Peter & John Vs. Joseph Smith

It is the purpose of this paper to illustrate the differences between Peter and John’s unschooled state in the context of Acts 4:13, as compared to the Mormon assertion that Joseph Smith was unlearned as he endeavored to comment on all of scripture. Specifically, I will demonstrate how Peter and John were endowed by the Holy Spirit in such a way that it gave them the ability to communicate the truth of scripture so that the Jewish leaders could not disagree, though they were gentiles and had never even set foot in a temple school. In contrast, I will show why it is uncharacteristic of God and unsupported by Christian scripture, relative to the situation surrounding the nature of Joseph Smith’s knowledge, that God would uniquely endow one who had the means to study and understand that which God had already revealed in His word.

Mormon Scripture Exegesis
According to Doctrine and Covenants 21:4-5, those things a Mormon prophet says under influence of the Holy Spirit are recorded and held as scripture, in addition to The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, etc. Therefore it is no small task to search through the volumes of text to find pertinent information. However, it is all touted as scripture, considered by Mormons to be equal to, and in many cases greater than the testimony of the Bible. The following will be a fair and equitable analysis of these texts.

Historical Context
Joseph Smith testifies by his own words that his family experienced an increased level of religious excitement in the place where they lived. So intense was this excitement that many people were converted to various denominations, and Joseph Smith and His family found themselves wondering the same thing as most other people of the time: “which church should we join?” According to The Pearl of Great Price this question seems to have manifested more individually in the Smith family, and therefore found young Joseph Smith more-or-less on his own to determine his own mind on which church to join. Rightly so, this lead him to follow the advice of the book of James and enquire of the Lord.
Aside from what Joseph Smith did to settle this unrest in his mind, what was the nature of the excitement in mid-1800 northern New York State? A new preacher with a startling and controversial new style had begun preaching and managed to stir up such a frenzy that at one point his preaching style almost cost him his life. This new preacher was the former Lawyer Charles Grandison Finney. In 1824 Charles was ordained into the Presbyterian Church and began his ministry in the area that is today known as “the burnt over district”; this name is suggestive of the fact that people in this area were fed up with religious discussion due to the fervor experienced in a relatively short time.

In The Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith testifies to religious excitement being stirred up around his fifteenth year, which would place the activities in the year 1820, and perhaps extending into 1821. Compared to the disturbance Charles Finney instigated as he began preaching in 1824, and the somewhat local vicinity of Finney to Smith, it would be safe to assume that these two men are recalling the same events, from the same area of the country, around the same time. The language in The Pearl of Great Price, as communicated by Joseph Smith himself, is rather vague and could feasibly account for the discrepancy if one were inclined to believe that statements such as “during this time” actually represent a number of years. Suffice to say that the record of this book of Mormon scripture (The Pearl of Great Price) is not in agreement with established historical records which place this religious excitement closer to Finney’s first use of an alter call.

If we proceed with the understanding that the religious excitement was most likely caused by a number of factors, the largest of which, given the Smith family’s vicinity, was Charles G. Finney. Such a deduction is safe when considering the time-frame, locality, and the claim that parts of Joseph’s family joined the Presbyterian Church during this time; the very denomination of which Charles Finney was an ordained minister.

What we should gather from this deduction is that the Smith’s were at least aware of, and/or familiar with Finney’s doctrine and the emotional responses he seemed to effortlessly generate. Such a time would be volatile, confusing and troubling even for one whose faith was firmly decided, let alone one as undecided and unguided as young Joseph Smith. Who amongst us at age fifteen is prepared to tackle such deep and profound thoughts as those of eternity?

Literary Context
When considering the many statements made regarding Joseph Smith’s knowledge, we are afforded the luxury of having the Mormon scriptures originally written in English. While this would be debated by a faithful Mormon, who would undoubtably bring up the point that the gold plates were written in something called Reformed Egyptian (though there is no record of any such language or writing) and later translated by Joseph Smith under guidance of the Holy Spirit, we do not have the plates to verify the accuracy of their translation (as we can do with the Christian Bible [Gen.-Rev.]) because they have supposedly been taken back to heaven. I will therefore consider the English language as the original form of these texts and derive meaning from its usage by Joseph Smith in the context of typical mid-1800 usage, which has conveniently not changed much. This will be an equitable treatment of the text because Joseph Smith’s translation is considered by Mormons to be perfect due to the translation act’s divine nature.

Joseph’s own mother (Lucy) states of his academic practices, “[Joseph] seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.” This statement seems contradictory at first glance, unless the reader consider’s that Lucy was using the word “study” to mean contemplation, instead of the accepted modern usage relating to the work of a student. So the statement here is that young Joseph was given to deep thought. This is supported by the noun “meditation” which precedes “study” and lends the idea of prolonged thought. Thought on what, we are not told. However, if we consider that according to his mother’s account, Joseph was not overly compelled toward the “perusal of books” we can safely gather that the content of books was not uppermost in his mind.

Does this ambivalence toward reading extend to the Christian Bible? It is hard to say. Immediately before the aforementioned quote, we read that Joseph likely received religious instruction at home, one would assume from his parents. There is no commentary on whether or not Joseph enjoyed this instruction, was a good student of the Bible; truly there is no qualifying statement which would lend itself to the assertion that he was instructed properly, or effectively, or that he actually heeded the lessons. Would it be presumptuous to think an 8 year-old boy could hear a lesson, and yet not grasp it? Of course not. The testimony of the reality of even our own schooling corroborates that much. None the less, the context of this passage communicates that Joseph had nothing more than a common knowledge of the Bible, typical of most children of the time. There certainly is no language in the cited passage to suggest some sort of great knowledge beyond that which was common place. Moreover, the language of the passage is meant to communicate Joseph’s average and humble beginnings.

Also commenting on Joseph Smith as unlearned is Marion G. Romney, cited from page 37 of the April 1946 General Conference Report, “Some people have said that Joseph Smith was an unlearned man . . . in the things of the world, but the day he came out of the grove, following the first vision, he was the most learned person in the world in the things that count.” The context of this statement is difficult to determine since I was unable to find anything more than this quote from this General Conference Report, but if we allow it to speak for itself we can asses some things in a fair fashion. First, the translation of the plates reportedly didn’t take place for quite some time after the first vision, so Smith couldn’t have been given the knowledge required to translate the plates at the first vision. If he was, this is not indicated in any Mormon scripture. Second, in the first vision it was revealed to Smith that none of the denominations he was considering joining were true, and that he should not join any of them. This is hardly all-encompassing knowledge of “the things that count.” In verse 20 we read “and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.” Perhaps this is where the knowledge of “the things that count” is accounted for in the context of the first vision? Whatever was said and classified as “many other things,” we’ll never know, and neither did Marion G. Romney know.

John Taylor also comments on Smiths learnedness in a Deseret News entry on July 30, 1884; an article which seems to be missing from the Deseret News’ online historical archive. Taylor says, “Joseph Smith was . . . uneducated when he was a boy. . . . The Lord took him into His school, and He taught him things that I have seen puzzle many of the wisest scientists, profoundest thinkers, and the most learned men” (The abbreviation indicated by “...” in this case is not my own but from the cited source). This quote at least accounts for the passage of time and does not limit itself to the context of the first vision, thereby allowing for the context of subsequent divine visits. Since I was unable to find the original article I cannot determine the context of how Taylor uses “uneducated” except to say that it would appear he is using it in a general sense. If that is the case then he would be discrediting Joseph Smith in the sense that Smith attended school and could hardly be considered uneducated in the general sense of the term.
What all this evidence gathers to show is that the claim to be unlearned has absolutely no bearing on whatever subject to which the Mormon user is attempting to relate. Since there is no other explanation for this term to be used over and over again, it would seem to the Biblical Christian that the Mormon is attempting to present Joseph Smith as equal to the Apostles (who are described as unlearned in Acts 4:13) in order to lend credit to their system as being Christian. Can this connection be made accurately? No matter the answer, how can one tell? The answer is in the same treatment I have given the Mormon scriptures, brought to bear on the Bible.

Bible Exegesis on Acts 4:13
We enter the book of Acts after reading of Jesus’ death and resurrection. As a second book written by Luke, Acts serves almost as a continuation of his gospel. Jesus ascends into heaven, Matthias is chosen to replace Judas who dies in a most gruesome fashion in the middle of the field he bought with the money eared from his betrayal of Jesus. From this point there is a promise of a helper that is to soon come, which is the Holy Spirit. We read of the Spirits coming and endowment of the disciples on the day of Pentecost and the conversion of 5,000. Peter heals a beggar, and then he and John are arrested for preaching Jesus to the people. They are brought before the Sanhedrin to be questioned regarding the healed beggar and Jesus.

Historical Context
The sole source of spiritual learning in the times described in the book of Acts was the Jewish temple. There, a boy of verifiable Hebrew birth would be schooled in the scriptures and proper doctrine from the Torah, the Prophets, and Writings. Also, one would be taught to adhere to the law carried down by Moses in order to be Holy. Only a boy of proper birth could participate; others were called gentiles and were bared from attending. By this context we can see why the religious authorities of the time would have been surprised to hear Peter and John quote Psalm 118:22. These were gentiles who had never been to the temple schools, and yet they displayed a proper knowledge of the Jews’ most beloved devotional book. In this way the apostles were unlearned, yet endowed by the Holy Spirit, through faith in Christ, to speak the truth of scripture.

