Truth Magazine

By Ronald D. Howes

The Liar and False Prophet Joseph Smith has variously been described as a “nut,” a `fanatic, ” a “hypocrite,” and almost every other abusive name that could be put on any one person. I think a better description would be genius. Joseph Smith Jr., as he liked to be called, the seer and revelator of the Latter Day Saints had humble beginnings among an eccentric family known for their severe rainbow chasing complex. Eccentricity, though, is often just misguided genius, which Joseph Smith apparently had.

It took brains to work up a system of religion that would be complex enough to have an aura of “divine mystery” about it, and yet simple enough in its basics to be digestible by the common people. Mormonism is perhaps the most colorful invention by man since Catholicism. It is replete with not one, but two distinct priesthood s, secret rituals, temple worship and strange and mysterious books, apparently sent from God for the deliverance of man. This is how the people of the world view Mormonism and in an age where people are sitting around like the Athenians (Acts 17:21) to “hear some new thing,” Mormonism fills the bill.

Sole credit for this system of religious-socialism however does not reside on Smith’s not-so-humble shoulders alone. A former “Campbell it e,” Sidney Rigdon, is probably responsible for the socialistic features of Mormonism and due credit needs to be given to the guiding light of organization provided by the great Brigham Young. But when it comes to imagination, no one holds a candle to Joseph Smith Jr., prophet, seer and revelator for the “Latter Day Saints.”

After stormy origins, and failures in New York and eventually Missouri and Illinois, resulting in the violent death of the prophet, Mormon leaders wisely decided to transplant the Saints to a new soil. After a mammoth exodus to Utah, the new religion was given a time to rest, lick its wounds, and through a system of polygamy produce new members of the faith in great quantities.

Unfortunately we can not spend all this article on Mormon History. There are several good books for the careful student of this subject to use Mormonism Exposed by G. B. Hancock, The Myth of Mormon Inspiration by William Brodie Crouch, Elbert A. Smith wrote Restoration and A Study in Prophecy). Also, there was a series of articles printed in American Heritage magazine in October and December of 1962. The Mormons themselves publish official histories of their organization. There is also a very interesting little piece in the Little Masonic Library, Vol. II, on the relationship between Mormonsim and Freemasonry, which you may be able to borrow from a Masonic friend.

This study will refer repeatedly to 3 different Mormon Publications, which are available at any Stake Center bookstore for 75c a copy, and are well worth the investment. The articles of Faith by Apostle James E. Talmadge, the D c& C or Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price (both contained in one volume) and the Book of Mormon. Buy the paperback editions and save yourself some money.

Talmadge And The Articles Of Faith

James Talmadge was one of the 12 apostles of the Mormon Church and his word is authoritative. He makes several statements about the Bible and the Book of Mormon which ought to be read and accepted at the start of every study with a young Mormon Elder or Latter Day Saint friend.

“. . .this book (the Book of Mormon) is entitled to the most thorough and impartial examination …. it claims, even demands the same; . . . The question of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is therefore one in which the world is concerned. The Latter Day Saints base their belief in the authenticity of the book on the following proofs:

1. The general agreement of the B of M with the Bible in all related matters. (emphasis mine rdh)

2. The fulfillment of ancient prophecies accomplished by the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon.

3. The strict agreement and consistence of the Book of Mormon with itself.” (emphasis mine rdh)-(Talmadge, The Article of Faith, p. 273).

There are two other proofs alluded to, but these will suffice for this study. Others have dwelt on the other proofs, the testimony of archeology to the Book of Mormon, and the truth of it’s prophesies, which this author will not have space or opportunity to consider. They are important and should not be neglected by the serious student. Mormons base their belief in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon on these items listed by TALMADGE. It is our design to take the first and third of his propositions to task and show the utter failure of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s writings to measure up to even TALMADGE’s great expectations for them. First:

Does the Book of Mormon Agree with the Bible in all related matters????? The following list of references are to page and verse in the Book of Mormon.

17:19 – “he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them . . . . as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come.”

contradicts: Eph. 3:4-5, and 1 Pet. 1:10-11. The N.T. says that the mysteries of God could not have been known in times of old, and that are only known through the Revelation of Jesus Christ. In Ephesians, Paul says that these mysteries were not made known unto the sons of man in other generations. Joseph Smith disagrees. He says any time.

13:22 & 62:26 – both of these references contain the account of non-Levites, the descendants of Ephraim & Manasseh, offering Sacrifices to God–apparently with his support and approval.

contradicts: One of the basic principles of the Law of Moses – that only Levites could offer sacrifice. See Num. 16:1-35 for God’s attitude toward non-Levites offering Sacrifice. It does not exactly sound like general agreement.

169:17 – . . .And they were called to. . .the Church of Christ from that time forward and whosoever was baptized. . .was added to his church. Here is in existence and people were being added to it in 147 B.C.; the dates are given at bottom of the Page.

contradicts: Jesus must have been a little inaccurate when he said in Matt. 16:16-18 “I will build my church.” He was about 170 years too late; according to Joseph Smith, it had already been built.

