Is Baptism Essential for Salvation?

One of the things that critics condemn the LDS church for is our insistence on coming to Christ through Baptism. The LDS church believes that in order to be with Jesus and our Father in heaven, an individual must be baptized. Many of our critics cry blasphemy because we teach that in order to be saved you must first be baptized. The Critic says you only need to believe in Christ and confess him with your mouth! Although many of these critics teach this; they also perform baptism. Why perform baptism if it is not needed for salvation? 

So, onto today’s question:  Is baptism essential for salvation in the kingdom of God?

The short answer to this question is "yes it is!" The Bible clearly teaches that baptism is a requirement of salvation.

Many of our Critics say that baptisms were performed in the New Testament but that when Christ died (for the sins of all mankind) he fulfilled that law and it was done away.  But to believe this means you would have to ignore the rest of what the Bible teaches. Just look at the instruction from the risen Savior in Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Does anything more needed to be said?...for the Critic the answer seems to be yes. It doesn't seem that Christ did away with the baptism for the remission of sins but rather he strengthens it by making it a requirement for salvation. We will continue this post (because there is so much more the Bible wants to say on baptism) but for the Critic to deny what the scriptures say at this point just shows their blind disbelief.

As we continue to look at baptism after the resurrection of Jesus, we find Peter and the apostles teaching the Jews about Christ. In Acts 2:37-38 the Jews begin to believe the apostles and ask "what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." According to these scriptures in Acts when a person believes in Christ he must repent of his sins, and then be baptized for the remission of those sins. Then he will receive the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

Some of the critics claim at this point, that The LDS church is replacing the Blood of Christ, which takes the sins of the world, with a dead ordinance of baptism. The truth of the matter is we are following the scriptures and Christ’s blood is the factor that makes baptism of any effect. Look at 1 Pet 3:21 "even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God)." Notice Peter understands and correctly explains that baptism is a symbol for answering to God, yet he expresses how baptism is the mode whereby we are saved.

The ordinance of baptism is a symbol of our willingness to receive Christ’s sacrifice and be forgiven of our sins. Gal 3:27: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Once we have "put on Christ" His sacrifice cleanses us of our sins. 

Often critics of baptism will quote Rom 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus ...thou shalt be saved." They assume that this means nothing else is necessary to be saved. But look at the part that is skipped over in verse 9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."  In order to "believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead" wouldn't you need to be baptized? Rom 6: 3-4: "Know ye not that so many of us were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death." Yet all those who refuse to be baptized or say that baptism is not needed for salvation seem to be fulfilling the words of Paul, "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." (Titus 1:16)

The Mormon church believes that Christ’s blood saves us from all our sins. But we also believe Christ has commanded us to be baptized in order to show our willingness to accept him. We know that no work of ours, independent of His, will ever save us from our sins.  Titus 3: 5:  "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration (baptism), and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Know that Jesus did not do away with baptism as a requirement of salvation but commanded it.  John 3:3-5:  "Jesus answered...Verily, verily, I say unto thee; except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." When Nicodemus inquired how a man who was born could be "born again" Jesus answers him in verse 5,"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

What does it mean to be born of water and Spirit?

Rom 6:3-4 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Baptism is performed in such a way that it would remind us of Christ and his resurrection and our being "born of water". Look at Acts 8:12-17; here the believers were baptized by Philip but had to wait for Peter and John to give them the Holy Ghost.  Acts 8:16"(for as yet he {the Holy Ghost} was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)" Thus we see the people were born of the water but also needed to be born of the Spirit.

The question maybe asked why did Jesus and his disciples baptize people if it wasn't necessary for their salvation? The scriptures says "after these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea: and there he tarried with them, and baptized." (John 3:22) The scriptures here and elsewhere show that Christ meant baptisms to be performed for those who believed.

Even Jesus himself was baptized. Matt 3:13-15 "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him." Why did Jesus say he needed baptism from John? "Jesus answering said unto him, suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus, though he had no sins, knew that he must be baptized of John to please his Father in heaven, "and lo a voice from heaven saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matt 3:17) 

The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi echoes this sentiment. 2 Nephi 31:5 “Now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!”