And, lest we forget, these were the very ones who put Jesus to death, and indeed held the power to demand Peter and John’s lives, and yet they were courageous in the face of such authority. Two poor fisherman were now before the Sanhedrin in almost a teaching capacity.

Literary Context & Semantic Analysis
In verse 13, the pronoun “they” is referent to the “rulers, elders and teachers of the law” from back in verse 5. “They” saw Peter and John’s courage. Another condition “they” observed was that Peter and John were “unschooled”. These two conditions (courageous, and unschooled) instigate an action in the members of the Sanhedrin (“they”). The verbs “astonished”, and “took” describe the actions of “they”. Given the context of the cultural norms in the temple, “they” were astonished that Peter and John were so courageous and knowledgable, for unschooled gentiles being questioned by those who could legally kill them. “They” were astonished and took [note]. Of what? They took note that Peter and John were with Jesus. Why is this stated? Why does this have anything to do with Peter or John’s knowledge and/or courage? The last phrase of the verse gives us the only explanation for the courage and knowledge Peter and John displayed. They had been with Jesus, under his tutelage; he who stood before the Sanhedrin in the same way, who suffered death and yet conquered it by raising again to life, therefore they had no fear of death for they knew its master, and they had learned at the feet of the author of all things.

So the literary context bears forth two key words of which we would do well to rightly explore the meaning and semantic domain: unschooled, and courage.

Looking at the term “unschooled”, we see that this is the one and only time this term is used in the entire Bible. That, in itself has no bearing on the task at hand except to say that the meaning and semantic usage will be extremely limited. Truly, the usage of the greek word agrammatos carries the sense of not having a formal education. Given the historical context, the only formal education available at the time was in the temple schools. So the meaning of the citation of agrammatos is rightly translated as unschooled, although the translator could communicate slightly more effectively if “formally” were added, bearing out “formally unschooled.”

If the term unschooled (agrammatos) is a laser, then courage (parresia) is a flood light. Throughout the New Testament, this term is used to express the confidence, courage, assurance, boldness, and fearlessness of those who rely on Christ as their Holiness; sometimes even being used to describe the manner by which we are to approach God’s very throne, as those who are clean and therefore parresia. Likewise, those who exhibit such parressia communicate openly, clearly, and publicly. All this is true of Peter and John as they spoke before the Sanhedrin and the “they” took note of it, crediting it to them being with Jesus.

Conclusion
All of the aforementioned points, considered together, show how the attribution of unschooled regarding Peter and John is a statement of fact, not opinion. It is a fact that Peter and John had not been to the temple school. Indeed they were not allowed! What’s more, is that this has immediate influence on the content of the communication in this verse. And what’s still more, is that the truth would still remain and be weighty in the meaning of this verse, even if this had not been stated. Peter and John were unschooled, whether or not the verse said so, because they were gentiles and were not allowed into the temple schools. This is significant because they were being questioned by the equivalent of Supreme Court Judges. It would be similar to entering into your own defense in the Supreme Court against a team of not just great lawyers, but the judges themselves, and yet mastering their profession, with no training what so ever, so thoroughly as to force an acquittal.

By comparison, the attribution of unschooled,or uneducated, or unlearned to Joseph Smith has, by the very same method of analysis, been shown to be very much opinion. Not only has it been shown to be opinion, but also very subjective and relative to the one making the statement. Furthermore, in no way does it further the intent of the communication in any meaningful fashion what so ever.

In the case of Joseph Smith, this information is merely to relate a similarity between Smith, and every other person of that era. A great many people were farm raised, poor, with an average education, at which they managed average grades, and set about afterwards to average means. While Joseph Smith in no way set about to average means, it was not in any way due to some association with his humble start. Neither was his supposed selection as the seer of this vision based in any way on his background, or humility, or claimed unlearned nature. The information that Joseph Smith was supposedly unlearned is superlative at best, and malicious at worst in that it would seek to connect a wholly un-Christian system to Christ’s very namesake.

While this Mormon claim of Smith as unlearned communicates similarity, the Christian citation of the same unlearned state in Acts 4:13 seeks to point out differences. Truly to accentuate them. The point of Peter and John being unschooled is to point out the difference between them and the members of the Sanhedrin; to make an example of and condemn those who are learned and confident of their own works, compared to those who are confident not of themselves, but of Christ and who He is.
The two passages could not be more different. One seeks to unify, the other to cleave toward Christ. One is meaningless, and the other indispensably meaningful. One compliments nothing (not even itself), while the other compliments the whole of scripture.

Not much more can be said, except: the evidence speaks for itself.




Bibliography
Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Christianhistory.net. “Charles Finney: Father of Americal Revivalism.” p.1.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/evangelistsandapologists/finney.html

Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints - Seminaries and Institutes of Religion. “Church History in the Fulness of Times Institute Student Manual.” Ch. 2 - Joseph Smith’s New England Heritage.
http://institute.lds.org/manuals/church-history-institute-student-manual/chft-01-05-2.asp

Doctrine and Covenants. Sections 21 & 135.
http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament?lang=eng

Goodrick, Edward W. and, John R. Kohlenberger III. The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Joseph Smith Resource Center. “Witnesses/Apostasy.”
http://lds.org/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=4061001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&topic=%2FResource+Center%2FApostasy

Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith - History. “Extracts From the History of Joseph Smith the Prophet.” History of the Church Vol. 1, Ch. 1-5.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1

Now that I am faced with the end of my military career, I would like to share a few things that I've learned...

1. Sleep is in fact optional. Many a days have gone by with little to no sleep and I have managed fine with the right attitude. Attitude over aptitude!

2. The same goes for Food. The human body is far more physically resilient than we realize or experience in our sheltered modern life

3. Pain does not have to be shown. However this does reap the consequence of disbelief once serious injury results from such cover up.

4. A plan does no have to make sense to be effective; all it requires is belief and/or obedience, preferably both. Efficiency is another story all together.

5. Artificial enthusiasm goes a long way in some cases, both professionally and personally.

6. Though not the optimal circumstance; the greatest lessons we learn are most often by witnessing the wrong way.

7. Most often, the right example goes unnoticed and unrewarded and is poorly substituted for what is easy. Doing right needs to be internally motivated and not based on reward.

8. Discomfort is acceptable, and sometimes even necessary for growth.

9. There's the right way, the logical way, and then there's the military way (which frequently makes most people go, "huh?").

...last and certainly not least...

10. No matter how thick an institution's doctrine, people need a reason outside themselves, and outside the institution for that matter, which causes them not to be the butt-heads they are naturally.

More Premortal Existence References

I want My readers, as well as Sofia to know that I have found the rest of the Bible references Sofia has given in support of premortal existence. I will soon be posting each in turn, giving each a serious and sober consideration based on proper context (historical, cultural, and literary) and lexical study.

Continued in private

As you can see by the title, this post will be a series of private messages my Mormon friend and I have exchanged since I inadvertently offended. I have gotten consent from my Mormon friend to post these messages in their entirety so that all may learn from our exchange and those in each faith may be strengthened by the following:

In response to the comment (note that the confrontation was settled politely) left on this note (Exegesis of Jeremiah 1:5) on Facebook, originally posted to FB Aug 16, and first commented upon on Aug 19; continued in private...

Justin:
Before you publicly denounce me as misrepresenting Mormons, perhaps you should have come to me in private, as I am to you, with your concerns. I am still interested in a meaningful exchange, but if you feel that is unwise, I understand. I have two requests, no matter if you choose to end our correspondence or not:

1. Please tell me exactly how my research is misguided as to shadow truth
2. Please educate me as to how I have misrepresented Mormons and/or the LDS Church

Please understand; truth is, by it's very nature, able to be seen and understood by all, not just those with the same belief system as you or I. Whether or not they want to is another issue all together. I pray you will consider that statement in it's fullness and understand the implication.

Sofia:
First off, let me apologize. I am in no way trying to disrespect you. However, you are seriously and grossly misrepresenting mormons because you are saying we are not Christian. How can you, who are not a member of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of latter day saints profess to "know" what we believe?

It's like a car mechanic going into a bakery and telling them how and what they are using to make their cakes. He knows a lot about cars, he's even met a few bakers here and there... but he never went to pastry school, he never spent hours and hours pouring over recipes, and in fact, his heart's just not in it... he like cars. And that's OK because you know what, God loves bakers and mechanics just the same.

As for truth, I believe truth is not able to be seen or understood by all because not all will open their eyes or ears. Some blindly refuse to acknowledge truth... case in point atheists. Or republicans :) Just joking on that one. I believe in an absolute truth, not one that varies like the different religions scattered all about and whose doctrine changes like from marriage between a man and a woman to God accepts homosexual marriage. Truth to me does not change like that. There is one truth like you said whether we have the same belief system or not... all I'm saying is that our Church has the fullness of all truth, it has been restored by miracle from when Christ walked the earth and since the dawn of man.
I think the best definition of truth is found in John 8:31-32 "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

The main point is, yes, you can't speak for the church. You can give your opinion on what you believe, but that belief is not what we believe. Our very first declaration of faith is "We believe in God the Eternal Father and in His Son Jesus Christ." Our 8th declaration of faith is "We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." You have repeatedly said we are not Christian. You judge wrongly. You miss the spirit of Christ as you condemn instead of love and appreciate others for following the Savior and trying to live their lives the best they can as disciples.

