Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Unlike other epistles which develop a central theme, the letter written by James covers a variety of subjects. The following statements bring the letter to a rather abrupt close:

“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from depth, and shall hide a multitude of sins.”

Truth Is The Standard of Right

The above quotation from Jas. 5:19, 20 acknowledges that truth is our standard. Notice four facts about this truth:

(1) Jesus is its author. “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). What Moses taught was true, being from God, but Jesus is the source of the system of truth by which we receive the provisions of God’s grace.

(2) It frees and sanctifies. Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8: 32). Our Lord, the embodiment of divine truth, prayed on behalf of His followers in this manner: “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth” (John 17:17).

(3) The apostles were guided into all of it. In John 16:12-14, Jesus promised the apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit, and He assured them that the Spirit would guide them “into all truth.” Peter afterward affirmed that he and the other apostles had been given “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). Since all truth was revealed through the apostles, that left nothing in the way of new truth to come later through Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, or Charles T. Russell and his successors of Watch Tower fame.

(4) It imparts life. “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures” (Jas. 1:18).

We cannot go to the law of Moses to learn the truth of which Jesus is the author. Nor do we find that truth in human creeds, the decrees of Popes, the traditions of the fathers, or by doing whatever seems right in our own eyes.

It Is Possible To Err From The Truth

James was concerned about brethren who “err from the truth.” God does not hold men to the truth by some irresistible compulsion (Read 2 Pet. 1:10). In various ways people stray from the truth.

(1) By turning their ears from the truth. Paul warned that men would gather about them teachers who would scratch their itching ears, “And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3, 4).

(2) By failing to see the value of the truth. One may walk according to the truth for a time, then decide to leave the truth because he sees no real value in it. What we believe does make a difference. For example, one who believes there are apes in his family tree may begin acting like an ape.

(3) By deception. “But evil men and seducers shall Wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Peter warned of men who wrest the scriptures, cautioning his readers not to be led away with the error of the wicked (2 Pet, 3:16,17).

(4) By neglect. “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation . , .?” (Heb. 2:3). “Take heed, brethren,, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:12).

(5) By falling into sin. Some men and women never renounce the gospel in theory, but in practice they abandon the truth. Many have fallen into sin and are now wallowing in it.

Sinners Need To Be Converted

There are two classes of sinners: aliens (people who have never entered into covenant relationship with God) and erring brethren. James was addressing brethren in our text. “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him . . . he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul . . . .”

The faithful have an obligation to the erring. Some who have erred will resent our admonitions, but others will profit by them. Our manner of approach is important (Gal. 6:1,2).

We often show eagerness to save our health, our reputation, our business, funds for old age, etc. Everyone’s first concern should be the saving of the soul. Jesus taught that the soul is more valuable than all the world (Matt. 16:26).

Death-eternal separation from God-is the penalty for sin. “For the wages of sin is death. . .” (Rom. 6:23). Some try to make sickness, or mental anguish, or possibly physical death the only punishment for sin. Others suppose that annihilation is the penalty. The Bible describes the punishment for sin as one’s being “cast into the lake of fire” which is “the second death” (Rev. 20:14, 15; 21:8). To save a soul from this terrible penalty is the great object of the statements of our text.

Truth Magazine XXI: 4, p. 60
January 27, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

Sing To God Only?

One more example of creating needless confusion will be given, though many could be found. Passages like Col. 3:16 are sometimes misconstrued by those who think they are “going all the way back to the Bible in its original meaning.” They tell us the passage does not really instruct us as it appears to in its present punctuation: “teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs . . . . ” The passage really says, “Let the word’of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom (change “,” to a “,” and keep reading-RH) teaching and admonishing one another (insert ” ” or at least a “,” to show break in thought here-RH) in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” Thus the true meaning of the verse is that we should sing only songs of praise directly to God and not any songs which primarily teach and admonish one another.

Brethren have not picked this point up from being extra-ordinary Greek scholars, but from at least three possible sources. (1) The Authorized or King James Version was revised in 1881; separate English and American committees did their own work, then exchanged the results of each and conferred. When it was all said and done, the American committee still wanted a few more changes; “The New Revised Version” or the Revised Version carried the English committee’s preferences and listed the few remaining American suggestions in an appendix. Although one or two words of Colossians 3:16 were changed from the A. V. in the new R.V., no punctuation changes were made: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God.” In the appendix of American suggestions, the semi-colon after “wisdom” is omitted and one is placed after “richly.”

