Mormonism and Ancient Israel

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes a lot of big claims. One of these claims is that it is a restoration of and welding link to many of the keys and beliefs held by ancient Israel from the days of Adam and onward. Just read this excerpt from D&C 128:18:

 . . . for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.

Pretty bold stuff, eh? In this, the dispensation of the fulness of times (which is a bold enough claim in the first place), we have many things that ancient Israel and the early Christians possessed that have been lost to the world. But not only that, we even have things they didn't! Additionally, we Latter-day Saints call ourselves children of Israel and claim that through us the restoration and gathering of the tribes of Israel will take place, and to a certain extent is already taking place through missionary work (see D&C 110:11 and the tenth Article of Faith).

Mormonism as an Ancient Faith

Yes, these claims are awfully bold, and probably absurd to many. But I say no Christian faith is complete without them. These claims give us the necessary link to ancient Israel and to the prophecies and teachings of the Bible, the lack of which leaves many Bible-believers wanting. I used to belong to a "mega-church" where there were light shows and rock concerts every Sunday morning. There was little to no ceremony or anything that made it feel like an ancient faith, as Christianity is. In fact, everything felt thoroughly modern, which was probably the point of it all. The church was supposed to make the modern person feel entirely comfortable. But, the fact remains that Christianity is an ancient religion, and therefore should not be entirely at home with our modern culture. Most of the ideas of Christianity extend to far before Christ lived on the earth. Looking to the teachings of Moses and even earlier prophets will lead you to the same things Christ taught. So it shouldn't be strange if a truly Christian church had many aspects that felt ancient or bizarre to modern people.


When I was investigating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this ancient aspect was something I came to notice. I realized that it had far more in common with ancient Israel than did any of the other churches I had attended. I also realized that it made sense for it to be this way if it was truly a restoration of ancient things as the Church claimed to be.

For the rest of this post, I'd like to make a list of practices and beliefs that we Latter-day Saints hold in common with ancient Israel that, to my knowledge, no other Christian Church does (at least not to the same extent). It is by no means meant to be an exhaustive list, but merely one that comprises the things I began to notice as I was investigating the Church.