Justin, where are temples? Where are the prophets? Where is baptism for the dead? Joseph Smith was not a sinful man. We don't worship him and he never tried to replace God, he only wanted to become like Him as I do... as Jesus asked us to be perfect. Can we achieve this in our lifetime, you better believe not! But it doesn't mean we don't try the best we can.

I'm trying to be as patient as I can, but you are saying things that attack the very core of who I am and I do believe you are shadowing truth. It's fine that you don't believe in a pre mortal existence, but that is an absolute truth. Yes, others are wrong. Now do I judge them? Not a chance. I'm down with whoever (for the most part) to have dinner, talk, watch a movie, let the kids play... I just feel like you're not. I could be mistaken. Computers only take us so far and if we had private jets, this wouldn't even be an issue. We could talk over non-alcoholic margaritas on the beaches of cancun while the kids play. It's hard to get the feel of what type really implies. I feel like you don't really like Mormons or respect them, because if you did you wouldn't try to put down our prophet or attack (and I do say attack, because to say one isn't Christian is a pretty harsh thing to say) us. I mean, does the car mechanic thing make any sense?

I look forward to your response, although I also do understand if our conversation needs to end. I really am sorry if I offended you in any way. I don't feel strongly about my religion, it's not my opinion or some belief... Christ is my life, so I take our chats very seriously. What does Sandy think about this? My husband says I should just drop it, he served a mission in Dallas Texas and said Born Again Christians aren't willing to discuss. I told him he's wrong and that you're different. I hope I'm right... because really, sometimes a wife just needs to be right :)

Much love, Sofia

...(again, note the polite reparation of the line of dialogue after the initial confrontation)

Justin:
"How can you, who are not a member of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of latter day saints profess to "know" what we believe? "

I cannot know "anything" about what Mormons believe without being a member? Surely you can see the absurdity of this statement. I am not able to read the same things you do and understand them?

"but he never went to pastry school, he never spent hours and hours pouring over recipes, and in fact, his heart's just not in it". Must one go to pastry school to be able to intelligently and coherently comment on pastries? Certainly not. And how would one know if his or her heart were not in it? Have I not spent hours upon hours pouring over Mormon recipes? I can tell you I have, and yet you assert I don't understand.

"I believe truth is not able to be seen or understood by all because not all will open their eyes or ears. Some blindly refuse to acknowledge truth". Yes, but this does not change the truth. Again, truth by definition, stays the same and cannot be changed, or shadowed. It merely can be agreed with, or not. Truth is not belief, neither is belief truth. The truth merely is. It cannot be shaped, except by God. I do agree with you that God does allow some to have eyes to see and ears to hear, yet even that does not change truth; it only changes someone's response.

"all I'm saying is that our Church has the fullness of all truth, it has been restored by miracle from when Christ walked the earth and since the dawn of man." Why? This is a crucial question I have been asking since the beginning, yet you insist on explaining Mormon beliefs which I already fully grasp. Please explain to me why, outside of a prayer (which anyone can do and come to their own decision), you believe the way you do? It is my assertion that the Bible doesn't support the doctrine you have presented. I have shown you that a few times in concrete terms, and will continue to do so. I still eagerly await the same from you.

The nature of my statement that Mormons are not Christians is founded in the sufficiency of the Bible, and that alone! No other writing compares, and therefore must submit to what is found therein; including the book of Mormon. So, when you say that Job had a premortal life, I say that takes away the entire meaning of the book. When you cite the story of the man blind since birth as evidence of the doctrine of premortal existence, I can concretely demonstrate it is indeed about God's purpose even in what we view as bad. You cannot claim to be Christian and believe contrary to the Bible, as well as what God has to say about Himself. You cannot claim to be Christian and deny the very nature of Christ! Did not Christ condemn? He certainly did, as was His right as God.

"Justin, where are temples? Where are the prophets?" My Temple is the gathering of faithful believers, as the Bible says! My prophets are found within the pages of the independently sufficient Christian Bible, not to include the Book of Mormon or other such documents.

"Where is baptism for the dead?" This is indeed on of your more offensive (read: toward God) doctrines. Let me simply state for record that, according to the Bible, baptism has no salvific value, though it is encouraged as an ordinance of the Christian church.

"Joseph Smith was not a sinful man. We don't worship him and he never tried to replace God". If Joseph Smith was a man, then he was sinful. I never said you worship Joseph Smith, or that he was trying to be God. I said that he grossly misunderstood scripture and has passed that on. The sinful condition of man manifests itself in such a way as to make each one to desire to be God...to determine their own destiny so-to-speak; to be God! That is what I meant by the human tradition of man making himself God. This has happened over and over through history and God has stood in opposition to all perpetrators. He is the only God, and will remain the only God. We may not become Gods, nor will we. The Bible is clear on this. You need the Book of Mormon to get anything different.

It's not that I don't like Mormons, its that I hate misrepresentations of Christianity. I love you enough to speak truth to you. I don't expect it to be well received. The Bible says that sinful man hates the light. The fact that you are discomforted by my words is evidence that the truth is inescapable and your spirit is in opposition to it. Discomfort is the beginning of salvation. When someone is in disagreement with the truth, the truth tends to impose itself upon that person's spirit because the truth doesn't change, nor does God. But a person may, from opposition of the truth, to harmony with it.

More to follow...I have to leave for an appointment

Remember, love is not just touchy feely. It is sometimes uncomfortable so that we may grow and mature.

Sofia:
Justin... have you ever even attended an LDS church on Sunday? Would you like me to start writing papers with a "Born Again Twist" because I've read a bit, know a few friends with the belief and watched the movie Saved? Could I then be considered an expert or is that an absurd thought?

I'm glad you love me, I thought you were perhaps being a little judgemental or condeming me... but I'm glad it's out in the open. I am a sinner Justin. I make mistakes. Are you saying I hate the light? Do you really know my soul? Gee Justin, I thought we were getting somewhere and then you bring us back to square one. I'm not discomforted by your words at all, in fact I've told you on more than one occasion I feel you (and your family) are special and that's why I've chosen to answer your questions... although the last one feels like an attack, thank you Miss Sinful :) I'm more sorrowed at your lack of Christ-like charity and compassion.

I think the answer to your questions (as far as the bible and concern members of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints aren't Christian) can be found in the last article I sent you. I can't say it better than the apostles. Also as far as Baptism, we believe it to be of extreme importance not just something handy-dandy. I can send you some articles if you like. And also on a doctrine of the sealing powers (used by Elijah) that is found only in God's true church. Again, only at your request.

Hope all is well and that you guys are hanging in there with the whole house business. The banks are completely insane. If there is anything we can do to help (even though we're so far away) please let us know.

And as far as love, I understand. I'll be using your line when my kids are teenagers! :)

Much love, Sofia

Justin:
I will continue to address the scriptures you present in such a way as to let them speak for themselves. Hopefully it will soon be clear that Mormon doctrine is imposed upon the Bible, not found within it. The only way to get Mormon doctrine from scripture is to let the Book of Mormon, as well as other key Mormon writings, to speak above scripture in such a way as to only view the Bible in light of the such writings.

I do want to reassure you that I do enjoy talking like this, but I will not accept things that just don't make sense. You may assert all you want, but this is my area of study and I have done considerable research. It is my goal to present accurately the material, whether it promotes Mormon doctrine, or Christian. Thank you for your candor in all this. Sorry if I am a bit assertive, but there are things which simply cannot be escaped.

...(double response here)

Justin:
Today I was consumed by our conversations as I partook in communion.

You must understand that each one of your key doctrines as a Mormon profoundly damages who God is, and therefore who Jesus is. There is no charity to be allowed in such areas. Either God is sovereign, or He's not. Either we can be God's or we cannot.

What salvific value is there in Baptism? Even Jesus was said to be the lamb who takes away the sin of the world BEFORE his baptism. Surely you don't suggest we can somehow be better than Jesus through faith in Him? Baptism is not a precondition for Heaven. If it were then people could presumably do something to merit heaven. As it stands, we cannot merit heaven because each of us is sinful and worthy of damnation apart from the atoning work of Jesus. And as we can see from scripture, Baptism is an act of obedience to publicly declare our commitment to be joined with Christ in His death and resurrection, by our confession of faith and outward SYMBOL of death and resurrection, I ask how a dead person can obey in such a fashion? Where in the Bible does it say anything about one's ability to stand in place of another to baptize them? Please don't think you can rightly cite 1 Corinthians 15:29; it is blatantly obvious that Paul is speaking on the senselessness of adhering to such a practice. Why would God allow such a practice when it is one's faith in Christ (which God decides anyways) which admits one into heaven? Your doctrine takes away God's freedom to chose. What if that one you are standing in place of for baptism has been sovereignly chosen to be one who does not believe? Does man's performance of substitutionary baptism trump God's will? I surely hope you would say no.

How could one possibly assert that there was a premortal existence? Who created our spirits? Why would God be married when the very institution of marriage is made to show His relationship with the son, and the son's relationship with the church? To say that we were existent with God before creation, in a very real sense undoes His Holiness! The very thing which, most of all permeates His entire essence and being. It is from His holiness that such things as love, justice, and righteousness flow.