Luke 7:29-30 shows us the people needed baptism to be justified. "And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." Which group do you think the critic would be found in, those who "justified God" or those who "rejected the counsel of God"? Scary thought rejecting the counsel of God!

Acts 2:41 says "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized."

Look at the prison guard converted through the work of Paul and Silas in Acts 16:30-33 "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house...And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway."

Even Paul that great apostle who saw a vision of the Lord and believed on him recounts his own conversion and the instruction he received in Acts 22:14-16 "And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

In all of these examples we see that the person(s) who believed in Christ then went through the process of being baptized in order to show that they truly received Christ. Why else would those of the New Testament age go through a process of being baptized? As it says in Col 2:12, we are "Buried with him (Jesus) in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God."

Modern revelation not only tells us that baptism is essential for salvation but that without this ordinance we will be damned.  D&C 84:74“I say unto you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father’s kingdom where my Father and I am. ( see also Mark 16:16)

The instruction in the Bible is clear; the Lord wants those who claim to be his to be baptized for the remission of sins, to show that they will be his followers! If they cannot take this one simple step how will they be able to do anything else the Lord commands? This ordinance is essential for Salvation! 

Can You Trust Your Heart?

Many critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints warn those who come in contact with the church, that deceit will be used to ensnare them. What deceit are they talking about? The Mormons will tell you to ask God in prayer if what they are teaching is true. The Mormons teach that God will manifest the truth to your heart, "like a burning in your bosom."

Then the critic will say, "do not pray to know if what they are teaching is true, for the heart can deceive you!" They will then quote scriptures like "out of the heart proceed evil thoughts."(Matt 15:19)

The logic of the critics on this point has always been hard for me to understand. How do they expect a man to know the things of God unless God reveals it to him?  Since most critics acknowledge that God does not verbally answer their prayers, how does He communicate his truths to them?  How does He help them know that a scripture means what they say it means, or means what they have been taught it means?  The post below will try to answer why the LDS people teach that man may know the truth by inquiring of the Lord and how He will respond by sending us impressions into our Hearts.

The LDS often share a scripture with those who are looking into joining the church. Moroni 10:3-5 which encourages the readers of the Book of Mormon that when "ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your heart(s)... I would exhort you that ye would ask God...in the name of Christ, if these things (are) true." Then the qualifier " if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost." This seems like straight forward direction for having God reveal his will to us. But many critics try to claim that this method is not biblical and that God never worked this way.

Paul tells us in 1 Cor 2:7-10 "we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory....But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things,yea, the deep things of God." Here we learn that God’s wisdom is a mystery and hidden before the world. We also see that man doesn't have the ability according to this verse to "think" (or make-up) in his heart the things of God. It is true that if man relies on his own heart, it will deceive him.  If man opens up his heart to the spirit of God; God will reveal his truths to him.  

So, how are we to gain an understanding of the wisdom of God?

Jam 1:5 says "if any of you lack wisdom,let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

How will it be given?

 By the Spirit-see 1 Cor 2:10- this sounds strangely familiar…Where have I heard that before?  Oh yeah… Moroni  10:3-5. 1 Cor 2:14 says "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." According to this verse, the scriptures tell us once again that man cannot find out Gods truth's on his own (aka “the natural man”), apart from God.

So how does the Spirit communicate these truths to us?

In Acts 2:37 the apostles have been teaching a gathering of Jews about the truth of Jesus Christ. When they are done speaking, the scriptures say, "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart(s), and said unto....the apostles, Men and brethren what shall we do?” The Spirit touches the heart (or as Paul says the Spirit of man: Romans 8:16,27) of the people that they feel a need to follow Christ.

What is the heart for?

In the strictest sense, it is an organ used to circulate blood throughout the body. Yet, look at some of the ways God refers to the use of the "heart" in the scriptures. Isaiah 29:13- "as this people draw near [unto] me with their mouth, and ...do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me." Also Jeremiah 31:33- " but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law... in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." The Lord is using the heart as a symbol of the inner man. How will we know if our hearts are far from God, or whether his law is in our hearts? Through the feelings we receive from the spirit of God! 

