Revision as of 14:08, 4 November 2009

Index of Claims made in Chapter 18: The Church and Its Leadership

A Church With Authoritative Leaders

The Prophet and LDS Doctrine

In the Old Testament, we find the story of Naaman, as recorded in 2 Kings. Naaman, a great and powerful captain in the army of Syria, had a problem-he was a leper. At the suggestion of his wife's hand-maiden and with the backing of the king, Naaman went to Israel to find the Prophet Elisha and to be healed from this horrible disease. Naaman arrived at the residence of Elisha, with great expectations, only to be met by a messenger at the door. The message to Naaman: "Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean."1

Naaman didn't like this too much. Here he had come a long way to see the prophet and to be miraculously healed, and all he gets is a messenger telling him to go wash in the river Jordan seven times? What made the Jordan so special? Why seven times? He saw no benefit to this advice. Disgusted, Naaman goes away "in a rage."2

We find many people in history unwilling to heed a prophet's voice as the will of God. Many people don't see the wisdom in a prophet's counsel. And why should they? For the sake of Pete, what good would washing seven times in a river do? That makes no sense at all. Why would a man claiming to be a prophet of God command someone to do things that just don't make sense? Why should we trust him?

Let us turn to the seventeenth chapter of 1 Kings and learn about the widow of Zarephath. In a time of drought and famine, this widow found herself with only a handful of meal and a bit of oil. This would provide one last meal, however small, for her and her son, before they would starve to death. As she was preparing to make that final meal, she saw Elijah. Elijah asked her for some water and bread. After she explained her dismal situation to him, Elijah told her to "Fear not; go and do as thou hast said: but make me thereof a little cake first, and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and for thy son."3

What an awful thing to ask a poor widow. She has nothing except that which to make a small piece of bread, and this prophet commands her to feed him first and then with whatever is left over, she can feed herself and her son? Now, Elijah promised the widow that if she would do this, she and her son would have enough to eat until the drought was over. Promised future blessings for great sacrifices now.

Well, how do these stories play out? Are we to listen to these prophets? Are we to put our total trust in them? Should the widow and Naaman follow the commandments of these men of God? The conclusions of McKeever and Johnson seem to lead us to a clear and resounding, "No!" According to these authors, it is foolish to follow those claiming to be prophets. We can only conclude, based on their writings, that McKeever and Johnson would support Naaman's reaction to storm away in anger when the command from this prophet didn't square with his expectations. We can also conclude that had these authors been in Zarephath to counsel the widow, the advice would have been not to follow the command of Elijah, for a true prophet wouldn't ask a poor widow to do such a thing. To sum it up, no one should place his or her trust in these prophets.

Now, if you find yourself puzzled, you are not alone. For, on the one hand, McKeever and Johnson profess a belief, trust and faith in the writings of apostles and prophets. Yet, on the other hand, the authors take a position in direct opposition to the first, by suggesting that we should not put our lives in the prophets' hands; implying that the writers of the Bible would not want us to trust what they say. It is extremely puzzling. Yet, this is exactly the conclusion of McKeever and Johnson. Trust Church Leaders?

Let's take a closer look at their case.

Claim

• The authors spend the first five or six pages of this chapter quoting former leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These quoted statements exhort members of the Church to trust their leaders (accepted by Church members as apostles and prophets, just as those who wrote the Bible) and follow their teachings. The point, the authors conclude, is that trusting in these men, their teachings and their counsel, is a foolish and destructive path. Literally, 90 percent of these first pages are quotes from Church leaders. For example, Gordon B. Hinckley, is quoted by the authors:

Never let yourselves be found in the position of fighting The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You cling to it and be faithful to it. You uphold and sustain it. You teach its doctrines and live by it. And I do not hesitate to say that your lives will be the richer and happier because of that. You cannot find happiness fighting the work of God.5

Author's source(s)

Response

• If a Baptist leader were to make this statement regarding the Baptist church, would a Baptist find cause for concern? Of course not. Should a Methodist leader teach that it is acceptable to fight against the Methodist church? Would it be appropriate for this Methodist leader to teach anything less than faithfulness to the church's teachings? No, of course not. The fact that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that its teachings are true and that its members should follow its teachings only demonstrates the faith of the leaders in the accuracy of its teachings. Shouldn't every member of a church believe in the teachings of that church?