While "sealing" a family seems to be endearing, it is an affront to God's purpose in eternity, as He reveals in the Bible. If anything could be better than being a family here on earth, it would be the fact that we (earthly family) will not be an earthly family any longer, but a heavenly family which includes all believers who will be in heaven when all is said and done. And our purpose is not to have more spirit children and somehow continue some odd cycle of creation; our purpose will be to worship God, the one and only in His fullness and direct presence for all of eternity, with our heavenly family (all those in heaven),all to His glory FOREVER! It is even plausible to think that we will not even recognize our earthly family in heaven, except as those who shares in the praise which belongs to God for all eternity. (granted this is an interpretation [as far as whether or not we will recognize our family members as our sons, daughters, etc.], but the fact remains that the point of existence is to honor God and be counted amongst those who will be exalted above the angels, and given the privilege to worship the God of ALL, forever, in His direct presence).

So, what if God has sovereignly chosen that one in your family would not believe in a manner described in the Bible? What happens to the "seal" placed on your family then? Does God win, or does man?

These are no idle questions your doctrine raises.

I believe the way I do because of a few things:

The Bible is historically reliable/accurate
The Bible is Archaeologically reliable/accurate
The Bible accurately comments on the heart of people
The Bible accurately comments on reality
The Bible is internally consistent
The Bible is scientifically verifiable
The Bible has never been in the hands of one single person who could change anything in any meaningful way
The Bible is logically consistent

These are the things which PROVE something. ANYTHING of which ANYBODY would say represents propositional truth would have to FIRST exhibit these things, and probably some others I am leaving out. The Holy Spirit does not verify truth. That would be a redundancy in vocation as far as the Godhead is concerned. God creates truth, of which people are told (in scripture) plainly speaks God's glory. The Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity who, by God's sovereign election, delivers eyes to see and ears to hear. God has created truth at the beginning of time. Why would He need another to verify that truth on behalf of people if His scripture says that God's truth (as far as His existence) is seen in all of creation? He wouldn't and He doesn't. If so, then we see a logical inconsistency and a great portion, if not all of the Bible must be disregarded.

To deny the way propositional truth is observed is to deny the very manner by which God made His creation. I pray you will stop asserting what you believe and start explaining it, as I have attempted here. Again, I am open to another system. However, that other system has the deck stacked against it since the Bible fulfills all I could ever dream that God's word might provide.

In regards to Prophets, apostles, priests, the true church, etc...

God's revelation is CLOSED. The Holy Spirit still influences the hearts of believers THROUGH HIS WORD! How could scripture ever more thoroughly comment on the entire range of human existence and experience? It can't, and therefore has been closed by God as being representative of ALL one needs to know to please God and be in heaven on the last day. That being said, the only prophets who have or will deliver God's word are found within the pages of scripture. ANYONE presenting ANYTHING as something God has communicated to them, must first be found to be in harmony with scripture. In this key area, Mormon prophets, even starting with Brigham Young, cannot meaningfully comment on any of God's word (i.e. the Bible) so much as to present some new doctrine; nor can anyone within evangelical circles.

As far as priests go, I am surprised to hear you quote from Hebrews, for it is within that letter from Paul where we are told that Christ is our High Priest. There needs be no others. And how could there? We have a High Priest who sits at the right hand of the father, praying for us. The calling of a priest was representative of what Christ would do at Calvary. Christ has once and for all entered into the Holy of Holies, made eternal sacrifice for the sins of the people of God, and then He tore the veil to represent the division between God and His people, via a priest, was no longer needed. If you assert that the temple, and priests are still needed then what sacrifice (which by covenant must be of blood) do they bring every Sunday? And why do you worship on Sunday when the temple sacrifices were made on Saturday?

Apostles are, by your accurate portrayal, ones who were endowed by the Spirit to teach proper doctrine. However, I only know of 12 (13 by some counts), for all time. They have given us, in the New Testament, all the teaching we need to be able to avoid EVERY heretical teaching. That is why there are no more apostles. How much more could they teach, about which the Bible doesn't already exhaustively comment? The apostles served their purpose, and then they died, all to the glory of God.

As I have said before, the true church is the faithful gathering of believers. Believers who understand that they cannot be God and that their worship, just as all of creation, is to bring God glory through the way God has provided in the Bible.

The only key figures to be provided from within the church are that of Deacon, and Elder. The Elder is responsible for the proper teaching of all God has provided in scripture, to include an accurate delivery of the teaching of the apostles in the New Testament. Today, since we speak different languages, that includes STUDY! Study not of what your heart "feels" (the Bible says the heart is eternally wicked), via the Holy Ghost, but study of original languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) as well as textual analysis/criticism. The failure of people to do this (which started immediately after the apostles died) brings the result of which you speak, where the Bible has been misinterpreted, misrepresented, and therefore there are thousands upon thousands who are responsible for false teaching. Great is the punishment for such false teaching!

As you can see, it is from that context I am so assertive and careful to speak truth as it is presented in the Bible, and be a stanch opponent of falsehood. I cannot let false teaching stand, if not simply out of love for those who might utter it; for I would not wish to see anyone subject to the repercussions of false teaching. However, I know there will be and has been those ones who will be.

If you grasp nothing else from all this, understand this: The Holy Spirit does not deliver, verify, or influence in any way TRUTH. God creates truth. The Holy Spirit opens people's eyes to see that truth.

All I can do, and all I will do is continue to expose the truth of scripture to you. If you cannot accept what God's word says then it is clear that you stand in opposition to it, until such time as the Spirit makes it impossible for you to resist and you are forced to either believe or verify God's justice. I am not able to make that decision so please don't misunderstand and think I am saying you are going to hell. God has either ordained you as a believer, or not. That fact doesn't change my job of proclaiming truth to you.

Sofia:
OK, so did you miss my questions?
1. Have you ever attended an LDS church on Sunday?
2. Are you and your family hanging in there with the whole house bit?

I of course (respectfully) disagree with you completely :)
1. "There is no charity to be allowed in such areas." Justin, I fear you have missed the greatest doctrine ever given by Christ. He even gave His life to teach us the profound principle of charity ALWAYS. Thank you 1 Cor.13: 1-4, 8, 13 keyword "charity NEVER faileth" I don't blame you, I tend to also lean toward the side of justice and judgement. One of my favorite stories is when James is trying to prepare for Christ in a Samaritan city and they won't recieve Him. "James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?" I would have said the same!! Yet Christ in His infinite wisdom responds, "But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." (Luke 9) Point: We should ALWAYS have charity and love.

2. Baptism: John 3:5 " 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." How can you say you believe the bible and not believe in the extreme importance of baptism? Talk about irony Justin. Christ, who was perfect, showed us the way and example by being baptized Himself. Did He just walk around doing stuff for the fun of it? I don't mean to be too sarcastic but the whole fact that you say Bible this!!! And then don't understand the concept which is so absolutely clear in the bible makes me wonder.
I'd give you some articles from our prophets on baptism if you like.

3. God's revelation is "closed". What a sad thought. He must have loved people before us more if we get the shaft today. I wonder why the ancient Israelites who worshipped golden calves were so much more special than us. Hmmmm.... perhaps you should think a little deeper on this one my friend. How can He be a consistent God if this is the case? He would be a respector of persons... you like to bring up logic a lot. I urge you to strongly think that one through logically.

4. Premortal existence: I don't understand the difficulty. I've given you a lot of scriptural references yet you disagree and can't prove to me that we didn't come from God. So.... yeah.

5. Sealing Powers- guess that was just a fluke in the bible. Story of Elijah just a neat reference. Rom. 15: 28,John 6: 27,2 Cor. 1:21- 22,Eph. 1: 13,Eph. 4: 30, just have the word seal in there for ?? Also logically, where would be the sense. You love your wife more than words could ever say, but death will seperate you and ?? You'll just be good friends in the afterlife? Buzzer:Wrong."While "sealing" a family seems to be endearing, it is an affront to God's purpose in eternity, as He reveals in the Bible" And where was your scripture reference? You know you rarely use them my friend, go back over our conversations and let's see who's actually used the bible.

I think I'm gettin a bit uppity. I better pause and pray for a more patient heart. Please forgive me.

What do you mean the Holy Ghost doesn't "deliver in anyway truth". Truth just floats around and we catch it? We can't give utterance without the Holy Ghost. Luke 12:12. Acts 15:8 the Holy Ghost does verify truth "bare them witness". Romans 15:13.... culminating scripture of the purpose of the Holy Ghost. Just joking... real culminating scripture 1 Thes. 1: 5-6 "For our gospel came not unto you in WORD ONLY, but also in POWER, and in the Holy Ghost" so God does DELIVER witness by the Holy Ghost. Perhaps you meant to say something different, because you're clearly not supported by the bible on that one.

I accept God's word. All of it. There's quite a bit out there, but that is why I study so often. And reference it so often. And don't worry, I know I'm not going to hell. I really believe there are few and far between who end up there. But we reference it to "outer darkness". We believe that there are 3 degrees of glory to those who end up in heaven (kind of like 3 different heavens) which is 99% of the people out there. :) Look forward to our discussion on that one!!! I seriously wish we could do this talking though. I get pissy then I calm down and I don't know if the way I type conveys that... I hope you don't feel like I'm being judgemental of you in any way. I also don't see my educating you on the topic of God's church as a job, this has been a real priveledge. May the angels record the words I've given as witness! I look forward to standing before my maker and saying, "Lord I tried!!" :)

Justin:
1. I have never attended...is it required of me if I am then able to read the Book of Mormon? As a side note, my pastor and I will be attending this winter, as well as Jewish, Catholic, and other services around our area. Now that this unrelated issue is resolved, can we proceed?
2.The house is still in limbo so-to-speak. We are working hard to keep it though we area just as willing to give it up. It does not define us nor does it comment on our faith, so we are not overly concerned. It's just a house, and the money is just money. Nothing of any value what-so-ever is associated with it.

