Do Mormons Believe in Salvation by Faith or by Works? Part 1

I’d like to start out by thanking you for sticking with me thus far throughout the series. I know any type of series’ can sometimes be a bit tedious but based on some of the feedback I’ve received I believe a lot of people are coming to a better understanding of what Mormonism teaches. I’d also like to give a special word of thanks to those of you who are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints who have stuck with me thus far. I know it is never a pleasant thing to see the beliefs you hold so dearly being placed under critical scrutiny. However, because the stakes are so high (eternity) and the need for truth is so great, I really feel it is important to place these beliefs under the microscope and see them objectively and clearly. So again I thank you for your open-mindedness to what I have to say, as well as your emails challenging me on certain topics.

Okay, so let’s take a quick look at where we’ve been. So far we’ve covered (albeit briefly): How Mormonism started, What basic beliefs Mormon’s hold, That their main prophet had numerous false prophecies and couldn’t live up to God's or his own standards, that their holy text contains numerous changes and has zero archeological evidence to support it. Now I’m going to change our course and take a look at doctrine. I want to focus on one doctrine in particular; the doctrine of salvation. That is, how does one get to heaven? Again, this topic is so vast that numerous volumes could be written about it so we are going to look at only the tip of the ice berg.

Before we can get into salvation issues, it is important that we take a quick look at the Mormon worldview. This will help make sense of why they see things as they do. If you remember from my earlier post, Mormons believe that humans pre-existed in spirit form. We were then sent down to earth and filled up human bodies so that we could work out our salvation to obtain our “Godhood” in the highest level of the Celestial Heaven. [SIDE NOTE: Mormon’s believe that there are three levels of heaven. The first level is the “telestial” level. This is where the wicked evil people go. The second level is called the “terrestrial” level. This is where luke-warm Mormons go, good non-Mormons (whatever that is) go, and where those who accept Mormonism after they die go. (That’s right, if you got it wrong while here on earth, you get a second chance to do things right when you die). The highest level of heaven is called the “Celestial.” The Celestial is made up of 3 degrees. The highest of these degrees is where you get to be your own God and therefore is the one we are all shooting for. Okay, now back to main point...] The God that we worship was once a man on another planet and he achieved this “Godhood” and now rules our planet with his spirit wife and spirit children. Two of those spirit children were Jesus and Satan. Mormons believe that:

A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." – Mormon Doctrine, Page 193; and Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, Page 8.

This “plan” that Jesus presented is what we currently use to obtain salvation in this world. Now this has very important implications that will help you understand their view of salvation. You must realize that to a Mormon, Jesus was a spirit child just like you and I were. Therefore his nature is not unique. Now his incarnation, or how he came to earth (the fact that God and Mary had sex) is unique, but his nature isn’t. Every “exalted person” will reach the same status that Jesus is at now. In fact, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt, in explaining Jesus’ humanity, went so far as to say “Jesus was a polygamist being married to several woman including Mary and Martha.” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, Nov 1853, Vol. 1, Number 11, p 172.). So you can see, Jesus doesn’t hold any special position to a Mormon in so far as his deity by nature is concerned. To them, he is just a good example to follow. In fact Mormon Doctrine specifically states:

"Christ is a saved being who came to earth to work out his own salvation. Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins." – Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, Page 247, 1856.

Notice the two words I put in bold; “his own.” That is, Christ didn’t come to earth to secure your salvation or my salvation (a truth which is fundamental to Christianity) rather he came to earth to work out his own salvation. Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie states “Christ’s death did not secure salvation, it only made it possible.” (Bruce McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 3, pg. 238)

So hopefully now you have a bit better understanding of where a Mormon is coming from. I am going to stop here because the second half of this post is a bit longer and more detailed so I'm going to split it into two parts. After I post the second half I'd encourage you to re-read this post first so the information will be fresh in your mind before you take on the rest of it. I should have the second half posted within a few days....

Is the Book of Mormon the Inspired Word of God? Part 3

In my first post regarding the Book of Mormon I looked at problems with the nature of the book. In the second post I looked at problems with the consistency of the text and some of the changes that have been made. In this post I want to look at what I feel are some ethical problems with the book.

The first problem I have is that the Book of Mormon has some parts that have clearly been plagiarized from the King James Version of the Bible. There are extensive quotes, including whole chapters from the book of Isaiah that are taken directly from the King James Version of the Bible. In fact, some Scholars believe there are approximately 27,000 words in the Book of Mormon that have been directly copied from the King James Bible. Plagiarism is nothing knew, just ask any college student. However here is my problem. If the Book of Mormon was written sometime between 600 BC and 421 AD as it claims, how can it have direct quotes from the King James Version of the Bible which was written over 1000 years later, on a different continent, from a different language? Golly that sure is one heck of a coincidence isn’t it? I can’t say for sure, but I would be willing to bet that any professor who had a student turn in a work with 27,000 words copied from another publication and yet still claimed them to be his own would probably get kicked out of school (or in this case start his own religion).

The second problem I have with the Book of Mormon is its obvious errors. Mormonism claims to accept the Bible as the word of God (as long as it is translated correctly [whatever that means]). The Bible clearly states in Matthew 2:1 and Micah 5:2 that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. However, the Book of Mormon states in Alma 7:10 that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Bethlehem and Jerusalem were two distinct cities over 6 miles apart. Both cannot be correct. It may seem like a minor point to you but for me to accept a book as the word of God, simple mistakes just should not be there. Furthermore, in the book of Jacob 7:27 it states, ”and to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu." Now, correct me if I’m wrong but the French language wasn’t really a language until about 800 AD. So what is a French word doing in a document supposedly written by a Hebrew in America around 600 BC? It just doesn’t fit.

The final problem that I have with the Book of Mormon is its completeness. If you remember the Book of Mormon is supposed to be the “most complete book on earth.” Now if it is so complete why doesn’t it address issues that are central to Mormon doctrine? I have compiled a list of 12 issues that are at the core of the Mormon belief system. Not one of these is explicitly or thoroughly addressed in the Book of Mormon. Those doctrines are: Church organization, Plurality of Gods, Plurality of wives, Word of Wisdom, God is an exalted man, Celestial marriage, Men may become Gods, Three degrees of glory (heaven), Baptism for the dead, Eternal progression, The Aaronic Priesthood, and The Melchizedek Priesthood. It seems that such a complete book that was designed by God as his correction for the lost church should address such issues.

As I finish my third and final post on the issue of the Book of Mormon I hope you have been learning some important truths about this book. To quickly recap we learned that the there were only a few witnesses to the existence of the original tablets, many of whom later changed their mind about whether or not they saw them. We learned that there is no historical archeological evidence for claims made by the Book of Mormon and leading scientific institutions clearly say so. We took a look at a few of the thousands of examples of the Book of Mormon being changed over the passage of time. We then saw that the Book of Mormon has been plagiarized, contains obvious errors, and doesn’t address many of the essential doctrines of Mormonism. All of this from a book that Joseph Smith claimed was the “most correct of any book on earth.”

I’d like to end this analysis on the Book of Mormon with some words the Apostle Paul left for the Galatians. In verse 8 he writes:

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”

Is the Book of Mormon the Inspired Word of God? Part 2

In my last post I looked at some of the errors with the nature of the Book of Mormon. In this post I want to look at some of the changes to the book. Several sources I researched all stated that there were almost 4,000 independent changes between the original 1830 and the current 1981 versions of the Book of Mormon. 4,000 changes!!! I find it ironic that the Book of Mormon set out to fix the corruption that took place over the previous 2,000 years and yet within its first 150 years has been corrupted in over 4,000 places. Now I’ll grant that some of these are minor spelling corrections but many more are not. In the interest of space I cannot list all of the changes. Therefore I will only list a couple of my favorites. Now I realize that it is very easy for me to make these claims unchallenged. Therefore, as always, in the interest of fairness, I encourage you to verify these claims yourself. I also realize that most of you don’t have access to either an 1830 or a 1981 version of the Book of Mormon. So, again in the interest of fairness, I will provide one. Click Here for a photocopied version of the 1830 Book of Mormon. (The photocopy helps ensure accuracy as opposed to someone simply typing it). Click Here for the 1981 version of the Book of Mormon.

First, on the title page of each book Joseph Smith is recognized as the playing a key role. However the 1830 version states “…by Joseph Smith Jr. Author and Proprietor” as compared to the 1981 version which states “translated by Joseph Smith Jr.” -- So which is it; did Joseph Smith write the book or did he simply translate it? It may appear like a minor issue of semantics but in reality it has major implications for the rest of the book.

Secondly, the 1830 version of the Book of Mosiah, p.200; states: "...on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God..." However the 1981 version states in Mosiah 21:28: "...on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Mosiah had a gift from God..." – So which was it? Was it King Benjamin or King Mosiah?