An “American Revised Edition” was published in 1882 incorporating the preferences of “The American Committee of Revision” and putting the English preferences in an appendix; the semi-colon change mentioned above is thus made in the text-., But an additional change is made: a semi-colon is added after “one another,” seeming to separate the teaching and admonishing from the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. It is difficult to know exactly why this punctuation is added; both the English and American committees used “what is sometimes called the heavier system of stopping” — “a larger use of colons and semicolons than is customary” for “convenience in reading aloud” (Preface to American Revised Edition). This was done “especially in the Epistles” such as Colossians.

Whatever the reason for that extra semi-colon, the American Revision Committee reviewed all the work that had been done to revise the K.J.V. and in 1901 issued the “American Standard Edition of the Revised Bible,” or the American Standard Version. It was acclaimed by competent scholars as the most accurate version ever given to the public. The Preface to this new work said that “the somewhat ponderous and peculiar system of punctuation of the original edition” was basically reproduced but with a renewed effort at improvement. In Col. 3:16, they returned to the punctuation of the K.J.V. and of the R.V. (1881), as being the best. The New American Standard Bible was issued in 1970 and retains this punctuation. Still, someone picking up a copy of the American Revised Edition might think he had discovered a more accurate punctuation of Colossians 3:16. Such a brother needs to be informed that when the American Revision Committee did its final and best work, it settled with the “traditional” punctuation and threw the altered one out.

(2) Another source for the idea could be some modern speech translations. The ones which translate Col. 3:16 so as to apparently make all singing .”to the Lord” and none to “one another” are not noted for accuracy. The New English Bible says, “Sing thankfully in your hearts to God, with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” William F. Beck’s New Testament in the Language of Today translates, “With thankful hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God.” Good News for Modern Man likewise separates all the teaching of “each other” from the singing, and apparently makes all singing directed to God only; the whole verse reads, “Christ’s message, in all its richness, must live in your hearts. Teach and instruct each other with all wisdom. Sing psalms, hymns, and sacred songs; sing to God, with thanksgiving in your hearts.”

It is doubtful these translators were trying to make the point some brethren try to make, i.e. that no songs of teaching and admonition to one another should be sung. The New English Bible says on Eph. 5:19, “speak to one another in psalm’s, hymns, and songs; sing and make music in your hearts to the Lord . . . ” Beck also says, “speak psalms, hymns, and songs to one antoher,” and Good News For Modern Man says, “Speak to one another in the words of psalms, hymns, and sacred songs; sing hymns and psalms to the Lord . . . ‘ Likewise, the American Revised Edition referred to above translates Eph. 5:19 to show that both teaching and admonishing one another as well as praising God are appropriate in songs.

We should also notice that many of the thoughts in Ephesians and Colossians are parallel, even identical. This is certainly the case regarding 5:19 and 3:16. Compare “speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” with “teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” Compare “singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” with “singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

The Bible teaches that our singing has a two-fold purpose: teaching one another and praising God. Generally, songs which do one, also do the other to some extent; but they may stress either one and be entirely scriptural. In any case, we are to sing “psalms,” and the ones provided in the Bible sometimes stress teaching and sometimes praising. So even if the phrase “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace . . . to the Lord” were separated from the “teaching and admonishing” in Col. 3, the verse still would not exclude songs which primarily teach and admonish. To the contrary, we are commanded to sing such!

(3) Many brethren have Adam Clarke’s fine commentaries in their homes, which is a very likely source of the idea being discussed. Clarke gives his translation of the verse with a comment following: `Let the doctrine of Christ dwell richly among you; teaching and admonishing each other in all wisdom; singing with grace in your hearts unto the Lord, in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. This arrangement the original will not only bear, but it absolutely requires it, and is not sense without it.” That was his opinion on the word order for that verse, but it is not clear that he meant to make the point brethren make. Again, on Eph. 5:19 he says, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms, ” and comments on songs, “to magnify God and edify men.”

But his comment on the word order in Colossians is in error. Not the least evidence of his claim can be found by searching the Greek scholars: M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, pp. 915-916; H. Alford, The Greek Testament, Vol. III, pp. 237-238; Kenneth S. Wuest, Eph. & Col. in the Greek New Testament, pp. 226-228; R. C. H. Lenski, St. Paul’s Epistles, pp. 177-178; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 505, and his Paul and the Intellectuals: The Epistle to the Colossians; and several other Greek scholars. The main point they discuss is whether “in all wisdom” should be connected with “dwell in you richly” or with “teaching and admonishing.” Every one of them agrees that “teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” is a connected phrase.