Look at Luke 24:27-32- here the Lord appears in disguise to two of his disciples, as he reveals the scriptures to them. In verse 27- "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

What was the result of Christ teaching them out of the scriptures?

Verse 31-32 says, "and their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight.  And they said one to another Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" So we see that the Spirit confirmed the truth of what Christ was teaching them from the scriptures by what they felt in their hearts.

Listen to the words of Jesus himself:  "therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." (Matt 13:13) Then he continues, "by hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see and shall not perceive; For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should ...understand with their heart and should be converted, and I should heal them." (Matt 13:14-15) The Lord explains that those who rely on hearing and seeing in order to understand the gospel are missing it. (much like our critics who say we must not listen to feelings). But the Lord gives them the remedy, they could "understand with their heart and (be) converted, and (He) should heal them."(Matt 13:15)

Paul informs us in Eph 4:17-20 how not to be like the unbelievers.

"That ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind. Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, Because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness."

Are the critics once again yelling that the LDS people are teaching things that are not "biblical"?  While simultaneously ignoring the Bible truths that are taught that discredit their claims??? The answer is of course they are! The truth is that if people took the experiment of praying to God with a sincere heart, God would make the truth knows to those individuals by the power of the Holy Ghost.

They would not only know that their answer was correct, they would also feel it.

Paul showed how the critics of his day were blinded in their hearts too when it came to understanding the scriptures and how to gain knowledge of Godly things. "But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon (their minds???....noooo! it was…) their heart." (2 Cor 3:14-15) All one needs to do in order to know the things of God is to open their heart, and allow the spirit of God to fill it with the feelings of the Spirit, "but the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith." (Gal 5:22)

Paul reminds us in Rom 10:10 "for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness." The question to ask is why are critics trying so hard to keep people from following God’s plan?  What is God’s plan? Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-8 God’s plan is to search out answers in your mind, to ask for understanding on God’s word, and to listen to the feelings of the heart.  (Whereby, you will hear God’s voice.)

Maybe the prophecy of Paul to Timothy is being fulfilled right before our eyes:  "in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves...without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, in continent, fierce, despisers of those that are good...having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away" (2 Tim 3:1-5)

And why does Paul warn to turn away from such as these?

  The critic says, do not ask God, because he will not make that knowledge known to you, that man’s heart is too deceitful for God to penetrate.  The critics are right on one thing, that God will never penetrate their heart, if they do not ask Him to.  They seek learning outside the realm of God’s biblically approved method.  So turn away from such as these because they are "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim 3:7)

"Feelings, nothing more than feeeeelings"....Unless they come from GOD!

Original Sin

Many critics of the Church believe that all mankind inherited an "original sin" from the fall of Adam.  This doctrine as explained to me states that because Adam was created a perfect being, and sinned against God; all of Adam’s children will therefore be born with Adam’s original sin.

They are surprised why LDS people do not hold this same view. The post below is intended to show why this view is not common among the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures are clear on the fact that "all have sinned."(1Kings 8:46 and Rom 3:23).The LDS people agree that all mortals do sin, but disagree that all are born into sin.

 The critics often cite Romans 5:12: "wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." The logic of this scripture, according to the critic, is that all men must be born into sin since all die and death is a result of a sinful nature.  If this is the logic, then let me ask a question,

Since all are born into mortality with sin….

 Would that mean Christ received "original sin"?

Christ was born of Mary, a mortal woman, and Christ did die! The critic will say that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). Christ’s mortal life was ended by his death.  If this logic of “wages of sin is death” were to hold up- Christ would therefore be a sinner (because he died).  Romans 6:23 was referring to a “second death” which is a spiritual death (that is a result of sin) and not physical death (Rev 2:11).   

Read 2Cor 5:20-21, Heb4: 14-15, and 1Pet 2:21-22 which all show that Christ lived without sin, including original sin. These facts show that, if all men have "original sin" because of mortal birth, and Christ was clearly born of a woman he would therefore inherit "original sin".  

Now, since we know that Christ didn't inherit any sin, what else do the scriptures say in regards to sin for the rest of mankind.