Thirdly, the 1830 version of the Book of Alma p.315; reads "But behold, as the seed swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That seed is good; for behold, it swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow." However, in the 1981 version, the leaders of the Church have taken the liberty to rewrite it to say the following “But behold, as the seed swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That seed is good; for behold, it swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow. And now behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say that I know that this is a good seed; for behold, it sprouteth and beginneth to grow." – They not only doubled the length of the verse but entirely changed its meaning.

Finally, in regards to skin color the 1830 version of the Book of 2 Nephi 30:6 uses the word “white.” This is important to know if one has ever desired to study how the Mormon Church has historically viewed blacks. (Click Here for more information). However the 1981 version uses the word “pure” instead of white. This is very convenient considering that it wasn’t until June of 1978, only 3 years earlier, that blacks were allowed by the church to hold a position of priesthood.

I could go on and on with countless other examples of changes in the Book of Mormon. (Well okay, technically not countless as there are only about 4,000 of them). Please notice that I did not show simple grammatical changes but changes that significantly alter the meaning of the text. I find it very interesting that when the 1830 version was translated from the tablets, it was done with seer stones, one character at a time. Seems reasonable that one character at a time should produce a pretty accurate translation shouldn’t it? If it wasn’t translator error than why would a sovereign God have dictated a text with so many errors? Why couldn’t he get it right the first time? These are questions that Mormons must be held accountable to answer. I don’t know about you, but personally I do not feel comfortable trusting my eternity to a book written by a god who can’t seem to make up his mind and therefore needs regular “updates” to his holy text. If you would like more information or would like to see lists with more changes you can Click Here, Click Here, Click Here, or Click Here.

Is the Book of Mormon the Inspired Word of God? Part 1

As you’ve come to know by now, I am a firm believer in going straight to a religion’s holy text as the best way to determine whether or not a religion is true. This series on Mormonism is no different. In fact, there is so much to say on this topic that I’ve divided it up into 3 posts. The first post will cover the history and nature of the Book of Mormon. The second post will look at some of the changes made to the Book of Mormon over the past 150 years. The third post will look at some of the ethical problems I have with the Book of Mormon. As always, I will do my best, when possible, to provide as much citation for you as possible.

According to Mormonism, the true church was lost from the earth and God saw a need for its restoration. (Ironically enough, the Bible claims the exact opposite in Matthew 16:18, Click Here). God recorded an account of His dealings with the original inhabitants of the American continent between the years 2247 BC and 421 AD. Mormons claim this account was originally engraved on gold plates by ancient prophets, written in “reformed Egyptian,” deposited in a stone box and buried in New York. Joseph Smith was led to these plates and translated them through a “seer stone.” Smith was so confident of his find that he said “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth” (History of the Church Vol. 4 page 461).

The first issue I want to look at is whether or not these gold plates actually existed. The only persons who claimed to have actually seen the gold plates were eleven close friends of Joseph Smith (many of them were related to each other). Their testimonies are printed in the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon. However, curiously enough, no neutral third party was ever allowed to examine them. On top of that most of these witnesses later abandoned Smith and left his movement. In response to their abandoning him, Smith called them “liars.” Now I don’t know about you, but I personally find these circumstances rather suspicious and would be curious to see how the case for divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon would stand up under modern day courtroom cross-examination of these witnesses. For more information about these gold plates and the witnesses that later changed their minds about actually seeing them you can Click Here or for a list of resources Click Here.

Perhaps even more interesting than the lack of evidence for the gold tablets is the lack of any archeological evidence supporting the claims of the Book of Mormon. Interestingly enough, the detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas. The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of the Old World culture. However, no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas from that period and many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas are never mentioned in the book. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the Book of Mormon presents the picture of a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas. However scientists tell us that the history of the Americas actually shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely East Asian - definitely not Semitic [which the Book of Mormon states], as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian.

Friends, this isn’t looking good for a God who is supposedly trying to restore his lost church. However the ever zealous leaders of the Mormon Church have also noticed this problem. Instead of recognizing the obvious lack of divinity for their book they have spent millions of dollars on archeological excavations with the hope that science will back up their claims. Well those digs have been conducted time and time again and the news is not what they were hoping for. The Bureau of American Ethnology, National Geographical Society and the Smithsonian Institute have all issued statements very clearly stating their views on the Book of Mormon. All three unequivocally believe the Book of Mormon has absolutely no basis as scientific fact. The Smithsonian Institute even went so far as to say

“…Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.”

Now remember, the Smithsonian is only interested in scientific fact. They have no bias one way or the other, religious document or not. If you would like to read the entire statement by the world- renowned Smithsonian Institution regarding the Book of Mormon, Click Here.

I could go on and on about the archeological problems of the Book of Mormon but space won’t allow for it. If you would like some more information or to do your own research about the archeological problems with the Book of Mormon, you can Click Here. If you would like to read a fascinating article regarding the problems with the metals mentioned in the Book of Mormon you can Click Here.

So let me give a quick recap of what we have seen so far. We have a book that was supposedly inspired by God, seen by only a handful of people and several of which later recanted and said they made the story up. On top of that, three of the world’s leading archeological organizations have stated that there is absolutely no scientific correlation between the Book of Mormon and any archeological evidence whatsoever? And we haven’t even gotten into what the text says yet!

Was Joseph Smith a False Prophet?

One of the unique characteristics that Christianity has to verify its truthfulness and legitimacy is prophecy. Prophecy is commonly defined as something along the lines of “The foretelling of the future through a direct revelation from God” and the one who does this foretelling is referred to as a Prophet. But how does one test the legitimacy of a messenger of God? Was Nostradamus a prophet? What about the fortune teller that lives down the street? How does one know? Well since it is very easy for someone to say “…thus says the Lord” and claim it is a word of prophecy, the Bible has in place some very strict criteria for determining a true prophet of God from a phony. Perhaps the clearest verses regarding the testing of a prophet can be found in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 which reads:

'But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken? When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.”

Did you see that part about “that prophet shall die”? Remember this was a culture that didn’t have 16 years of appeals in the court system. God instituted this harsh punishment in order to make people think twice before speaking on behalf of God. If the person didn’t have a 100% success rate, that person was killed immediately. The Mormon text “Doctrines and Covenants” also has a statement on prophecy. D&C 1:37 states “Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.” Notice that phrase “all be fulfilled.” That will be important in a minute.

Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of God and he made many prophecies as such. The problem is that most of them didn’t come true and due to specific dates or people involved, many of them will never be able to come true. Now remember, according to God (who is the one giving the prophecy to the prophet) all it takes is for 1 prophecy not to come true and that person is branded as a false prophet. I have found a list which compiles well over 50 prophecies made by Smith (with citation) that never came true. (For the complete list Click Here). I’ve listed four of my favorites below:

Dec 16, 1833. Doctrines & Covenants 101:17-20 Zion (Missouri) shall not be moved out of its place; the Saints will receive their inheritance there, and there is no other place than Missouri appointed by God for the gathering of the Saints.

FULFILLMENT: History shows us that not only were the Mormons removed from Missouri but today we can see them as having established their headquarters in Salt Lake City Utah. Why are they in Utah today if God appointed the state of Missouri for them?

Feb 14, 1835. History of the Church 2:182. Joseph Smith preached that the coming of the Lord would be in 56 years (i.e., about 1891). This prophecy also occurs in his diary for April 6, 1843 and HC 5:336. See also D&C 130:14-17. Joseph Smith prophesies that "there of those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes." He prophesies "in the name of the Lord God - let it be written: that the Son of Man will not come in the heavens till I am 85 years old, 48 years hence or about 1890." (The official historians have deleted the last phrase, beginning with "48 years" from the church history, but it is contained in the original diary.) The version in D&C 130 is phrased negatively, i.e., Christ will not come before 1890. It is also made conditional on Joseph Smith living to the age of 85. Joseph Smith says (v 16) that it might merely mean that if he lives to 85 he will go where Christ is, and therefore see his face. But that interpretation would not make sense if the revelation is in response to Joseph Smith's inquiry about the time of the second coming (v 14).

FULFILLMENT: The second coming did not occur about 1891, and the Church does not claim that it did. Nor has it occurred since. Joseph Smith did not live to be 85 years old. God must have known that he would not. Why would God make a revelation conditional upon an event which he knew would never happen?

April 23, 1834. Doctrines & Covenants 104: 78-83. God's promise to deliver the Saints from their debts. "It is my will that you shall pay all your debts." The Lord will soften the hearts of their creditors.

FULFILLMENT: Joseph Smith and other prominent Mormons had to flee Kirtland (Missouri) to avoid their creditors, leaving debts of thousands of dollars unpaid. Smith ultimately filed bankruptcy.

Feb 6, 1844. Joseph Smith prophesies that within five years the Mormons would be able to live without cooking their food. (Joseph Smith manuscript diary, omitted from the History of the Church. Cited in D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy, Salt Lake City, 1994, p. 642).