Claim

• In the area of doctrine and interpreting scripture for doctrinal purposes, the authors attempt to paint a picture of restriction for members of the Church. They frame this painting with the idea that members are not allowed to "[trust] in their own rationale."6 The authors portray Church leaders as those who do not permit freethinking in scripture interpretation and do not allow the members to declare doctrine for themselves.

• The authors cite Aldin Porter in documenting this view, as saying:

While we are members of the Church, we are not authorized to publicly declare our speculations as doctrine nor to extend doctrinal positions to other conclusions based upon the reasoning of men and women, even by the brightest and most well-read among us. ...When you see any document, any address, any letter, any instruction that is issued by the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, it should be recognized for what it surely is-the mind and the will of the Lord to his people in this day.7

• Once again, the authors would have their readers believe that the members of the Church are to be blind sheep, just doing what they are told and nothing else. And, true to form, these critical authors follow the same pattern as do others. While quoting leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, critical authors like to omit sections that would, if read, shed additional light. Let's see what we find when we look at the entire quote as opposed to the edited version the authors provided for us above. Looking at the entire statement, we find Aldin Porter making the following statement. The bold sections are what the authors excised from their version of the quote:

While we are members of the Church, we are not authorized to publicly declare our speculations as doctrine nor to extend doctrinal positions to other conclusions based upon the reasoning of men and women, even by the brightest and most well-read among us. On one occasion during the Savior's mortal ministry, he was challenged by those who were opposing him. They wondered how a person could speak with such certainty without the education of the world. When you see any document, any address, any letter, any instruction that is issued by the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, it should be recognized for what it surely is-the mind and the will of the Lord to his people in this day. "Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:16-17) We must learn the will of our Father in Heaven by earnest study. Next, we must act upon it. Study alone is not sufficient; we must act upon the words of revelation before we know of a surety of the truthfulness of the doctrines…If we will follow, with diligence, the counsel and instruction that is the united voice of these Brethren, we will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether they speak of themselves. 8

• There is no suggestion of any blind-sheep mentality in this statement. We find a scriptural example of how we are to know the doctrine of Jesus, even the doctrine of God. This is the counsel of the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, you won't find this in the authors' book. Rather, they would have their readers believe that the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a cultish "put on your blinders, follow, and don't ask any questions," approach. That is not the case. The authors apparently determined the need to omit this portion of the statement, because it doesn't square with their agenda. It actually demonstrates how wrong they are. So, their solution is to take that portion out altogether, they take the corners off this square peg, so they can fit it into their round hole.

Claim

• Continuing on this subject, the authors refer to a quote from Church leader, Ezra Taft Benson, as follows:

Doctrinal interpretation is the province of the First Presidency. The Lord has given that stewardship to them by revelation. No teacher has the right to interpret doctrine for the members of the Church.9

Author's source(s)

Response

• The authors question the "role of such authority,"10 and wonder how people can "trust these men."11 One ought to ask the question…is it so difficult to believe that a religious leader would counsel the adherents of the religion to follow the teachings of the religion? Would Billy Graham be found preaching his interpretation of the word of God, yet following up his sermons with a statement, "but you folks interpret this stuff however you want…don't mind me…this is just a guess…faith, works, baptism…your guess is as good as mine?" Of course not! Would Jerry Falwell teach his doctrine and his interpretation of scripture, but say to his teachers, "Go teach what you want…you can change anything you see fit because the doctrine I declare isn't any better than what you could come up with…feel free to declare whatever you think." Ridiculous, isn't it? Yet, the authors put forth such an argument.