Since we are getting nowhere simply stating our own beliefs to each other, I will take this public once again, with your consent, to address the many scripture references you have brought up. I will not publicize these exchanges unless you would prefer that. If you consent, I will post this exchange on my blog and it will remain unaltered from it's original content. If you do no consent, it will remain private and I will simply address the scripture references, only referring to this exchange as a "private exchange".

Sofia:
Justin, yes it is required of you to attend church at least once or twice before you can say you know a smidgeon of what we believe. Haven't you heard the saying you can't know a man unless you've walked in his shoes? It's like me saying I know all about the army without actually going to boot camp. :) Which there is way on earth I'd ever survive that one. God bless you all and thank you for our service to our country.

You guys are great and more people need attitudes like yours. Our best friends lost their house... it's frustrating because the banks are so twisted in their policy and lack of care. I hope and pray all works out for you with the least stress possible.

And don't be so stuffy. Of course I consent to going public. :) Does the military make you so formal or have you always been that way?

...(double response here)

Sofia:
Sorry... typo in first paragraph NO WAY I'd ever survive

Justin:
It's interesting; I would never venture to say you MUST attend a service in my church before you could accurately comment on what we believe. Everything you could ever want to know about how we worship or what we believe is clearly stated in scripture. You need only read the Bible in it's own context and you would have an exhaustive knowledge of what we believe...no attendance necessary.

Thank you for the consent. I am not formal due to the military, but out of consideration of your rights and/or feelings. I wouldn't want to post something publicly which you intended for private. I also use more formal vernacular in my writing in a concerted effort to communicate effectively. I am admittedly not the most eloquent man.

...(double response here)

Justin:
As you patiently wait for me to post our previous conversations on my blog, I wonder if you would answer a few questions?

Is God created?

Is God eternal?

Is God ultimate (is He the only one)?

Sofia:
Hey Justin-

I could answer them, but not as well as one of our Apostles, President Boyd K.Packer. I hope you don't mind me giving you an article that is very clear instead of using my own meager words. Hope it can be of help to you.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=3bf405481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

You know what's weird... You never know what life will bring. Who would have thought 10 years ago we'd be having such deep conversations. I for one am grateful. I was quite the neurotic and spastic teenager. It's good to know God is patient. Although, I must admit I'm quite disturbed tonight. I just watched a Dateline presentation of a kidnapping in Mexico. He was held for 7 1/2 months in a tiny box, starved and beaten and shot.... I sometimes wonder about the suffering of our Savior in Gethsemane and can't help but conclude it just isn't fair. The sorrow is just too much. Do you ever feel like you want to do more to help people, but don't even know where to begin? Like how could I go about helping kidnapping victims in Mexico?

Please give my love to Sandy.
Much love, Sofia

Justin:
So, there is only God (Father - Elohim), but there are multiple Gods, represented in the godhead (savior, and holy ghost)?

Once again, I understand the doctrine you have. This is not new to me. So tell me why then, if you say it only refers to the father, in Hebrew Elohim is plural.

I am not trying to insult, but for one who claims the office of apostle (which no longer exists) this man has such a surface level understanding (really misunderstanding) of scripture that it is difficult to believe he is teaching others. Please understand that I am not insulting anyone, just say that he has misunderstood.

There area great many things in that letter that distract fro. The subject I have promised you to address so I will simply not delete this email, so as to refer to it later.

One last question...I have read everything you have given me, except for, admittedly, the web site of apologetic material (I just haven't had time...could you supply it to me again). Have you read anything from the website I gave you?

Second chance alert ;) www.aomin.org. Click on articles and take your pick.

Sofia:
Hey Justin!

Boyd K. Packer has spent his entire life (almost 80 years now) a man of God. He is much older and wiser than most. He claims nothing, he has rightly been bestowed the office of Prophet and Apostle which does exist today. (Because God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow) President Packer does not misunderstand. Christ spoke to His disciples and said, "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despisest him that sent me." Luke 10:16 Another poignant scripture is the rejection of prophets found in this verse, "And he (Christ) said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31

On a different note-

http://www.aomin.org/articles/statement.html
I found this a nice article. It's great to see people of faith acknowledge God no matter what religion... to me personally.
One quote that I didn't understand was "Man rebelled against His Creator, and fell into sin." According to your faith, when did we rebel? Are babies full of sin? Or is it that we are punished for Adam's transgression in the garden of Eden?

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4145
This one I found sad. We're such a sue happy people.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4143
First, I was a little scared... I have issues with shaved heads, hello I'm married to a black man. But I agreed with a lot of his words. I disagree with his missionary tactics. I would rather show a person Christ by my actions and deeds (Thank you 1 John 3:11) than verbally shove it down their throats.Very dramatic music for the ending,but nonetheless enjoyable :)

Hope you are having a good weekend. Did you guys do anything fun?
Much love, Sofia

Justin:
80 years huh? Wow! It is even more astonishing then that in all that time he has missed so much, even represented in such limited context as this article. Again, not to insult. The truths of the Bible are not merely anecdotal, as this man presents. This is a difficult trend to counteract since there has been nearly a century of such surface level, emotionally based preaching. It hails back to the influence of Charles Finney, who was the inventor of most of this (not Mormon doctrine, but the criminal mishandling of God's word). It is unmistakable that his influence is seen in the LDS Church as well. Since this style appeals to people's emotions it is rather difficult to address anything without arousing such emotional responses.

As to your questions regarding original sin...our nature is inherited through Adam, which by divine decree is inescapably sinful. This includes babies. Please don't misunderstand. I am not saying that a baby goes to hell; who am I to make such a determination. But the Bible is clear, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23; and "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Romans 5:12. In the context of these verses, all means all. Just as sin came to us through one man, so did salvation. They are direct mirrors of each other.

...(messages continued under a new series of messages since original thread was getting lengthy)

Sofia:
So you think your own children are sinful full of evil ways and thoughts?

Justin:
I do indeed. They prove it at every turn. That is why they need Godly guidance and up-bring in the ways of God. If they are perfect, sinless and God honoring at birth then why would they need a sinful guide (parent) to intervene in that perfect sinless state?

Sofia:
To help provide sustenance for them. They need food, water, etc.

...(double response here)

Sofia:
I feel sorry for you that you believe that way. I pray you never lose a child.

Justin:
Since the Bible does not specifically comment on this I must bring other issues to bear upon this.

1. The doctrine of all people being sinful is well established in the Bible
2. Since babies are people they are included in this sinful state
3. Salvation is given through none other than Christ
4. Apart from this we are told that no person has an excuse because all of creation speaks God's glory
5. One might ask, "what about those who never hear about Jesus, or what about babies who die very young and who presumably can't have faith?"
6. Matthew 7:2 Gives us reason to believe that the one who has not heard of Jesus will have no excuse before his creator and will be held accountable by the very standard he used to judge others. The same could be said of babies, but a very different result could be presumed. Since babies cannot judge (judgement assumes foreknowledge of right and wrong so as to make an assessment based on that knowledge) nor do they, it would follow that neither are they judged; or, more precisely, they are judged using the same standard they judged others, which is none at all, so they are found righteous according to that standard.

For the record, this is all speculative and based on a proper understanding of many verses that, in and of themselves, do not directly comment on the issue. Either way, I believe it is a Biblical position to state that it would be unreconcilable with God's character revealed through scripture, to even imply that babies are even in danger of going to hell. Although, I would also say that if God were to somehow choose to send a baby to hell, however unlikely it may be, He would be perfectly justified and within the scope of His authoritative freedom as creator. Since this would contradict God's nature as revealed in scripture, the above statement becomes purely hypothetical and therefore irrelevant.

Even with this issue, there needs be no appeal to emotion so far as to let it overshadow God's word. I am also not saying that you are playing to emotion, but rather that many do in this area and succumb to the temptation of allowing that emotion to rule, instead of God's word.

I too pray I don't ever lose a child and I am truly sorry you had to experience such a loss. I want to reiterate that I DO NOT believe babies go to hell, or are in any danger of going. In fact I believe the opposite, but for decidedly different reasons than you. In the end, the very idea of babies going to hell, or being in danger somehow of doing so, is entirely unreconcilable with God's character.

Sofia:
Justin, thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree with you, I think it's unreconcilable with God's character.

The whole feeling bit. I wanted to go through my scriptures because I think we have different perspectives and I'm not too clear on what you think. My point: Promptings and feelings given to us by the Holy Ghost are of extreme and utmost importance.

The whole Old Testament is full of proverbs and psalms taking about the "heart". A couple of my favorite scriptures having to do with emotions are Proverbs 16: 23 "The heart of the wise teacheth his mouth, and addeth learning to his lips." and also Romans 10:10 "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Notice how heart was used and not mind? A great lesson was given to us by the Pharoh of Egypt when he hardened his heart against Moses. How much destruction could have been avoided if he allowed himself to feel the power of God? Yet he was past feeling.

Granted, the mind is very important. Our mind and heart must both be reconciled to God. I just know we can't downplay the importance of faith and the testimony of the Holy Spirit and His guidance in our lives. Now, I realize I am a woman. Women are crazy. It's the hormones. (Although it is interesting Christ would show Himself to a woman first after the resurrection... food for thought on emotion again) But I'm wondering if you can clarify if I misunderstand you- you don't think emotions or feelings are important when it comes to finding Christ?