FULFILLMENT: The Mormons are still cooking their food.

Now we only looked at four of them, but I think you get the idea. According to the standard set forth in the Bible and in Doctrines and Covenants Joseph Smith does not meet the standards of a prophet of God.

Another issue that questions Smith’s credentials as a prophet of God is the famous Book of Abraham translation. It’s a long story but basically Smith translated some Egyptian hieroglyphic scrolls in 1835 (remember at this time scientists hadn’t yet cracked the code of hieroglyphics). He stated that these scrolls were the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph which later became Mormon Scripture and part of the Pearl of Great Price. The scrolls were then lost and found again in 1967. By this time Egyptologists could translate hieroglyphics. What they found was astonishing. These scrolls were “common Egyptian funeral scrolls, entirely pagan in nature, having nothing to do with Abraham, and from a period 2000 years later than Abraham. The "Grammar" has been said by Egyptologists to prove that Smith had no notion of the Egyptian language. It is pure fantasy: he made it up” (If you’d like more information Click Here). So as we have seen so far. Joseph Smith does not meet God’s or his own standards for a prophet and he lied about his abilities from God.

I could go on and on about other aspects of Joseph Smith’s character (i.e. he had been tried and convicted of fortune telling) but in the interest of time and space I cannot. I feel that I have presented a reasonable case (considering the limited space with which to work) against Joseph Smith. However, in the interest of fairness I shall let him speak for himself. In closing, I will leave you with a quote from Joseph Smith himself:

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I, The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me ye.

--History of the Church Vol. 6, pp.408-9

What Do Mormons Believe?

Again, as previously stated there is no way I can go into complete detail as to every single belief that Mormons hold. So before we go into specific doctrines (things like Heaven/Hell, Is God one person or three, Who was Jesus etc.) I want to present a quick overview of the Mormon’s worldview. Imagine a house being built. The last posting gave us the history of Joseph Smith which would be the equivalent of the concrete foundation. The worldview of a Mormon, this post, would be the framework of the house. Once these two areas are established, we can go into specific doctrines or “rooms within the house.” I feel that CARM’s Website presents a good brief, basic, and chronological summary of the worldview Mormons hold to. I have presented it here in its entirety (with accompanying footnotes). Please bear with me as I know these posts can be a bit tedious but they are essential to understanding the future posts in this series

Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of his god on his home world. He brought his wife to this world, a woman he had married on the other world. She is, essentially a goddess.

In his present god-state, he rules our world. He has a body of flesh and bones. Since god and his wife are both exalted persons, they each possess physical bodies. In their exalted states as deities, they produce spirit children that grow and mature in the spiritual realm. The first spirit born was Jesus. Afterwards Lucifer was born along with the rest of us. So, Mormonism teaches that we all pre-existed in the spirit realm having been produced from the union of god and his goddess wife. Therefore, we all existed in spirit form before coming down and entering the bodies of human babies that are being born on earth. During this ‘compression' into the infant state, the memories of their pre-existence is 'veiled.'

God the father, who is called Elohim, was concerned for the future salvation of the people on earth. In the heavenly realm, the Father had a plan for the salvation of the world. Jesus endorsed the Father's plan. Lucifer did not. Lucifer became jealous and rebelled. In his rebellion he convinced a large portion of the spirits existing in heaven to side with him and oppose god. God being more powerful then they, cursed these rebellious spirits to become demons. They can never be born in human bodies.

The remaining spirits sided with God. Since they chose the better way, when it comes time for them to live on earth, they have the privilege of being born in races and locations that are relative to their condition and choice made in the spirit realm.(1)

In the Mormon plan of salvation there needed to be a savior: Jesus. But Jesus was a spirit in heaven. For him to be born on earth, Brigham Young the second prophet of the Mormon Church said that instead of letting any other man do it, God the Father did it with Mary. He said that the birth of our savior was as natural as the birth of our parents. Essentially, what this means is that Brigham Young taught that god the father came down and had relations with Mary, his spirit daughter, to produce the body of Jesus. Though many Mormons will not entertain such incestuous thoughts about God and Mary, this is what Brigham Young taught and as far as we know, this has not been denied by the Mormon Church.

Nevertheless, Jesus was born, got married, and had children.(2) He died on the cross and paid for sins -- but not on the cross only. According to Mormonism, the atonement of Christ was not only on the cross. It began in the Garden of Gethsemane before he went to the cross.

In Mormonism, men and women have the potential of becoming gods. President Lorenzo Snow said, "As god once was, man is. As God is, man may become." In order to reach this exalted state of godhood, a person must first become a good Mormon, pay a full ten percent tithe to the Mormon Church, follow various laws and ordinances of the church, and be found worthy. At this point, they receive a temple recommend whereupon, the Mormon is allowed to enter their sacred temples in order to go through a set of secret rituals: baptism for the dead, celestial marriage, and various oaths of secrecy and commitment. Additionally, four secret handshakes are taught so the believing Mormon, upon entering the third level of Mormon heaven, can shake hands with god in a certain pattern. This celestial ritual is for the purpose of permitting entrance into the highest level of heaven.(3) For those who achieve this highest of heavens, exaltation to godhood awaits them. Then, he or she, will be permitted to have his or her own planet and be the god of his own world and the Mormon system will be expanded to other planets.

______________________
1. Page 616 of Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie
2. Jedediah M. Grant, second Counselor to Brigham Young said so in Journal of Discourses, vol.1, pp. 345-346. Apostle Orson Hyde stated it in, vol. 2: 210, 328; vol. 4:259-260; vol. 13:309; Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 825; The Seer, page 172, 158, -- Note: These references are not official Mormon scripture and there is disagreement in acceptance of this teaching among Mormons.
3. What's Going on in There? An Exposing of the Secret Mormon Temple Rituals, by Bob Witte & Gordon H. Fraser. Gordon Fraser, Publisher.

Introduction to the Series on Mormonism

I have been asked by a regular visitor to this site to do a series on the subject of Mormonism. I must admit that while I have extensively studied Mormonism (I’ve even been to the Temple Square in Salt Lake City) I am afraid that more harm than good may come from it. Mormonism has many different components to it and trying to cover them in just a few posts may cause more questions than answers. It would be similar to trying to explain the entire history of Europe in just a few hundred words. So with that in mind let me say right now that I cannot cover every single detail. Instead I will try to focus on some of the main issues such as “Is Mormonism Christianity?”, “Is Salvation by Faith or by Works?” and “Is the Book of Mormon Reliable?”

Mormonism is among the fastest growing religions in the worlds and boasts a membership of between 10 and 20 million people depending on who you ask. The Mormon Church is also among the wealthiest of the world’s religions. In order to get the most out of this series I feel it is important for you to have a basic understanding of the beginnings of Mormonism. I have read many different summaries of the beginnings but the one I feel is not only thorough but concise is found on CARM’s website. I have decided to print it in its entirety here because I feel it is that important for you to have a firm grasp of how Mormonism started:

Mormonism began with Joseph Smith Jr. who was born on Dec. 23, 1805, in Vermont. He was the fourth child of Lucy and Joseph Smith. Joseph senior was known as a money digger and sought after buried treasure, particularly that of Captain Kidd. His mother was highly superstitious.

Joseph Smith Jr. stated that he was disturbed by all the different denominations of Christianity and wondered which was true. In 1820, when he was 14, he went into the woods to pray concerning this and allegedly God the Father and Jesus appeared to him and told him not to join any of the denominational churches.

Three years later, on Sept. 21, 1823, when he was 17 years old, an angel called Moroni, who was supposed to be the son of Mormon, the leader of the people called the Nephites who had lived in the Americas, appeared to him and told him that he had been chosen to translate the book of Mormon which was compiled by Moroni's father around the 4th century. The book was written on golden plates hidden near where Joseph was then living in Palmyra, New York. Joseph Smith said that on Sept. 22, 1827 he received the plates and the angel Moroni instructed him to begin the translation process. The translation was finally published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon. Joseph claimed that during this translation process, John the Baptist appeared to him and ordained him to accomplish the divine work of restoring the true church by preaching the true gospel which, allegedly, had been lost from the earth.

The Book of Mormon is supposed to be the account of people who came from the Middle-East to the Americas. It covers the period of about 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. It tells of the Jaredites, people from the Tower of Babel who came to Central America but perished because of their own immorality. It also describes some Jews who fled persecution in Jerusalem and came to America led by a man called Nephi. The Jews divided into two groups known as the Nephites and Lamanites who fought each other. The Nephites were defeated in 428 A.D. The Lamanites continued and are known as the American Indians. The Book of Mormon is the account of the Nephite eader, Mormon, concerning their culture, civilization, and appearance of Jesus to the Americas.