Commonalities Between Ancient Israelites & Mormons

• Temple Worship. This is perhaps the most obvious similarity. Both groups believe in building Houses of the Lord in order to worship Him in a sanctified place that is separate from the world. Both groups make sacred covenants and perform sacred ordinances in said temples. In both peoples' temples, there are different areas representing differing levels of sanctity and which only certain priesthood types can enter. Both groups see temple worship as a highlight of their religious activity and often make long pilgrimages to be there.
• Ritualistic Worship. This goes hand-in-hand with temple worship, but I thought I'd make the distinction anyway. In addition to personal prayer, both groups use ritual as one way to worship God. For Latter-day Saints, the ritualistic/symbolic nature of the temple and the sacrament come to mind, as well as the practice of anointing with oil and laying on of hands. And, obviously, there are things such as animal sacrifice and many aspects of the law of Moses and temple worship on the ancient Israel side.
• Use of Sacred Clothing. Part of the worship of God in both groups involves the donning of sacred clothing in association with their temple worship.
• God as Our Heavenly Father. Both groups seem to view God as the literal Father of our spirits. Now, I know not all agree on this one, but my own studies have led me to this conclusion. Numbers 16:22 and 27:16 both reference our Father as "God of the spirits of all flesh." And Malachi asks, "Have we not all one father?" (Mal. 2:10). The clearest evidence comes from Jesus's quoting of Psalms 82:6, which states, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." When the accusation of blasphemy reached Jesus for calling Himself the Son of God, he answered, "Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John 10:34-36). The meaning is clear: if the scriptures call us all gods, and children of the most High God, then it is not blasphemy for Jesus to call Himself the Son of God.
• Heavenly Mother. The LDS Church's "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," declares that every human being is a "beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents." Reason tells us in the Church that if there exists a Father in Heaven, then there must be a Heavenly Mother. Even so, we know little about the subject, and are taught only to pray to our Heavenly Father. Many gawk at this belief, but modern scholarship is making us more and more sure that the ancient Israelites believed the same thing. See http://www.youtube.com/user/fairldsorg#p/u/1/zI7HqScxs54.
• The Divine Council. LDS theology references a divine council in Heaven consisting of the premortal spirit children of El Elyon (translated the Most High God), among whom was the firstborn, Jehovah, or Jesus Christ. This divine council in heaven was responsible for the creation, thus the plural "ours" and "us's" in the Genesis creation account. Modern scholarship is finding that this appears to be exactly what the ancient Israelites believed as well. See http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/, this Wikipedia article, and this excellent post on Mormanity.
• The Corporeality of God. If we (and ancient Israel) believe that we are literal offspring of heavenly parents, and that, as the Bible says, we are made in His image, then the logical conclusion is that God has a physical body, albeit a glorified, perfected body. In the Hellenized world of today, this belief is considered absurd. But it's right at home in an ancient faith.
• Polygamous Heritage. The LDS Church's history with polygamy continues to be one of its most controversial aspects, among members and non-members alike. One of the things that hit me as I was investigating the Church was that whether I joined the Church or not, I already had a polygamous heritage as a Christian. A reading of the Old Testament reveals that nearly every major figure in ancient Israel was a polygamist: Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, etc. In the case of David we even have 2 Samuel 12:8 saying that God, through the prophet Nathan, gave to David his wives, and would have given him more if it were not enough for him. In addition, the Bible claims Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. So, as a Christian, I already had to deal with polygamy as a practice at least not condemned by God. And as can be seen on this Christian web site, Christians and Latter-day Saints even seem to give the same reasons for why polygamy may have been practiced by its foundational members–1) to care for the large number of women and 2) to produce a large population quickly. But regardless of how you explain it–like it or not, polygamy is not only a Mormon problem. The only difference appears to be that Latter-day Saint polygamy occurred more recently, and therefore is more fresh in the public mind.
• "A Peculiar People." I don't imagine our critics will disagree with this one. Let's face it, Mormons are an unusual people. In making our baptismal and temple covenants, we agree to separate ourselves from many of the world's pleasures and devote our lives to serving Christ and living according to His standards. This often places us at odds with many worldly practices and ideas. Others who do not understand Latter-day Saint beliefs tend to see us as "odd." It was the same with ancient Israel. Deuteronomy chapter 14 states, "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth" (v. 2).
• Health Laws. In both Latter-day Saint and ancient Israelite belief, the Lord has given a code of health whereby to live. In both cases, adherents believe abiding by the code will bring physical and spiritual blessings. However, the Israelite code of health was part of the Law of Moses. Therefore, Latter-day Saints do not adhere to that code because we believe the Law of Moses was fulfilled at Christ's coming. Our health code, "The Word of Wisdom," seems to be more about avoiding the snares of addiction, thus we avoid addictive substances such as coffee, tea, alcohol, and drugs.
• Gathering of Israel. The gathering of Israel is a major theme in the Old Testament (see http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/israel-gathering-of.t1?lang=eng&letter=i). The Lord reassured the ancient Israelites that even though they were being scattered then, at a future date He would gather them all together again. Yet, in much of modern Christianity, this idea is all but ignored. I do not remember ever hearing of the Lord restoring ancient Israel in my days as a Protestant. So what comes of all the ancient prophecy? Well, Latter-day Saints do believe in the literal gathering of Israel, and believe that it is now underway. We believe the keys to this gathering were given to the Church by Moses in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836 (D&C 110:11). It is even one of our Articles of Faith.

Anyway, these are just a few of the major similarities. You may have noticed that the beliefs and practices of Latter-day Saints that are most often criticized are those shared with the ancient Israelites. At least, that is what I came to notice. It just goes to show that this religion is no modern-day concoction. In fact, it struggles to defend its ancient beliefs in a thoroughly modern world in which, if modern, this religion should feel most comfortable.

P.S. For more information on this topic and a truly fascinating read, read the essay by Methodist preacher and Cambridge-educated theologian/Bible scholar Margaret Barker entitled "What Did King Josiah Reform?"

Are We Saved by Works? Addressing the False Premise

Recently I was watching a program on an evangelical Christian television network on "ministering to Mormons." The program was filmed in Utah and consisted mainly of the host walking up to Mormons on the street and asking them a series of questions to help them realize how much they needed salvation. The host first condemned the Latter-day Saints by going through the ten commandments with them one by one and showing them how they were breaking all of them in one way or another (interesting side note: the commandment on keeping the sabbath day holy was conspicuously absent from the host's list, but that's another matter for another time), then proceeded to give the cure for his condemnations: faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. When the Saints would protest, saying something to the effect of, "I already have faith in Jesus Christ. He is my Savior and Redeemer," the host would brush the comments off with, "Yes, but of course your Jesus is the brother of Satan," then proceed to proclaim their faith all but useless because they believed they were saved by works, or by keeping the commandments.

