I was thinking and speaking too much as an academic on this one, and I know that doing so created unnecessary confusion. For example, I am going to take part in a special conference at the Library of Conference, where I will respond to an LDS scholar's views on the contribution of Joseph's theology. Those are the kinds of events where there can be critical give and take, and I see this bicentennial year as a time when we evangelicals can try to sort out the good from the bad in Joseph's thought. There are some of his writings, for example, that sound quite orthodox, and others--such as the King Follett Discourse--that have views that are far removed from anything in the Christian traditon.

But ordinary evangelicals do not have opportunities to engage in those kinds of serious theological panels--thus I was talking too much as an elitist! At the same time, I would think this would be a wonderful opportunity to put on some events in Utah, perhaps in cooperation with local LDS folks, where people talk together about some basic themes in Joseph's thought. In our quiet dialogues, for example, we--evangelicals and LDS together--find many of his earliest statements to come close to a traditional Reformation (and Epistle to the Romans!) emphasis on salvation by grace alone, the unique substitutionary work of Christ on the Cross (and not just in Golgotha) and so on. The statements from D&C that I quoted, for example, sound straight out of an evangelical sermon.

It is true that Smith's earlier writings are closer to Christianity than his later statements. That is because Smith's theology went through an evolution. In 1830, when the Book of Mormon was printed, Smith was very clear that there was only one God (Alma 11: 21-31). Five years later he "translated" the Book of Abraham which has numerous references to many Gods (Abraham chapter 4). It is important to keep in mind that Mormons focus on the newest revelations of their prophets and not the older ones. Again, it is the revelation of an LDS PROPHET that dictates Mormon doctrine, not BYU faculty.

As far as your statements concerning the D&C, I must respectfully disagree. Those of us in "trench-level" apologetics to Mormons cannot overemphasize the importance of defining your terms. One key term that needs to be defined is "Repentance." It means something completely different in Mormonism than it does in Christianity. Joseph Smith defines his version of repentance in D&C 58:42-42.

Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins-behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

Before one can be forgiven, he has to repent. Repentance is defined as a total forsaking, or abandonment, of sin. Spencer W. Kimball states in the tract Repentance Brings Forgiveness (Published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) under the section titled Abandonment of Sin-

"The forsaking of sin must be a permanent one. True repentance does not permit making the same mistake again."

This is a radically different view of how one is forgiven. If we take this definition and insert it into the passage you quote in your comments (D&C 20: 29-30), it would read as follows;

And we know that all men must forsake their sin, never making the same mistake again, and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

Does this sound like any evangelical sermon you have ever heard? Quoting verse 30 becomes pointless at this juncture because of the obvious contradiction. The Mormon has no assurance of their forgiveness because of the uncertainty of when they will commit or re-commit their next sin.

• Previous Page   • Next Page   • Menu For This Entry   • About This Entry