Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 9"

m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|H1 +|H))
Line 11: Line 11:
 
|>=[[../Chapter 10|Chapter 10: Meeting the Mormon Challenge]]
 
|>=[[../Chapter 10|Chapter 10: Meeting the Mormon Challenge]]
 
}}
 
}}
 +
<onlyinclude>
 +
{{H2
 +
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 9
 +
|H=Response to claims made in Mormonism Unmasked, "Chapter 9: By Whose Authority?"
 +
|S=
 +
|L1=
 +
}}
 +
</onlyinclude>
 
==Quick Navigation==
 
==Quick Navigation==
 
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 9#Response to claim: 138 - "The priesthood of the Old Testament was brought to an end with the death of Christ"|Response to claim: 138 - "The priesthood of the Old Testament was brought to an end with the death of Christ"]]
 
*[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 9#Response to claim: 138 - "The priesthood of the Old Testament was brought to an end with the death of Christ"|Response to claim: 138 - "The priesthood of the Old Testament was brought to an end with the death of Christ"]]

Revision as of 21:40, 8 October 2017

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to claims made in "Chapter 9: By Whose Authority?"



Chapter 8: Jesus Is Coming Again
A FAIR Analysis of: Mormonism Unmasked, a work by author: R. Philip Roberts
 		Chapter 10: Meeting the Mormon Challenge

Response to claims made in Mormonism Unmasked, "Chapter 9: By Whose Authority?"



Quick Navigation

∗       ∗       ∗

Response to claim: 138 - "The priesthood of the Old Testament was brought to an end with the death of Christ"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that "The priesthood of the Old Testament was brought to an end with the death of Christ."

Author's sources: Hebrews 7:11-12

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources


Question: Do we do not need a mediating priesthood since it has been "fulfilled in Christ?"

The Bible repeatedly speaks of a priesthood authority outside of Jesus both before and after His resurrection

Some sectarian Protestants claim that Christians do not need a mediating priesthood. Is a priesthood not needed since it has been "fulfilled in Christ?"

The Bible repeatedly speaks of a priesthood authority outside of Jesus both before and after His resurrection, with John describing such callings just prior to the second coming.

Early Christian authors insisted too that high priests, prophets, bishops, elders, priests, and deacons with authority persisted among the Christians.

Efforts to deny the need for a formal priesthood seem to arise mostly out of theological necessity, rather than historical or biblical evidence.

This criticism usually comes from Protestant circles and usually involves an argument for some form of "the priesthood of all believers."

The critics' theological need to dispense with priesthood authority—since Protestantism cannot claim authority from either a restoration (which they deny) or a continuation (having broken with Catholicism)—leads them to ignore the clear evidence from the early Church.

As William Hamblin pointed out:

Why, if Christ has removed all need for human priesthood authority, did Christ order the lepers he healed to go to the Jewish priests for purification (Mark 1:44, Luke 17:14)? Apparently Christ believed that his miraculous powers of healing did not negate or supercede the priesthood authority of the Jewish priests. Possibly Protestants could argue that Christ had not yet ascended into heaven and replaced the Jewish High Priest. If so, why does Peter speak of a post ascension "holy priesthood" (1 Peter 2:5) and "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9) among Christians? Likewise John in Revelation speaks of the saints as "priests to his [Christ's] God and Father" (Revelation 1:6), and "priests to our God" (Revelation 5:10); in the resurrection there "shall be priests of God and of Christ" (Revelation 20:6). What odd statements for an infallible book to make if [the critics'] understanding of priesthood is correct.

Some of the earliest Christians also explicitly disagree with White's claims. The author of the Didache, (one of the earliest post-New Testament Christian documents, late first to early second century), states explicitly that "the prophets ... are your high priests" (13.1). Note the plural here: the prophets (profetais) are the Christians' high priests (archiereis). So, early post-New Testament Christians had prophets (a thing [James] White believes Christians shouldn't have) who were high priests (a thing [James] White believes Christians shouldn't have); and there were apparently simultaneously more than one high priest. [1]

Evidence after the New Testament

Wrote another author:

While there are few New Testament references to priests, other than Jesus Christ and converted Levite priests (Acts 6:7), Protestants should not assume that this office was abolished. The early church had priests along with bishops and deacons. Origen (ca. 240 A.D.) spoke of the church hierarchy in the 2nd century describing the priest's office as being between that of the deacon and bishop (Jean Danielou, "Origen", p.44-45, 49-50; Cel. 5,3,1; De Princ. 3,2,4; Hom. Luc., 35; Hom. Ez. 1,7) and Eusebius (ca. 300 A.D.) clearly distinguished between those holding the priesthood (i.e. bishops, presbyters or elders, priests, deacons, etc.) and the lay members both men and women. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:19, 23, 43; 7:30; 10:3, 4) Eugene Seaich observes that "documents from the early Church show that the Aaronic Priesthood did not immediately disappear from Christianity. 1 Clement (ca. 96 A.D.) divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests and Levites. The latter were also called "Deacons" and according to Justin's First Apology (ca. 150 A.D.) were responsible for passing the bread and wine to those attending service" (Ancient Texts and Mormonism, p. 59). Though the title priest was rarely used in the New Testament, so also were similar priesthood titles such as pastor (Ephesians 4:11), evangelist (Acts 21:8); (2 Timothy 4:5), presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14), and seventy (Luke 10:1),(Luke 10:17). [2]


Response to claim: 138 - The author states that "God set the minimum age of the Aaronic Priesthood at twenty-five"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that "God set the minimum age of the Aaronic Priesthood at twenty-five."

Author's sources: Numbers 8:23-25

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

God also states in the same verse that the Aaronic Priestood is only given to the Levites. Numbers 8:24 states, "This is it that belongeth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to wait upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation." Neither of these restrictions applies to the modern Church.


Response to claim: 138-139 - "the only Christian priesthood mentioned in the New Testament is the spiritual priesthood of every believer"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that "the only Christian priesthood mentioned in the New Testament is the spiritual priesthood of every believer."

Author's sources: 1 Peter 2:5-9

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources


Question: Is there a "Priesthood of All Believers" which eliminates the need for unbroken lines of priesthood authority?

Peter's reference to the priesthood was drawn from the ancient Israelite views of the priesthood, a view in which only a select group hold the priesthood

It is claimed that there is no need for unbroken lines of priesthood authority since the Bible teaches that all believers hold the priesthood. However, Peter's reference to the priesthood was drawn from the ancient Israelite views of the priesthood, a view in which only a select group hold the priesthood. Neither the Bible nor other early Christian writings support the idea that all Christians hold priesthood authority to govern the Church or administer its ordinances. Instead, this doctrine is a novelty necessitated by the protestant break with Rome.

Here, we examine some of the scriptural passages cited in defense of the concept of a priesthood of all believers.[3]

"A royal priesthood"

  • "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9).

This was the principal passage cited by Martin Luther in defense of a priesthood of all believers. What Luther failed to note is that Peter was actually referring to an Old Testament passage, in which the Lord told the Israelites through Moses,

  • "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation" (Exodus 19:5-6).

Yet of the Israelites present at the mount of revelation, only the Levites were chosen for priesthood service.

The Gospels and Acts

Based on the belief in the "priesthood of all believers," a Protestant minister often feels that the Bible (or God) has called him to work. But Christ made it clear that this is not the way it works. He said, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:21-24).

Only a believer would prophecy in the name of Christ or, in his name, cast out devils. Yet the Savior said that he would cast out those he never knew. It is wrong to profess to do something in the name of Christ when one does not have the authority to do so. Note that Christ said that there would be "many" who would claim to have performed good works in his name who would be rejected, so this is not just an occasional person.

That specific authority was required to perform ordinances in the early Church is made clear by the story found in chapter 8 of Acts: "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money" (Acts 8:14-20). Simon was not trying to buy the Spirit, but the "power" to "lay hands" on people so they could receive the Holy Ghost. This power is what we call "priesthood." Simon had already been baptized in the name of Christ, but this did not authorize him to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

At the last supper, Christ told his apostles, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you" (John 15:16). This ordination did not take place because they were baptized, but came after they had chosen to follow Christ. In Luke 6:13, we read that "when it was day, he [Jesus] called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles." So only twelve of Christ's followers were chosen to be apostles. Mark gives more details concerning this event: "And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils" (Mark 3:13-15). From this, it is clear that the apostles received, at that time, "power" that other followers of Christ did not have. He later gave that same power or priesthood to seventy others (Luke 10:1-20).