James tells us that "him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (Jam 4:17) How could one be born with sin if, according to James, that person must first "know" to do good and then choose not to? This example of "knowing" is taught by Jesus in an encounter with the Pharisees.  In John 9:39-41 Jesus tells the Pharisees that he came to make the blind see, and those who can see blind. The Pharisees understanding that he meant spiritual blindness asked if they were "blind." Jesus’ response "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin; but now ye say, we see; therefore your sin remaineth." Here the Lord implies that because they "knew" they were sinners, but had they not "known" they would have remained sinless.

John tells us in 1John 3:4-5 that "sin is the transgression of the law." So how would those born be able to "transgress" the law, before they have even heard the law?

Look at how Christ viewed little children during his earthly ministry. In Matt 18:3-4, 14 "except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." How much sense does it make for Christ to tell these adults to be converted to the gospel (the good news of salvation through Christ) and then for him to tell them to be like the little children "full of original sin"? Truly, he wants them to humble themselves as these little children, but remember the adults are the ones converting. According to the doctrine of "original sin" the children would be worse off than the converted adults. In verse 14 Jesus says, "it is not the will of your father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." Yet how can they not perish if they die in their "sins" before accepting Jesus Christ? With all those I have met that hold the view of "original sin" none have conveyed the idea that children four years of age or younger are going to perish! This goes contrary to the doctrine they espouse which is original sin.  We don't believe in "original sin" because we believe God has more grace than to send to Hell his most innocent (little children).

John 3:16 says "God so loved the world ....that whosoever believeth in (his only begotten son) should not perish, but have everlasting life." What about those who are too young to believe or act on that belief in Jesus? Some say that "original sin" is the reason that they baptize infants; that this “cleanses” them from the sin of Adam. But we know that baptism was done as a sign of repentance (Matt 3:11, Acts 19:4, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

So do infants have the ability to repent? The answer is no!

In the Book of Mormon the prophet Moroni says "little children are alive in Christ... if not so, God is a partial God." (Moro 8:12) He continues, "little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them." (Moro 8:19) The Lord taught the prophet Joseph Smith that "all men must repent and be baptized, and not only men, but women, and children who have arrived at the years of accountability." (D&C 18:42) In a later revelation the Lord explained that children were to be taught "to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on (of) hands, when eight years old," or "the sin be upon the heads of the parents." (D&C 68:25) In D&C 68:27 the Lord instructs that "children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old and receive the laying on (of) hands."

To conclude, we realize that Adam’s sin could not be passed on to the rest of mankind, or else Christ (who became a mortal man) also would have “sinned.” Man is accountable to God for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression (Article of Faith #2). Little Children could not be born with sin, by no fault of their own, and God still remain a merciful God. Sin in the scriptures has been laid out as one who knows to do right and does not do it. And this is why the LDS people do not believe in the "doctrine of original sin."

Polygamy

If you were to take a poll and ask people the first word they think of when they think of "Mormons," the word that would appear near the top of that list would be POLYGAMY!

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a great many differences that make us stand out from the other Christian churches.  Polygamy (according to LDS beliefs: one man and multiple wives) happens to be one of those differences.

In the LDS church today we do not have a practice of polygamy!

 It has been over 100 years since polygamy was practiced by the LDS Church.  The question many of our neighbors have is why did the LDS people practice polygamy to begin with? The answer is easy, because they were commanded to by God!

Many may say that this is heresy that God commanded the LDS to take multiple wives for their men, that God would never allow such a thing, or that it is a sin and adultery to have more than one wife at a time. I believe that the answer to these concerns can be found in the scriptures.

Let’s began with the fact that polygamy did happen in the scriptures. (Gen 4:23 Gen16:1-3 Gen 30:1-13 are just a few examples) The previous examples are of "holy" and "ungodly" (Lemech) men taking multiple wives. The question must be asked were these "holy" men of God just caught up in sin.  From the scriptural account of their lives we can see that they are not caught up in sin. Abraham and Jacob both lived in polygamous unions, the Lord continues to instruct them and bless them, and yet we never hear from the Lord that they must stop or forsake the “sinful” practice of polygamy! 

Now that we have taken a small sample to show that polygamy was practiced in the scriptures, (we could have listed many more) let’s see if we can find out how God viewed it.  Exodus 20:14 is one of Gods 10 commandments given to his backsliding people.  Here he says "thou shalt not commit adultery." This seems to be very straight forward as if the people he is speaking to understand perfectly what God means.