}}

Claim

• The authors follow the Ezra Taft Benson quote with the following remark:

"Do most Mormons accept this role of such authority, even to trust these men to lead them to eternal life? Apparently so. What if they are wrong?"13

Author's source(s)

Response

• The authors ask a fair question here. Put yourself in Jerusalem, two thousand years ago, witnessing the preaching of Peter unto people of Jerusalem as recorded in the second chapter of Acts. The people are "pricked in their heart,"14 and ask Peter and the other apostles, "what shall we do?"15 Peter answers with three simple, yet direct commands, "Repent," "be baptized," and "receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."16 Did the people trust Peter and the apostles? Should they have trusted them? What if Peter was wrong? These are the questions the authors would have us ask.
• Let's ask the same question that the authors ask, in a more current setting, yet referring to these words of Peter: Do most Christians, today, "accept this role of such authority" (of Peter and the apostles), "even to trust these men" (Peter and the apostles) "to lead them to eternal life?" Apparently so ( if one believes in the Bible). "What if they are wrong?"
• Brigham Young, himself, delivered wisdom on this subject. Now, you will find this statement to be contrary to what the authors want their readers to believe but, nonetheless, it demonstrates how the Latter-day Saints are asked to follow. (This quote was cited again in 1950, in the General Conference of the Church, almost one-hundred years after Young's original statement):

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him...Let every man and woman know themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not. This has been my exhortation continually.17

• This is certainly a different tune than the one that the authors would have their readers believe that LDS leaders sing, isn't it? The authors would rather have their readers believe that LDS leaders want the members to just close their eyes and follow, without questions.

The real concern is that many people reading this book by McKeever and Johnson are accepting the authors' self-appointed role as such authority, even to trust the authors to lead them to eternal life. Many people will read this book and put their trust in the authors…the very trust the authors advise us not to instill in anyone. What if they are wrong? I tell you that they are indeed wrong. They are very wrong. That is the travesty.

Claim

• The true colors of the authors shine through as they conclude this section of the chapter. After asking the questions above, the authors make this statement:

Some seem to think that they (LDS Leaders) will be forgiven and the issue will be forgotten. Speaking at an LDS Sunstone Symposium on 8 August 1997, Clay Chandler said, 'Our leaders can be forgiven for occasionally deceiving us if they don't violate our trust." Some Christians may not completely understand such rationale, but it must be remembered that for Mormons, rejecting the prophet and other church leaders is akin to rejecting God Himself.18

Author's source(s)

Response

• First of all, let us state unequivocally that this is pure dishonesty. This is an intentional attempt to deceive people who don't know any better. As anyone who has studied The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would know (and the authors tout themselves as "experts"), the Sunstone Symposium is NOT a Church-sponsored symposium…it is far from it. The Sunstone Symposium is held every year by the Sunstone Foundation and provides a forum where a variety of topics among Sunstone subscribers (these include dissident LDS members, excommunicated LDS members, current LDS members, atheists, humanists, etc.) are discussed.
• Let us look to the Deseret News, a local Salt Lake City newspaper owned by the LDS Church, an interview with Sunstone's chairman of the board of directors, J.F. "Toby" Pingree:

Although the symposium and journal have made headlines in the past for its open discussion of topics such as feminism and dissident members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Pingree said he doesn't think Sunstone is "on the church's radar screen" right now. "But I think there's even more of a need for (the symposium and journal)," he said, "because BYU is even more restrictive now." According to Pingree, "the faculty at BYU have been led to understand that they shouldn't be participating in Sunstone."19

• Is it reasonable to conclude that a symposium that Brigham Young University (BYU), a Church-owned university, faculty isn't even participating in should be considered a valid source to represent the LDS membership as a whole? Most certainly not. The symposium representative, quoted above, seemed to be entirely grateful that the Church is not targeting it, at this time.
• Suffice it to say that the Sunstone Symposium is made up of many people, among others, who oppose the Church's positions on a variety of topics. To use a Sunstone source as representative of the LDS membership is nothing less that deceptive and dishonest scholarship. And Chandler, the source of the Sunstone statement used by the McKeever and Johnson, is not even an active member of the Church. He describes himself as a "disengaged" Mormon and is married to a Lutheran pastor (most certainly not representative of the LDS membership).20 Without researching the source used by McKeever and Johnson, which most of their readers will not do, one would accept this as a common LDS view, which it is not.21 Once again, this is the type of scholarship that is to be expected from anti-Mormon authors. Using a dissident Mormon, now turned humanist, as a representative of LDS views is illusory. The view expressed by Chandler in the quote from McKeever and Johnson is not representative of a Latter-day Saint.