The actual order of the Greek words can be seen from an interlinear: “The word of Christ let (in) dwell in you richly, in all wisdom teaching and admonishing yourselves, in psalms, hymns, (and) spiritual songs in (or, with) the grace singing in the hearts of you to God.” The leading thought is: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. This clause is modified by two participial phrases, each of which is apparently introduced by a prepositional phrase: (1) in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, (2) in (or, with) the grace singing in your hearts to God. As the word of Christ indwells us, we will both teach and admonish one another in songs and we will praise God in songs. David Lipscomb puts it well, “What is sung must be the outgrowth of the rich indwelling of the word of Christ in the heart. The purpose is to praise God and teach the word of Christ” (Eph., Phil., Col., p. 299).

In teaching Greek, Brother E. V. Srygley impresses his students with a very important maxim: A little knowledge of Greek can be a dangerous thing! Most brethren who “know a little Greek” know a very little (including your’s truly). It has been often observed that there is not a single truth necessary for our salvation which cannot be found and understood in the English Bible. Helpful insights may be gained from the Greek-nearly always confirming and illuminating what the English already says-but a man does not have to know Greek to get to heaven. The claim has been made that the view of Col. 3:16 exposed above is required by the Greek; that is not so. Let us be reminded: We should not get brethren all confused and upset over matters about which we know very little to begin with and which are not necessary to our souls’ salvation.

Conclusion

Brethren, let us be cautious lest we cause needless confusion. Rather than pressing our personal preferences and opinions so as to create chaos, let us keep them to ourselves. After a “love affair” with some such idea, we may “cool off” and “straighten out” ourselves. In the meantime, what about those brethren we have needlessly confused? Instability may plague them the rest of their lives or they may be driven entirely away from the Lord by the confusion. Young people may be sent off on tangents from which they will never return. “Woe unto the world because of offenses! For it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!” (Matt. 18:7). In trying to appear “independent,” we can become dangerously eccentric.

Truth Magazine XXI: 4, pp. 58-59
January 27, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

“I suppose you wonder why I don’t go to your church. Why should I? I’ve got it pretty good-nice job, wife, and kids, and we’re crazy about one another. We live in a good country and we have lots of friends. And look at the times we live in too, with all the benefits of medical and productive science. If we’ll only use our heads and play it right, we’ll soon have a way of life that will make religion and the church unnecessary.”

“You know, preacher, I don’t understand why you’re in this church business anyway. It would seem to me that you could get into something more alive and tied in with the real concerns of living. For the life of me, I don’t see the point of what you’re doing. Look at my wife who is one of your best members! She attends all these meetings, three times a week like clockwork. Twice a year you have week-long meetings. All the time she is baking and taking food to people, visiting old people who are senile in the old folks home . . . and for what? Everybody rushing from one thing to another as if the devil were after them. That personal work meeting you had last month-my wife comes home on Friday exhausted and says, `I don’t know why I do it.’ The other evening I said, `Well, why do you do it?’ And she couldn’t say a thing! She didn’t know!”

“Sometimes she comes home all freshly steamed up with a new idea or program to make more members for your church. I guess you have to get up a new show now and then to whip up the enthusiasm or reserves of your exhausted faithful.”

“One of my pet peeves about your enterprise is the effect you have on my family. I spend a lot of the time I am home alone because you have either my wife or my kids trucking off to some shindig so that we are seldom home together. If I were mixed in it too, nobody would be home and I would be as frazzled as the rest of you.”

“Look at you! You’re run ragged trying to keep ahead of the show! While I don’t believe much or go to your church, I’ve often wondered why you people don’t train and organize your personnel better. It sure would save you a lot. No business could survive on the methods you people use.”

“There is something else on my mind. It has to do with the kinds of life religious people live in contrast to the life they preach. I know my faults and I don’t make pretenses-I am what I am; but a lot of your people that think they are too good to sit in the same pew with me aren’t what they seem. They are always looking down their noses at people that aren’t just like them. I don’t want to have anything to do with the church until the people in it are really as good as they claim to be. I may not be much, but at least I am not a hypocrite!”

“There’s something else that gets me about your brand of religion, preacher. You’re always fussing among yourselves as to who is right. We had some friends over the other night that ,are from the same church as you. During dinner the conversation turned to some of the differences between you. Liberal versus conservative, who did what to who first. It all makes me sick! Why don’t you get down to your real business, whatever that is?”