So the question I have is,

Does polygamy equal adultery?

 Not according to the scriptures!  In Ex 21:10- which is the Lords instruction to his people Israel about a man who takes "another wife"- He does not forbid his people saying it is a sin and like unto the heathen nations, instead he instructs that if a man have another wife that the first wife's "food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish". The Lord could have told the people that this is a thing most abominable before me, or if you do as other nations and have more than one wife you shall be cut off from my people. Instead the Lord teaches them how they are to treat their multiple wives in a polygamous relationship. Some critics at this point would bring up the fact that God allows things because of "the hardness of (mans’) heart", like in the case of divorce. (Matt 19:7-8) However, if God allows polygamy or even further makes an exception for it then it cannot be sin! Therefore polygamy when allowed or commanded by God cannot be a sin.

 Another point that is brought up by critics is the fact that in the beginning God made Adam and Eve so polygamy was never meant to be practiced by men. But if we use this kind of logic by saying that things in the beginning are the way God meant for man to live his life, then Gods ideal plan must be to have all of us live as nudists since that is the way God began. (Gen 2:25) Again some critics will say that Deut 17:17 says that "neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away". But this verse is clearly talking about kings of Israel (verse15-17) who have the ability to take many more wives including those whom the Lord did not approve! (1 Kings 11: 1-4).  Let us leave the critics and get back to what the Lord has said about multiple wives.

The most telling verse showing God’s approval for polygamy is given to King David. David was a man close to God, and yet we read of his taking many wives in marriage. Never did the Lord condemn any of these unions.  Yet in 2 Sam 11: 26-27 and 2 Sam 12:1-10 we read the story of king David committing adultery (sexual relations with another man’s wife) with the wife of Uriah. Here the prophet Nathan tells a parable of a man that was rich and had many flocks and yet he took the poor man's only "ewe lamb". (2 Sam 12:3) David is so angry that he swears the man who has done this will die. (2 Sam 12:5) Nathan informs him that he (David) is the man that has done this, and then gives the word of the Lord to David as follows, "I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom.....and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things" (2 Sam 12:8). There is no mistaking this verse, the Lord claims to have given David his wives.

Let’s look at a few more things in Deut 21:15-17.  The Lord gives the children of Israel a Law of Inheritance for those who "have two wives" (verse 15). In Lev 20: 10-21 the Lord lays out all the sexual perversions he commands the children of Israel to refrain from. He lists such sins as "adultery with another man's wife" (verse 10), men who "also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman"(verse 13), a man or woman who "lie with a beast" (verse 15-16), and even "a man who shall lie with a woman having her sickness"(meaning menstruation verse 18).  The other verses focus on incestuous relationships or other family relations by marriages which are not approved.  Notice the Lord doesn't include polygamy as a banned practice among Israel.  As a matter of fact look closely at verse 14:  "If a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness." The only forbidding of polygamy that God does here is to say that a polygamous man shouldn't take mother and daughter together! Why didn't the Lord say "a man shall not take two wives", because despite what all the Christian world thinks about it, God did not disapprove of their polygamous relationship. (also look at Lev 18:2-24 for more examples.)

The New Testament doesn't offer us any other indication that polygamy should be done away with! In fact just the opposite is true. Romans 7: 2-3 tells us that a "woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth." (verse 2) It goes on to say that "if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." (verse 3) Yet in Paul's reciting of the Law he doesn't seem to change the Law that a man ought now to only have one wife. They are still free to marry "two wives" according to Gods earlier command. Some critics of the church will use 1 Tim 3:2, 12 (that a bishop and deacons ought to be "the husband of one wife”) to show that polygamy is done away with in the New Testament. This raises a good question. Why doesn't Paul just say all the saints shall have only "one wife”?  The way in which 1 Tim 3:2, 12 reads, the instruction is only for the bishops and deacons to have one wife. One could easily infer that this then means all others of the saints could have more than one wife? 