Claim

• The authors continue to quote leaders of the Church stating the importance of members to follow the Church's teachings and counsel, while supporting the leaders of the Church. Attempting to contrast this view with the New Testament, the authors then make the following statement:

At the conclusion of the October 1994 general conference, President Howard W. Hunter proclaimed: 'Let us study their words [the prophets and other general authorities], spoken under the Spirit of inspiration, and refer to them often. The Lord has revealed his will to the Saints in this conference.' While the Mormon leaders may say that they and their organization are above reproach, such a position of ultimate authoritarianism is not a New Testament trait.22

Author's source(s)

Response

• The authors take a ridiculous position that we would never find with biblical church leaders. Would we find Moses addressing the children of Egypt in a manner counter to the above statement by Hunter? Perhaps Moses would have advised the Israelites, "the Lord has not revealed his will through my words…The God of Israel is not guiding us…do not refer to my teachings and admonitions to you." Perhaps when Moses came down from the mount with the tablets, he urged the Israelites not to heed the commandments written upon them.
• Perhaps Peter would rather those from Jerusalem, in the second chapter of Acts, have questioned his words and his command to repent and be baptized. Perhaps, in some statement that we no longer have, Paul advised the Romans, Corinthians and others not to trust his words. "Do not study my words," he must have suggested, "and do not refer to them often. In fact, throw them away."
• Yet this is what the authors would have the leaders of the LDS Church advise its members, for it is the only alternative to advising the members to study, take heed, and follow their teachings.

Claim

• Let's look at the authors' examples of how New Testament writers "opposed" such a position taught by the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ. There are three examples posted. Here is the first:

If the leaders of the early church had claimed ultimate authority, then we could rightly conclude that Paul would never have become an apostle. After his conversion, Acts 9:26 says Paul tried to join the disciples but he was rebuffed due to a lack of trust. The apostles were reluctant to believe that Paul had actually converted. Although it is unclear as to the role Barnabas played in leading the early church, he did stand up for Paul and defended him before the apostles."23

Author's source(s)

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

Claim

• The authors attempt to demonstrate that the New Testament apostles were in opposition to such a view:

Paul took a position opposite to that held by the leaders of Mormonism. He invited his followers in Galatians 1:8-9 to closely scrutinize his teachings: 'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel ... let him be accursed.' He made it clear that even he was not above criticism.33

Author's source(s)

Response

• The authors miss the point and their statement begs the question: What gospel is Paul talking about? The one HE taught them. I am completely baffled how these two men, who run a "Christian Ministry," can entirely miss the plain meaning of this passage and contradict the rest of Evangelical Christianity (of which they claim to be a part). Let's take a look.
• Paul opens his letter to the saints at Galatia, with a rebuke (I can just see him shaking his head):

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.34

• "I can't believe you Galatians are already distorting the doctrines of Christ that I taught you," he seems to be saying. Paul is not praising these members of the Church for scrutinizing his teachings; he is not inviting them to criticize the gospel he delivered to them. Paul is rebuking them because they were indeed scrutinizing the gospel and perverting it. This is made clear when one reads the next verses in their entirety, as opposed to omitting parts (once again the authors omit the portions that don't agree with their position).
• Paul thus continues his reprimand in the same chapter:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.35

• Is there any way for Paul to make his directive more certain? Paul is effectively warning the members of the Church by saying that the doctrines "we" taught you are not up for debate or discussion. The gospel "we" taught you is not to be scrutinized. That which "we" taught you is indeed above reproach. The Galatians are not to listen to anything else.
• Paul concludes his censure to the saints with this truth:

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.36

• What Paul and the apostles taught to the saints at Galatia was the Lord's doctrines. He testified that what they learned from their leaders (the apostles) was revealed by the Lord. Compare Paul's words to the statement made by Howard W. Hunter at the conclusion of the 1994 General Conference (this is the quote that the authors had such a problem with):

Let us study their words [the prophets and other general authorities], spoken under the Spirit of inspiration, and refer to them often. The Lord has revealed his will to the Saints in this conference.37

• This is exactly what Paul is saying. The LDS leaders (apostles and prophets) are admonishing the members of the Church (saints) in precisely the same way that the New Testament leaders (apostles and prophets) were admonishing the members of the Church (saints). Unfortunately, McKeever and Johnson want people not to trust their leaders. They want us to scrutinize and criticize the apostles of the New Testament. This is not how the Lord's Church worked two thousand years ago, nor is it how the Lord's Church works today.
• One is left to wonder which of Paul's writings the authors feel need to be scrutinized and criticized? What parts of Paul's writings do the authors disagree with? Certainly, if Paul is not above reproach, the authors must have some criticism of Paul.