The account in Acts 19:1-6 is also instructive on the concept of authority to baptize and confer the gift of the Holy Ghost: "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

These men (twelve in number according to verse 7), said they had been baptized "unto John's baptism," probably meaning by someone claiming authority from the John the Baptist, who had been killed by Herod Antipas long before the time of Paul. But Paul doubted the truth of this statement, knowing that John had told people of Christ who, coming after him, would baptize them with the Holy Ghost (Matthew 3:11; John 1:29-34). So Paul taught them about Jesus, after which "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" and Paul "laid his hands upon them" for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Main articles: Bible teachings about the Priesthood and Do Christians need a mediating priesthood?

Early Christian history

Christians in the first centuries do not seem to have endorsed the idea of a priesthood of all believers either—instead, this was a later idea developed by Luther to justify his break with Roman Catholicism, which claimed priesthood inheritance from the apostles.


Response to claim: 139 - The author states that "Mormon high priests do not offer any sacrifices, so they are not following the Old Testament pattern"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that "Mormon high priests do not offer any sacrifices, so they are not following the Old Testament pattern."

Author's sources: Hebrews 5:1

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Christ fulfilled the Mosaic law, and did away with the need to offer physical sacrifices. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not claim to be following the "Old Testament pattern" in all things. To do so would mean that we would have to ignore Christ's sacrifice in favor of the Law of Moses. Instead, we understand the Christ made the ultimate sacrifice.


Response to claim: 140 - The author claims that 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 refers to "various ministries or gifts in the early church" and that it is "not listing specific offices of the priesthood"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 refers to "various ministries or gifts in the early church" and that it is "not listing specific offices of the priesthood."

Author's sources: 1 Corinthians 12:28

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

We disagree. 1 Corintians 12:28 reads: "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."


Response to claim: 140 - "Paul lists apostles first and prophets second, indicating their order of importance"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that "Paul lists apostles first and prophets second, indicating their order of importance." He states that in Mormonism that the apostles "serve under" the prophet, which he claims is a "reversal of the biblical order."

Author's sources: 1 Corinthians 12:28

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

All apostles are considered prophets, seers and revelators. The designation of one apostle to be the president of the Church simply means that he is the one authorized to make final decisions after the deliberation of the Council of the Twelve and the First Presidency.


Response to claim: 140 - The author states that the only men who could be chosen as apostles were those who were an "eyewitness to the full ministry of Jesus"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that the only men who could be chosen as apostles were those who were an "eyewitness to the full ministry of Jesus, including his resurrection," and states that "the New Testament offers no evidence that others were later chosen to take the place of anyone else in the twelve."

Author's sources: None provided

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

In Acts 1:13–26, the apostles call a new apostle to replace Judas.

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphæus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

15 ¶And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.


Response to claim: 140 - The First Presidency plus the twelve apostles is equal to 15 apostles. The author states that this is not the same as Jesus' twelve apostles

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The First Presidency plus the twelve apostles is equal to 15 apostles. The author states that this is not the same as Jesus' twelve apostles. The author states that that Mormonism has "too many apostles."

Author's sources: None provided.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

There is no biblical restriction on the number of apostles that may exist at one time. However, there are always only 12 apostles who are members of the Quorum of the Twelve at any given time.


Response to claim: 141 - The author claims that "bishop is not a separate office in the church but one of the elders"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that "bishop is not a separate office in the church but one of the elders."

Author's sources: 1 Timothy 3:1; Titus 1:7

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

This is simply the author's interpretation of the Biblical passages. 1 Timothy 3:1 clearly defines "bishop" as an "office":

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.


Response to claim: 141- a deacon cannot be a 12-year-old boy, but must be mature men and "the husband of one wife"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that a deacon cannot be a 12-year-old boy, but must be mature men and "the husband of one wife."

Author's sources: 1 Timothy 3:8-12

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

This is the result of some changes in the nature of priesthood offices. This is a letter with instructions given to Timothy from Paul, and is basically the equivalent of the church Handbook today, or a letter from the First Presidency with instructions/policies, which can be changed as needed. According to Brigham Young (JD 2:89, 1854):

When you have got your Bishop, he needs assistants, and he ordains Counselors, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons, and calls them to help him; and he wishes men of his own heart and hand to do this. Says he, “I dare not even call a man to be a Deacon, to assist me in my calling, unless he has a family.” It is not the business of an ignorant young man, of no experience in family matters, to inquire into the circumstances of families, and know the wants of every person. Some may want medicine and nourishment, and to be looked after, and it is not the business of boys to do this; but select a man who has got a family to be a Deacon, whose wife can go with him, and assist him in administering to the needy in the ward. [4]

The original division in the priesthood was between temporal and sacred functions, with the Aaronic priesthood administering to the temporal needs (the remains of this function has the Bishop as the head of the Aaronic Priesthood in the ward). The shift to younger/older divisions happened after the requirements for Statehood removed the ability of the Church to function in the temporal realm. The functions of the Aaronic Priesthood were being subsumed under the Territorial and later State governments. That left the Aaronic Priesthood with nothing to do, and the shift provided different ways for the Aaronic Priesthood to have a function in the ecclesiastical realm.


Response to claim: 141 - "Teachers" must be "mature Christians" that are "able to teach others" rather than teenagers

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that "Teachers" must be "mature Christians" that are "able to teach others" rather than teenagers.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The New Testament Student Manual 2014 states,

In Paul’s list of Church officers, he mentioned teachers immediately after apostles and prophets, which underscores the importance of effective teachers in the Church. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles encouraged all of us to improve our teaching skills:

“In this Church it is virtually impossible to find anyone who is not a guide of one kind or another to his or her fellow members of the flock. Little wonder that Paul would say in his writings, ‘God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers.’ [1 Corinthians 12:28.]

Therefore, according to Elder Holland, the "teachers" being referred to by Paul are anyone who is a "guide of one kind or another to his or her fellow members of the flock."


Response to claim: 141 - The author states the the LDS Church "does not have any pastors"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states the the LDS Church "does not have any pastors," and states that it is "inconsistent for Mormons to insist the words apostles and teachers are specific offices of the priesthood while denying that pastor or evangelist are priesthood offices."

Author's sources: Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, 108-9; Ephesians 4:11

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

A Latter-day Saint bishop or stake president is the equivalent of a pastor in other churches. Elder Tad Callister stated,

The blueprint of the New Testament reveals other officers that constituted part of the organization of Christ’s Church: bishops (see 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1:7); elders (see Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5); deacons (see Philippians 1:1); evangelists (see Ephesians 4:11), meaning patriarchs; and pastors (see Ephesians 4:11), meaning such men as bishops and stake presidents who preside over a flock.[5]


Response to claim: 141 - The author states that "Evangelist" and "Patriarch" are not the same

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that "Evangelist" and "Patriarch" are not the same.

Author's sources: Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, 108, 170.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Joseph Smith defined "evangelist" as "patriarch",

An Evangelist is a Patriarch. … Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints, as it was with Jacob in giving his patriarchal blessing unto his sons. [6]


Response to claim: 142-143- The author claims that the Bible justifies a paid ministry

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that the Bible justifies a paid ministry.

Author's sources: Numbers 35:7; Josh. 21:191; Timothy 5:17-18; 1 Corinthians 9:5-6; 1 Corinthians 9:11, 14; 2 Corinthians 11:8; Phil. 4:16, 18.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Question: What do the scriptures teach about paid ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ?

Response to claim: 143 - The author claims that "Many of the Mormons are not aware that their apostles receive a salary"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that "Many of the Mormons are not aware that their apostles receive a salary."

Author's sources: The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

After making a biblical case for having a paid ministry, the author is now complaining that top church leaders receive a living allowance.

What do the scriptures teach about paid ministry?

The scriptures mention circumstances in which a paid ministry is appropriate, and also provide several cautions about the practice. Having a paid clergy is not in and of itself a terrible thing. Problems arise when the issue of money becomes a greater motivator than the things of God (and this can happen to any member). So the members support those who are engaged full time in the work of the Church if necessary, but we also do not have a system where one can simply choose to become one of these full-time workers (for example, by getting a degree and looking for a job as a clergyman). This lack of a professional clergy acts as one of the checks on helping to make sure that it is not the financial reward that drives those who serve in the church.

New Testament

In general, the most explicit statement about it comes from 1 Corinthians 9꞉7-14:

Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

The King James language can be a bit archaic; the NIV translation of the last two verses (13 and 14) may be more clear:

Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Book of Mormon

Perhaps the most explicit scriptural statement about this issue from a negative perspective comes from 2 Nephi 26꞉31 (cited above).

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as priestcraft, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see 2 Nephi 26꞉29). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see Alma 1꞉12,16, 3 Ne 16꞉10, 3 Ne 21꞉19, 3 Ne 30꞉2, D&C 33꞉4). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory to strongly held values of the Latter-day Saint community. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

The example of King Benjamin adds to the LDS value of self sufficiency of leaders in particular. Benjamin, while king, still labored for his own support (see Mosiah 2꞉14). This is a very admirable demonstration of humility on the part of the king. However, this example was being used in the context of his political position as king, and would be comparable to a President refusing to accept his salary for his service. It should not be used to condemn the practice of helping provide for the modest living needs of full time leaders who are unable to dedicate time to earning a living.