The truth of the matter is that the only scriptural condemnation of polygamy is found in Book of Mormon.  In Jacob 2:23-30 the prophet Jacob rebukes God’s people for justifying themselves in having more than one wife because the prophets of old had more than one wife! (Verse 23) He then commands that the people only have one wife. (Verse 27) And he ends his rebuke with these words " For if I will (the Lord) raise up seed unto me, I will command my people: otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." The Lord makes it clear that those who think polygamy is a good idea, or it is for them, or that they must do it because it was done in the past are in the wrong. Unless the Lord commands that his people enter in to polygamy to "raise up seed unto me"(verse 30) they are "committing whoredoms"(verse 23).

During the early 1800s this is exactly what happened, God through a prophet allowed again His people to enter into polygamous relations.  Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 132: 61-63 says " if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent,...and they have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else." (Verse 61) These polygamous relations were lived for several decades by the LDS people. The practice of polygamy was the cause of great persecution by many of the Christian communities towards the LDS people. It led to name callings, beatings, robbing, taking of lands, burning of property, rape, and murders. The Lord  removed the law of polygamy in 1890 and removed permission to practice polygamy in 1904. No longer were members of the LDS church allowed to enter into polygamy in any part of the world; and those who did were excommunicated from the church.

D&C 132:7-10 warns that polygamy can only be allowed by "the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power...and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and keys of this priesthood are conferred." The prophets of the LDS church have said that God revoked his power to allow polygamy so it is disingenuous for people to claim the right to live under polygamy by authority that came from the LDS church. There are many different groups of Christians, not just FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints), that are claiming to live under a law of polygamy and all of those groups will have to be accountable to God for what they do in His name!

Question of Blacks & the Priesthood.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had many claims of wrong doing hurled at them, but none that seems to be as baseless as being "Racist". The bases of this charge is created by our critics because our church (which was established in 1830) until June 1978; withheld the responsibility and duties of the priesthood from those of African descent.  

For the critic of the LDS church this charge of racism has become (what I like to call) a “broken record argument”. Racism has never been the motive for withholding the priesthood from those of African descent. The scriptures show that the priesthood has been withheld from certain people simply because it has been the will of the Lord! In a country where so many burdens have been felt by African-Americans, "denying" them the priesthood appears on the surface to be one more trial of racism for them to bear. We will see that this is not the case and that the Lord has shown us many scriptural examples to prove this.

Let us begin with the LDS scripture that has created much of the misunderstanding, or fuel for misrepresenting the views of the church.  In Abraham 1: 21-27 we are informed that the 1st king of Egypt was a descendant of Ham. (Verse 21). In verse 23  we learn that Ham's wife came with a name meaning "that which was forbidden".  This being “forbidden” implies that she carried the mark of Cain.

 Now here in verse 24 we read the information that has many up in arms, "from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land". Many Bible scholars agree that from Ham sprang the African race, so this is why the text about a curse is so explosive. ( see the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/H/ham-(1).html ) In verses 26-27 we are informed that the curse is "pertaining to the Priesthood" and that Pharaoh was "of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood." The text here doesn't say anything about God cursing some men with black skin for any nefarious reasons. Because of these verses found in Abraham 1, the critics accuse the Mormons of being racist for withholding the priesthood from the “black race”! But the real question to ask should be; “is God just in giving the priesthood to some people but not others?”

In the scriptures, God has made it very clear that his power and authority is his to give to whom he will. In times past, much like during the 1900's, God chose select individuals to bare his priesthood.   It should be remembered that up until the time of the children of Israel priesthood had been passed from father to son. But in Exodus 40: 12-16 we see how God changed who would be allowed to hold his priesthood. In this scripture we learn that Aaron, the brother of Moses, and his sons were to receive the priesthood. In Num 8: 5-18 it is clarified that the "Lord spake unto Moses" to "take the Levites from among the children of Israel."  To do what?  To make the Levites the priesthood holders for the people of God, instead of all the believers of God having the Priesthood! Let me here insert a question, "If the LDS people are charged as Racist, for not allowing those of African descent the right to hold the priesthood, does that also make God a Racist as well?  For we see that any people who were either born into or later joined the people of God, would be denied the priesthood, since they are not of the children of Levi.   