After the publication of the Book of Mormon, Mormonism began to grow. Because their religion was so deviant from Christianity, i.e., plurality of gods, polygamy (Joseph is said to have had 27 wives), etc., persecution soon forced them to move from New York to Ohio, then to Missouri, and finally to Nauvoo, Illinois. After being accused of breaking some laws in Nauvoo (for destroying a printing press that was publishing harmful information on Mormonism), Joseph and his brother Hyrum ended up in jail. A mob later broke into the jail and killed Joseph and his brother.

After the shooting, the church divided into two groups: One led by his widow which went back to Independence Missouri. They are known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They claim to be the true Church and lay claim to the legal succession of the church presidency which was bestowed upon Joseph's son by Joseph Smith himself. The other group was led by Brigham Young and they went to Utah where, in 1847, they ended up in Salt Lake and founded Salt Lake City. Brigham had 25 wives and accumulated much wealth.

I realize I will probably step on many people’s toes throughout this series, especially those who are members of the Mormon Church. That is not my intention. My intention rather is to force you to take a good, objective look at the teachings of your faith. I will quote from different Mormon texts as well as great Mormon leaders. As always I would never want you to simply take my word for it but I encourage you to investigate it for yourself. As a Mormon you are very familiar with praying and asking God to show you whether or not something is true. I ask you to pray now and ask God to show you whether or not the Mormon religion is true. If it is true than you have nothing to worry about but a reaffirming of your faith. But if it isn’t true, well, eternity is a long time to be wrong.

What is a “Right”?

So I was thinking about a conversation I had with an atheist a little while ago and I wanted to share a small part of it with you. For our purposes here, we will refer to him as “Derek” although that is not his real name. Derek clearly does not believe in God. He adamantly believes that we all came from some giant primordial soup and evolved into what we are today. Can you think of a person that sounds like this? Anyway, we were discussing “rights,” specifically intrinsic human rights; rights that belong to every member of the human race on the sole basis that we are humans. Rights like the right to love someone, the right to be loved by someone, the right not to be killed or harmed by another. Things like that. About halfway through the conversation it dawned on me that because he doesn’t believe in God, rights become meaningless. Allow me to show you how I came to this conclusion.

As an Atheist, Derek views the world differently than I do. I view the world with the belief that humans are made in the image of God and struggling to avoid sin and temptation while growing in their relationship with God. Derek views the world in terms of protons, neutrons, atoms, chain reactions and so forth. In such cases, Derek must answer the question of why are human beings more significant than drops of water? To remain consistent with Derek’s view, the only thing he can answer is “they’re not.” Any answer other then this begins to ascribe value and worth to the human. Any value and worth must ultimately come from God.

I asked Derek a hypothetical question to prove my point. I said “Let’s say that you walk into your backyard and find your child is drowning. Now right next to your drowning child is a small mouse that accidentally fell into the pool while trying to get a drink of water and subsequently the mouse is also drowning. You only have time to save one of them. Which one do you save?” Derek responded with “My child of course.” I then asked him why and he told me “Because it is a human.” Do you see the problem with this? Derek has ascribed human value to the child on the sole basis of it being a human. To be consistent with Derek’s viewpoint he can only answer that neither the child nor the mouse is better than the other. If we are nothing more than protons and neutrons arranged together than you cannot say that the human is better than the mouse because it is not. The only way you can say one is better than the other is if God has ascribed that value. Now Derek could have said “Well as a human I have the ability to …” and he could fill in the blank with a multitude of things. But this is simply avoiding the issue. Simply having an ability doesn’t ascribe worth. If it did, then birds must be superior to humans because they can fly and therefore escape danger. Starfish must be superior to us because they can regenerate lost body parts. Earthworms must be superior to us because they can divide in half. Do you see where I’m going with this? A being that is nothing but protons, neutrons and atoms, such as a human, cannot ascribe value to any other substance that is also made out of protons, neutrons and atoms.

Seeing the problem with his logic, Derek became frustrated and changed the subject and we soon found ourselves discussing gay marriage. Now this post is not going to address the issue of homosexuality (perhaps another time) but remember we are asking ourselves “What is a Right?”

Derek told me that he believes homosexuals have a right to be married. I asked him what a right was. He said it was something all humans had. I then asked him where these rights came from and he didn’t have an answer (remember our pool scenario). I then told him that I defined a right as something imposed on a human being by God. I then tried to show him that if you don’t believe in a God, then rights are meaningless. By their own philosophy, those that hold to atheism cannot say that something is good. They cannot say that something is right or that something is wrong. If the world is nothing more than atoms and electrons then anything goes, anything is fair, whether we like it or not. In fact, if one subscribes to Darwin’s theory of “Survival of the Fittest” things begin to change dramatically. Not only do rights become meaningless, but respecting other peoples becomes contrary to my own good. In other words, if Darwin is right and I am here today as the result of the right combination of random chemical reactions, than your rights infringe my ability to pass on my genes. Your “right to live” is directly contrary to my desire to pass on my own genes because if I let you live then there is more competition for me. To be accurate, by Darwin’s theory, I should kill you to eliminate you as competition. Can you imagine a world like this? Any act of charity, or helping another person is directly contrary to Darwin’s theory. Therefore, as an atheist, any unselfish act that you do, is inconsistent with belief that there is no God for there is simply no reason to do them. If you are an atheist I would like to humbly challenge you to intellectually and honestly assess your worldview. You cannot follow your own pattern of living, following the law, and respecting people’s rights, and consistently deny that God exists.

In summary, perhaps Dostoevsky said it best when he said “If God is dead, then all things are lawful.”

Prayer Changes Things !!!

As you can probably guess, I am officially back. After many, many hours cramped on an airplane I have finally returned home. However, I am a changed person as the Lord continues to work in my life. As many of you know from my previous post, I left on a short-term mission trip to support the persecuted church. I was in an area that was so hostile to Jesus, that mentioning what I did here on this site, could potentially cause some to be imprisoned or executed. So with that in mind I won’t mention the details.

However, I asked for prayer support while I was gone. Friends, I am here to tell you that your prayers were answered. I may never get the opportunity to meet you this side of heaven, and I may not know the specifics or frequency in which you prayed, but I do know that you were praying for me. Never in my life have I felt such strong prayer coverage. While I was gone I saw many miracles happen. Now being more of the intellectual type, I’m not one to usually see a miracle “behind every tree.” However, I saw things over the past few weeks that could only have a supernatural cause; there is simply no human explanation for it. These miracles were a direct result of your prayers. I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart as well as on behalf of the persecuted church for your prayers.

While on my trip I worked with people representing 5 different continents. Talk about international coordination. I was able to attend church service at an underground church. I heard firsthand accounts of people being beaten, jailed, and executed for no other reason than their faith in Jesus Christ. Folks, these aren’t stories from hundreds of years ago. Many of the events in these stories have taken place since Christmas (less than a month ago). I learned first hand the reality of spiritual warfare. That is Angels and Demons are engaged in battle right now as you read this. And possibly most importantly, I learned to pray, without ceasing, like you know that it will be answered. God continued to answer prayers one right after another. Friends, if you’ve ever struggled with whether or not your prayers get answered (as I used to really struggle with this) may I offer you a suggestion? Start a prayer journal. A prayer journal can be anything from a piece of paper to a memo pad. Divide it up into three columns. The first column is for the “Date the Prayer was Entered.” The second column is “The Specific Prayer.” The third column is “Date the Prayer was Answered.” Now remember, prayer isn’t some magical wish list that we present to God. The prayers must be prayed in accordance to his will (as he always knows what is better for us than we do) and sometimes he answers them with a firm “No.” Friends, I guarantee you in a very short period of time you will see just how quickly God will answer your prayers. In fact, I believe you will find that he answers all of them (He will always answer with either “yes” “no” or “wait”). I don’t mean to get off on a tangent but prayer is so critical to a Christian’s life. If you are like me and used to think your prayer life is boring, repetitive, or predictable, I challenge you to change how you are praying. Start a prayer journal, mix up your prayers with a time of worship, and pray as if God will answer them because he does.

I wish I could go into more details about my trip but since this site can be viewed anywhere in the world I simply cannot. If you have specific questions please feel free to email me (my email address can be found on the “view my complete profile page”) and I will do my best to answer them.

I look forward to getting back to answering your questions and showing you that there are serious intelligent reasons for being a follower of Jesus Christ, probably within the next day or two. Thank you for sticking with me and this site in my absence and may God bless you.