Claim

• The authors' last attempt to demonstrate that the New Testament apostles did not have any special authority to declare doctrine and teach the gospel is in the following statement:

When he [Paul] saw an inconsistency in Peter's behavior among the Gentiles, Paul saw no problem in confronting Peter "to the face" about the matter (Gal. 2:11).38

Response

• Are the authors wanting us to believe that a small inconsistency in the behavior of an apostle must disqualify the apostles from having the special authority to teach and declare correct doctrine and principles of the gospel? Apparently. It is necessary to remind the authors and the readers that no one should expect the apostles and prophets to be perfect men. They are human and only Jesus was perfect. But this does not prohibit the leaders of the church (apostles and prophets) from having the authority to lead the people, to teach the people, to declare correct doctrine to the people and to instruct the people to follow their teachings.
• The New Testament is replete with these directives from the apostles (as documented by the passages I shared above). Take for example, Paul's strict warning to the members of the Church in Corinth:

I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.39

• Take heed of the doctrines that he teaches, Paul exclaims. The members of the Corinthian Church were not to stray from the path Paul had made for them.
• Indeed, if we should question, scrutinize and criticize the leaders of the church, as McKeever and Johnson would have us do, one would correctly question the purpose of the apostles, prophets and the leaders of the Church. What benefit are they? Fortunately, we have a crystal clear description of just why the Lord "ordained" them to give them this special "power" and "authority" to preach, teach and declare doctrinal truth of the gospel.40
• The most clear and concise description of the purpose of the apostles and prophets is as follows:

And he [Jesus Christ] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.41

• What a powerful declaration of truth! The very reason why we have apostles, prophets and other leaders that work together in unity is so that we may know the truth to prevent division and dissension and so we may all be united in the faith, not all confused with our own "private interpretation" of doctrines. However, the conclusions of McKeever and Johnson lead us straight into the storm where we are "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine."

The authors turn their attention to the emphasis that leaders and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints place on living prophets. They have a difficult time dealing with the fact that the leaders and members tend to give more heed to living prophets over dead prophets. This is a simple issue to deal with. Remember, we are operating within a framework where living prophets are on the earth, leading the people. Why would one not listen to a prophet who has been chosen by God to lead in modern times? If we were to place the words of former prophets before the current prophet, what is the use in having a current prophet? We can look to the Bible to see a consistent pattern.

Should the people in Noah's time have disregarded his teachings and revelations in favor of those by previous men of God, as McKeever and Johnson advocate? Most people, in fact, followed that pattern and refused to hearken unto Noah's teachings. We all know what happened to them…they went for a swim. Should the Israelites have placed the teachings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob before Moses' teachings? Should they have ignored the ten commandments and other teachings and counsel of Moses?

Using McKeever and Johnson's logic, the Greeks, Jews and others of the first century should have opted for the doctrines and teachings of Moses instead of the teachings and doctrines of living apostles and prophets of their day. If everyone had held on to previous/dead prophet's teachings (Old Testament…i.e. Law of Moses), we would not have the New Testament today. We know that there were many that did just that…and they lived without the testimony and gospel of Jesus Christ, all due to their unwillingness to listen to living prophets.

The people who fought against Christ and His apostles did so in the name of dead prophets. They refused to listen to and believe Christ Himself and the living prophets (apostles) and instead referred to the teachings of dead prophets. This is a dangerous course the authors have laid out. Why listen to a living prophet? Because the Lord has sent him to us in our day, in our time, for us to heed his words…for they are the words of the Lord for us! Differences and Contradictions?

