September 1954, Vol. 57, No. 9
• October 1954, Vol. 57, No. 10
• November 1954, Vol. 57, No. 11
• December 1954, Vol. 57, No. 12

1955

• January 1955, Vol. 58, No. 1
• February 1955, Vol. 58, No. 2
• March 1955, Vol. 58, No. 3
• April 1955, Vol. 58, No. 4
• May 1955, Vol. 58, No. 5
• June 1955, Vol. 58, No. 6
• July 1955, Vol. 58, No. 7
• August 1955, Vol. 58, No. 8
• September 1955, Vol. 58, No. 9
• October 1955, Vol. 58, No. 10
• November 1955, Vol. 58, No. 11
• December 1955, Vol. 58, No. 12

1956

• January 1956, Vol. 59, No. 1
• February 1956, Vol. 59, No. 2
• March 1956, Vol. 59, No. 3
• April 1956, Vol. 59, No. 4
• May 1956, Vol. 59, No. 5
• June 1956, Vol. 59, No. 6
• July 1956, Vol. 59, No. 7
• August 1956, Vol. 59, No. 8
• September 1956, Vol. 59, No. 9
• October 1956, Vol. 59, No. 10
• November 1956, Vol. 59, No. 11
• December 1956, Vol. 59, No. 12

1957

• January 1957, Vol. 60, No. 1
• February 1957, Vol. 60, No. 2
• March 1957, Vol. 60, No. 3
• April 1957, Vol. 60, No. 4
• May 1957, Vol. 60, No. 5
• June 1957, Vol. 60, No. 6
• July 1957, Vol. 60, No. 7
• August 1957, Vol. 60, No. 8
• September 1957, Vol. 60, No. 9
• October 1957, Vol. 60, No. 10
• November 1957, Vol. 60, No. 11
• December 1957, Vol. 60, No. 12

1958

• January 1958, Vol. 61, No. 1
• February 1958, Vol. 61, No. 2
• March 1958, Vol. 61, No. 3
• April 1958, Vol. 61, No. 4
• May 1958, Vol. 61, No. 5
• June 1958, Vol. 61, No. 6
• July 1958, Vol. 61, No. 7
• August 1958, Vol. 61, No. 8
• September 1958, Vol. 61, No. 9
• October 1958, Vol. 61, No. 10
• November 1958, Vol. 61, No. 11
• December 1958, Vol. 61, No. 12

1959

• January 1959, Vol. 62, No. 1
• February 1959, Vol. 62, No. 2
• March 1959, Vol. 62, No. 3
• April 1959, Vol. 62, No. 4
• May 1959, Vol. 62, No. 5
• June 1959, Vol. 62, No. 6
• July 1959, Vol. 62, No. 7
• August 1959, Vol. 62, No. 8
• September 1959, Vol. 62, No. 9
• October 1959, Vol. 62, No. 10
• November 1959, Vol. 62, No. 11
• December 1959, Vol. 62, No. 12

1960–1970, volumes 63–73

1960

• January 1960, Vol. 63, No. 1
• February 1960, Vol. 63, No. 2
• March 1960, Vol. 63, No. 3
• April 1960, Vol. 63, No. 4
• May 1960, Vol. 63, No. 5
• June 1960, Vol. 63, No. 6
• July 1960, Vol. 63, No. 7
• August 1960, Vol. 63, No. 8
• September 1960, Vol. 63, No. 9
• October 1960, Vol. 63, No. 10
• November 1960, Vol. 63, No. 11
• December 1960, Vol. 63, No. 12

1961

• January 1961, Vol. 64, No. 1
• February 1961, Vol. 64, No. 2
• March 1961, Vol. 64, No. 3
• April 1961, Vol. 64, No. 4
• May 1961, Vol. 64, No. 5
• June 1961, Vol. 64, No. 6
• July 1961, Vol. 64, No. 7
• August 1961, Vol. 64, No. 8
• September 1961, Vol. 64, No. 9
• October 1961, Vol. 64, No. 10
• November 1961, Vol. 64, No. 11
• December 1961, Vol. 64, No. 12

1962

• January 1962, Vol. 65, No. 1
• February 1962, Vol. 65, No. 2
• March 1962, Vol. 65, No. 3
• April 1962, Vol. 65, No. 4
• May 1962, Vol. 65, No. 5
• June 1962, Vol. 65, No. 6
• July 1962, Vol. 65, No. 7
• August 1962, Vol. 65, No. 8
• September 1962, Vol. 65, No. 9
• October 1962, Vol. 65, No. 10
• November 1962, Vol. 65, No. 11
• December 1962, Vol. 65, No. 12