In Num 8: 13-18 we see the Lord withholding his priesthood from the firstborn of all the children of Israel and giving it to the Levites for no other reason except that they were descendants of Levi.  This means that the 11 other tribes were without priesthood authority because the Lord withheld it from them. 

What are the LDS accused of? Withholding priesthood from those born of a certain lineage- and this is exactly what God was doing.  God tells us in Isa 55:8-9 "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." God does not distinguish who he will love or save based on skin color, but he has in the past picked certain people from certain families to hold his priesthood.

 Here is a new question to ponder, is it more "racist" to withhold the priesthood from a person or withhold from them the gospel of salvation altogether?

 Even back in the days of Isaiah the Lord revealed that in the Latter-days the gospel would go to "all nations and tongues" and "they shall declare my glory among the gentiles." (Isa 66: 18-19) So with this kind of knowledge and foresight, would it make sense to withhold the gospel message from the world? Yet, we find Christ instructing just that in Matt 10.  In verse 1 Christ chooses 12 disciples and gives them power over the devil and to heal the sick.  In verse 5 he sends them out with these instructions to go "not into the way of the Gentiles and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.”  

Many may deny the fact that Jesus was withholding the gospel from those who were not the "chosen people," but Matt 15: 22-28 strengthens this view point. Here is the story of a Gentile woman whose daughter was taken over by a devil. She believed that Christ could heal her daughter and she cried out to him for mercy. "But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him saying, send her away (verse 23).” He then tells her that he is only sent to the house of Israel. She came to him saying "Lord, help me (verse 25)." His response was, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs (verse 26).” I wish here to make one thing clear, I do not believe in any way Jesus Christ was a racist!  But can you see the hypocrisy of those who claim the LDS people are racist because they feel that God commanded the priesthood not to be given to some people when it was offered to others. And yet, here the son of God denied (at 1st) this woman a blessing because she didn't belong to the right family, the house of Israel. The story ends well with the woman exercising faith and the Lord granting her blessing. Notice that she could have been offended.   But instead she continued in faith until the blessing was hers. We can conclude that it is not "racist" for someone to be denied the priesthood or the gospel if the Lord commands such (remember Isa 55: 8-9).

Eventually we see that all people were to be taught and allowed to join Christ’s Church so they could be saved. After the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ he instructed his Apostles to “go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” and “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”(Mark 16:15-16) We do not know if the priesthood was freely given to every man that joined the church! We read Paul’s words in the book Hebrews that “no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” (Heb 5:4) This shows that God is still in charge of who he would give his priesthood to. It also shows that men, just because they want the power to act in the name of God, cannot just claim it.

Thankfully in 1978, the Lord said it was time for every worthy male to receive the Priesthood.  This was more than 30 years ago.   Some critics say since this didn’t happen before the civil rights movement; it proves that the LDS church is racist.  If the critics have a problem with the timing, they’ll just have to take it up with the Lord.  

Trinity

Most of us in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been asked why we do not believe in the Trinity. This question is an easy question for Latter-day Saints to answer.

  

It is because the Trinity is not scripturally taught.

Because the concept of the Trinity is not found in the scriptures, we as latter-day saints would have to learn about it from some other inspired source.  If you know anything about LDS beliefs this would not be hard for us because we believe in modern-day revelation.  However, no such "truth" exists in regards to the Trinity outside of oral tradition or private interpretation.  The LDS people get their understanding of the form of God from a source of modern day revelation: the account of Joseph Smith’s vision.  (You can read Joseph’s account of his vision here .)  In this account, God the Father and his son Jesus Christ both appeared to the young prophet Joseph in separate bodily forms (JSH 1:16-17).  This testimony of a prophet in our day is how the LDS people view God and Jesus. You may ask how Joseph's vision can stand in light of the scriptures. I’ll let you be the judge!

What is the Trinity?

I would not pretend to do justice in explaining the concept of the Trinity for two reasons: 1st - no one has ever been able to explain it to me without being contradictory and 2nd - I just don't get it. But from what I have been told there is only one God in heaven who may express himself as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost individually. (Not as individual beings)  Thus, Jesus is God and the Father is God and Holy Ghost is God but they are not 3 different Gods but one God. For the LDS people we believe that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all God, but we believe they are all separate beings that are one in purpose. They form the Godhead (COL 2:8-9) Sorry for the long introduction, let’s look to see what the scriptures actually teach about one God expressed as 3 or 3 Gods working as one!