Doctrine and Covenants

When instituting the law of the Church, the Lord directed that the general Church leaders responsible for handling the temporal affairs of the Church should be compensated for their service:

And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned; or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.[7]

The Lord also directed that the compensation be sufficient to care for the leaders' families:

Let the bishop appoint a storehouse unto this church; and let all things both in money and in meat, which are more than is needful for the wants of this people, be kept in the hands of the bishop. And let him also reserve unto himself for his own wants, and for the wants of his family, as he shall be employed in doing this business.[8]

The Doctrine and Covenants Student manual notes:

In addition to his many responsibilities in the Church, Joseph Smith had a family, and he could not neglect them, although his responsibility was chiefly a spiritual one. Although not completely relieved from responsibility for his temporal needs at that time, the Prophet was told by the Lord to look to the Church for temporal support. Elder Bruce R. McConkie commented about those who are asked to give full-time service to the Church:

“All our service in God’s kingdom is predicated on his eternal law which states: ‘The laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.’ (2 Nephi 26꞉31.) “We know full well that the laborer is worthy of his hire, and that those who devote all their time to the building up of the kingdom must be provided with food, clothing, shelter, and the necessaries of life. We must employ teachers in our schools, architects to design our temples, contractors to build our synagogues, and managers to run our businesses. But those so employed, along with the whole membership of the Church, participate also on a freewill and voluntary basis in otherwise furthering the Lord’s work. Bank presidents work on welfare projects. Architects leave their drafting boards to go on missions. Contractors lay down their tools to serve as home teachers or bishops. Lawyers put aside Corpus Juris and the Civil Code to act as guides on Temple Square. Teachers leave the classroom to visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictions. Musicians who make their livelihood from their artistry willingly direct church choirs and perform in church gatherings. Artists who paint for a living are pleased to volunteer their services freely.”[9]

Are local Church leaders paid?

The Church does not have a professional clergy. Consider:

  • the Church does not graduate individuals with degrees in theology for the purpose of being used in an employed position as an ecclesiastical leader.
  • the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial assistance and who have no formal training in theology or Church administration. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, and elders, etc.
  • Missionaries or their families typically pay for the costs of their missions.
  • the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."[10] No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
  • those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance, have already served for many years in unpaid volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration.
  • the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations if they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."[11]
  • the Doctrine and Covenants makes provisions for Church leaders to be supported by donations (see D&C 42꞉71-73).
  • General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.[12]

Ward and Stake Leaders

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level—that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers—do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).

Mission and Temple Presidents

Mission and temple presidents are called by General Authorities to serve for a period of 3 years. As a result of this call, some presidents leave full-time employment before they retire. Therefore, they may receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many such presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete) and do not require a living allowance.

In 2011, the Church's official magazine noted:

Serving as a mission president is both a challenging and a spiritually exhilarating three-year assignment. In dedicating themselves to this call, many couples essentially put their old lives on hold, including their jobs and families.

The interruption to professional employment can in some cases mean financial loss. While the Church provides mission presidents with a minimal living allowance, the couples usually have the financial means to supplement that allowance with their own funds.[13]

Are general Church leaders paid?

As directed in the Doctrine and Covenants,[14] at least some General Authorities receive a modest living stipend.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference: "I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people."[15]

If provision did not exist for allowing those who are not "independently wealthy" to provide full-time Church service, the Church could be seen as "favoring the rich" because it would not allow those of lesser means to serve. The Church has noted:

General Authorities leave their careers when they are called into full time Church service. When they do so, they are given a living allowance which enables them to focus all of their time on serving in the Church. This practice allows for far more church members on a worldwide basis to be considered for a calling to serve as a General Authority, rather than limiting considerations to only those who may be financially independent. The living allowance is uniform for all General Authorities. None of the funds for this living allowance come from the tithing of Church members, but instead from proceeds of the Church's financial investments.[16]

Without some mechanism for providing for the needs of those giving full-time service, only the worldly elite would be able to serve. This factor becomes increasingly important as the Church expands out of North America, especially into nations in the Southern Hemisphere who are less materially well-off than the industrialized west. As noted in a 2013 manual for Church teens, "In our day, General Authorities of the Church give up their livelihoods to serve full-time, so they receive a modest living allowance—enough for them to support themselves and their families."[17] </blockquote>

What financial sacrifices do general Church leaders make?

Dedicating themselves full time at the sacrifice of substantial careers, many general Church leaders live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service.

Michael Otterson, formerly head of Church Public Affairs, observed:

I can hardly believe it when I hear people question the motives of the Brethren for the work they do, or when they imply there is somehow some monetary reward or motive.

Let me share the reality. Not all the Brethren have been businessmen, but most have had extraordinarily successful careers by the time they are called to be an apostle. As President Spencer W. Kimball once pointed out, the ability to lead people and an organization is a more-than-helpful attribute in a Church of millions of people, especially when combined with spiritual depth and a rich understanding of the gospel. Because several have been highly successful in business careers, when they become apostles their stipend and allowances may literally be less than a tithe on what they previously earned.

Some of the Brethren have been educators. Elder Scott was a nuclear physicist, Elder Nelson a heart surgeon. Several were highly successful lawyers. Right now we have three former university presidents in the Twelve. President Boyd K. Packer was also an educator by profession, although in his spare time and in his earlier days he loved to carve beautiful things out of wood. That sounds curiously related to another scripturally honored profession — that of a carpenter.

Can you imagine what it would be like to be called to the Twelve? In most cases you have already had a successful career. You know you will continue to serve the Church in some volunteer capacity, but you have begun to think of your future retirement. The First Presidency and the Twelve, of course, do not retire. Neither are they released. With their call comes the sure knowledge that they will work every day for the rest of their lives, even if they live into their 90s, until they literally drop and their minds and bodies give out. Their workday begins early and does not end at 5:00 p.m. The Twelve get Mondays off, and those Mondays are frequently spent preparing for the rest of the week. If they have a weekend assignment, they will often travel on a Friday afternoon. Periodically, even though in their 80s, they face the grueling schedule of international speaking conferences and leadership responsibilities.

What about when they are home? I have the cell phone numbers of most of the Brethren because I sometimes have to call them in the evening, on weekends or when they are out and about. I’m not naïve enough to think that I am the only Church officer to do so. So even their downtime is peppered with interruptions. I invariably begin those calls by apologizing for interrupting them at home. I have never once been rebuked for calling. They are invariably kind and reassuring, even early in the morning or late at night.

Their primary time off each year is from the end of the mission presidents’ seminar at the very end of June through the end of July. And while this time is meant as a break, most of the Brethren use this time to turn their thoughts, among other things, to October general conference and preparation of their remarks. During Christmas break they do the same for April conference. Every one of them takes extraordinary care and time in deciding on a topic and crafting their messages. The process weighs on them for months as they refine draft after draft.

This is not a schedule you would wish on anyone. Yet they bear it with grace and find joy for some overwhelmingly important reasons — their testimony and commitment to be a witness of the Savior of the world and their desire to strengthen His children everywhere. They would be the very first to acknowledge their own faults or failings, just as we can readily point to the apostles of the New Testament and see imperfect people.[18]

How much do general Church leaders receive?

In 1996,[19] the church altered some of the responsibilities given to General Authorities. Prior to this point in time, they also served on corporate boards of church-owned companies and for these positions they received a stipend. At that point in time, some of the financial information was disclosed, indicating that the stipend was in the neighborhood of $50,000.00 a year.

To give a sense of proper comparison, US Department of Labor statistics list the 1996 average salary of a civil engineer at $52,750, that of a computer programmer at $50,490, and that of the average junior college teacher at $49,200. Therefore, the living allowance, which provides for most of the normal day-to-day expenses of a full-time authority and his family (including house payments, personal transportation, food, clothing, entertainment, etc.), is in line with that of a professional employee. It is far lower than the large management salaries that might be expected for someone with the skills that these General Authorities must have and the responsibilities that they must shoulder.

In 2014 the stipend was increased from $116,400 to $120,000.[20]

Do general Church leaders sign non-disclosure agreements about finances?

It is possible that general Church leaders sign non-disclosure agreements about their finances. This may be in connection with a general non-disclosure agreement about Church operations generally. Non-disclosure agreements are common in most businesses, in which someone in the organization who has access to sensitive information agrees not to publicly disclose that information. Including financial compensation for executive leaders is likely very common among private businesses in the United States of America, where the amount paid to the executive officer does not need to be reported to federal tax authorities.

What about Church employees?