Important Update

For those of you who regularly read this site I would like to first offer my sincere appreciation. Many of you have sent emails with questions to be answered, thoughts for site improvement, general encouragement and even a few who disagree with me. Without these emails I would have little reason to continue. However, it is time for a little break. Right now as you read this there are over 280 million people in this world who are being persecuted for their faith in Christ. Some face discrimination, others are beaten, tortured, imprisoned or even being killed for their faith. Think about that for a moment; 280 million people, that is about the population of the entire United States. For those of you reading this who are Christians, these people are no different than you or me in the sense that they love Jesus with all their heart, mind and soul. The only difference is that we were blessed to live in an environment of freedom and they weren’t. For the past several years I have felt the Lord calling me to a short-term mission trip to support the persecuted church. I will be gone on this trip through the end of the second week of January and therefore will not be able to make additional postings. Due to the sensitive nature of the trip as well as the severe repercussions that could come as a result, I cannot tell you where I am going or what I’ll be doing. Some have asked me about the potential dangers of this trip. Believe me I have prayed about it long and hard. One of the main verses I keep coming back to is Hebrews 13:3 which says “Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.” I’ve come to the conclusion that if the Apostle Paul, unarguably the greatest missionary of all time, had given up when he was repeatedly beaten, imprisoned, or stoned and left for dead, than odds are that you and I probably wouldn’t have a relationship with Christ today. I feel as though I NEED to go.

With that being said, I’d like to ask a favor. First, to those of you who are followers of Jesus Christ. One of the greatest blessings Christians have is the ability to pray for one another. I humbly ask for your prayers over the next few weeks. I ask for your prayers for health, wisdom, safety and protection while I am gone. I also ask that you pray for the members of the persecuted church. Pray that the Lord would encourage them and give them strength.

For those of you that are not followers of Jesus Christ I’d ask that you pause for a moment to reflect on your current situation. Many of you live in the United States where we have so many freedoms that many of us cannot imagine what it would be like not to have them. Why do you think that you were able to live under this freedom and are not one of the hundreds of thousands of starving children in Africa? Is it luck? Is it chance? Or could it be that you were given an incredible blessing by a Sovereign God who desires to have a personal relationship with you? I would argue it is the latter of the two. Acts 17:26 reads “From one man he made every nation of men that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the EXACT places where they should live.”

Again I’d like to thank you for reading my site. Please remember to come back in early to mid January when I will begin posting again. I have several topics already in mind ranging from the Christian perspective of civil disobedience all the way to a series on Mormonism.

If you’d like to learn more information about the persecuted church or what their specific prayer requests are, I would recommend these two organizations. For information from Open Doors CLICK HERE. For information from Voice of the Martyrs CLICK HERE (you don’t have to sign up to use the site but registration is free).

What About the Gospel of Thomas?

Ever since 1999 when the movie Stigmata came out, there has been much controversy over a book known as The Gospel of Thomas. In the movie the Catholic church was portrayed as trying to hide this book by labeling it a heresy because if people found out about its existence chaos would break out. In turn, many people I’ve met have automatically assumed this book is legitimate and accept it as such. So what’s the deal? Does the Gospel of Thomas belong in Bible? If no, than why not? Let’s take a look.

I find it ironic that most, if not all of the people I talk to that defend this book have never read it for themselves. I firmly believe that anyone who actually takes the time to read it will most assuredly come to the conclusion that it has absolutely no business being placed in the Bible. In the interest of fairness, I have provided a link for you to check it out for yourself. To read the actual Gospel of Thomas Click Here. The Gospel is only 114 verses long and can be read in about 10 minutes. I’ll go ahead and wait here until you’re done.

While some are reading the text for themselves, I’ll go ahead and give some background information for those who elected not to. The Gospel of Thomas doesn’t read like a real Biblical Gospel. That is, instead of reading in story-like fashion, it is a collection of Jesus’ alleged sayings. They are then presented independently much like the book of Proverbs. The book is very confusing. It has an eastern philosophical sound to it along with heavy Gnostic concepts. If you don’t know what a Gnostic concept is I’d encourage you to stop here and read my last post (What is Gnosticism? posted on December 16, 2004)

The Gospel of Thomas was found in 1945 at a dig known as Nag Hammadi. The text was found in a collection with other known Gnostic documents. The author of the book is unknown and no Scholar I know of thinks Thomas the disciple actually wrote it. It is important to note that because the book doesn’t list any historical events (such as in a narrative) we cannot independently verify its validity. That is, we cannot prove that the sayings are legitimately from Jesus.

Although we only have fragments of the Gospel of Thomas dating to 200 AD, most Scholars think the book was written between 100 and 150 AD. Seems like quite the coincidence that this time frame occurred during the high point of Gnosticism. The document found at Nag Hammadi is the ONLY complete document we have of the book and it was written in Coptic. This is significant for two reasons. First, the original was most likely written in Greek and secondly, the Nag Hammadi document dates to about 350 AD. So, quickly recapping, we have only one complete document, written 200 hundred years after the original was written, in a language other than the original language, and we have no way to independently verify the historical accuracy of Jesus’ sayings. So far this isn’t looking good for those who advocate the legitimacy of the book but let’s continue on to look at what the text actually says.

True to Gnostic belief in “special knowledge”, the Gospel of Thomas takes several stories found in the Bible and twists them to either add or change components within. For example, in Matthew 22:21 Jesus says “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” However, according to the Gospel of Thomas in verse 100 it reads “They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, "The Roman emperor's people demand taxes from us." He said to them, "Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine.” See how the author of the book completely misses the point Jesus is trying to make, and adds “special knowledge” to extend Jesus’ statement.

The author of the Gospel of Thomas apparently has quite a bit of this special knowledge. In 1st Corinthians 2:9 the Apostle Paul writes “but just as it is written, "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the heart of man, All that God has prepared for those who love Him." Now compare this with the Gospel of Thomas verse 17 “Jesus said, "I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart." These two passages seem much too similar to be a mere coincidence. So who actually said it? The Apostle Paul, from which we have much evidence, or Jesus as quoted from the Gospel of Thomas from which we have virtually no evidence?

The following is a compilation of just a few of my favorite quotes from the Gospel of Thomas. I have cited their verse references for you to check it out for yourself. Some of these are amusing and others are just downright confusing. Regardless of which, it is important to remember that Jesus always taught in parables, and never in soundbites.

7 Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits…

105 Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore."

112 Jesus said, "Damn the flesh that depends on the soul. Damn the soul that depends on the flesh."

86 Jesus said, "[Foxes have] their dens and birds have their nests, but human beings have no place to lay down and rest."

And my personal favorite…….

114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

As we have seen the Gospel of Thomas is a very different book from any book found in the Bible. As addressed in previous posts the books of the Bible were very carefully put together after passing stringent criteria. The Gospel of Thomas meets none of those criteria. In an effort to grab power, Gnostics put their own spin on Jesus words and recorded them in this text. As stated before, we have only one complete document dating from 200 years after the original was written and it is in a foreign language. As if that weren’t bad enough, we have no way to verify its claims. In conclusion I hope you can clearly see that one can argue that either the New Testament or the Gospel of Thomas or neither of the two accurately depicts the person of Jesus, but one cannot argue that both the New Testament AND the Gospel of Thomas together accurately portray him

What is Gnosticism?

Gnosticism is a heretical (a teaching contrary to Biblical doctrine) belief system that has been around for quite some time and is still causing problems today. We are surrounded by Gnostic teachings and beliefs on a regular basis (i.e. The Gospel of Thomas) so I think it is important to take a quick look at what Gnosticism is and where you will see it today.

Gnosticism, which comes from the Greek word gnosis, (which means “knowledge,”) became very popular during the second century AD. Gnosticism wasn’t always known by this name. It was originally known as the “Colossian Heresy.” In fact, the Apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians with the sole intent to combat the influence Gnosticism was having on Christians.

At first glance, one could say that Gnosticism appears to be where oriental mysticism meets Greek philosophy. However a more in depth look reveals that instead of being a set of beliefs, Gnosticism tends to be more of a framework for how one view’s the world. Gnosticism in its most basic form attempts to answer two basic questions: “How can evil be explained for God is supreme?” and “What is the relationship between God and matter?” Gnostics believe that they have a special secret knowledge that is hidden from most believers. They believe that the spirit is good, but all flesh, as well as the entire physical world, is evil. They believe that a mutual dualism exists between God and evil. Gnostics are dualists. A dualist is someone who believes that both God and the material world exist, but yet God doesn’t ever intervene or interact with the natural world.

In regards to Jesus Christ, Gnostics deny Christ as both God and Savior. Naturally this indicates that they deny the atonement. They believe Christ only appeared to be a human but yet he wasn’t. This view has some serious ramifications. First and foremost, if they don’t believe in Christ as their savior, how can they get to heaven? Gnostics believe that knowledge of one’s true self and of the character of the universe is the way to salvation. They believe that salvation is achieved when at death the person passes through barriers and is reintegrated with God. Being reintegrated with God tends to have a pantheistic flavor to it. (Pantheism is a belief that God is everything). This utter rejection of Christ will lead to eternal separation from God. (See John 14:6)

Gnosticism is still common today. It is big with new agers as well as those in mind science cults, such as Christian Science. (For example, Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, writes “Jesus is the human man and Christ is the divine idea. Jesus is not the Christ but the highest human corporeal concept.”) Can you see the elements of Gnosticism we discussed above as being present in Mary Baker Eddy’s statement?