From my experience, these two arguments--Mormons believe Jesus is the brother of Satan and that they are saved by works, not grace--are the two most commonly used against Latter-day Saints by evangelical Christians. I will not get into the first argument at this time, but I would like to speak about the second argument. The argument that Mormons believe they are saved by works is so often given as a reason they are not Christians, but those who give it often have no idea what Mormons actually teach and believe about the relationship between grace, works, and faith.

First, the plain truth: Do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that they are saved by works and not by grace and/or faith? Emphatically, no. To clarify, consider the fictional case of a man who lives the gospel admirably from day to day. He is the kindest, meekest, humblest, most charitable, faithful, and loving man anyone has ever known. He is entirely selfless and follows nearly every command of the Lord Jesus Christ. But, and here's the kicker, he doesn't actually believe in Jesus Christ. Still, he's a religious man and hopes to attain full salvation by his good works. According to our critics, since we believe that men are saved by their works, this man would be granted full salvation in our view. However, this is not the case. We believe that only those who accept the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and covenant to enter into His straight and narrow path by the necessary scriptural conditions (which we'll get into in a bit) are eligible for full salvation and exaltation. Only then can their works bring them closer to God, since because all sin to some degree or another, we need that Mediator to allow us to begin to return to our Heavenly Father.

We believe that the scriptures plainly demonstrate a logical balance of faith, grace, and works involved in one's obtaining of salvation. Let's evaluate this balance:

By Grace, through Faith, unto Works
 
 In defense of their doctrine on grace, Protestants often quote Ephesians 2:8-9, which reads, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Do Latter-day Saints believe this scripture? Yes, we do, but Paul's thought is incomplete, for in quoting the scripture Christians often leave off the tenth verse, which adds, "for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." So the entire scriptural idea presented here is, then, that we are saved by grace, through faith, unto works. This may sound complicated, but really it's quite simple: God offers us salvation by His Eternal grace, but in order to access it we must have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which will lead us to the good works that God has always "ordained that we should walk in."

Jesus Christ is rightly called the Mediator, because it is His atoning sacrifice that allows us to access God's salvation by grace. Sin once created an impenetrable barrier between us and God, but when Christ performed His atonement, He created a way for us to overcome (or repent of) our sins and have them permanently removed from our record, so that on the Day of Judgment we may be found spotless (1 John 1:7; Isaiah 1:18). Part of this faith in Christ entails following His teachings and commandments. After all, Paul describes Christ as "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Hebrews 5:9), and the Savior Himself said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). And, just to really hit the point home, let's add this bold declaration of the Savior: "Not every  one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). It will not do to claim all of God's grace for ourselves without first meeting the conditions He has set for us in His holy writ. Can we really even claim to have faith in Jesus Christ if we do not follow the words He spoke?

Conditions for Grace
 
The conditions for God's grace (aka the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel) are set forth in the Church's Articles of Faith, "First, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Articles of Faith 1:4). This pattern is merely a repetition of the pattern of salvation throughout the New Testament, most clearly shown in Acts, chapter 2. In this setting, Peter gives an impassioned sermon to a large group of Jews on the day of Pentecost. Following the sermon, many in the congregation were "pricked in their heart" (v. 37), and, (1) having faith, asked Peter, "what shall we do?" Peter's response was thus: "(2) Repent, and (3) be baptized every one of you [note: that's EVERY one of them] in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and (4) you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (v. 38).


By contrast, what did the Evangelical preacher of the television show say were the conditions for God's grace, if any? Interestingly, he said that we must accept Jesus Christ as our personal Savior, and repent. His answer left me a little wanting. I couldn't imagine how one could repent without violating the ideas he was condemning Latter-day Saints for. Before telling them to repent, he spent quite awhile trying to counsel them how futile it was to repent. The impression he left me with was that it was silly to think we could be righteous, so why even try? And that reminds me of another conversation I was involved in with another evangelical preacher, in which he said after we accepted Jesus as our Savior, our repentance was covered by grace and we never needed to repent again. It logically follows, therefore, that we also could never sin again. What a dangerous doctrine! What possible good could it be to tell a man that he could not sin? I can think of only negative results. But anyway, in regards to repentance, I know we mortals can never be perfect in this life, but I refuse to accept the idea that that means God does not ask certain things of us. I, for one, will keep trying. And when I fall short, well, isn't that what the Atonement is all about, anyway?