To provide administrative support to ecclesiastical leaders and members worldwide, the Church employs a small number of Church members in various job capacities, such as meetinghouse facility managers, temple facility managers, and Church department staff. These members are compensated only for their employment activities—they are not compensated for ecclesiastical leadership or Church service.

Response to claim: 144 - Church finances are not made public

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author complains that Church finances are not made public.

Author's sources: Not provided.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event


Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 9


Response to claim: 145 - baptism does not need to be done "by someone holding a special priesthood"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that baptism does not need to be done "by someone holding a special priesthood," and that it is simply "a symbol of one's identification with Christ and is not a necessary requirement for salvation."

Author's sources: Acts 16:30-34

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The Bible talks of the authority required to perform ordinances in the name of Jesus Christ.


Question: What does the Bible teach about priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints observes all the Biblical principles taught about priesthood

There is much more about the priesthood that is contained in the scriptures. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints observes all the Biblical principles taught about priesthood, including:

  1. That the Priesthood is the authority for man to act in God's name.
  2. The priesthood is given directly from God, though Jesus Christ.
  3. That Christ was not the only one to have the higher priesthood.
  4. Christ ordained the 12 Apostles with the priesthood.
  5. The Apostles ordained others with the priesthood.
  6. The church is identified as having the priesthood.
  7. The priesthood is necessary to act in God's name.

When Christ was on the earth during His mortal ministry, He set up a specific organization

When Christ was on the earth during His mortal ministry, He set up a specific organization (called the Church).

Does it make sense that if Jesus Christ organized a Church, that the true Church would have the same positions today? What are some of the offices or positions in the church Christ established?

For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 3:13)(emphasis added)
Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:(James 5:14)(emphasis added)
11 And he [Jesus Christ] gave some, apostles; (12) and some, prophets; (Ephesians 4:11)

(12 Apostles collectively, and the one leading the church with his counselors—Peter, James, and John)

and some, evangelists; [i.e., Patriarchs in the modern LDS Church] and some, pastors [i.e., Bishops, Stake Presidents in the modern Church] and teachers;

("Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48)

  • of the saints

(the members of the Church—interesting that they are called Saints, just as we are called Latter-day Saints today.),

  • for the work of the ministry

(The administration and performing the ordinances of the Church),

  • for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith (Ephesians 4:13)

(Even though all Christians claim to believe in Christ, and the Bible, there certainly is no unity of faith or doctrine, therefore these offices are still needed.)

  • and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

(unto a perfect man—NOT some incomprehensible being as the creeds declare.)

  • 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14)

(The creeds came by councils of men, not a singular pronouncement of revelation by a prophet of God, as all other scripturally based doctrines are. The creeds directly contradict scripture. The creeds are not declared to be scripture. The creeds have not been declared to have been given by revelation. The creeds came about by political power struggles. Hence, the creeds are a wind of doctrine.),

  • by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Ephesians 4:14)
  • But speaking the truth in love, may grow up unto him in all things, which is the head, even Jesus Christ: (Ephesians 4:15)

(Without prophets who are regularly receiving inspired direction from the Lord, the church will be led by men and not by Jesus Christ)

True teachers will have priesthood authority from God

So how can we tell true teachers? First, they will have authority (priesthood) directly from God. Christ was given the priesthood authority from God the Father.

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son

to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. (John 5:26-27.)

The works that Christ performed were by this priesthood authority:

And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. (Mark 1:27)

Christ passed on this very same authority to His apostles.

1 THEN he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. 2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. (Luke 9:1-2)(emphasis added)

This authority is necessary in order to preach the gospel.

And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach (Mark 3:14) (emphasis added)
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:22)(emphasis added)
Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. (1 Timothy 2:7)

The apostles ordained others with this authority:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee...(Titus 1:5) (emphasis added)

And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.(Acts 14:23)(emphasis added)

This authority was passed directly from God the Father, to Jesus Christ, to the Apostles, to the Elders, and to others. It was a priesthood which any worthy man could have, if called. It was also necessary for the establishment of the Church. Christ left this priesthood authority on he earth when He left, so that the Church could still function.

For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.(Mark 13:34) (emphasis added)

In fact, the church would be known as the true church because of the priesthood, for so the church is described in scripture.

This priesthood authority is sacred and cannot be bought.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he

may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.(Acts 8:18-20)

We cannot choose this priesthood authority for ourselves.

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.(John 15:16)

You have to be called of God to obtain the priesthood authority

As shown above, you can't buy it, you can't take it upon yourself, and you can't choose for yourself to have it. So how can we obtain the priesthood?

And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. (Hebrews 5:4)

How was Aaron called? He was called by Moses—as God instructed Moses—in other words, Aaron did not decide to accept this for himself, but was called by Moses, who was instructed by the Lord, who has authority over him.

13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office. 14 And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats: 15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. 16 Thus did Moses: according to all that the LORD commanded him, so did he. (Exodus 40:13-16)

Priesthood authority must be given by God

Finally, the question must be asked of anyone who claims to preach the gospel and proclaim its doctrines, where do you get your authority to speak and act in the name of God? Many people claim that they receive their authority from the Bible. However, that cannot be, for the Bible has no priesthood authority, it is a book and cannot perform any ordinance, it cannot choose you as it cannot make decisions, nor can it ordain you as it can not perform any actions. Seminaries and Universities have no priesthood authority, for their purpose is to grant educational degrees, whose requirements are developed and designed by men. Priesthood Authority comes only from God.

LET every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.{Romans 13:1)


Response to claim: 145 - "Joseph Smith supposedly restored the original temple ceremony of the Old Testament"

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that "Joseph Smith supposedly restored the original temple ceremony of the Old Testament."

Author's sources: Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 780-1.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Joseph Smith was indeed inspired to restore something genuinely Christian and genuinely ancient


Question: Do modern Mormon temple rituals have analogues in early Christian practice?

Joseph Smith was indeed inspired to restore something genuinely Christian and genuinely ancient

Latter-day Saint temple ritual, though it has some points of contact with nineteenth century ideas, also seems to have selected precisely those elements with analogues in early Christian practice, suggesting that Joseph Smith was indeed inspired to restore something genuinely Christian and genuinely ancient.

See also: LDS temple garments

Given the sacred nature of LDS temple worship, this wiki article will avoid the citations of specifics. Instead, we include a list of useful articles and books which the interested reader can consult. Those who have familiarity with the LDS temple ceremony will easily be able to discern the parallels to which the authors allude.

Hugh Nibley


Response to claim: 147 - The author states that Paul condemned "endless genealogies" and that this contradicts the idea of performing temple marriages for the dead

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author states that Paul condemned "endless genealogies" and that this contradicts the idea of performing temple marriages for the dead.

Author's sources: Timothy 1:4; Titus 3:9

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The Bible does not forbid genealogies: It rejects the use of genealogies to "prove" one's righteousness, or the truth of one's teachings.


Question: Does the Bible condemn genealogical research?

The Bible rejects the use of genealogies to "prove" one's righteousness, or the truth of one's teachings

Critics charge that the Bible condemns genealogy, and therefore the Latter-day Saint practice of compiling family histories is anti-Biblical, often citing 1 Timothy 1:4 or Titus 3:9.

The Bible does not condemn all genealogy per se. Rather, it rejects the use of genealogy to "prove" one's righteousness, or the truth of one's teachings. It also rejects the apostate uses to which some Christians put genealogy in some varieties of gnosticism.

Latter-day Saints engage in genealogical work so that they can continue the Biblical practice of providing vicarious ordinances for the dead

Latter-day Saints engage in genealogy work so that they can continue the Biblical practice—also endorsed by Paul—of providing vicarious ordinances for the dead, such as baptism (See 1 Corinthians 15:29) so that the atonement of Christ may be available to all who would choose it, living or dead. See: Baptism for the dead

The Bible clearly does not reject all uses of genealogy

This can be seen through its many genealogical lists, including two such lists for Jesus Christ Himself. (See Matthew 1:1–24 and Luke 3:23–38.)

The condemnation of "genealogies" in Timothy and Titus likely came because:

  • the Christians perceived a Jewish tendency to be pre-occupied by "pure descent" as a qualification for holding the priesthood. Since only pure descendents of Levi could hold the priesthood, there was endless wrangling about one's pedigree—since Paul considers the Aaronic Priesthood to have been superceded by Christ, the great High Priest like Melchizedek (see Hebrews 5), this probably strikes him as pointless.
  • some Jewish scribes and other teachers claimed that their "traditions" were directly descended from Moses, Joshua, or some other prominent leader, and thus superior to the Christian gospel.[21]
  • some gnostic sects had involved accounts of the descent of the Aeons (up to 365 "generations" in one scheme) and other mystic or pagan variations thereon.[22]

Since all these genealogies were either speculative or fabricated, they could cause endless, pointless debate.[23] Rather Paul wants the faith (in Christ) which builds up ("edifying") testimonies and lives.