Some people have even formed a Gnostic Church. I don’t know much about this church other than on one hand they use church saints, the church calendar, and the Bible, yet on the other hand they use Gnostic Scriptures (i.e. the Gospel of Thomas), Catechisms, and readings. You can check out the Gnostic Church’s website at http://gnosis.org/.

In my next posting, I will be dealing with perhaps the most popular Gnostic doctrine out right now, The Gospel of Thomas.

A Response to Jon Meacham's Newsweek Article (Part 2 of 2)

Okay, let's have a quick recap then get right into it. So far we've determined that Jon Meacham's article lacks any objectivity and makes several assertions without offering any support for them. The next issue I would like to address is Meacham’s selection of expert Scholars. Meacham knew that he would have to use experts to verify his point. However, instead of selecting from a wide range of Scholars, he conveniently stacks the deck with the most liberal Scholars around. Let’s take a closer look at his selections.

Meacham first quotes Robert Miller, a member of the Jesus Seminar and a professor of religion at Juniata College located in whoknowswhere. Meacham states “The Jesus Seminar, a group of Scholars devoted to recovering the Jesus of history, is a battalion in this long-running culture war.” Now if you know anything about the Jesus Seminar, this quote alone would prove how inaccurate the report is. These self-appointed scholars are virtually a laughing stock among Scholars of textual criticism. I’ll save an analysis of them for another time but basically they went through everything Jesus said in the Bible and voted as to whether or not they thought he really did say it by throwing colored beads onto a table. Pretty advanced stuff eh? These guys are an embarrassment to a truly intellectual investigation of historical Christianity.

Meacham then quotes Raymond E. Brown. Now opinions of Brown vary depending on whom you ask. But basically he is a deceased Catholic Priest who caused quite a ruckus when he openly began advocating that “Scripture very well may contain errors in areas not essential to salvation.” Of course there are some logical problems with this which he couldn’t answer such as: “How can it have errors in non-essential areas but not essential ones?” and “How would you be able to tell?” Without meaning to disrespect Brown, it is fair to say that he is looking at the issue through biased lenses.

Meacham then quotes Elaine Pagels. Pagels has written several books promoting texts that have long been deemed heretical by mainstream Christianity (i.e. The Gospel of Thomas). Pagels herself stated “I’m advocating, on some level, the inclusion of [religious texts] that were considered blasphemous. I suggest that there are ways of embracing a far wider spectrum of religious diversity within Christianity and quite beyond Christianity.” Inclusion of texts that are considered blasphemous? Oh here is a Scholar who I'm sure would be able to offer us a neutral opinion. Unbelieveable.

The final Scholar that Meacham quotes is the Reverend H.B. London. London is a Vice President at Focus on the Family. London is the lone conservative among these liberal wolves. Instead of allowing him to provide an opposing view, Meacham decides to twist London’s words around to make conservative Christians look foolish. He quotes London as saying “…our faith is somewhat childlike.” Now I wasn’t there for the interview, but I have a feeling London was alluding to the fact that just as a child genuinely trusts and loves their parents, so too must we trust and love God’s word. However, that is not how the quote comes across in Meacham’s passage. Instead we are made too look like foolish children believing in something as obviously false as Santa Clause.

I hope you can see that of the four Scholars interviewed, two of them are to the very far left of the spectrum, one of them is just to the left of the middle, and the lone right-wing is made to look like a fool. Folks, as I’ve mentioned in previous posts, anyone can make the Bible say anything they want if they take it out of context. This is exactly what Meacham has done here; he has intentionally selected Scholars that will agree with his views without adequately representing any opposing viewpoints.

The last part of the article I want to address is an issue that has been circulating for quite some time. Hopefully this is the last time it will need to be addressed. This issue is in regards to Isaiah 7:14. This verse states “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.” The issue is whether or not the prophet Isaiah is actually stating that the Messiah will be born of a virgin. As is his style, Meacham decides to quote Ray Brown as truth and offers no opposing viewpoint. Brown is part of a very small group of people that argue the word “virgin” is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew. He believes the word is better translated as “young girl” which would effectively make the prophecy meaningless.

Okay, time for a quick Hebrew lesson. The Hebrew word used for virgin is “almah” The word almah is translated in the Septuagint (the Greek version of what we know as the Old Testament. This document was very popular and well known in Jesus’ day) as “virgin.” Wouldn’t it seem logical that if the word was translated wrong, someone, maybe even Jesus or Mary, would see to it that it was corrected? Also considering how old the document is, isn’t it reasonable to assume they translated it correctly? Secondly, many other places in Scripture that use the word almah clearly imply the woman is a virgin. The word never once refers to a married woman, a child, or a mature woman. It is absolutely reasonable to translate this word as “virgin.” Lastly, if the virgin birth wasn’t true, wouldn’t it seem logical that Jesus’ half brothers, James and Jude, would have either used their position of influence to correct the error, or refuted it in the books of the Bible they wrote? After all, they were with him long before his public ministry began; they would know better than anyone. Yet, oddly enough, they did nothing of the sort. As I’ve previously stated, this controversy has been around for a while but there is absolutely no truth to the claim.

I’d like to thank you for staying with me through this response to Meacham's article. I know it has been lengthy but I hope you learned a thing or two. This article is just one more example of someone who absolutely refuses believe the Bible and will develop any kind of argument to oppose it regardless of its accuracy. Just because we don’t know how something could have happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. A miracle, by its definition, is rare and without explanation. Doesn’t it seem logical that not being able to explain the virgin birth is consistent with this? 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” Notice that it doesn’t refer to just the parts we understand. I’ve looked at the evidence from both sides. I believe that if God could create the universe, a virgin birth shouldn’t be too tough. After thoroughly comparing this article to the Biblical account, I think it takes more faith to believe the article than in the real story.

If you’d like more information as to the historical evidence of the Bible, life of Jesus or His resurrection, I suggest you buy “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. This is an excellent entry level book written in a clear, understandable way.

A Response to Jon Meacham's Newsweek Article (Part 1 of 2)

It doesn’t happen very often so when it does take note. I am officially speechless. I just finished reading Jon Meacham’s cover story for the December 13th issue of Newsweek magazine entitled Religion: The Birth of Jesus. Now I’m no stranger to the arguments proposed by the secular media in their attempts to discount those that believe in the story of Jesus’ birth as essentially nothing more than a bunch of un-educated backwards fools. However, in an apparently desperate attempt to sell magazines, Newsweek has hit an all time low. It appears as if the General Editor of the magazine is gone for the holidays because even a 5th grader should be able to see some of the gross problems and biased views portrayed. I present the link to the article here for two reasons. First, for those in other countries who may not be familiar with or have access to Newsweek and, second, in the interest of fairness, I will do what Meacham didn’t do; that is provide access to BOTH sides of the story. If you’d like to check out the article you can Click HERE. Beware for it is long (about 7 pages), poorly written, inaccurate, biased and overall just plain garbage.

Due to the length of this article, there is no way I could comment on every inaccurate argument Meacham makes (there are just way to many of them). I will however do my best to focus on the 4 MAJOR issues as I see them. Having studied the science of textual criticism (of which Meacham is doing in this article) at the Master’s level, I feel at least somewhat qualified to critique it. Due to length I will address the first two issues in this post, and the remaining two in my follow-up post. These posts will be lengthy but I think the material is important and hope you’ll stick with me all the way through.

I’d like to start my critique of this article by focusing on the lack of objective guidelines utilized by Meacham. Last I heard, journalism was supposed to be a reporting of the facts in a neutral fashion. Meacham has tossed those rules aside. Starting with the premise that the Biblical story is too preposterous to believe, he goes out of his way to attempt to disprove it. In other words, he writes his article under the pretext that it never happened. Where is the neutrality in that? If you want to present both sides of the story than by all means go for it. But to only present one side and present it as truth is intellectually dishonest and unprofessional. What’s even more interesting is that he starts off his article as if the topic is as hotly contested as the Bush/Kerry campaigns. Yet just a few paragraphs into it he writes that Newsweek’s own poll “… found 79% of Americans believe in the virgin birth and 67% believe the entire Christmas story is accurate.” 79% huh? Sure sounds like a hotly contested topic to me.

I found it interesting that Meacham never directly cites a verse reference. Whenever he quotes a passage from the Bible, he never says where that verse can be found. Instead, he speaks in generalities such as “…according to the book of Matthew it says…” I want to know WHERE it says this. This way I can actually check it out for myself and make sure your statement and interpretation are correct. Scholars adhere to this form of citation (ever written a research paper and had to cite your sources?) Why couldn’t Meacham? Perhaps it is because he knowingly takes several verses completely out of context? Regardless of his reason, it is poor form and unacceptable from a professional journalist.

My first problem is that Meacham makes absolutely no attempts to hide his bias towards the subject. Here is a very small sample of a few of his comments:

“modern grounded people make leaps of faith…” [to accept the original story]

“…they [the Gospel stories] are not necessarily to be taken as accurate in the sense we might take an Associated Press wire report…” Oh yeah, because those can never be wrong. Remember the whole Dan Rather scandal?