The last issue addressed by McKeever and Johnson is the old, rehashed matter of differing opinions among leaders of the Church with reference to God's knowledge and power. The authors quote Brigham Young stating that God is "progressing eternally," which is consistent with Wilford Woodruff's remarks that God is "increasing and progressing." These statements are contrasted, by the authors, with the more recent views expressed by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie that God's knowledge and power is full and complete. Smith said God "knows all things and that his understanding is perfect," while McConkie is quoted as saying God is not "progressing in knowledge," and is not "learning new truth."42

First of all, Bruce R. McConkie attempts to clarify the matter in his book, Mormon Doctrine. McConkie states:

It should be realized that God is not progressing in knowledge, truth, virtue, wisdom, or any of the attributes of godliness. He has already gained these things in their fullness. But he is progressing in the sense that his creations increase, his dominions expand, his spirit offspring multiply, and more kingdoms are added to his domains.43

Unfortunately, the authors decided to leave this explanation of McConkie's teachings on the matter out of their book. This is a sad attempt to portray LDS leaders as inconsistent and contradictory.

The authors are very familiar with McConkie's book, Mormon Doctrine, as they quote from it quite frequently. I would expect self-proclaimed "experts" on any particular subject to be more responsible in dealing with an issue such as this. When describing contradicting views of people, it is expected, from a responsible scholarship perspective, to show both sides of the issue and to demonstrate the actual views of the respective sources. This is especially true when one of the sources actually tries to explain how the views are not inconsistent. McKeever and Johnson do no such thing.

Perhaps the issue is deeper that it appears, however. Perhaps there are some differences of opinion between the leaders of the Church (I'm certain that there are) on the deeper matters of God. But, to deal with them in this manner, as the authors do in this case, is disappointing.

Now, back to the larger issue. Even if the authors were correct in their assessment of inconsistent statements of LDS leaders (let's make that assumption), is this a cause for concern? No. To say that small, differing personal opinions among Church leaders on the deeper elements of the gospel diminishes from their calling of God to lead His children and declare official doctrine is completely unfounded and unbiblical. ( Keep in mind that none of these statements were canonized or made official Church doctrine.) Prophets are fallible men with their own opinions on many matters. They are not perfect…only one was perfect. Bruce R. McConkie, himself stated, in an unpublished letter:

As Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes… Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord44

While this letter has not been published, McKeever and Johnson are very aware of it, for it is posted on their website. Yet, they never make an effort to provide this view. I find this approach very suspect.

Can we find examples of prophets and apostles making mistakes in the Bible? Of prophets and apostles voicing their own opinion, not of God? Of course! Non-LDS Bible scholars agree. J.R. Dummelow, a Bible scholar (he is not LDS), makes the following remarks about those who wrote the Bible:

Though purified and ennobled by the influence of (the) His Holy Spirit, these men each had his own peculiarities of manner and disposition - each with his own education or want of education - each with his own way of looking at things-each influenced differently from one another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines - it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries....45

Additionally, Peter, the senior apostle (even McKeever and Johnson recognize him as the senior apostle), actually denied Christ: not once, not twice, but three different times.46 Was this act not inconsistent with what other prophets and apostles taught? Is this appropriate behavior for an apostle of Jesus Christ…indeed a prophet, in every since of the word? Are McKeever and Johnson willing to apply their standard to Peter?

Peter was a man. He was a fallible man who made mistakes. But, he was chosen by God to preach, teach, declare doctrine, reprove and lead the Church. Can you imagine what McKeever and Johnson would write had Brigham Young, Joseph Smith or Gordon B. Hinckley denied Christ? The authors must be willing to apply their standards to all prophets and apostles.

Paul, for example, had his own opinions about marriage and had no problems in voicing them as his own opinions. He even had to insert disclaimers into his letter to the saints at Corinth clarifying that some of his words were not God's words. (Certainly, we may not understand the depth and underlying factors of Paul's remarks on marriage, but that these statements were of his own opinion and not by revelation from God is evident enough.) Statements like, "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God."47

Later in the same chapter Paul includes a command from the Lord, "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband."48 Two verses later Paul concludes his commentary on marriage reverting back to his own opinions, when he says, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."49

For another example we could turn to chapter two of Galatians to find disagreement among Church leaders-Peter and Paul, in this case. Should we eliminate these two as true leaders and prophets, due to their disagreements? According to McKeever and Johnson we should.