We have all heard this kind of dialogue at one time or another, both within and without the church. Many of us dismiss it as ignorant palaver, and it is ignorant-but it is not palaver. These are genuine and sincere doubts expressed in ignorance of what the church is really all about. Even many in the Lord’s church do not know what they are about, or what the church is. This man and others like him are rebelling against “churchism,” or “denominationalism.” Unfortunately, many are turned against the truth found in God’s ,word because they are rightly repelled by churchism, parochialism, legalism, and partyism. To deny that there are such problems among God’s people is to overlook the fact that these problems were part of the New Testament church as well. Recognizing a problem is the first step in correcting it. The fault lies not with the truth and the pattern, but in the failure of men to put the truth into life. We need to be about changing people rather than the pattern.

The simplest and most obvious answer is that our business is to preach the Gospel (1 Thess. 1:6-8; Matt. 28:18,19). But, what is that? The Gospel is “good news!” What good news? The man in our introduction might ask, “Good news? I haven’t heard any good news.” And in many instances, that is true. Not only have many outside the church not heard any good news, but sometimes even those in the church hear precious little of it. They live not under the good news of the Gospel, but under its bad news. The bad news is seen in the demands it makes upon us. The good news becomes bad news depending on one’s viewpoint and how the Gospel is presented. We do not lose sight of obedience or of sin-but brethren, most know they are sinners and are trying to drown that guilt in hectic “pleasure seeking”-booze, women, being a “good-ole-boy.” The simplest way to present the good news to these people is to take the approach John did, “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:16). The Gospel is the good news that God loves us, and wants us to be happy. He loved us so much that he lived and died and arose again that we might be able to escape this mundane, irrelevant, corrupt world. It is not so much what we have to do, but what God has done!

Everyone has wants and desires. Some are immediate and superficial; “I want an attractive home, a good wife, a satisfying job, esteem by people who mean something to me.” But, our greatest want is much deeper. One young woman put it well to me in conversation once when she said, “I could take just about anything dished out to me, if there was just one person who really loved and respected me . . . someone I could talk to who would approve and encourage me.” We all desire to be at one with someone, to have someone to share with us, and through whom we can find meaning in our life. People let us down, and often. People have a bad habit of being selfish, wanting more that they are willing to give. We need God, because he is the one who really loves us (Rom. 5:1-10). This is the good news. God loves us, and does not want even one soul to be lost now or in eternity. Everything around us may fall apart, every close friendship may be destroyed, our physical life may be filled with pain and anguish, but God knows, cares, and will make it right in the end. He put His seal on this relationship by offering His very own Son in our place. He paid all of our debts with the blood of His beloved Son, and He calls us to a life that is not only good to be lived, but will bring eternal happiness to all who will accept it. It is not a matter of “Which church is best,” “What’s wrong with instrumental music in worship,” “Are only members of the church of Christ going to heaven?” but rather “You do not need to be alone anymore. God loves you and wants you to be part of his family.”

Of course, in practicality, this is simplistic. People must often be impressed with the severity of sin (Acts 2:36,37), even that they are guilty of sin (Acts 8:19-24), and need God. After entering into this new relationship with God, it is necessary to impress upon the babe how to maintain it-God talks to us, but only through His word (Gal. 1:6-9). This is not legalism-this is a natural part of any relationship, human or divine. We must seek to please the one we wish to be one with. Presumptuousness, disregard, arrogance, indifference, or lack of genuine effort to please will destroy any relationship, human or divine.

Every living man needs God. We have the way to God, because we have found it ourselves. We need not be ashamed of our joy. We are no longer strangers, without hope, lonely, and without love. God has raised us to be princes, and kings. He has made us part of his family. We have an inheritance of which no two-bit Tennessee lawyer can cheat us. We have the world by the tail. We have Satan on the run, and the best weapons in the world to cope with his fiery.arrows. The way to God is in the Gospel. Let us get that good news to those still in darkness.

Truth Magazine XXI: 4, pp. 56-57
January 27, 1977

By Robert H. West

It Is False If It Contradicts The Bible

It is a well-known fact that Truth does not contradict Truth. That the Bible is Truth, is a fact to which our Mormon friends agree-up to a point. If all of the writings held to be inspired by Mormons are consistent with the Bible, this a point in their favor. On the other hand, if it can be shown that the writings of Mormonism contradict the Bible, this will lead irresistibly to the conclusion that their religious system is false. Let us notice a few instances of how the Mormon writings compare with the Bible on subjects touched upon by both.