“There is, of course, no way to know whether Luke’s story of the heavenly host announcing Jesus’ arrival to the shepherds really happened; one has to believe in angels, and explain away the fact that the Gospels fail to note any communal or individual recollection of this spectacular birth…”

This last one is my favorite becasuse he completely discounts Luke 1:3-4 where Luke, the author, states “it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” Now remember, Luke wasn’t just some nomad wondering around. He was a physician and a historian. He was highly educated. Meacham essentially is saying “even though the person who recorded the story was pretty smart and carefully investigated each and every claim, because I don’t want to believe it, I will simply discredit him and say there was no way to know.” If we follow Meacham’s logic, then I guess every historical event prior to the invention of television must not have really happened since we probably can’t trust the person who recorded it for us. We should also release every prisoner ever convicted from a report filed by a police officer. Everyday the police interview eyewitnesses to crimes and then record the events in a report. According to Meacham's logic, there really is no way we can know if these events recorded by officers really happened or not. Can you see the absurdity in Meacham’s reasoning?

My second issue is that Meacham makes several assertions in his article. This is fine except for one small problem, he conveniently forgets to offer even a smidgen of proof for his claim. For example:

“If we dissect the stories with care we can see that the Nativity saga is neither fully fanciful nor fully factual but a layered narrative of early tradition and enduring theology…” – He not only doesn’t explain what he means by his terms used (i.e. what part isn’t factual, what parts are tradition, etc.) but, he just leaves it as is and moves on to the next topic.

“they [the Gospel writers] wanted to tell the story of Jesus’ birth but apparently had very little to work with” – What is this claim based on? Personal experience? He wasn’t there. 2 Peter 1:16 states “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” Apparently Peter, who was indeed an eyewitness to Christ’s ministry and most assuredly had ample opportunity to talk with Mary about the details surrounding Christ’s birth, feels confident enough in explaining the truth in the story.

In regards to the Magi searching out Jesus, he argues “there is no historical evidence of such a visit”. What is it he’s looking for exactly? They didn’t have blog journals back then. Those in Jerusalem couldn’t just turn on their satellite dish powered plasma TV’s and watch CNN’s report. Using his logic, since there is technically no historical evidence I went into the backyard and played with my dog today, I guess it didn’t happen.

And finally, perhaps my favorite quote: “neither Mary nor Joseph appears to have been a direct source” How in the world could you he possibly know this. If you had to choose between dozens of eyewitnesses to an event, and one person living 2000 years after the fact, who do you think would know better? During Jesus’ execution he entrusted John with caring for Mary. It seems reasonable that at the very least, Mary could easily have refuted the virgin birth story and cleared the whole issue up if it was false.

To Be Continued...........

Wasn’t Christmas Originally Celebrated as a Pagan Holiday?

I thought that in the spirit of the season I would address a question that seems to come up every year. That is, did Christmas originate as a Pagan holiday? The surprising answer is that although it coincided with pagan festivals that were occurring at around the same time, Christmas itself did not originate from a pagan holiday. (In fact, the word “Christmas” comes from two other words meaning “Christ” and “Maesse” or “mass” which means “The Mass of the Christ.” It is so named because it is in reference to when the Catholic priest re-offers the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross). In order to more fully understand this, we must take a quick look at history.

There are stories of many cultures with celebrations ushering in the winter season. In the Roman Empire, Saturn (the god of sowing) was worshipped in a celebration called “Saturnalia.” This celebration marked the winter solstice and its date varied every year (but it usually occurred between December 17th and 23rd). Now the exact reasoning varies depending on what research you’ve done. Some sources say the church wanted to get rid of the Pagan worship but was having difficulty. Other sources say the Christians wanted to move their celebration of the Lord’s birth (which was already being celebrated in the springtime) to this time to provide a contrast for the Pagan worship. That is it would provide an alternative for Pagan worship as well as help protect Christians that were being wooed into these celebrations. (Similar to what many missionaries do today). Either way, what is agreed upon is that the Roman church wanted to adopt the holiday, they turned it into a celebration of the Lord’s birth, originally called it the “Feast of the Nativity” and it has been a part of western culture ever since.

Many people claim that the celebration is misleading because nobody knows the exact day Jesus was born. I don’t know about it being misleading, but they are absolutely correct about Jesus’ actual birthday. While some Scholars estimate it could have been in April or October or September, no one knows for sure. And that is okay. It’s no different than throwing a belated birthday party for someone whom was out of town. It’s the meaning of the celebration that provides its value, not its accuracy on a calendar. (Considering that our calendar is off by 4 years anyway [i.e. Jesus was actually born in 4 BC] it shouldn’t really matter).

In regards to whether or not Christians should celebrate Christmas I really don’t want to go into because I don’t see it as being an issue important enough to possibly upset someone. Different people have different opinions on the issue and that’s fine. I will say this though; it is the worshipping of Jesus that makes the day holy and not the potential pagan origins that makes the day evil. I see nothing wrong with re-inventing cultural practices with a spiritual meaning; after all God did it. I bet you didn’t know that long before God instituted circumcision as a ritual among the Jews it was being practiced by the Egyptians. To the Egyptians it was a cultural practice. When God gave it to the Jews he gave it to them with spiritual implications. In addition to that, God gave the Jews many different festivals and celebrations throughout the year as opportunities to worship and remember what God did for them.

Whether or not a Christian should celebrate Christmas is a personal choice. For reasons mentioned above, I personally have no problems celebrating Christmas as I focus on the birth of my Savior and not anything else anyone associates with it. If you don’t believe in celebrating Christmas that is definitely your choice, however I have found a well written article that may impact your decision. Click HERE to read it.

A Profound Insight

Once again I know this isn’t my usual type of posting, but this topic has really been on my heart lately and I wanted to share it with you.

A while back Billy Graham's daughter, Anne Graham, was interviewed on The Early Show. Jane Clayson asked her "...If God is good, how could God let this happen?" This question was in reference to the attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Anne gave quite an insightful response. She said:

"I say God is also angry when he sees something like this. I would say also for several years now Americans in a sense have shaken their fist at God and said, God, we want you out of our schools, our government, our business, we want you out of our marketplace. And God, who is a gentleman, has just quietly backed out of our national and political life, our public life. Removing his hand of blessing and protection. We need to turn to God first of all and say, God, we're sorry we have treated you this way and we invite you now to come into our national life. We put our trust in you. We have our trust in God on our coins, we need to practice it."

I think Anne provides a good insight as to why we as a nation have arrived where we are at. We seem to have come to a place where we don't want God involved in anything we do except in times of crisis. During those times we tend to either turn back toward God, or curse Him for allowing the tragedy to happen. It seems like a double standard to me.

I remember a few weeks after the Columbine High School shootings of 1999 there was a letter written to the editor of the local paper. I was so struck by its simple truth that I cut it out and kept it. This is what it said:

Dear God,
Why didn’t you protect the little children at Columbine High School?
Sincerely,
Concerned Student

God’s Reply:
Dear Concerned Student,
I’m sorry but I am no longer allowed in schools.
Sincerely,
God

For some reason, people seem to think that because God didn’t intervene than he either doesn’t exist, he wasn’t able to intervene, or he doesn’t love us enough to intervene. All three of these statements have responses that are worthy of their own post, and perhaps someday I will address them individually when time allows (or someone requests it). However, they are false conclusions nonetheless. God loves you so much that he sent his child to die for you. It’s easy to tell your friend or your spouse that you’d die for them, but how about sacrificing your child for the benefit of someone you never even met? What about sacrificing your child for someone that hated you? Could you do that? My guess is that although we’d like to nobly answer that we would, in reality we never could. But God did. He not only talked the talk, he walked the walk by being nailed to a cross. Just because we don’t understand why he choose to act a certain way, doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist or wasn’t able to act. To come to that conclusion asserts that we have access to the same decision making criteria that God did. We knew all the factors and how each intricate part would play out. In other words, coming to that conclusion asserts that we are equal with God. The events of 9/11 and Columbine were horrible and hate filled. However, the ultimate act of love was previously demonstrated 2000 years ago. Everything else is just an undeserved blessing from God.

A Recent Discovery

I know this is a bit different from my normal types of posting but I just had to share this information with you. When Christians are asked to “prove” that the Bible was written when it claim's it was or to verify that it hasn’t been changed through the years, one usually refers to the Dead Sea Scrolls; up until recently that is. The Dead Sea Scrolls were single largest piece of evidence we had that proved the Bible had not only been written when it said it was, but that it had not been changed over the centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls are recognized to be from 125 B.C. Well move over Dead Sea Scrolls because you’ve got a new big brother.