Learn more about alleged condemnation of genealogy in the bible
Online
  • Stephen R. Gibson, Why Don't Latter-day Saints Avoid "Endless Genealogy"?off-site
  • George H. Fudge, "I Have a Question: How do we interpret scriptures in the New Testament that seem to condemn genealogy?," Ensign (March 1986): 49.off-site
Print
  • Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds., The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 353.
Navigators
Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources


Response to claim: 147 - The author claims that Paul was not advocating the practice of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29, and that he was only emphasizing resurrection

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that Paul was not advocating the practice of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29, and that he was only emphasizing resurrection.

Author's sources: 1 Corinthains 15:29

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

This is the author's own interpretation of the scripture.


Question: Does the practice of baptism for the dead have ancient roots?

There is considerable evidence that some early Christians and some Jewish groups performed proxy ordinance work for the salvation of the dead

The most obvious of these is 1 Corinthians 15:29:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

There have been attempts to shrug this off as a reference by Paul to a practice he does not condone but only uses to support the doctrine of the resurrection. These claims are indefensible. Paul's statement makes no sense unless the practice was valid and the saints in Corinth knew it. This is easily demonstrated if we just imagine a young Protestant, who doubts the resurrection, who goes to his pastor with his problem. The pastor answers him, saying, "But what about the Mormons who baptize for the dead? If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?" You know what the young doubter would say. He would say, "Pastor, they're Mormons! What's your point?"

In fact, we know that baptism for the dead was practiced for a long time in the early church. As John A. Tvedtnes has noted:

... historical records are clear on the matter. Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice. Of the [Cerinthians]> of the fourth century, Epiphanius wrote:
“In this country—I mean Asia—and even in Galatia, their school flourished eminently and a traditional fact concerning them has reached us, that when any of them had died without baptism, they used to baptize others in their name, lest in the resurrection they should suffer punishment as unbaptized.” (Heresies, 8:7.) [24]

Thus, baptism for the dead was banned about four hundred years after Christ by the church councils. Latter-day Saints would see this as an excellent example of the apostasy—church councils altering doctrine and practice that was accepted at an earlier date.

Tvedtnes continues:

In early Judaism, too, there is an example of ordinances being performed in behalf of the dead. Following the battle of Marisa in 163 B.C., it was discovered that each of the Jewish soldiers killed in the fight had been guilty of concealing pagan idols beneath his clothing. In order to atone for their wrong, Judas Maccabaeus, the Jewish high priest and commander, collected money from the survivors to purchase sacrificial animals for their dead comrades:
“And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.” (2 Maccabees 12:43–46.) [25]

Collection of Other Sources that Can Support the Latter-day Saint Position

Other sources can give credence to the Latter-day Saint position on this matter. Below we list a selective compilation of quotes from scholars that can demonstrate that:

  1. Vicarious baptism was practiced by the ancients
  2. The practice wasn't condemned by Paul (even though that would be a natural thing to do given the corrective purposes of the first letter to the church at Corinth).
  3. The best translation of the original Greek refers to a practice of vicarious baptism.

The passage in the Bible is, at the very least, very short and cryptic. We can't know much about the practice accept the preceeding three assertions. Thus the following scholars would not affirm that the practice of vicarious baptism matches the modern Latter-day Saint conception of it i.e. that it was done on such a massive scale, for salvific purposes, etc. Some argue on linguistic grounds that this only had to do with catechumens (prospective converts to Christianity who died without baptism) but that is not fully substantiated by the text nor the historical context of the passage. Furthermore, as is noted by several scholars (a couple of which are included below), it is complicated by the fact that Paul spoke approvingly of believing Christians becoming vicarious, sanctifying vessels for non-believing spouses.[26] This could naturally be extrapolated to all kindred, non-believing dead.

There is much that we can't know from the text of the Bible itself following an exegetical approach. At some point, additional revelation is necessary to illuminate and expand on previous revelation. That would be the Latter-day Saint position. As Joseph Smith has said concerning the Restoration, it occured so that "a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times."[27] Latter-day Saints need not feel compelled to defend every last element of their theology from antiquity. Some elements may appear in seed and then be expanded on later by those "things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world[.]" What 1 Corinthians 15:29 can tell us without a doubt is that the practice is ancient and that it wasn't rejected by Paul or others of the earliest Christians. The Greek of the passage is unequivocally said to support the notion that vicarious baptism was performed. Other revelation outside of the Bible can expand on it in the Restoration.[28]

Following is our selective listing of sources.[29] All bolded text has been added by the editor of this article:

  • Søren Agersnap: "It cannot be denied that Paul is here [1 Cor 15:29] speaking of a vicarious baptism: one is baptised for the dead to ensure for them a share in the effect of baptism, and this must relate to a post-mortal life. It is also clear that Paul himself refers to this baptismal practice, and without distancing himself from it (This is the embarrassing perception which is the reason for some (comparatively few) interpreters making an imaginative attempt to ignore that this relates to a vicarious baptism)."[30].
  • Charles Kingsley Barrett: "The primary reference is to Christian baptism: certain people (οί βαπτιζόμενοι suggest a particular group, not all Christians) undergo the rite of Christian baptism—in what appear to be very strange circumstances. They are baptized on behalf of the dead. The second part of the verse follows clearly enough. If the dead are dead and are beyond recall, there is no point in taking this or any other action on their behalf. But what was the practice of baptism for the dead, and did Paul approve of it? An account of the history of the interpretation of this passage is given by M. Rissi, 'Die Taufe für die Toten (1962)'...It is very unlikely that with the adjective dead (νεκρός) a noun such as works (cf. Heb. vi. I) should be supplied. Throughout this chapter (and in Paul usually) ‘the dead’ are dead men. It is equally unlikely that on behalf of (ὺπέρ) is to be taken in a local sense, and that the reference is to baptism carried out over the dead, that is, over their graves. The most common view is that Paul is referring to some kind of vicarious baptism, in which a Christian received baptism on behalf of someone, perhaps a friend or relative, who had died without being baptized. There is evidence for some such rite among various heretics (among other quotations Lietzmann cites Chrysostom, on this passage: ‘When a catechumen among them [the Marcionites] dies, they hide a living man under the dead man’s bed, approach the dead man, speak with him, and ask if he wished to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer the man who is hidden underneath says instead of him that he wishes to be baptized, and so they baptize him instead of the departed), and there were precedents in Greek religious practices, though not close precedents (see Schweitzer, 'Mysticism', pp. 283 f.). Stauffer lays great stress on 2 Acc. xii. 40-5. Apart however from 1 Corinthians there is no evidence that a rite of this kind arose as early as the 50’s of the first century. This does not make it impossible; many strange things happened in Corinth. But would Paul have approved of it? It is true that in this verse he neither approves nor disapproves, and it may be held that he is simply using an argumenatum ad hominem: if the Corinthians have this practice they destroy their own case against the resurrection. This is the view held by some, and it is possible; but it is more likely that Paul would not have mentioned a practice he thought to be in error without condemning it. Of those who accept this position some draw the conclusion that vicarious baptism cannot be in Paul’s mind, others that, if he did not practice the custom himself, he at least saw no harm in it, since he too held an ex opere operato view of baptism that bordered on the magical…The idea of vicarious baptism (which is that most naturally suggested by the words used) is usually supposed to be bound up with what some would call a high sacramental, others a magical, view of baptism. Immersion in water is supposed to operate so effectively that it matters little (it seems) what body is immersed. The immersion of a living body can secure benefits to a dead man (at any rate, a dead catechumen). This however was not Paul’s view. He did not himself give close attention to baptism (i. 14-17), and though it is probable that most of the members of his churches were baptized it is quite possible that some of the Corinthian Christians had not been baptized, and by no means impossible (even if we do not, with Rissi, think of an epidemic or an accident) that a number of them may have died in this condition. There was no question of making these persons Christians; they were Christians, even though unbaptized. But baptism was was powerful proclamation of death and resurrection, and in this setting it is not impossible to conceive of a rite—practiced, it may be, only once—which Paul, though he evidently took no steps to establish it as normal Christian usage, need not actively have disapproved. And what would be the sense of it, if the dead are not raised?"[31]
  • Stephen C. Barton: "…Paul adds further ad hominem arguments against those who deny the resurrection of the dead (cf. 15:12). …the Corinthians’ own ritual practice (of surrogate baptism on behalf of the dead, a suggestive analogy for which appears in 2 Acc 12:43-45) testifies abasing denial of the resurrection of the dead and would be rendered meaningless apart from resurrection faith (15:29)."[32]
  • Richard E. Demaris: "The isolated character of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its literary context and the lack of indicators in the verse as to the nature of the rite make it all too easy to propose a range of grammatically possible translations. But the highly speculative interpretations that result only underscore the need to place the text (and practice described therein) in the fullest possible context. Behind all attempts to remove vicarious action from baptism for the dead, one senses uneasiness about Paul or the early church’s association with a rite that appears to be 'superstitious' or 'magical' (Raeder 1955: 258–9; Rissi 1962: 89–92). (Understood vicariously, the practice would affirm that the living can ritually affect the dead.) But who is feeling the discomfort? Paul himself maintained that family members could act vicariously for each other (1 Cor 7:14), and he recognized an efficacy in eucharist that certainly appears to be 'magical' (Sellin 1986: 278; M. Smith 1980: 248): 'Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.' (1 Cor 11:28–30)...[The culture of Greco-Roman society was one] in which aiding the dead was all-important and which assumed that the world of the living could affect the world of the dead. In such a culture baptism undertaken by the living for the dead would have made perfect sense…At the very least, the adaptability of funerals to non-funerary situations opens the door to finding baptism other than where we might expect to find it, at the threshold of the church. Furthermore, two extraordinary types of funeral are noteworthy for how they elucidate baptism on behalf of the dead: (1) a replacement or substitute rite performed vicariously for the dead; and (2) funerals for the living. Both applications are imaginary rites, whose context indicates whether we further qualify them as honorary or mock. This, then, is the language for baptism on behalf of the dead that is both contextually and ritually sensitive: it was an imaginary rite of the honorary type...Isolating baptism for the dead, as Meeks did, made it mystifying to him (Meeks 1983: 162), but placing it in context has the opposite effect. Set alongside funerals for the living – those of Turannius and Pacuvius – baptism for the dead does not appear mysterious. In terms of who undergoes them, both rites reverse ordinary practice. Likewise, in light of surrogate or replacement funerals in which a person or community carried out a rite for someone in absentia – for Pertinax and the Lanuvium burial club member whose body could not be recovered – baptism on behalf of the dead falls within the typical range of ritual variation in the Greco-Roman world. In the context of other rites, therefore, baptism for the dead is, contrary to what New Testament scholars claim, not obscure."[33]
  • James D.G. Dunn: "Similarly he accepts a diversity of belief about baptism (1.10-16; 15.29). He does not insist on the sole legitimacy of his own view or of a particular view of baptism. Instead he plays down the role of baptism; it is kerygma that matters not baptism (1.17). And though in 10.1-12 he is probably arguing against a magical view of baptism, in 15.29 he shows no disapproval of the belief in vicarious baptism, baptism for the dead; on the contrary he uses the practice as an argument for the belief in resurrection...I Cor. 15.29 probably refers to a practice of vicari­ous baptism whereby the baptism of one was thought to secure the salvation of another already dead. Here then is indication of influ­ences shaping the theology of baptism and developing views of bap­tism which are far removed from anything we have already examined. And yet Paul addresses those who held such views as members of the Christian community in Corinth – these views were held also by Christians. In other words, as soon as we move outside that sphere of Christianity most influenced by the Baptist’s inheritance the diver­sity of Christian thinking about baptism broadens appreciably."[34]
  • Gordon D. Fee: "First, as already noted (n. 15), this unusual use of the third person plural, when elsewhere Paul always turns such references into a word to the community as a whole (e.g., vv. 12-13, 35-36), suggests that it is not the action of the whole community. On the other hand, there is no reason to deny that it was happening with the full knowledge of the community and probably with their approval. Second, Paul’s apparently noncommittal attitude toward it, while not implying approval, would seem to suggest that he did not consider it to be as serious a fault as most interpreters do. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine any circumstances under which Paul would think it permissible for living Christians to be baptized for the sake of unbelievers in general. Such a view, adopted in part by the Mormons, lies totally outside the NT understanding both of salvation and of baptism.[Fee is an evagelical scholar and thus is less open to scholarship that would support Latter-day Saints. There actually isn't evidence to support this view. See how he hedges in suggestion "(b) below.] Therefore, the most likely options are (a) that it reflects some believers’ being baptized for others who either were or were on their way to becoming believers when they died (e.g., as in 11:30), but had never been baptized; or (b) that it reflects the concern of members of households for some of their own number who had died before becoming believers. What they may have expected to gain from it is not quite clear, but one may guess that at least they believed baptism to be necessary for entering the final eschatological kingdom. In any case, and everything must be understood as tentative, this probably reflects the Corinthian attitude toward baptism in general, since 1:13-17 and 10:1-22 imply a rather strongly sacramental stance toward baptism on their part, with some apparently magical implications. Perhaps they believed that along with the gift of the Spirit baptism was their 'magical' point of entrance into the new pneumatism that seems to have characterized them at every turn. If so, then perhaps some of them were being baptized for others because they saw it as a way of offering similar spirituality to the departed. But finally we must admit that we simply do not know.[Interesting thing to conclude with considering his assertion before about Latter-day Saints.][35]
  • Rolf Furuli: "There can be no question that the most natural rendering of 'baptizomenoi huper tōn nekrōn' would be 'being baptized for the dead' or 'being baptized in behalf of the dead.' In almost every other context, such a rendering would have been chosen."[36]
  • David Bentley Hart: "The practice of Christians receiving baptism on behalf of other persons who died unbaptized was evidently a common enough practice in the apostolic church that Paul can use it as a support of his argument without qualification. And the form of the Greek (ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν [hyper tōn nekrōn]) leaves no doubt that it is to just such a posthumous proxy baptism that he is referring."[37]
  • Scott M. Lewis: "Verse 29 is one of the most vigorously disputed passages in the NT. On the surface, it seems rather simple. Using the statement of the opposition as a springboard—there is no resurrection—Paul points to the inconsistency and futility of a practice of the Corinthians, i.e., being baptized on behalf of the dead. Despite the numerous attempts to explain this passage away, or get out of the difficulties and discomfort it causes, it seems better to accept the obvious surface meaning of the passage: Some Corinthians practiced a form of vicarious baptism. What is meant exactly by that, and when and under what circumstances it was practiced is impossible to answer…"[38]
  • Andrew T. Lincoln: "With regard to the problematic verse 29 it is likely that the Corinthians’ confusion is at the root of the practice which has produced an even greater confusion among later commentators. One could guess that with their bewilderment about the fate of those who had died and their strong faith in the efficacy of baptism, some Corinthians were practising a baptism for the dead which they believed might still somehow ensure a place in the kingdom for deceased believers. An ad hominem argument by the apostle points out the futility of such a practice if the dead are not raised."[39]
  • Steve Mason and Tom Robinson: "The only reference among 1st-century Christian writings to proxy baptism on behalf of those who have died without having been baptized. Myriad alternative explanations that have been proposed reflect more the interpreters’ discomfort with the plain meaning of the words than any linguistic ambiguity. Paul simply uses this example without explanation and quickly discards it (see the angels of 11:10). We have no opportunity to determine what he thinks of the custom."[40]
  • Leon Morris: "This reference to baptism for (hyper) the dead is a notorious difficulty. The most natural meaning of the expression is that some early believers got themselves baptized on behalf of friends of theirs who had died without receiving that sacrament. Thus Parry says: 'The plain and necessary sense of the words implies the existence of a practice of vicarious baptism at Corinth, presumably on behalf of believers who died before they were baptized.' He stigmatizes all other interpretations as 'evasions . . . wholly due to the unwillingness to admit such a practice, and still more to a reference to it by S. Paul without condemnation.'[41]
  • John J. O'Rourke: "Nevertheless many ancient and most modern writers understand this as a vicarious baptism received by baptized Christians on belief of deceased catechumens. The obvious difficulty is that Paul does not appear to offer any objection to this practice, so prevalent later among heretics."[42]
  • William F. Orr and James A. Walther: "The allusion to the idea and/or practice of baptism on behalf of the dead is unique in the New Testament in this passage. . . . Close inspection of the language of the reference makes all attempts to soften or eliminate its literal meaning unsuccessful. An endeavor to understand the dead as persons who are 'dead in sin' does not really help; for the condition offered, if the dead are not being raised at all, makes it clear that the apostle is writing about persons who are physically dead. It appears that under the pressure of concern for the eternal destiny of dead relatives or friends[,] some people in the church were undergoing baptism on their behalf in the belief that this would enable the dead to receive the benefits of Christ’s salvation. Paul remarks about the practice without specifying who or how many are involved and without identifying himself with them. He attaches neither praise nor blame to the custom. He does take it as an illustration of faith in a future destiny of the dead."[43]
  • Stephen E. Potthoff: "Cult of the ancestral dead in classical Greece has been thoroughly documented, and scholars have also identified the early Christian ritual of baptism for the dead mentioned by the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 15.29) as an outgrowth of the longstanding cult of the departed in Corinth (Garland 1985: 107–120; Johnston 1999: 36–81; DeMaris 1995: 663–671)."[44]
  • Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright: "One of the most controversial and difficult texts in all of Pauline literature is the reference to baptism for the dead. It is not my purpose to canvas the various interpretations proposed, nor does the view argued for in this essay depend in any way upon the interpretation proposed here. What the verse suggests, however, is that baptism was considered to be indispensable for believers. The plethora of interpretations indicates that the original meaning of the verse is not easily accessible to modern readers. The difficulty of the verse is not entirely surprising, for Paul does not explain the meaning of baptism here, but instead appeals to the baptism of the dead in support his theology of the resurrection. Any baptism performed for the sake of the dead is superfluous, Paul argues, if the dead are not raised. Strictly speaking, Paul does not praise or condemn the practice of baptism for the dead, and hence a theology of baptism for the dead can scarcely be established from this verse. It seems most likely, in my judgment, that baptism for the dead was practiced when someone became a believer and died very quickly thereafter—before baptism was possible. What this verse suggests, despite its obscurity, is the importance of baptism. Baptism was considered to be the standard initiation rite for early Christians, and hence some believers at Corinth thought that baptism should be done for the sake of the dead."[45]
  • John Short: "The point is that there would be no sense in the procedure if there were no resurrection. Whatever doubts some members of the church had concerning it, there were others who were such firm believers in the Resurrection that they submitted to this rite of vicarious baptism on behalf of certain of the brethren, probably catechumens, who had passed away before they had been baptized and received into the full membership of the church. Perhaps also they had a feeling, natural enough at that stage of Christian understanding among those who had so recently been pagans, that unbaptized believers at the resurrection would not be so near to their Lord as those who had undergone the rite. Or they may have done it to ensure as far as possible that nothing would be lacking in respect of the eternal bliss of the redeemed. At its best, the vicarious ceremony was a tribute to the spirit of fellowship, of unity, and of solidarity in the community, and as such it would be sure to commend itself to Paul. There are still some survivals of this ancient Christian practice, though in the main it has fallen into disuse. In a sense it might be compared with prayers offered for the dead. They too may for some signify the deep spiritual solidarity of the Christian fellowship in heaven and on earth, in which all are one in Christ Jesus. Whatever the effect of such practices on the joy of the saints in heaven, they do reflect a kindly, generous, and Christian spirit on the part of those on earth in the desire for the continued and increasing wellbeing of those who have passed beyond the veil. Perhaps it is well to leave the matter there. Paul is content to do so, merely pointing to this ancient rite, and incidentally giving us another glimpse into the customary procedures of the early Christian fellowship as they illustrated the truth of the Resurrection. If Christ is not raised, and if therefore no resurrection of the dead, what could such baptism mean?"[46]
  • William Tabbernee: "In mainstream Christian circles, 'vicarious baptism' may have been practiced as early as the time of St. Paul (1 Cor 15:29). It was almost certainly practiced, from the second century C.E. onwards, by the Cerinthians.[47]
  • James D. Tabor: "For Paul baptism is not a symbolic ritual but a powerful spiritual activity that effected real change in the cosmos. Paul, for example, refers to some who 'baptized in behalf of the dead,' evidently referring to a practice of proxy baptism for loved ones who had died before experiencing their own baptism (1 Corinthians 15:29). Whether Paul endorsed the practice or not we cannot be sure, but it would be unlike Paul to refrain from condemning a practice he did not at least tolerate. After all, there is a sense in which all baptism is 'for the dead' since it represents a 'burial' of the dying mortal flesh in preparation for receiving the life-giving Spirit. Whatever the case, this practice of 'baptism for the dead' shows just how efficacious the activity was understood to be as a means of invoking the Christ-Spirit—even for those who had died!"[48]
  • Jeffrey A. Trumbower: "Paul alludes to a practice of some Corinthian Christians in 1 Cor. 15:29, 'Then what are they doing, those who are baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised, why are they baptized on their behalf?' Paul does not here object to this practice, whatever it is, and he uses it to convince the Corinthians that if they are baptized on behalf of the dead, they must also believe in the resurrection as Paul understands it. Enormous vats of ink have been emptied in both pre-critical and critical scholarship speculating on precisely what those Corinthian Christians were doing, why they were doing it, and Paul’s attitude toward it. A thorough 51-page survey of opinion from the second century down to 1962 was assembled by Mathis Rissi; there is no need to rehearse that entire history here. I agree with Rissi and Hans Conzelmann (and, for that matter, with Mormon prophet Joseph Smith), that the grammar and logic of the passage point to a practice of vicarious baptism of a living person for the benefit of a dead person."[49]