212:10 – here according to the Book of Mormon, Christ is born at Jerusalem; Joe made a little slip, because Mary was in Bethlehem at the time.

310:15 – around 73 B.C. there were Christians in the New World. Why then does Luke say that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch around 40 A.D. Someone is 123 years off base. Either Joe or Luke. How about that Talmadge?

394:20, 27 – according to this it was dark over the New World for three days. Why then does Matthew try and deceive us (27:45) by saying it was dark over the earth for 3 hours?

Suffice it to say that the point is well proven. The Book of Mormon and the Bible contradict each other time and again. According to Talmadge’s own proofs then, the Book of Mormon is not the authentic word of God.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 3, pp. 45-46
November 21, 1974

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

It would be surprising if some sincere and concerned brethren were not critical of the judgment of the Truth Magazine editor in his addition of a younger writer such as myself to the staff. Youth, though a notable possessor of zeal and idealism, has certainly no reputation for spiritual maturity. More than once in the past few years, a writer and his material have been criticized seemingly not so much on the quality of his work, but upon his age. We are only too well aware of our own limitations, not only ability-wise, but age and experience-wise also. It is to be expected that a younger writer will make more mistakes than a seasoned “veteran;” but no quarter is asked (or should be given), when error is taught. “Age” cannot be used as some nebulous invisible shield behind which a younger man can hide when his words are called into question in the light of the Scriptures. Any Christian who makes the decision to offer his literary efforts publicly invites critical examination and thus should be prepared to accept, yea plead for, correction when in error. At the same time, the question of “age” should not be a criterion of whether truth has been taught; we have seen and heard the sentiment expressed, “What he says is true, but he’s just not old enough to say so.”

Other brethren may question this writer’s own judgment in the acceptance of a staff position on Truth Magazine. At a time when gospel papers of all persuasions have seemingly fallen into disfavor among some brethren, it may seem an unwise move to associate oneself so intimately with such a paper as Truth Magazine. Here the question of motive raises its hoary head. “Is he lining himself up with these brethren for the gain he’ll receive in notoriety?” “Is he trying to forge a name for himself in the mind of ‘the brethren’?” It cannot be denied that certain notoriety attaches itself to the regular writer of a publication and that in some sense there is a “gain” from such an arrangement. But such an association carries with it not only “advantages” but also some disadvantages. With regard to intention, no amount of testimony can convince another whose mind is bent upon believing the worst. There are some brethren who’ have made it their business to misunderstand and to misrepresent others; if it is at all possible to indict a motive or take a statement in the wrong way, these brethren will do so.

Hence, a Christian, young or old, must make a decision. He can back down, cease any kind of public teaching, and settle comfortably down into a “noncontroversial” role. On the other hand, he may resolve to do his work, “fulfill his ministry” in the best way he knows how, whether in print, in pulpit, or in private.

This writer is certainly not suggesting that the forum of Truth Magazine is the only way one’s teaching responsibilities may be “discharged”; it is, however, one way, and this writer has chosen that avenue.

It should go without saying that the acceptance of a staff position does not imply,- endorsement of every single thing that appears within the pages of Truth Magazine; no thinking person would ever demand such a conclusion. Likewise, it should not be inferred that any or all contributors to Truth Magazine agree with what we may say in its pages. That, too, would be an unreasonable approach. When conscience demands, this writer, as he hopes any other contributors will do, will respond to articles appearing that cry for serious examination.

It is this writer’s intention to use the pages of this publication to proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are not interested in pushing party platforms (or no-party party platforms), brotherhood “politics,” or creed making. We foster no desire to appear ultra-pious or pseudo-scholarly. We seek to be a Christian only, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing different. We are no more interested in. producing “Truth Magazine Christians,” than in perpetuating the denominationalism of so-called “Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian Christians.” Our aim is to uphold any virtues which Truth Magazine possesses and at the same time to improve and bolster where any deficiencies exist.

Thus, we earnestly solicit your prayers and your criticism when constructive. We look only to our Lord as our Guide and Judge. It is only His judgment of motives and ideals that will someday matter. To Him be the glory for ever and ever, Amen.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 3, p. 42
September 21, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

“When I was young and bold and strong
Oh right was right, and wrong was wrong
My plume on high, my flag unfurled
I rode away to right the world.
“Come out, you dogs, and fight!” said I,
And wept there was but once to die.
“But I am old, and good and bad
Are woven in a crazy plaid.
I sit and say “The world is so;
And he is wise who lets it go.
A battle lost, a battle won —
The difference is small, my son.”
“Inertia rides and riddles me;
The which is called Philosophy.”
Dorothy Parker; 1936

Fourteen years., ago a great gospel preacher wrote ;a short article celled “Stand Back And Look.” In the face of increasing tides of worldliness and innovation that was sweeping the church, William Wallace sought to view out fruit in stemming that surge. He offered these words: “As we stand-back and take a look all we see is not discouraging. Militancy depends on some sort of a crusade. When a people feel embattled, they are more active when are lively and diligent. They fight well. So the forces of worldly influence within our ranks are faced with a mighty effort on behalf of the faith once for all delivered. We fight, we fight well, we fight successfully (Wallace, Gospel Guardian, Vol. 12 p. 120). In that same column Bill quoted from the pen of William Barrett, `A movement is alive and vital only when it is able to generate differences among its followers; when everybody agrees, we may be sure that it has declined into the stereotyped rigidity of death” (Wallace, “Beyond The Horizons”, Ibid).