A criticism of the LDS church in regards to the Trinity is the belief in more than one God.  In Isaiah 44:8 the question is asked "Is there a God beside me?"  The divine answer is "there is no God: I know not any." Couple this with John 10:30 "I and my Father are one" and you have the Trinity.  These Scriptures can’t possibly embrace a teaching of the Trinity.  In Isaiah 44:9-10 the verses clearly explain that verse 8 was talking about pagan deities of stone or wood, “they that make graven images are all of them vanity…”  John 10:30 will be explained later in this posting under John 17.

Let's move on to some obvious examples of the true nature of God and Jesus.  Matt 3:16-17.  Here, Jesus goes into the water to be baptized. The Holy Ghost makes his descent on Christ and then the Father speaks from heaven, "This is my beloved Son." Now we are either to understand that there is One God on earth (Jesus) who was visited by another God (the Holy Ghost) and a third God spoke his approval from heaven, OR we could believe that there is only one God who came to earth and left two parts of himself (which would make 3 separate Gods anyway) in heaven to transact any business, OR that while Jesus was down on earth he threw his voice and spoke to himself ....approvingly???  This ends the debate for me….

….but for any skeptics who need a little more from the scriptures here are some more examples: Jesus taught his disciples to pray in Matt 6:9-13. In verse 6 he explains that when you pray you should go to a "secret" place, for "thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." This makes good sense for us, but why do we see God going to his secret places to pray to..... Himself???  Read Mark 1:35-37 "he went out and departed into a solitary place and there prayed.........and when they had found him they said unto him, All men seek for thee", Mark 6:45-46 "And when he had sent them away, he departed into a mountain to pray", Luke 6:12-13 "he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to… wait for it.... GOD.  And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples." These are just a small sampling of scriptures that show God (Jesus) went alone to pray to his Father (God).

You may ask if God ever answered his prayers. John 12:28-30 Jesus says "Father, (remember he is talking to someone else) glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven (remember someone is speaking back) saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." The people who were here heard the Father speaking again to the Son.  

Now for this business of the oneness of God:  (John 10:30).  I have had many people try to explain it to me; I prefer to just let Jesus explain what he meant.  John 17:1-John18:2 this whole chapter is the prayer Jesus offers to God alone before he is betrayed. Verse 1 tells us that he prays to the Father and that he asks for blessings from this God in Heaven.  In verse 3 he tells us that "this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Just a question I have if Jesus and God in heaven are the same exact God, why does he call his Father the "only true God" and then refer to himself as the one who is sent? Could it be that Jesus, who is God, recognizes that his Father, who is also God, is greater than he is (John 14:28)? Verse 11and 20-23 gives us major insight.  Here is where Christ asks the Father to make the disciples and all who believe on their words "One, as we are."(verse 11) Or "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." Here, Jesus explains in his own words that the oneness of Father and Son is not one in being, or else all believers in Christ would also have to lose their bodies and join the oneness of God. God wants us to be all one in "glory"(verse 22).  Moses 1:39 "This is my work and my glory-to bring to past the immortality and eternal life of man."

I have already made this post longer then I intended to, I knew it would be hard not to over tell this point. Consequently, I will not continue on, but we can revisit the issue of the Trinity as questions arise…. I will leave you with this to think about.  Jesus (John 8:13) is accused by the Pharisees as baring "record of thy self." They correctly stated that his record could not be true according to the law. Learn from his response in verse 17-18 "It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." Jesus tells the Jews that he and his Father are not the same but two separate beings giving two different testimonies of his mission. If he and the Father was one God expressed in two ways, Jesus would have proven himself a liar. In conclusion, the LDS people believe the scriptures when they clearly teach that God is not one Being with three parts but is the title given to all those beings who bring about the Fathers’ purpose and have already been partakers in his glory. We count ourselves fortunate enough to have continued revelation in this day so God can make many hidden mysteries plain to his people. As Christ said "search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39).