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Baptized for the Dead"

Kevin L. Barney,  Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (August 31, 2020)
This thorough treatment of the mention of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29 gives a meticulous analysis of Paul’s Greek argument, and lays out the dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of theories that have been put forth with respect to its interpretation. Barney concludes that “the most natural reading” and the “majority contemporary scholarly reading” is that of “vicarious baptism.” Therefore, “the Prophet Joseph Smith’s reading of the passage to refer to such a practice was indeed correct.”

Click here to view the complete article


Response to claim: 148 - temples became unnecessary after Christ and that they were replaced by the atonement of Christ

The author(s) of Mormonism Unmasked make(s) the following claim:

The author claims that temples became unnecessary after Christ and that they were replaced by the atonement of Christ.

Author's sources: Hebrews

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources


Contents
Articles about Latter-day Saint temples
Baptism for the dead
The temple endowment
Temple sealings
Other topics

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unmasked/Chapter 9

Question: Was the temple obsolete after Christ?

There is no evidence that the early Christian apostles abandoned the use of the temple. Indeed, they embraced it, and continued to use it for the appearance of the Risen Lord

Some Christians charge that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection meant that the temple was to be removed from Christian worship—the Atonement made the temple superfluous. Therefore, they criticize the LDS for persisting with temple worship. Some claim that the veil in the temple becoming rent in twain after the crucifixion of Christ indicates that the temple was no longer to be used.

There is no evidence that the early Christian apostles abandoned the use of the temple. Indeed, they embraced it, and continued to use it for the appearance of the Risen Lord, and the receipt of prophetic calls.

It is not surprising that Christians have since down-played the importance of the temple, since most do not have one. No one would want to admit they are missing an important part of the gospel. But, if Paul and other apostles valued and honored the temple, why do critics attack the Latter-day Saints for doing the same?

BYU Professor William J. Hamblin wrote:

Unfortunately for [critics] it is quite clear that the New Testament apostles continued to worship in the Jerusalem temple after Christ's ascension (Acts 2:46, 3:1-10, 5:20-42). Even Paul worshipped there (Acts 21:26-30, 22:17, 24:6-18, 25:8, 26:21). Paul is explicitly said to have performed purification rituals (Acts 21:26, 24:18), and prayed in the temple (22:17, cf. 3:1); he claims that he has not offended "against the temple," implying he accepts its sanctity (25:8). Indeed, Paul also offered sacrifice (prosfora) in the temple (21:26, cf. Numbers 6:14-18), a very odd thing for him to do if the temple had been completely superceded after Christ's ascension. Finally, and most importantly, Paul had a vision of Christ ("The Just One" ton dikaion) in the temple (Acts 22:14-21), paralleling Old Testament temple theophanies, and strongly implying a special sanctity in the temple, where God still appears to men even after Christ's ascension.[50]

Hamblin elaborated further on Paul's vision of Christ in the temple during which he received his prophetic call:

Ananias says Paul will "see the Just One." (Acts 22:14)
Paul then goes to Jerusalem (Acts 22:17)
"When I [Paul] was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance" (Acts 22:17)
Then he sees Christ/The Just One (Acts 22:18)
Christ tells him to leave Jerusalem (Acts 22:18) and go preach to the Gentiles (Acts 22:21).[51]

Hamblin then illustrates that Paul continued to offer "sin offerings" in the temple after his conversion to Christanity:

Paul’s prosfora was participation in the fulfillment of a Nazarite vow taken by four men (Acts 21:21-26). The sacrifices required to fulfill this vow are described in Numbers 6:13-18. They include making a “sin offering” (Numbers 6:14). Therefore, Paul’s prosfora included a sin offering. (See Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 3rd ed, p. 443-8.) Furthermore, Christ’s sacrifice is called a prosfora in Hebrews 10:10,14,18, and is directly correlated to the temple sin offerings (Acts 10:3-9). Given all this, it is rather blatant special pleading to claim that Paul’s prosfora in the temple did not include a sin offering.[52]

One respected non-LDS scholar notes the connection between certain biblical language and the temple concept:

In general, any cultic activity to which the biblical text applies the formula 'before the Lord' can be considered an indication of the existence of a temple at the site, since this expression ... belongs to the temple's technical terminology.[53]

The phrase “Before the Lord” can be found in 2 Timothy 2:14 and 2 Peter 2:11.