WHERE WAS JESUS BORN?

One of the most well-known and easily perceived contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible is that which deals with the place of the birth of Christ. Read the following:

Bible: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea . . .” (Matt. 2:1).

Book of Mormon: “and behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers . . .” (Alma 7:10).

The Mormons make a futile attempt to “explain away” this obvious contradiction by observing that Bethlehem was only about six miles from Jerusalem, something of a suburb of the great city. Hence, we are told, when the Book of Mormon designates Jerusalem as the birthplace, this would include Bethlehem. Thus they contend, there is actually no contradiction between the two statements.

This explanation seems plausible until from the Bible we learn that Jerusalem was a walled city and in all of the approximately 800 references in which the city is named not one of them includes territory beyond the walls of the city! Furthermore, in Matt. 21:17-18, we learn that Jesus “went out” of Jerusalem into Bethany. Any good map of that area will reveal that Bethany was only 1 = or 2 miles from Jerusalem. If Bethany, only 2 miles from Jerusalem, was considered by the Holy Spirit as “out” of that city, then surely Bethlehem, three times as far from Jerusalem, could not be considered a part of the city! Even in the Book of Mormon, “Jerusalem” or “land of Jerusalem” is never used to include the surrounding cities. The contradiction, therefore, remains.

WHEN WERE THE DISCIPLES FIRST CALLED CHRISTIANS?

Bible: “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26).

Book of Mormon: (margin reads, “73 B.C.”) “And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called. . .” (Alma 46:15).

Yes, our Mormon friends wish us to take this statement seriously! Christians even before the coming of Christ! Take your pick. Which will you believe? You cannot believe the Bible and at the same time believe in Mormonism!

DOES THE HEAVENLY FATHER HAVE A BODY OF FLESH AND BONES?

Bible: “God is a spirit. . .” (John 4:24). “. . . a spirit bath not flesh and bones. . .” (Luke 24:39).

Doctrine and Covenants: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s. . .” (130:22).

Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and bones, and that God is a spirit. This is directly contradicted by Mormonism! It will not do for Mormon apologists to say that God “has” a spirit. The Bible clearly states that He is a spirit, which cannot possess flesh and bones. This materialistic concept of God runs throughout the entire Mormon system.

These are only a few of the many available instances of contradictions between the Bible and Mormon writings. But these should be sufficient to show that Mormonism is not from God.

It Is From Man If It Contradicts Itself

One of the outstanding arguments for the credibility of the Bible is it consistency–the fact that it nowhere contains contradictions. This cannot be said for Mormonism, as its writings are replete with irreconcilable contradictions, thus proving that it originated with man–not God. We shall present three instances for your consideration.

A CONTRADICTION CONCERNING POLYGAMY

Book of Mormon: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord” (Jacob 2:24).

Doctrine and Covenants: “David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants . . . and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me. . . and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife. . .” (132:38-39).

The above contradiction is so plain that it borders on the ludicrous to hear an effort to reconcile the two statements. Sometimes Mormons say that what the writer in the Book of Jacob was talking about was the “many wives and concubines” which David did not have permission from the Lord to receive. It was his “polygamy without authority,” they say, which was “abominable” to God. But notice, please, in the passage in Doctrine And Covenants, it says that God gave David his wives and concubines and that the only case in which he sinned was that of Bathsheba! The contradiction remains to the chagrin of Mormon apologists.

A CONTRADICTION CONCERNING THE STATE OF THE DEAD

The doctrine of “baptism for the dead,” i.e., baptism by proxy for the salvation of their unbaptized dead relatives, is perhaps one of the most distinctive and bizarre of the Latter Day Saints’ teachings. It is enjoined upon them, among other places, in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 124. But this teaching and practice is expressly contradicted by the Book of Mormon in the following passage:

“And, in fine, woe unto all those who die in their sins; for they shall return to God, and, behold his face, and remain in their sins” (2 Nephi 9:38, see also Alma 34:3235; 40:14).

A more glaring contradiction than this is seldom found in the writings of false religions. On the one hand Mormons teach that they can be baptized in behalf of the disobedient dead and that will save them. On the other hand the Book of Mormon teaches that once people “die in their sins,” they “remain” in their sins!