So, do Latter-day Saints believe we are saved by our works? No. But do we acknowledge that we must do certain things the Lord has asked us in order to qualify for admittance into the kingdom of heaven? The Lord was quite clear that this was the case. It is hugely important to read all scriptures in context and remember the balance that is taught throughout the whole text, not just in one or two isolated verses.

The Tangible Miracle of the Book of Mormon

As I read through the Book of Mormon again in preparation for my upcoming mission, here is a thought that keeps returning to my head:

The Book of Mormon is unique among our Father's miracles. What other miracle of God has been mass-produced like the Book of Mormon? I or any one else can easily obtain a copy of this miracle and hold it in our hands. It truly is "a marvelous work and a wonder" (Is. 29:14).

In the Book of Mormon, we have 531 double-columned pages of histories, prophecies, sermons, miracles, poetry, wars, instructions, and testimonies, all leading us closer to Jesus Christ and His true doctrine, and all legitimately from the perspective of ancient Hebraic peoples. 180+ years of scholarship have actually given more credibility to the Book of Mormon than it had when it was first published, which is the opposite of what should have happened if it were a fraud perpetrated by an ignorant youth. Among the things discovered in recent times which lend credibility to the book are the following: the discovery of an ancient trade road that matches the road taken by Lehi and his family from Jerusalem to Bountiful, as well as the discovery of likely matches to the Valley of Lemuel and the River of Laman; the discovery of the ancient practice of writing on metal plates; discovery of Hebrew text written in Egyptian script, as well as the discovery of several forms of "reformed Egyptian" scripts; the use of cement in ancient America; accurate and detailed descriptions of ancient warfare practices; accurate and detailed descriptions of olive tree cultivation in Jacob 5; many Hebraisms in the text that are awkward in English, such as the frequent repetition of "and it came to pass"; the discovery of complex chiasmus, an ancient Hebrew poetic structure, of which Alma 36 is as good an example as you could find anywhere; and many other things (more information on these topics can be found at http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml).

All of these things have brought us a deeper appreciation of the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon, but the most important proof that can be offered is the testimony of the Holy Ghost. Yes, the Holy Ghost testifies strongly of this book, and this testimony is available to all who honestly, humbly, and sincerely read and pray about it. And once this testimony is gained, the Book of Mormon becomes an indispensable witness of Christ and His gospel for this reason: It was discovered and translated by the gift and power of God, and therefore contains exactly what God desires us to know. It is essentially a physical, tangible miracle, and again, one that anybody can hold in their hand. That is why it is such an awesome testifier of Christ and His gospel, because the miracles described in the book, including Christ's atonement and resurrection, have to be true once we know that the book itself is true. After all, God has put His stamp of approval on the whole book. No more "spiritualizing" of doctrines and miracles as has been done to the Bible by many "practical" people over the years. All those supernatural things that are difficult to believe become necessary to believe once we can hold such a miracle in our hands. In this God has given us a practical and tangible means whereby to learn of His plan of salvation and obtain an undeniable testimony of it. That is why I love the Book of Mormon.

Reflections on Protestantism

Lately I've been reflecting a lot on my former faith as a Protestant. I must say it has been fascinating to realize some things about Protestantism that I never considered when I was one. The more I think about Protestantism as a whole, the more intrigued I am by it. I think it is a religion (if that is the right word for it) that is unique in this world. Here are some reasons why [note: this should not be taken as a personal attack to all Protestants, but more as an honest evaluation of my own understanding of my former beliefs]:

• It is a self-loathing religion. When I was a Protestant, I did not often think about the fact that I was a Protestant. To my mind, I was only a Christian. And just as many other Protestants say, my belief in the Bible came before any denominational affiliation. In other words, I was only trying to follow the Bible to the best of my ability. Whatever sect of Protestantism I chose to join was only a reflection of my understanding of the Bible at that time. I did not like that there were a lot of different denominations, but accepted it because I thought that's just how things are. Any glaring inconsistencies between how things were in the Bible and how things existed in Protestantism I carefully overlooked or blamed on incorrect teachings of other pastors or sects. I read the Bible as applying directly to me personally, and not to my church. I did not embrace Protestantism as a whole, but only those who believed similarly to myself. Additionally, I've observed that a favorite pastime of some Protestants is to accuse other Protestants of not being saved. All these things and others led me to believe Protestants are not proud of being Protestant, but actually dislike their heritage, which leads me to my next point:
• It ignores its place in history. Despite the fact that, as I have stated, I did not particularly care for the sectarian nature of Protestantism, I nevertheless considered myself a part of the Christian Church. It think I had a rather idealized view of my system of belief when I wanted to. It is as if I completely overlooked the history of Christianity as a whole, and the place of Protestantism in that history. In my mind, even though I was a Protestant, I ignored that in order to place my roots directly in the New Testament Church. I did not really think about how my church actually branched off from a church I thought was corrupt (the Catholic Church), and how nothing can grow from dead roots.
• It is a religion that leaves you alone. Unlike most religions out there, Protestantism basically allows you to believe whatever you want to believe, as long as you call yourself a Christian, which you are free to do without a lot of questioning, because there does not exist a universal standard to which every one must adhere before they can be called a Christian. You can belong to a church with a pastor that teaches something you strongly disagree with every Sunday over the pulpit. And, in fact, you will be hard pressed to find two people in one church that believe the same things about the gospel of Jesus Christ. I remember being embarrassed when I would overhear Christians trying to explain their basic beliefs to others, and I would hear something that I didn't agree with. I would think, "Oh, no, they're teaching them wrong," even though I had no more reason to be right in my opinions than they did in theirs.The motto of Protestantism is, to each his own.
• It claims a book as its source of authority. As great as the Bible is, it can never be a substitute for God. But in my former faith, I believed the only way to access God's knowledge was from reading the Bible. Likewise, I believed that the only reason that Protestantism as a whole could exist was because we were trying our best to understand and apply the teachings of the Bible, yet without any commission or revelation from God Himself. Ecclesiastical leaders were not called by those with authority and set apart by the laying on of hands as was done in New Testament times, yet got their calling indirectly by trying to mimic what they saw in the Bible.
• It actually argues against the ideal Church presented in its foundational text. Though I always knew that the New Testament Church was quite a bit different than my church, I always of necessity accepted the popular teachings that this was just because we live in a different age now and we therefore do not need the apostles/gifts/miracles/Holy Ghost/etc. that the early Church possessed. Never mind that the Bible shows us this ideal Church as an example of the kind of Church we should belong to, and says nowhere that this Church was only for the earliest believers. In that sense, I actually argued against the Bible, even though I claimed all my belief, knowledge, and authority from that book.
• It rejects that Christ established a Church. This was one of the most striking things for me to realize while I was reflecting on my former beliefs. I realized that, for me at least, there did not seem to be any teaching that Christ actually established a Church. Yes, I realized that there was an organization present after the ascension of the Lord consisting of prophets, apostles, seventies, elders, teachers, etc., but I never heard it taught that this organization came from Christ Himself. I guess I just assumed it popped up after Christ's ascension in order to spread the teachings of Christ, who is considered more of a teacher than the founder of a kingdom as is described in the scriptures. This makes sense in light of the Protestant mindset: church is an entirely individual pursuit, based on one's understanding of the teachings of the Messiah. Christ came and taught the message; it was up to His followers to subsequently organize and spread that message. This allows the Protestant to put himself in the same camp as the apostolic church--"if the apostolic church was nothing but a group of believers organizing on their own to spread the message of Christ, then, well, that's what we still do today!" On the other hand, Catholics and Latter-day Saints know that only a Church established by the Savior could have the authority and power that the early Church did. In other words, we ask, "if the church was established by men, why did the apostles have the authority to speak for Christ?" I was talking with a Protestant co-worker (who is attending a Bible college in preparation for becoming a minister) about this subject recently, and his response was that it was because the apostles knew Jesus personally while He was on the earth. "Okay, what about Paul?" I asked. He responded by saying he thought that maybe Paul was able to personally know Jesus through daily visions like the one he experienced on the road to Damascus, only extended over a long enough period that would make him the equal of the other apostles in His knowledge of Jesus. "Hmm... Complicated," I thought. "And what about Luke? And Mark? How were they able to have the authority to write gospels that would later become a part of the Bible?" The thought process was far too complicated for me. I prefer the simple and biblical explanation that Christ established His church with the foundation of apostles, with Himself being the chief cornerstone, and that subsequent callings in the Church were done by the authority of Christ's priesthood, by the laying on of hands. No complicated theories required! It's all right there in the Bible. And I am grateful today that the original authority and organization has been restored--not by man's own skill or wisdom, but by the power of God.

But anyway, these are just a few of the thoughts I've been having. Protestantism is fascinating and unique indeed, and I enjoy thinking about my roots in that faith tradition.