Notes

  1. ↑ Dr. William Hamblin, "Tract Made Without Evidence". Hamblin responds to James White's (of Alpha & Omega Ministry) e-tract, "Temples Made Without Hands" (22 September 1999). off-site
  2. ↑ Michael Hickenbotham, "Answering Challenging Mormon Questions," Horizon Publishers, 1995. off-site
  3. ↑ Part of this wiki article originally derived from John A. Tvedtnes, "Is There a Priesthood of All Believers?" FAIR link. Due to the nature of a wiki project, it has since diverged from the source material, due to other editors' additions or alterations.
  4. ↑ Brigham Young, (1854) Journal of Discourses 2:89.
  5. ↑ Tad R. Callister, "What Is the Blueprint of Christ's Church?," CES Devotional for Young Adults (January 12, 2014}
  6. ↑ Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith (1976), 151.
  7. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 42:71–73
  8. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 51:13–14
  9. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, Conference Report (Apr. 1975), 77.; or "Obedience, Consecration, and Sacrifice," Ensign (May 1975): 52.
  10. ↑ Articles of Faith 1꞉5
  11. ↑ Mosiah 27꞉5
  12. ↑ Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," Deseret Morning News (30 September 2006).
  13. ↑ Heather Whittle Wrigley, "New Mission Presidents Blessed for Exercise of Faith," Liahona (December 2011)..
  14. ↑ See above Doctrine and Covenants, which cites Doctrine and Covenants 42:71–73 and Doctrine and Covenants 51:13–14.
  15. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, Questions and Answers "Questions and Answers," October 1985 general conference. See also Royden G. Derrick, "The True Value System," BYU address, 15 May 1979).
  16. ↑ "Do General Authorities get paid?", Learn More About the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), accessed March 2, 2023.
  17. ↑ Unit 15: Day 4, D&C 69-71," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students (Salt Lake City, UT: Intellectual Reserve, 2013).
  18. ↑ "FULL TRANSCRIPT: Michael Otterson addresses FairMormon Conference," lds.org (7 August 2015).
  19. ↑ Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," Deseret Morning News (30 September 2006).
  20. ↑ , "How much do top Mormon leaders make? Leaked pay stubs may surprise you", Salt Lake Tribune, 26 January 2017.
  21. ↑ George H. Fudge, "I Have a Question: How do we interpret scriptures in the New Testament that seem to condemn genealogy?," Ensign (March 1986): 49.
  22. ↑ John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, 1811-1817, New Testament, "1 Timothy 1:4" & "Titus 3:9"
  23. ↑ Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds., The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 353.
  24. ↑ John A. Tvedtnes, "Proxy Baptism," Ensign 7 (February 1977): 86. The source erroneously refers to the "Marcionites" instead of the "Cerinthians".
  25. ↑ Ibid.
  26. ↑ 1 Corinthians 7:14.
  27. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 128:18
  28. ↑ This obviously requires a rejection of the doctrine of sola scriptura and the affirmation of continuing revelation outside the Bible. For the best treatments of those from a Latter-day Saint perspective, see Robert S. Boylan, Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura (Charleston, SC: CreativeSpace, 2017). See also Robert S. Boylan, After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood (Charleston, SC: CreativeSpace, 2018).
  29. ↑ FairMormon thanks Jaxon Washburn for his compilation of these sources.
  30. ↑ Søren Agersnap, Baptism and the New Life: A Study of Romans 6:1-14 (Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1999), 175–76.
  31. ↑ Charles Kingsley Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Harper & Row Publishers Inc, 1987), 362–364.
  32. ↑ Stephen C. Barton, “1 Corinthians,” Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, James D.G. Dunn, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 1348.
  33. ↑ Richard E. DeMaris, The New Testament in its Ritual World (London: Routledge, 2008), 59, 63–64.
  34. ↑ James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Nature of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM Canterbury Press, 2006), 25, 172.
  35. ↑ Gordon D. Fee, "The First Epistle to the Corinthians,” The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 766–767.
  36. ↑ Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Murrieta, CA: Elihu Books, 1999), 289.
  37. ↑ David Bentley Hart, The New Testament: A Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017), 297.
  38. ↑ Scott M. Lewis, So That God May Be All in All: The Apocalyptic Message of 1 Corinthians 15:12-34 (Rome, Italy: Editrice Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1998), 70–71.
  39. ↑ Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 36.
  40. ↑ Steve Mason and Tom Robinson, Early Christian Reader: Christian Texts from the First and Second Centuries in Contemporary English Translations Including the New Revised Standard Version of the New Testament (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 70.
  41. ↑ Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), 218.
  42. ↑ John J. O'Rourke, "1 Corinthians,” A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Reginald C. Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns, eds. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1969), 1159.
  43. ↑ William F. Orr and James A. Walter, 1 Corinthians: A New Translation (New York: Doubleday, 1976), 337.
  44. ↑ Stephen E. Potthoff, The Afterlife in Early Christian Carthage: Near-Death Experience, Ancestor Cult, and the Archeology of Paradise (London: Routledge, 2017), 3.
  45. ↑ Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2006), 130–131.
  46. ↑ John Short, "Exposition of First Corinthians," The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10, 12 vols., George Arthur, ed. (Abingdon, UK: Pierce and Washabaugh, 1953), 240.
  47. ↑ William Tabbernee, “Initiation/Baptism in the Montanist Movement,” Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, David Hellholm, ed. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 941.
  48. ↑ James D. Tabor, Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 277–278.
  49. ↑ Jeffrey A. Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 35.
  50. ↑ Bill Hamblin, "Veil of Temple Rent in Twain," post to fairbords.org (30 September 2006 15h03), last accessed 3 October 2006. FAIR link (All quotes have been edited to insert hotlinks to scripture references.)
  51. ↑ Bill Hamblin, "Veil of Temple Rent in Twain," post to fairbords.org (30 September 2006 12h47), last accessed 3 October 2006. FAIR link
  52. ↑ Bill Hamblin, "Veil of Temple Rent in Twain," post to fairboards.org (30 September 2006 15h52), last accessed 3 October 2006. FAIR link
  53. ↑ Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Eisenbrauns; Reprint edition, 1985[1979]), 26.


Question: Does Acts 17:24-25 teach that the idea of temple worship is foreign to Christianity?

Christians continued to honor, revere, and worship at the Jerusalem temple

It is claimed that Acts 17꞉24-25 teaches that the idea of temple worship is foreign to Christianity,[1] when Paul says:

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.

Christians continued to honor, revere, and worship at the Jerusalem temple. Paul's remarks about temples "made with hands" were designed to counter the pagan idea that god(s) could only be worshiped in temples, and that they were confined to such man-made structures.

See also: Christians considered temple obsolete after Christ? and Did the martyr Stephen teach that physical temples were no longer required for Christians?

In the scripture cited above, Paul is addressing Greeks (the Athenians) and their temple "to an unknown god". Paul's point is that God does not swell solely in a physical object, like the temple of Athena at Athens (see Acts 7꞉48). This is not to say that there is no temple where the true God can be worshiped—Paul respected the temple and even underwent ritual purification after one of his missionary journeys (Acts 21꞉26-27). The early Christians also continued to show great reverence to the Jerusalem temple. Rather, Paul argued that God is the God of the whole world and can be worshipped at all times and at all places.

An analysis of the Greek text also supports this view, since the term, "made with hands" likely refers to idolatrous worship.

The expression "made with hands" is defined as follows: in

4654 χειροποίητος
χειροποίητος,
“made by hands,” in the [Septuagint] applied only to idols, but in the NT used of material temples (Acts 7:48, 17:24): cf. Orac. Sib. xiv. 62 ναῶν ἱδρύματα χειροποιήτων. In the travel-letter, P Lond 8544 (i/ii A.D.) (=111. p. 205, Selections, p. 70), the writer remarks that many go by ship ἵνα τὰς χει]ropοι]ήτους τέ]χνας ἱστορήσωσι, “in order that they may visit works of art made by hands,” on the banks of the Nile.[2]

The term appears, in the same form, in Acts 7:48:

ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐν χειροποιήτοις κατοικεῖ, καθὼς ὁ προφήτης λέγει· (BGT)

The NRSV reads:

Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands; as the prophet says, (Act 7꞉48 NRS)
Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources
  • "Dr." James White, "Temples Made With Hands," Alpha & Omega web site, e-tract.

Notes

  1. ↑ "Dr." James White, "Temples Made With Hands," e-tract. off-site
  2. ↑ G. Milligan and J.H. Moulton, Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (Baker Academic, 1995), 687. ISBN 978-0801047206.


Notes



Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unmasked/Chapter_9&oldid=193454"