1963

• January 1963, Vol. 66, No. 1
• February 1963, Vol. 66, No. 2
• March 1963, Vol. 66, No. 3
• April 1963, Vol. 66, No. 4
• May 1963, Vol. 66, No. 5
• June 1963, Vol. 66, No. 6
• July 1963, Vol. 66, No. 7
• August 1963, Vol. 66, No. 8
• September 1963, Vol. 66, No. 9
• October 1963, Vol. 66, No. 10
• November 1963, Vol. 66, No. 11
• December 1963, Vol. 66, No. 12

1964

• January 1964, Vol. 67, No. 1
• February 1964, Vol. 67, No. 2
• March 1964, Vol. 67, No. 3
• April 1964, Vol. 67, No. 4
• May 1964, Vol. 67, No. 5
• June 1964, Vol. 67, No. 6
• July 1964, Vol. 67, No. 7
• August 1964, Vol. 67, No. 8
• September 1964, Vol. 67, No. 9
• October 1964, Vol. 67, No. 10
• November 1964, Vol. 67, No. 11
• December 1964, Vol. 67, No. 12

1965

• January 1965, Vol. 68, No. 1
• February 1965, Vol. 68, No. 2
• March 1965, Vol. 68, No. 3
• April 1965, Vol. 68, No. 4
• May 1965, Vol. 68, No. 5
• June 1965, Vol. 68, No. 6
• July 1965, Vol. 68, No. 7
• August 1965, Vol. 68, No. 8
• September 1965, Vol. 68, No. 9
• October 1965, Vol. 68, No. 10
• November 1965, Vol. 68, No. 11
• December 1965, Vol. 68, No. 12

1966

• January 1966, Vol. 69, No. 1
• February 1966, Vol. 69, No. 2
• March 1966, Vol. 69, No. 3
• April 1966, Vol. 69, No. 4
• May 1966, Vol. 69, No. 5
• June 1966, Vol. 69, No. 6
• July 1966, Vol. 69, No. 7
• August 1966, Vol. 69, No. 8
• September 1966, Vol. 69, No. 9
• October 1966, Vol. 69, No. 10
• November 1966, Vol. 69, No. 11
• December 1966, Vol. 69, No. 12

1967

• January 1967, Vol. 70, No. 1
• February 1967, Vol. 70, No. 2
• March 1967, Vol. 70, No. 3
• April 1967, Vol. 70, No. 4
• May 1967, Vol. 70, No. 5
• June 1967, Vol. 70, No. 6
• July 1967, Vol. 70, No. 7
• August 1967, Vol. 70, No. 8
• September 1967, Vol. 70, No. 9
• October 1967, Vol. 70, No. 10
• November 1967, Vol. 70, No. 11
• December 1967, Vol. 70, No. 12

1968

• January 1968, Vol. 71, No. 1
• February 1968, Vol. 71, No. 2
• March 1968, Vol. 71, No. 3
• April 1968, Vol. 71, No. 4
• May 1968, Vol. 71, No. 5
• June 1968, Vol. 71, No. 6
• July 1968, Vol. 71, No. 7
• August 1968, Vol. 71, No. 8
• September 1968, Vol. 71, No. 9
• October 1968, Vol. 71, No. 10
• November 1968, Vol. 71, No. 11
• December 1968, Vol. 71, No. 12

1969

• January 1969, Vol. 72, No. 1
• February 1969, Vol. 72, No. 2
• March 1969, Vol. 72, No. 3
• April 1969, Vol. 72, No. 4
• May 1969, Vol. 72, No. 5
• June 1969, Vol. 72, No. 6
• July 1969, Vol. 72, No. 7
• August 1969, Vol. 72, No. 8
• September 1969, Vol. 72, No. 9
• October 1969, Vol. 72, No. 10
• November 1969, Vol. 72, No. 11
• December 1969, Vol. 72, No. 12

1970

• January 1970, Vol. 73, No. 1
• February 1970, Vol. 73, No. 2
• March 1970, Vol. 73, No. 3
• April 1970, Vol. 73, No. 4
• May 1970, Vol. 73, No. 5
• June 1970, Vol. 73, No. 6
• July 1970, Vol. 73, No. 7
• August 1970, Vol. 73, No. 8
• September 1970, Vol. 73, No. 9
• October 1970, Vol. 73, No. 10
• November 1970, Vol. 73, No. 11
• December 1970, Vol. 73, No. 12

Question: Is original sin a biblical doctrine?

Many authors have noted that the modern doctrine of "original sin" is at variance with much of both the Old and New Testament

James Barr wrote:

Our ideas about the origin of evil have an effect on our ideas about humanity and its potentialities and limitations in the present-day world” (59-60)...