In 1979 Dr. Gabriel Barkay discovered two small silver scrolls inside a burial cave in the Old City of Jerusalem. Dr. Barkay documented the evidence but the technology was not available to make it clearly understood what it was he had found. Over the past 25 years, technology has vastly improved. These two small silver scrolls have now been tested by numerous independent, non-biased sources (such as NASA’s JPL and University of Southern California) and found to contain the writing of the book of Numbers 6:24-26 (these verses contain a blessing administered by Priests). In addition, these scrolls are found to date to 2600 years ago which makes them 400 years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls. This discovery helps substantiate the fact that the Pentateuch (which is a Hebrew word that refers to the first five books of the Bible [Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy]) existed before King Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Temple. (Even though the finding is from the book of Numbers only, most Scholars accept the Pentateuch as an entire collection). Although I won’t go into detail here, this has important implications for supporting Biblical accuracy when it comes to creating a historical timeline.

Once again, the Bible can be found to be accurate. Findings such as these validate the claim that the Bible has NOT been changed through the centuries as many will claim. Christians can rest assured that if we can trust the Bible with the small details (such as the wording of a prayer) we can know for certain that when it speaks of monumental events, such as the fact Jesus was God and that he was raised from the dead, it speaks with precision accuracy.

On a side note, I do find it interesting that these findings (which were published in Sept. 2004) haven’t received much attention in the news. Perhaps it was due to non-stop coverage of the election. Regardless of which I have included two resources here for you to get more information on this discovery. Please note that these are not obscure Christian journals but are the liberal CNN and NY Times. Click HERE for the shorter CNN article and Click HERE for the much more detailed NY Times article.

Just A Reminder

I thought it would be a good idea to republish my "Introduction" posting every so often so that new visitors would be able to understand this site a bit better.....

I'd like to both welcome you and thank you for visiting my site. I am rather new to blogging so please bear with me as we work through the bugs together.

I decided to create this site because I've realized that many people are in the same situation I used to be, in regards to having a relationship with God. This site is dedicated to people that want to believe, but have something stopping them. It is for those that have questions and don't know where to find the answers. For individuals who want to talk with someone who will make efforts to seriously answer their questions as opposed to giving some superficial flippant remark about "you just gotta have faith." If this sounds familiar than this site is for you. I will do my best to answer these questions in a way that makes sense and isn't overly complicated. I realize some of these topics are huge and just can't be answered in a few paragraphs. I will do my best to provide as thorough of an answer as possible in a brief amount of space. If you feel you need further information, let me know and I will either expand upon, make a "part 2" entry, or recommend another source that does a better job explaining the answer.

As I stated before, this site is for those who are seriously seeking a relationship with God, but have questions. This site is NOT for those who simply want to debate, argue or insult for the fun of it. Therefore until I come up with a better method, I am going to limit comments on blogs posted, and ask that you email me your questions to be answered and your ideas for site improvement. My email address can be found by viewing my "Complete Profile."

How do we Know Jesus Wasn’t Just A “Nut Ball” Walking Around Claiming to be God’s Son?

I believe one should definitely investigate the claims made by anyone who wants people to give their lives over to him. This question has made many rounds through the ranks of professional psychologists many times. One of the many things they have consistently noted is that Jesus simply doesn’t fit the profile of someone who is mentally disturbed. Think about what symptoms you may know a mentally disturbed person to have and then compare them to who Jesus was. Contrary to mentally disturbed person, Jesus never displayed inappropriate emotions. Jesus was able to hold a rational conversation and he didn’t jump to faulty conclusions. He didn’t dress odd or have a weird diet. He had no difficulty in relating to others. In fact he was able to relate to all different kinds of people from all walks of life. When you compare who Jesus was to someone you know to be mentally disturbed, you’ll see that behaviorally, the two have nothing in common.

A second test you could use to see whether or not Jesus was insane or not, would be to investigate his actual claims. For example, let’s say I told you I was the President of the United States. Now if I was insane, I would surely believe that I was the President. However, you probably wouldn’t take my word at face value. You’d probably look to see if I lived in the White House. You’d ask where my Secret Service agents were, and probably watch the news to see if that was me giving speeches. It probably wouldn’t take you very long to realize I wasn’t the President. It is no different with Jesus. If Jesus simply claimed to be God, as some cult leaders do today, that wouldn’t mean very much. However, Jesus backed up his claims. He performed miracles never before and never since seen. He commanded the forces of nature and He even raised himself from the dead! If this wasn’t enough you could evaluate the things that he taught. People from all religions and all cultures agree that Jesus was one of, if not the single greatest moral teacher to have ever walked the face of the earth. Does it make sense that the greatest moral teacher of all time would be insane? I would argue no

Who Made God?

This is a very good question. It is also a very philosophical one and therefore has a philosophical answer. You may need to re-read this two or three times before it makes sense but I will do my best to make it understandable. The very definition of who God is, is explained as “the uncreated creator of the universe.” Therefore God, by definition, is uncreated. The question of who made Him becomes illogical. It’s kind of like asking “Who is that bachelor married to?” The very thing you are describing is impossible. Another way to look at it is like this: God invented time and an inventor cannot be held captive to his invention. Our concept of time moving forward (the future) and moving backward (the past) is the frame of reference we use to mark certain events. Yet God invented this frame of reference. Because God invented it he can’t be forced to be in it. If God isn’t forced to be in time, than he doesn’t need to have a beginning point because a beginning point would be bound in time. Are you confused yet? If so, try re-reading it slowly.

I Heard The Bible Was Not Even Invented Until 400 Years After Jesus Lived?

Usually when I hear this statement, a few clarifying questions show that the person making the claim is just passing on information they’ve heard and have never really investigated it for themselves. Fortunately, I have studied and researched it and I’ll go ahead and set the record straight.

Let’s start with the Old Testament (OT). The most common argument I’ve heard is that books were added to the Old Testament until 100AD with some books being debated until 200 AD. I'm sorry but this just isn't true. The Talmud (teachings) was being compiled during this time, but those are different than the original Hebrew texts. Although Scholars disagree on an exact date, we can say for certain that the Hebrew Bible was completed by around 250 B.C.. This was the time the Septuagint was created FROM the Hebrew Bible TO a Greek translation. (The Septuagint is the Hebrew Bible [Old Testament] written in Greek for Jews living outside of Israel that didn’t speak Hebrew anymore). By necessity a Hebrew Bible had to be present to have a translation made. The Septuagint was very familiar by people of Jesus' day and quoted by many New Testament (NT) authors.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided an amazing insight into the age of the OT manuscripts. Vast manuscripts were found including every single book of the Old Testament (except for Esther). These scrolls when compared with the Masoritic texts (dated at 900 AD) show them to be virtually identical. The Dead Sea texts are dated at 125 BC so we can say for certainty that even if we disregarded all the other evidence we have, Isaiah was in its complete form by 125 BC at the ABSOLUTE LATEST. As if this weren't compelling enough, Josephus, a Jewish Historian (who was not a Christian) wrote of the closing of the canon (by name, identical to our current books) as occurring in 4th century BC. It seems ridiculous for us 2000 years later to disregard a secular Scholar living during the time in question.

Now let’s look at the New Testament. First, the complete canonization (canonization means declaring the books of the Bible to be the Holy Word of God) of the Bible (both OT and NT) occurred in 393 AD at the Synod of Hippo. Up until this point, people had little problem determining authentic Scriptures (the Word of God). However, soon various counterfeit "Scriptures" were going around and combined with the edict of Diocletian (303 AD) which required destruction of Christian sacred books, it became apparently clear we needed an "official canon." It should be important to note that the church "determined" the canon much the same way a jury will "determine" a verdict, or a student "determines" an answer, but the church did not have any authority over the canonical works. That is, a book didn't become Holy just because the church said it was. The church used the following criteria to establish the extent of the NT canon:

1. Was the authorship by an apostle or close friend of an apostle?
2. Was the author a Christian leader from the church's first generation?
3. Is it supported by historical traditions as to the writings' authorship and authority?
4. Was it accepted and used by churches throughout the known world?
5. Is it in consonance (complete agreement) with known NT writings and the church's "rule of faith"?

It should be noted that only criteria # 1 was, by itself, sufficient to merit inclusion in the canon. These criteria were combined with the teachings of the apostles to "test the Scriptures." Also, remember that during this time people were being executed over their faith, therefore they didn't just haphazardly decide to include some books but not others. They knew full well they could be killed over these books so they had extra incentive to make sure they were legitimate. Finally, we know that between 13 and 22 of the NT books (that is all but 5 of them) are for sure Scripture based off of other statements in the Bible. (i.e. 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Pet. 3:16, etc.).

Hopefully now you have a little bit more understanding as to how our Bible came to be. As we have seen, the canonization was just a process to make the Scriptures that were already being widely used, including by Jesus Himself, as the complete and true word of God. I believe that it is now apparent that contrary to popular belief, in the case of the Bible there is no correlation between date of canonization and the truthfulness of the words.