|
Weighing up the Testimony of Joseph Smith After doing some research into Mormonism on the internet and through other sources, I noticed that there's a lot of bickering between Mormons and Christians with regards to Scriptures and the different interpretations of them. Basically Mormonism stands and falls on the testimony of Joseph Smith. He is at the root of Mormonism. If he's genuine then the "tree" is a healthy one and deserves to flourish, but if not, then the root needs to be uprooted and only then will the whole tree die. You will not kill a tree by cutting back it's branches (i.e. continual arguing over what the Scriptures say). Hence I have written this, my thesis on Joseph Smith, to determine whether or not his testimony is real and valid. Please note that Bible quotations have been derived from the NKJV Bible (to any Mormons reading this, feel free to look it up in the KJV should you not accept the NKJV). 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 The above three verses go hand in hand. If we despise prophecies we will quench the Spirit; to avoid doing this we need to test the prophecies and then hold fast to those which prove to be of God. Matthew 7:15-20 We are expected to "test all things". Test against what? The Word of God. But how can we do this if God's Word is apparently corrupted (as believed by some) or has been translated incorrectly, which would make it misleading and thus unreliable? We can't. This then leads us to ask the following: Would God admonish us, through Paul, to test all things and then allow His Word, which is our measuring rod by which things are to be tested, to become unreliable? If I tell my daughter that every morning she must brush her hair, how can she do so if I take away her brush? How can God ask us to test things against His Word if He's allowed it to be corrupted? Before anything could be accepted from Joseph Smith (i.e. Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, D&C's) he, his testimony and his prophecies would have to be weighed up against what God has given us, namely, the Bible. Why do Mormons readily accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and not Mohammed, when both men brought forward supernaturally inspired "doctrine" (for lack of a better word)? If the Word of God is no longer a solely reliable source by which to anchor our convictions to, then we have greatly misjudged Mohammed by weighing him up against what it says. If, however, it is reliable, then Joseph Smith is rightly subject to the same testing. In telling His disciples what to watch out for to show His coming and the end of the age, Jesus finishes by saying in Matthew 24:24, "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." Now again I wonder, with this verse in mind, if God knew there were going to be false christs and false prophets, would He have left His people defenseless by allowing His Word to become fallible through bad interpretation? The fact that these false christs and prophets may "deceive, if possible, even the elect" shows that we need to take this warning seriously because these men are not going to be easily overcome or put aside, especially if they show great signs and wonders. We can't just laugh them off as child's play because those not firmly entrenched in God's Word will fall. In Hosea 6:8 God says "My people perish from lack of knowledge...". Would He willingly keep us unknowledgeable now? We need to realize that these false men are creating serious waves in the spirit realm which needs to be dealt with. Joseph Smith was either a prophet from God or one of these false prophets who has managed to deceive, where possible, even the elect. Either way, he is to be taken seriously and has to be weighed against God's one and only Word before anything can be accepted from him. Now if the great apostasy, which Mormons believe in, is actually false and didn't happen to the supposed extreme as Joseph Smith said it did, then Mormonism has lost one of its major fundamental groundings. If I was alive in 1820 and Joseph Smith approached me, expecting me to believe in a "great apostasy" which would necessitate him being appointed as a prophet in order to restore the Church, I would require sound Biblical proof of this to back him up. What would he then show me? Presumably I'd be shown 1 Timothy 4:1, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons." Personally, this in no way proves a total apostasy. The verse clearly says that "some will depart" and not all, and points more towards the 1960's to date where the occult and a number of cult sects have grown at an alarming rate. Having an entire apostasy start 1,800 years ago hardly points to "latter times", especially considering that the earth and mankind are only 6,000 years old. In ignorance it may be believed that all Mormons are evil. It is a very general and misdirected belief to have, especially by someone who may never have met a Mormon. Someone who has not met a single Mormon is not at liberty to make the assumption that all are evil. Allow me now to re-word that last paragraph with reference to an apostasy: In ignorance it may be believed that after the apostles and prior to Joseph Smith there was a total apostasy. That is a very general and misdirected statement to believe, especially by someone who wasn't around to witness this. And someone who wasn't around prior to Joseph Smith is not at liberty to believe the assumption that there was a total apostasy (especially if it's believed solely on the word of one man). The first paragraph would upset a Mormon because they know they're not evil and would object to someone saying they are. Likewise, the second paragraph would make a pre-Joseph Smith believer in Christ upset, especially if they've been witness to Him, His love and His awesome power. It's easy to say they were in an apostic era, especially if you weren't there to witness it. For Joseph Smith to attain his goal and to be accepted as a prophet he would need people to accept that there was a great and total apostasy. This cannot be supported Biblically (without twisting and manipulating Scripture, that is). I now have the question of, if there was a great apostasy, where do all the born-again Christians, who are not and have never been LDS affiliated, who's fruits, as written about in the Bible, are evidence of their fervor for the Lord, come from? How is it possible for "apostate Churches" (bad trees) to bear good fruit (fervent born-again Christians)? It's not possible because Jesus Himself said so in Matthew 7:17-18, "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit". These verses are every much applicable to the Church as they are to the individual. A "bad" person may reject the teachings of a good Church, but it's not the Church's good teachings (indeed it's not possible) to turn a person into a "bad fruit". Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God the Father and Jesus the Son in a vision. He then states that he was given the following answer when he asked "the Son" which Church he should join, "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong...that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight, that those professors were all corrupt..." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History 1:19). If that was true then, and these same "wrong" Churches have not accepted LDS teachings even now, then it stands to reason that it must still be true according to all Mormons. All non LDS Churches must then still be "...an abomination in his sight...". So how can all these "abominable" Churches be bearing so many good and fervent Christians who are after God's own heart? I'd also like to have a look at the visions, particularly the 1st one, which Joseph Smith had. The two personages he saw the first time in the woods (apparently God the Father and Jesus) never identified themselves. In Joseph Smith's testimony about his first encounter with God and Jesus, he said the following: 17 17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and dglory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-This is My fBeloved gSon. Hear Him! By the way the first personage referred to the second, Joseph Smith presumed that it was God the father and God the Son. In the book of Revelation, when Jesus first stands before John in amazing glory, He says the following by way of introduction in Chapter 1:17b & 18a), "Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen." If Jesus gave such a thorough introduction to John, a man who was one of His 12 disciples and walked with Him for 3 years, then surely He would have given just as thorough introduction to Joseph Smith, a man who did not know Him and had never before seen Him? After His ascension, it is recorded that Jesus appeared twice to two different people. The first was to Saul when he was on the road to Damascus to persecute the Christians there. The second, as we just read, was to John on the Island Patmos. What's important to note is that both times Jesus identifies Himself. Acts 9:5 reads, "And he (Paul) said, "Who are You, Lord?" Then the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads." So why didn't He, or God the Father, identify themselves to Joseph Smith? 1 John 4:1 reads, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." I believe this verse is sorely ignored and overlook by many. If more people tested the spirits, then the devil would have a harder time trying to deceive the saints of God. In Matthew 3:13-17, Jesus is baptized by John. John tried to prevent Jesus from being baptized because, as the perfect, sinless Son of God, Jesus didn't need baptism. But He chose to lead by example. What was meant for God's people Jesus applied to Himself also. And the testing of the spirits was no different. Jesus expects people to test for Him, considering that He commands it to be done. Knowing this, He introduces Himself to Paul & John. That is why Paul and John didn't have to test Jesus to confirm whether or not it was really Him because He identified Himself to them, knowing that all spirits had to be tested. Although satan is the father of lies, the one lie he cannot say is to introduce himself as Jesus, the way Jesus did to John in Revelation. He can't say it any more than Jesus can lie. Satan can deceive people through visions by alluding to be Jesus, but he can't actually confess it. That would explain why the personages did not properly introduce themselves to Joseph Smith and only alluded to whom they may be. They allowed his presumption to do the rest. Satan doesn't always lie to us by what he says, he also lies to us by what he neglects to say. We know two things about satan: 1) he can imitate most things God does (i.e. miracles). Exodus 7:8-12 shows this. The sorcerer's and magician's of Egypt turned their rods into serpents, as Aaron had. 2) he cannot imitate everything. Satan cannot bring a truly dead person back to life. Although many false prophets have performed "miracles" which have fooled many (including Mohammed), not one of them raised anyone from the dead. This alone was done by God's prophets and Jesus Himself. 2 Corinthians 11:14 reads, "And no wonder! For satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light." It is for that very reason we need to test the spirits, because if we don't we are easily deceived. Whether or not Joseph Smith lied about what he saw and the "revelations" he apparently received, one thing is for certain, he was used as a pawn of the devil. Galatians 1:8 reads, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preached any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." Joseph Smith accepted another gospel from an untested and un-identified spirit; is it little wonder that so many people refuse to accept him as a true prophet of God? The fact that the first personage in Joseph Smith's vision says, "This is my beloved son. Hear him!" is not proof or test enough that they were who they were alluding to be. Having failed the Biblical test thus far, whatever the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and D&C says is null and void because how can we accept literature, supposedly from God, from a man who can't even pass testing from the only Book which we know is 100% from God? I'm sure that the Book of Mormon is a great piece of writing, but then again I'm not denying it's supernatural root or inspiration, I just believe this supernatural source is from the devil and not from God. Personally I think that God would not spend some 2,000 years composing this amazing book, the Bible, only to allow it to be changed by mere man, and then bring about another book, Book of Mormon (and the following subsequent books apparently "divinely inspired"), which doesn't fit perfectly with the first. The Bible has been a continual threat and thorn in satan's side. He couldn't destroy it, so instead he twisted what some of the verses said to suit his own needs and then tried to convince the world that it was corrupt. The Bible is called "the Word of God". God cannot lie, and neither can His Word. God gave us His message through the Bible and I believe He's strong enough to have preserved that message over time. Well there you go. My Biblically researched theory. Use it, don't use it, but may you be blessed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega, the First and Last. Amen. Reaching Out Ministries |