For the traditional Christian conception of the origins of evil, the dominant passages are in St. Paul [Rom 5.12; 5.18; I Cor 15.21-22, 47, 49]….

The most noticeable thing about them is the stress they throw upon the disobedience of Adam…. Its effect was instant and completely catastrophic. There is no matter of degree or development. The slightest sin was total and universal in its effect: sin, it seems, completely, and not partially, altered man’s relation to God…. Later theologians worked out, on this basis, the doctrine of original sin” (60-1).

“All this has been the familiar and traditional Christian position. It is so familiar, so deeply implanted in our traditions, that it comes as something of a surprise to realize that it is after all a rather rare emphasis within the New Testament itself; and, in particular, it is an emphasis that seems to be lacking from the teaching of Jesus himself….

There is no doctrine of original sin to be found in Jesus’ teaching…. And, if it is not in Jesus’ teaching, it is equally absent from many other parts of the New Testament…. It is intrinsically Pauline” (61-2).

“Nowhere in the entire Hebrew Bible is the disobedience of Adam and Eve cited as explanation for sin or evil in the world. This reference…simply does not occur…. The Old Testament, far from taking the universal sinfulness of man as an obvious and ineluctable fact, seems rather, taken as a whole, to insist upon the possibility of avoiding sin” (67).

“The main Jewish tradition, as we know it since the Middle Ages, has refused to accept any sort of doctrine of original sin…. Moral problems are serious choices for the Jew, and they are serious choices because one has freedom to sin or not to sin. There is indeed the idea of the two yesers, formations or inclinations, the good and the bad, both of which are implanted in man and between which he has to choose…. Adam, like the other men of the first beginnings, was often regarded with admiration: he was a very great man. As Ben Sira put it, looking back over the worthies of the Bible who should be remembered: ‘Shem and Seth were honored among men but Adam is above every living being in the creation’ [Ecclesiasticus 49.16]” ;(68). “all this then raises the serious question: was St. Paul really at all right in his understanding the story of Adam and Eve as the cataclysmic entrance of sin and death?” (69).

A better question may be, is the understanding of St. Paul adopted by the western Christian tradition actually correct? Where did this reading of Paul come from? Why would "Paul's" conception of original sin vary so profoundly from both the Jewish and New Testament tradition?

Interestingly, it all starts with one man, well after the death of Jesus and the apostles—Augustine of Hippo.

Question: Is Mormon insistence on baptism as an essential ordinance of salvation "unChristian" or "unbiblical"?

Question: Is the Mormon doctrine of a "premortal existence" pagan, unchristian, or unbiblical, and therefore false?

Some Christians present alternate interpretations of selected scriptures that fit with their preconceived notions concerning where we came from, yet, they cannot really answer where we came from

Without an understanding of where we came from, it is difficult to understand why we are here and where we are going. While the teachings of sectarian critics may not answer these questions, we are fortunate to live in a time when the answers have been fully revealed by prophets, as in times of old.

The assertion made by critics of Mormonism is that those who believe in the Bible cannot believe in life before life. Such an assertion is evidenced through statements such as the following:

• "…such teachings are perplexing to the Bible-believing Christian…"
• "Mormons … are hard-pressed to find any biblical support for the very idea of preexistence."
• "The Word of God certainly does not support the LDS concept that all humans are literal children of God."

One specific critical work issues the challenging statement "Until Mormons can show better proof of humanity's eternal existence, Christians are unable to agree with this extrabiblical teaching."

Such a challenge, of course, should not go unanswered. Such challenges have been answered many times in the past, though those who raise the issue rarely acknowledge or address responses already made.

The pre-mortal existence of Jesus Christ, Savior of the world is abundantly testified to in scripture

The pre-mortal existence of Jesus Christ, Savior of the world is abundantly testified to in scripture, both ancient and modern, and nothing in the chapter at hand gives rise to any question concerning the acceptance of the doctrine of Christ's ante-mortal existence. We will leave it to the reader to ponder whether Christ was not just our spiritual pattern, but also a literal pattern of the path that each of us tread as we make our way from our home with God, through this earth life, and back once more to the eternal realms.

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Questions: What biblical evidence is there for a pre-mortal existence? Question: Did Jesus and the apostles believe in pre-mortal life? Question: How do Mormons see the relationship between works and grace? Question: Do Mormons believe that salvation is based upon works? Question: What can the writings of early Christians tell us about how to receive salvation in Jesus Christ? Question: Does the Bible teach that individual works are unnecessary? Question: Do Mormons ignore the doctrine of grace at the expense of "works"? Question: Is an evangelist really a patriarch? Question: Does the fact that the Bible states that nothing should be "added to" or "taken away" from the book mean that the Book of Mormon is false? Template:Endnotes sources