A CONTRADICTION CONCERNING BOOK OF MORMON LANGUAGE

Mormons tell us that the Book of Mormon was originally written in the “reformed Egyptian” (1 Nephi 1:2; Mormon 9:32). Since this language was entirely unknown to any other than the “now extinct Book of Mormon peoples,” we are told that a divine means of translating the plates was provided. Notice:

“Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct “‘(Joseph Smith, 2:641.

“But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof” (Mormon 9:34).

Keep it clearly in mind that even Joseph Smith did not claim to be able to translate the language of the alleged plates without these divine “interpreters.” Now, we are told that Smith copied some of the characters from the plates, with the translation, gave them to Martin. Harris who then took the document to Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University, “a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments.” We read the results of this interview in The Pearl of Great Price as follows:

Do you not see the direct contradiction? On the one hand the Book of Mormon says the language of the plates was unknown to any other people, therefore the necessity of the supernatural means of translating them, supposedly given to Smith. On the other hand, the Pearl of Great Price tells us that Professor Anthon knew the language well enough to say the translation was correct! There are many other palpable and irreconcilable contradictions in Mormon writings. The few we have presented should be enough to prove that these writings came from man and not from God.

It Is From Man If Its Purposes Have Failed

The Mormons make many wondrous claims as to the exalted purposes of their religious system. We wish to consider two of those purposes in this treatise. Since it is contended that these purposes are divine, if we find that they have failed, this should be ample proof that the Mormon system is not of God, as His purpose never fail.

MORMONISM WAS TO “WIND UP THE SCENE” BY 1891!

In Doctrine and Covenants 130:14-16, Joseph Smith wrote the following:

“I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.”

Since Joseph Smith was born in 1805, had he lived to be 85, that would make the, time when Smith was to “see the face of the Son of Man” in the last days of 1890 or sometime in 1891. While there seems to be some doubt in Joseph’s mind, at this time, as to what would take place in 1891, a subsequent statement of his, made in February, 1835, clarifies the matter:

. . . and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh-even fifty-six years should wind up the scene” (History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, edited by B. H. Roberts, Volume IJ, p. 182).

Since the latter statement was made in 1835, fifty-six years from then would have been 1891! But that uneventful year has come and gone, the “scene” has certainly not been “wound up,” and Jesus has not come again! Mormon missionaries are still going forth “to prune the vineyard,” but this purpose was to be accomplished “for the last time” prior to 1891. Here is a purpose as well as a prophecy of Mormonism which has failed so obviously (See Deuteronomy 18:20-22)!

MORMONISM WAS TO RESTORE LOST PORTIONS OF THE GOSPEL

Remember, in 1 Nephi 13:26-28, the Book of Mormon asserts that “many plain and precious parts” of the Bible would be removed. In this same chapter, speaking the Book of Mormon, one of the purposes of that bood is stated in these words:

“And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them . . .” (v. 40).

As we have already shown in a previous section, God gave the promise that His word could not be destroyed, but rather that it would “abide forever” (1 Pet. 1:23-25). Thus, the Mormon purpose stated above is faulty in its beginning, as there is no need to restore that which was to remain, according to God’s promise, uncorrupted through the years.

Furthermore, has the Book of Mormon “made known” the plain and precious things which have be taken away from the gospel? Absolutely not! Even Mormon authorities must admit this in their inability to produce these “plain and precious things” removed (against God’s promise) from the Bible. Mormon missionaries talk much about the so-called “lost books of the Bible.” Yet, where are these books? Certainly not in the Book of Mormon, by the admission of Mormons themselves! If, therefore, neither the “lost books” nor the lost “plain and precious parts of the gospel” has been restored in the Mormon system, obviously another of its self-assigned purposes has failed, thereby proving that the system is from man, not God.

Mormonism—-From God Or Man?

In this brief examination we have produced evidence that the Bible is complete and uncorrupted and thus a sufficient religious guide for mankind.

1. We have shown that whereas truth cannot contradict truth, the Mormon writings plainly contradict the Bible, a known and recognized source of truth.

2. We have further shown that there are gross contradictions in the Mormon writings themselves.

3. Then we examined two of the purposes of Mormonism as stated in authoritative Mormon literature and found that they have failed.

Mormonism is clearly from man-not from God. The evidence presented here is but a small portion of that which is available which leads irresistibly to the same conclusion.

Truth Magazine XXI: 4, pp. 54-56
January 27, 1977