One and a half decades later brother Wallace wrote, “To be in the light does not demand perfect illumination. One may sit in a lighted room where there are areas of dimness . . . There are areas of dimness in the life of one who “walks in the light”. . . A Christian may indeed cease to walk in the light and enter the domain of darkness. But sins in his life do not necessarily mean he has ceased to walk in the light. Walking in the light is not a matter of absolute moral and doctrinal perfection” (Wallace, Gospel Guardian, “What is Walking In The Light?”, Vol. 25, p. 740).

Truth And Conviction – Luke 11:33-36

Jesus spoke clearly to those men of “conviction” (11:27-29) concerning light and its relationship to men. “No man when he hath lighted a candle putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light. The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thy eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thy eye is evil thy body also is full of darkness. Take heed therefore, that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no dark part, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light” (Luke 11:33-36).

Truth is. Truth comes from God and does not depend on men or miracles to be truth (11:29-32). The eloquence of men, or mighty signs may make the emotions better adapted to receive the truth-but these do not affect one way or another that which is as eternal and unyielding as its Source. Jesus said that truth is open and visible for all men. Truth is like a light placed upon a candlestick, visible for all who “come in to the light.” That which obscures, darkens, confuses, colors, or diminishes the light is not truth, but something else. Whatever reveals is light. Dimness is not revelation, it is obscureness.

Jesus said that there are certain qualities necessary in man before truth can be perceived and accepted for what it is. “The light of the body is the eye” (11:34). Jesus compares man’s physical eye with his moral eye. The physical eye must remain healthy if it is to perceive with any accuracy the object it considers: Whatever affects the eye will affect the impression of the object seen. Truth does not depend upon the eye, for it just is, but the moral “eye” which “sees” it may be near sighted, may suffer myopia, cataracts, or color blindness.

Truth may be presented to the moral eye of man and not be seen as truth because the eye is not whole. The moral part of man that perceives right and wrong is the intellect. His emotions are not satisfactory as receptive organs of truth. Only the intellect of man is capable of being the “light of the soul.”

It is for this reason that Jesus said that this part of man must be “single” (11:34). Man’s mind must be completely intent on knowing God’s will. If one “cannot” perceive truth, the fault lies not with the truth, but the eye which is unhealthy. The object seen must not change; the eye must become healthy. We accept by faith that those who embrace error do so because they are blind in their spiritual “eye,” no matter how sincere they may be in their protestations to the contrary (Tit. 1:16). The mind that is weak through the appetites of the flesh, or ignorant through the terrible mote of pride, prejudice, or sloth, is an “eye” closed to the light of God. Once the moral “eye” of man loses its focus upon God’s light, whatever the, cause, “when thy eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.”

Responsibility To Know Truth

“Take heed, therefore, that the light which is in thee be not darkness” (11:35). One may have some light and still be in darkness, but one cannot have darkness and be in the light. Jesus is declaring that we have a responsibility to be “full of light”-not dimmed or colored by an unstable heart. It is a responsibility that each holds: “Take heed . . . .” We are responsible for what we believe, what we teach, what we practice. We must “walk by faith” (2 Cor. 5:7) and “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” God desires no blind, stumbling, confused saints. He has .given us light to see by. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word o.# God” (Rom. 10:17).

Full Enlightenment

Hosea called Ephraim “a cake not turned” (Hos. 7:8), a people burned hard on one side and doughy soft on the other. That which is most tragic in any life is “partial illumination.” Jesus said “If you have light throughout your whole body with no trace of darkness, it shall be wholly illuminated as when a lamp brightens you with its rays” (11:36, NEB). Our collective undoing is the “half-baked” Christian: not fully dedicated, imperfectly sanctified in character, not fully aware of God’s will. We are plagued with saints who are as narrow as their own selfish desires, having never glimpsed the true horizons of the spirit, “the breadth, and length, and depth, and height . . . filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph. 3:17-19).

The Tragedy Of Blindness

Nothing is sadder or more provoking than a mighty man in physical strength reduced to blindness and impotence. Samson, in his humiliation, blinded., stripped of his mighty strength cried out to Jehovah in the presence of his enemies, “O Lord God, remember me I pray thee, and strengthen me, 1 pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes” (Judges 16:28).

But how much more wretched, how sadly hopeless is the man who puts out his ownspiritual eyes-to whom can he go to regain the “light of the soul?”

Truth Magazine XVIII: 3, pp. 40-41
September 21, 1974