Also, this is hypothetical. But if there were to be a historical discovery of writings of John the Baptist, and they were proven to be his words... would you accept them as scripture?

Hope you had a wonderful day at church? Are you a teacher? And also is your church called the Alpha and Omega church? I teach the 8&9 year olds and my husband does scouting with the Young Men. One thing I love about our church is there is no paid clergy. We all just work together to help the circle go round. And!! I noticed you have a shaved head.... please ignore my fear comment from earlier :) Do your children love going to church? What are your feelings when people say organized religion is not important? And yes... I hope you answer all my questions, all 2,000 of them. Sheesh.

Here is mormanity.blogspot.com. He does a lot of historical proof on the Book of Mormon which I thought you might find interesting. But my favorite of late is this
http://seminary.lds.org/scripture-mastery/find.asp. It is a wonderful tool to help memorize scriptures...

...(double response here)

Sofia:
http://seminary.lds.org/scripture-mastery/

Sorry the link I gave you was for quick finding. This one has the tool to help memorize. If you have any websites to help memorize I'd love to know about them. I need things other than just repitition to help me remember, I don't know if you're the same way.

Justin:
Yeah, that's a lot of questions ;) but I'm a big boy so I'll just have to muddle through them.

"I'm wondering if you can clarify if I misunderstand you- you don't think emotions or feelings are important when it comes to finding Christ?"
First and foremost I believe that we do not find Christ. We were given to Him at the beginning of time; if one who is preordained to believe does not believe at a given point, the Holy Spirit imposes grace upon that person in a supernatural way which cannot be resisted. So, though it seems as though that person was an enemy of God, or at least a non-believer, he/she was in fact predestined to believe, and will according to God's sovreign decree. That is why I cannot say someone is going to hell, or apostate, or any other ultimate determination. This is not the same as being a judge of proper doctrine and a contender for the accurate presentation of scripture. That is every believer's job: to judge each other so as to ensure we all are living in a manner worthy of the name of Christ so as not to bring him dishonor, though that is exactly what you see in modern churches due largely to a lack of God honoring study, or a greater commitment to human tradition beyond the commitment to accurate scriptural exposition.
Second, I think that the playing towards emotions to "win souls" is the most debase of practices. While I feel that emotions are important (as in showing our adoration toward God and our emotional pleas of anguish or hurt or pain, etc.) I must say that there has been a trend to abuse them for the cause of Christ, which pains me to even type. Proper emotion in regards to salvation is merely the prompting of the Holy Spirit to make that grace which is being placed upon a person irresistable. All emotion must be toward God in such a way as to make us dependant on Him, satified with Him, longing for Him. So, while many, many people manipulate emotion to get conversions, man only does so in danger of attempting to be God (and man can certainly not be God), manipulating what is rightfully God's to serve man, to glorify man, to worship man. Emotions are not bad when they are directed at God.

"if there were to be a historical discovery of writings of John the Baptist, and they were proven to be his words... would you accept them as scripture?"

Honestly, probably not. Why? Because the Canon of scripture is closed. Of course to even accept that they were his words would involve A LOT of questions that are too lengthy and involved than would prove worth while to bring up here, suffice to say that even if they were proven to be John's words it would merely be something interesting to read and study. Ultimately, such writing, as with ALL other writing, could only be taken in light of scripture, and if found to contradict it (as it is my assertion the Book of Mormon does) would be disregarded in light of the ultimate authority of the Bible.

"Hope you had a wonderful day at church? Are you a teacher? And also is your church called the Alpha and Omega church?"

I did have a wonderful day at church, though even if I didn't, it is not a time of comfort and entertainment, but a time of worship (which often involves discomfort when confronted with my sin in the presence of a Holy God) and prayer. I do teach the Jr. High Youth of my church but we save that for sunday night at my house. No my church is not called the Alphand Omega Chruch. Alpha and Omega is merely the name of James White's ministry. My church is called North Country Fellowship Church www.ncfchurch.org.

"One thing I love about our church is there is no paid clergy. We all just work together to help the circle go round."
So, you disobey scripture? The office of elder and deacon are mandated in scripture; an elder for the proper teaching of scripture, and deacons to ensure the congregation is cared for. Furthermore, the body is mandated to support the elder's needs (needs, not wants) so that the elder may fully devote himself to the study of God's word and the guiding of His people. That is what the tithe is for; it is mandated in scripture that the tithe go to the elder, as it did in the OT to the priest. I must say the way your church is run is grosely unbiblical.

As far as the shaved head goes...no worries, it's hunting season so I am growing my hair out to keep warm. We routinely see temps in the negative 20's so I have to do all I can to stay warm. But, when January rolls back around it comes off again because thats the way Sandy likes it. ;)

"Do your children love going to church? What are your feelings when people say organized religion is not important?"
They do love going to church, but at this point even if they didn't, they would go anyways because that is just how it's gonna be in my house (Joshua 24:15). As far as people saying organized religion is not important, I must deffer to the Bible once again. In Hebrews 10:25 we are exhorted to continue meeting together to love each other, encourage one another, and it is the practice of our church that this is when we have communion too; not always, but at least once a month. The idea of organized religion is throughout the Bible and is just as inescapable as original sin. There are no lone ranger Christians...show me one and I'll show you a person in unrepentant sin, and possibly not a true beleiver.

...(double response here)

Justin:
mormanity.blogspot.com...this is not the same one you gave me earlier in our talks, though I will keep and explore this too.

Sofia:
YOU LIVE IN CARTHAGE!!!!?!?!?

Wow. Ok. Maybe you don't live in Carthage. Am I getting ahead of myself? Yes. I went on the ncf website and tried to look up finding a church. And saw the map with Carthage as it's location. Wow. Carthage is where Joseph Smith was martyred. Never been there but hear it's a beautiful area.

Ok, your prayer list is the coolest thing ever. We also have prayer lists, but they are called prayer rolls and they aren't public... to maintain privacy whatnot. But I like the whole idea of having an area to actually see what is going on. Very cool. I hope Joanne is doing better. Also loved the them Love God. Love others. Share Jesus. You know, we're really not that different.

Sorry about the website. I can't remember everything I send.

I haven't gone back through our chats here, but I did want to bring up a scripture "“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” (Ps. 127:3.) I think that clearly answers the question why God places children in our care. They are our reward, not some sinful pains in the rear... although some might be questionable :) You are absolutely right, we have sacred responsibility to bring them up in the knowledge of God. Children refine us and help teach us of the relationship we have with our Father. Of course we also have scripture that clearly states, "They (as in children) cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me.” D&C 29:47. Some may say it contradicts what the bible teaches, but the bible also teaches God is merciful.... so.... where do we go from here? Hopefully not to hell :) We don't believe in the original sin dooming us to misery, instead we declare as one of our articles of faith, We believe man will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression. How would God be considered just if He did such a thing?

Can I ask why you don't believe baptism is a saving grace with scriptures to back up the claim? I've always thought the good ol' book was pretty clear, but I'm open to seeing what scriptures you have.

I've gotta tell you, last week I had to teach my church class about Solomon. That was a fun one. Teacher, what's a concubine? :) I hope my answer of "kind of like a 2nd wife, and ask your parents" was Ok! We did a cool analogy of water through a collander. I put in a couple toys, a ring and then the water. The water is our knowledge and the collander is death. We can't take anything with us but our knowledge. And of course, Solomon was full of that. I always get so sad when it comes to him and David. Which brings me to another question, in your opinion, were they chosen of God? Because the scriptures say they were, then they sinned and fell from grace. So why didn't God stop them? It's a foreign concept to me because we believe so strongly in agency.

Sorry, I'm probably babbling.
Here is a reference to tithing and what we pay tithing for.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=77e69207f7c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=ba805f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Also paid clergy:
In Matthew 10:7-8, it reads, "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils; freely ye have received, freely give."

Justin:
I certainly do live in the village of Carthage. Palmyra is right down the road too.

...(quadruple response here)

Justin:
My bad, Joseph Smith died in Carthage, Illinois, not New York. But palmyra is still around the corner from us.

Justin:
Based on the Bible, God is not and has never been a man (Num. 23:19; Hos. 11:9). He is a spirit (John 4:24), and a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Furthermore, God is eternal (Ps. 90:2; 102:27; Isa. 57:15; 1 Tim. 1:17) and immutable (or unchangeable in his being and perfections; see Ps. 102:25–27; Mal. 3:6). He did not “progress” toward godhood, but has always been God.

Trusting in or worshiping more than one god is explicitly condemned throughout the Bible (e.g., Ex. 20:3). There is only one true God (Deut. 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:18; 46:9; 1 Cor. 8:4; James 2:19), who exists eternally in three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14).

The Bible teaches that the yearning to be godlike led to the fall of mankind (Gen. 3:4ff.). God does not look kindly on humans who pretend to attain to deity (Acts 12:21–23; contrast Acts 14:11–15). God desires humans to humbly recognize that they are his creatures (Gen. 2:7; 5:2; Ps. 95:6–7; 100:3). The state of the redeemed in eternity will be one of glorious immortality, but they will forever remain God’s creatures, adopted as his children (Rom. 8:14–30; 1 Cor. 15:42–57; Rev. 21:3–7). Believers will never become gods.

Biblically, the description of Jesus as the “only begotten” refers to his being the Father’s unique, one-of-a-kind Son for all eternity, with the same divine nature as the Father (see note on John 1:14; cf. John 1:18; 3:16, 18; see also John 5:18; 10:30). Moreover, he is eternal deity (John 1:1; 8:58) and is immutable (Heb. 1:10–12; 13:8), meaning he did not progress to deity but has always been God. And Mary’s conception of Jesus in his humanity was through a miracle of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20).

The Bible teaches that people have just two possibilities for their eternal futures: the saved will enjoy eternal life with God in the new heavens and new earth (Phil. 3:20; Rev. 21:1–4; 22:1–5), while the unsaved will spend eternity in hell (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 20:13–15).

Biblically, there was nothing noble about Adam’s sin, which was not a stepping-stone to godhood but rather brought nothing but sin, misery, and death to mankind (Gen. 3:16–19; Rom. 5:12–14). Jesus atoned for the sins of all who would trust him for salvation (Isa. 53:6; John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).

Biblically, salvation by grace must be received through faith in Christ (John 3:15–16; 11:25; 12:46; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:22–24; Eph. 2:8–9), and all true believers are promised eternal life in God’s presence (Matt. 5:3–8; John 14:1–3; Rev. 21:3–7).


All material taken from http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/08/30/an-faq-on-the-difference-between-mormonism-and-biblical-christianity/

These are not my words but I find nothing to disagree with here. Also this is not one from my church or congregation, but this is another faithful believer in true Biblical doctrine; that much is clear from the material above.

Justin:
Upon review, I noticed that I have properly address both (all) scripture references you have cited in support of premortal existence and shown them to be non-indicative of such a claim. Are there anymore you can cite for this doctrine so I may allow for a fair representation? If not, I will do a survey of the resources you have given me, as well as some Mormon websites I have found myself, and present an analysis of the passages cited therein in the same manner I have with Luke 2:21 and Jeremiah 1:5. Thanks.


WHEW!!!!! So, as you can see, my counterpart has been very gracious and the discussion continues. I apologize to my readers and Sofia for the delay in getting this posted publicly, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for her candid responses and perseverance. Thank you to my readers who persevered in reading all that :-)

In an effort to be entirely transparent and be "above reproach," I would like to invite Sofia to confirm that what I have posted herein is in no way changed (misspellings and all) from its original, and that it accurately and fairly represents (truly duplicates) the conversation we had via FB private messages.

Thank you Sofia, and I pray that our correspondence will continue as I find it terribly valuable.

Exegesis on Jeremiah 1:5

I would like to start this post, the next in a series looking at the Biblical support (or lack thereof) for the Mormon doctrine of spirit children, by quoting myself so my readers may understand the context from which this post is derived…
"It was recently put to me in a Facebook conversation most of you probably saw from my post on June 6 at 8:13 am, to address some key doctrinal claims of Mormonism. It is my assertion that Mormonism is essentially not Christianity. In an effort to be completely transparent I will let all my readers know at the outset that I believe Mormonism to be a complete misrepresentation of the Christian Bible. Likewise, I believe the Book of Mormon, as well as supporting texts like the Pearl of Great Price, to be heretical and simply unhelpful and confusing to a correct understanding of the Christian Bible. All Mormon texts are decidedly NOT God’s word. The proceeding commentaries will be proof of my statements.
For the purpose of promoting understanding we must first define a few things. Within the bounds and context of this writing, when I refer to anything as Christian, I mean not Mormon. That is not to say I am also referring to all things not Mormon, but the distinct differences between Mormonism and Christianity. As is necessary with Biblical exegesis (drawing the meaning from scripture, as opposed to imposing meaning upon scripture), the reader must keep in mind the definitions I have presented above while reading, since it is I who determine the meaning of my words, not the reader. The same is true with scripture. It is the original writer who determines the meaning of the words written, not the reader."
That being said, we must give respect to the author of Jeremiah by stating that the Old Testament book of Jeremiah was written to record the prophecies of Jeremiah, damning God’s people for their disobedience. As a prophet, it is plainly seen that Jeremiah is obedient to his call, yet he also loves those people to whom he pronounces condemnation. Even through his best efforts to cause the people to repent and turn to honor God, Jeremiah still proclaims the destruction of Jerusalem. Indeed this prophecy comes to pass, after which we hear very little from and/or about Jeremiah. The people of Jeremiah’s time were used to the babbling of prophets as there were a great many false ones whose messages were similar. This did not help Jeremiah’s task of proclaiming God’s just wrath upon an exceedingly, and repeatedly disobedient people. Jeremiah’s job then was to tell the people that God’s wrath was imminent! There was no escaping it, though Jeremiah warned them. It was decided, and God gloried in it. This represents the cultural and historical context of the book of Jeremiah. This is where one may find insight as to a proper application of the text to a modern context.
Verses one through four give us a precise timeframe in which Jeremiah’s prophecies took place (roughly 625-586 B.C.). Since we have already established historical and cultural context we can press on to verse 5.
Jeremiah 1:5 – “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
-This verse is submitted by Mormons as proof positive that we are God’s spirit children, who existed with him before creation. How else could he have known us right?
Here in Jeremiah 1:5 we see a few words we would do well to address. Such words as “before”, and “knew”. Since these words are so broad in their application and usage it would be an exercise in exhaustion to explore their semantic domain. For our purposes we can rightly approach this text if we consider “before” as merely “prior to a given time”. “Knew” will be harder to address so let us start with “before”.
Before what or when? The text answers this question as before “I formed thee in the belly” and before “thou camest forth out of the womb”. If we overstate this for the sake of clarity we could say, “Before your father’s sperm fertilized your mother’s egg” and “Before you exited your mother’s uterus”. Even this explanation is lacking, for surely God is able to determine which sperm met with that egg. Here in verse 5, before is open ended. Before what or when? Everything! At this point the Christian has no grounds to disagree with the Mormon. We both agree that whatever happened, it happened before everything was.
So, what happened “before”? “I knew thee”, “I sanctified thee”, “I ordained thee.” Here is where we see the fatal error of Joseph Smith. Where does the text even imply that WE were existent before creation? The text stops at saying that God knew Jeremiah, God sanctified Jeremiah, God ordained Jeremiah. And for what? To do what? To be a “prophet unto the nations.” The context is explicitly indicative of Jeremiah AND NO OTHER. Verse 5 starts a conversation between God and Jeremiah. What purpose would it serve for God to tell Jeremiah that he knew everyone before they were conceived, truly before creation? Well, in the context it would make no sense what so ever. If that were the case then Jeremiah would never get the call to announce condemnation, for the point of the text would be that God knows everyone, even before creation…end of story…end of book. What a clear example of Joseph Smith having no meaningful and/or accurate understanding of scripture. If we take the Mormon interpretation of this verse then we must assume that God is unable to know us unless he has been around us, with us.
“I knew thee” gives a compelling commentary on some of what God knows. When I say that Joseph Smith has no meaningful and/or accurate understanding of scripture, it is because the doctrine of spirit children as it relates to Jeremiah 1:5 fundamentally limits what God is able to know, and consequently sticks out like a sore thumb as a man made doctrine. What I mean is this: if the way in which God knew us was only accomplished by us physically (or spiritually, etc.) being with him before creation then he is limited in his knowledge to what he experiences. Thankfully God is not limited in this way, as we are. God is all knowing (omniscient) and so it is well within the realm of His ability that He knew us without us existing, neither before creation nor after; with him or not. His knowledge is not limited by our existence, whether in spirit form or otherwise. So, the “knew” in verse 5 is also open ended in that God’s knowledge is never ending with regards to time and space, and in every other conceivable way for that matter. To say He knew us before he formed us in the womb is to say that before we were existent, He knew us. Any other interpretation of that statement limits God and is therefore simply wrong.
For good measure I will also bring up another word which has bearing on this subject, such that a Mormon might use it to support the idea that God “knew” us, “before”, as children. I am referring to verse 6. In verse 6 we see the Hebrew word na’ar. The semantic domain of this word is also quite exhaustive, yet we can choose a few translations to emphasis our point. Within the semantic domain of this word (ways in which it can be used/translated) are usages like: youth, young man, servant, child, assistant, boy, young officer, and others…these are all proper usages of the Hebrew word na’ar. Verse six is a continuation of the conversation between Jeremiah and God which lasts for the entirety of the chapter. In the context of this conversation God informs Jeremiah of his purpose (to be a prophet unto the nations) and quickly commissions him and sends him out. The conversation is immediate in it’s application. God tells Jeremiah who he is, and then says, in essence “GO NOW!” So, although God’s knowledge has no bounds within space-time, God is able to confront His creation at any point while making His message immediately applicable. That being said, it would not follow logically that God sends out a child (as the KJV interprets the word). If we have a proper understanding of how words are translated then we can see how the words surrounding any single word, at least some-what, determine the meaning of that word. In this situation, the context demands that na’ar be translated not as “child” but as some sort of early adult; young man perhaps, or maybe youth. Such a translation would be in-keeping with the context and time frame of the verse as we can easily see that Jeremiah is in fact a “youth” (i.e. not a child) when he is commissioned. If he was not a child then there can certainly be no grounds for a doctrine of pre-existent spirit children. Such a doctrine is an abomination to God’s true nature.
Both these words (KJV Translation - child/Correct Translation - youth) are within the semantic domain of the Hebrew word na’ar and are indicative of yet another problem with Mormon doctrine. Mormons hold the KJV of the Bible over and above any other translation. This is a critical failure, yet again, of Joseph Smith, to enumerate a translation. The KJV is nowhere near a perfect translation, and in fact it has been proven to be grossly inaccurate in major areas. It once was that the KJV was the most accurate of any translation, based upon the manuscript evidence which was available in 1611 when it was penned. However, with the discovery and consequent studying of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the KJV has been shown to be significantly lacking in the area of ancient manuscript support.
The issue of the KJV will be next on my plate unless my Mormon friend has more pressing issues I should address. I say “more pressing” because the KJV thing is really a non-issue…the evidence is far too vast and damning to allow anyone who has sincerely sought out the truth to hold to the idea that the KJV is the most perfect translation.
I hope my readers can see that Mormonism is a clear case of misunderstanding being propagated through the years as “Gods truth”. It (Mormonism) is nothing more than sinful man’s human tradition to love himself and make himself God. It is decidedly not Christian, and therefore not the true church, nor the true word. God is not merely God of this planet. He is GOD OF ALL! There is, are, and never will be others like Him. He alone is God and, as such, is worthy of all praise and adoration. He is the God of every planet, everywhere, everytime. One God. One creation. One savior. One eternity.

25 X Awesome

1. She is beautiful (first and foremost)
2. She is an awesome mommy
3. She is an amazing wife who blesses me on a daily bases, without thinking twice
4. She is passionate towards people
5. She thinks I'm funny (no accounting for taste right?)
6. She is tough
7. And yet transparently vulnerable (if you know what to look for...and since I do...)
8. She makes me want to be more than I am just by being herself
9. She affirms me in front of the kids when I'm not present and I can tell by their attitudes when I get home
10-14. She has bore me 5 children
15. And is just as excited as I am to have more
16. She loves her mama
17. And teaches the kids how to do the same
18. She works hard with our finances
19. And has single handedly repaired our credit
20. And seen us through the most financially trying time in our lives
21. She cleans my mom's house every week just because
22. She poors love into everything she does
23. She is wonderfully girlie and feminine
24. Did I mention she's beautiful...like really...from her eyes to her feet...breathtaking
25. She loves God

She's my Sandy, made special for me at the foundation of the universe, by the one mighty God. Your love for me Father is evident everyday through her. Above all men I am truly blessed!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Not there...

In the end, will it all have been worth the missed sports games, the absence of Daddy at the recital, the lost hours that might have been better spent merely being together to SHOW them "YOU MEAN MORE THAN ANYTHING TO ME!"? No, it won't. Not if your actions tell them something different. And at that point "it's my job" won't be medicine enough, because all they will hear is "I had better things to do". Quit your job if you have to, but don't fail raise your kids. Jobs and careers don't matter here; relationships and people do. Even more than that; family matters. And above that; God.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Interesting and revealing...worth the length!

Exegesis on Luke 2:21

It was recently put to me in a Facebook conversation most of you probably saw from my post on June 6 at 8:13 am, to address some key doctrinal claims of Mormonism. It is my assertion that Mormonism is essentially not Christianity. In an effort to be completely transparent I will let all my readers know at the outset that I believe Mormonism to be a complete misrepresentation of the Christian Bible. Likewise, I believe the Book of Mormon, as well as supporting texts like the Pearl of Great Price, to be heretical and simply unhelpful and confusing to a correct understanding of the Christian Bible. All Mormon texts are decidedly NOT God’s word. The proceeding commentaries will be proof of my statements.
For the purpose of promoting understanding we must first define a few things. Within the bounds and context of this writing, when I refer to anything as Christian, I mean not Mormon. That is not to say I am also referring to all things not Mormon, but the distinct differences between Mormonism and Christianity. As is necessary with Biblical exegesis (drawing the meaning from scripture, as opposed to imposing meaning upon scripture), the reader must keep in mind the definitions I have presented above while reading, since it is I who determine the meaning of my words, not the reader. The same is true with scripture. It is the original writer who determines the meaning of the words written, not the reader. With that, let’s get started looking at the correct meaning and analysis of Luke 2:21.
Verse 21 of the second chapter of Luke actually starts back in Genesis 17:10 where God tells Abraham to circumcise all male children eight days or older, whether they were biological children, foreign born, or slaves. All males amongst the people of Israel were to be circumcised. In Luke 2:21 we see Jesus’ parents adhering to this command. The scripture says, “And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child.” This calls attention to Jesus’ Jewish heritage and initially sets the stage for Jesus’ blamelessness. Even at this tender early age Jesus was being molded as the unblemished lamb. Had he not been circumcised, Jesus certainly would have been in violation of the covenant made between Abraham and Yahweh in Gen. 17:10. This covenant was given by command from God and therefore, any defiance of that command would carry the title of transgression. Transgression is called also by the name sin. We see here that even as early as eight days after his birth Jesus was sinless. He was certainly sinless for the eight days before this but here we come across evidence that Jesus remained sinless, as he did for the remainder of his life.
After this we see that scripture says “his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” There is a lot going on in this verse so stay with me as we discover the only possible meaning of this verse.”
First we read “his name was called JESUS.” This is the name Iesous which is Greek for Jesus, Joshua (referencing the Old Testament Joshua whose name in Hebrew [Yehosua] translates into English exactly the same way as the Greek Iesous), all of which are literally translated to English as “Yahweh saves.” It is no accident that this name appears throughout scripture. It is specifically given to Jesus as a name by the angel Gabriel who spoke to Mary as referenced in Luke 1:31. In this verse, God sends Gabriel to tell Mary to name her baby Jesus, or “Yahweh saves.” The angel would also be the announcer of the baby. Not the deliverer, but merely the announcer. By Gabriel’s own words recorded in Luke, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” By the full force of God’s power, Mary now had a child in her womb, having never experienced sexual activity. So we see here that God gave Mary a baby and gave her the name. We know that the name came before Jesus was placed in her womb because Gabriel gave her the name first; only after she asked “how shall this be” did Gabriel tell her how it would happen. Never are we told exactly when Mary became pregnant. The story in Luke immediately goes to Mary visiting Elizabeth, at which point it seems to be assumed that Mary is already pregnant. Either way it was certainly after the proclamation of the boy’s name.
So here we see the plain truth of these verses. God, through Gabriel, gave Mary the name Jesus for her child, as well as impregnated her, in the same manner as Elizabeth and Zachariah were given the name of their baby, though Zachariah was the biological father in that situation. The past tense nature of the “before he was conceived in the womb” statement simply refers to the pronunciation of Jesus’ name when given to Mary by Gabriel.
You may be asking yourself “what does this have to do with Mormon doctrine?” Our verse is a verse cited by a Mormon friend of mine to support the existence of spirit children, existent with god before the creation of the world. I pray I am accurate to the Mormon doctrine here as I would hate to misrepresent all Mormons. In this doctrine we find that all of us, including Jesus, were existent before creation, with god, as his spirit children. This would, in a way, make Jesus the half-brother of Satan, according to Mormon doctrine. I say according to Mormon doctrine because it is nowhere present in the Bible. Luke 2:21 is cited as one proof text of this, though there are supposedly more. The question here has to do with what exactly “before” means. Since the Greek form of this word (pro) simply carries a relative sense of time, as in “before I got in my car”, we all can see how this could be confusing if we were the ones determining the meaning of the words written here. Also, since “before” is non-descript in and of itself, we need to look somewhere else for what the author really means. When we read “before”, we logically ask “when?” The answer to this question is rightly found in the text itself, which is not limited to this verse, but the entire text of Luke. Within the construct of that context, it is entirely inappropriate and illogical to deduce that the author is saying “before creation.” The creation of the world at no time enters into this text as we have read thus far, so why would a reader assume that is what is meant by “before”? More plausible a meaning for “before” here would be “when Gabriel told Mary.” Even the grammar of this verse refers to the past tense as that time when the angel gave the name Jesus to Mary for her baby in verse 1:31. Let’s look at the grammar:
“which was so named”; who was so named? Jesus. Who named him? “the angel” (though it should be said that the context of verse 1:31 implies that God named the baby and the angel only delivered that name). When did the angel name him? “before he was conceived in the womb.” The angel of verse 1:31 did not give the name before creation, but right then and there, face to face with Mary, at that point in time, after creation. Mormons would mistakenly point out that God may have given the name before creation as 1 Peter 1:19-20 seems to imply. However, the statement of 1 Peter is something entirely different than what we have been dealing with here and is not contextual to this matter and therefore confuses the issue. If you are Mormon I will not expect you to take my word for it. As I have done here, I will also do with Jeremiah 1:5, as well as 1 Peter 1:19-20. So, as it was put to me…“you don’t have to agree, but if you sincerely want to learn more just be patient.”
What I have presented here is not my own words but an analysis of the words already in scripture. The truth is plain. If you are open-minded, and not bound by your own human tradition, you will see that the Mormon tradition absolutely CAN NOT be accurate as the text clearly does not support such imaginative interpretation. The book of Mormon is also not synergistic with the Bible in this area and therefore stands at odds with the revealed word of God. It logically follows that the Mormon texts ARE NOT the word of God, for God does not contradict himself.
It is also worth noting that what I have presented cannot be taken as “an” interpretation, as if to imply there is another way to apply these verses. This train of thought is exactly what leads to misinterpretation and the distorting of the truth. There is only one meaning, unless the author intended his words to have more than one meaning.
I am praying for the Mormons reading this right now. It is a frightening thing to come into the presence of the God of scripture. It is all the more frightening to know you have stood in stark contrast to His word. The truth of scripture comes with force and cannot be ignored. Study well, and know God.