There is much more in the Bible to illustrate my point. This should be sufficient, however, to demonstrate that these men of God (latter-day as well as ancient-day) are not to be held to a standard that God never intended. These men of God will disagree from time to time. They make mistakes. They have their own opinions on things. God has not revealed every detail about Himself or His gospel to the apostles and prophets. We should not expect absolute agreement on issues where there has been no canonized revelation from God. These men of God continue to learn throughout their lives. They were and are taught just as Isaiah proclaimed, "precept upon precept…line upon line, here a little, and there a little."50 Conclusions

I return to the central questions regarding this chapter and the conclusions of McKeever and Johnson: Should members of the Lord's Church listen to, trust, follow and obey the teachings, doctrine and counsel of those men chosen by the Lord to lead the Church? Or, should the members of the Church follow the alternative pattern posited by the authors and scrutinize, criticize and identify their own "private interpretation?" Using the Bible as our guide, we find the answers loud and clear.

Turning to that incredible day discussed in Acts, chapter two , what did the people do, those who heard Paul's testimony, declaration and command? Did they criticize? Did Paul invite them to scrutinize? No:

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.51

This simple and trusting obedience is touching, isn't it? When the Spirit speaks ("they were pricked in their heart"), everything else is secondary…we are to listen and obey.

What about Naaman? What was he to do? His initial reaction was to follow the same pattern McKeever and Johnson suggested and criticize and ignore the commands by this man, Elisha. And, why not? For, Elisha's instructions made no sense and were not what Naaman expected. But, thankfully, he changed his mind:

And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.52

And he praised God and was ever so thankful that he listened and obeyed the instructions of the man of God.

And how about the poor widow of Zarephath? What was her destiny?

And she went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and he, and her house, did eat many days. And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Elijah.53

She trusted and followed his instructions and she was blessed. Elijah, after the widow's son contracted an illness and died, also raised him from the dead. The widow then declared, "I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth."54

This is the pattern that the Lord has set for us.

I think the most significant obstacle for McKeever and Johnson, and the primary reason these authors are unable to actually trust their religious leaders as the members of the Biblical Church did, is this: They are not led by prophets and apostles as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are. This is the difference. I know, as sure as the sun rose this morning, that I am led by a man, as imperfect and fallible as he may be, who was called by God to be His prophet. I know that he was called to be a prophet just as Moses was and just as Peter was.

With that kind of testimony, born of the Spirit of God, I follow His chosen prophet and trust him to lead me to the presence of my glorious Father in Heaven with His Holy Son, Jesus Christ, my Savior and Redeemer on His right hand .

Endnotes

1 2 Kings 5:10.

2 2 Kings 5:12.

3 1 Kings 17:13.

4 Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001), 264.

5 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 265.

6 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 266.

7 Ibid.

8 L. Aldin Porter, "The Revelations of Heaven," Ensign (November 1994): 62. This issue covered the conference addresses that took place in the October 1994 General Conference.

9 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 266.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 2 Peter 1:20.

13 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 266.

14 Acts 2:37.

15 Ibid.

16 Acts 2:38.

17 Brigham Young, "Eternal Punishment-'Mormonism,' Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 12 January 1862, Vol. 9 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1862), 150, as cited by Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1950, 129-130.

18 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 266.

19 Elaine Jarvik, "Sunstone Publisher Resigns" Deseret News (June 13, 2001), B2.

20 "Sunstone List of Speakers and Topics, 2001 Washington DC Symposium," (date last viewed).

21 "Council for Secular Humanism Events," (date last viewed). While I have not been able to identify Chandler's membership status, other works by Chandler reveal him to be some type of humanist, which is hardly an LDS view.

22 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 267.

23 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 267-268.

24 Acts 9:26.

25 Acts 9:27.

26 Hebrews 2:1.

27 Romans 6:17.

28 1 Timothy 1:3.

29 2 Peter 1:5-6.

30 2 Peter 1:10.

31 2 Thessalonians 3: 6-14.

32 Romans 16:17.

33 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 268.

34 Galatians 1:6-7.

35 Galatians 1:8-9.

36 Galatians 1:11-12.

37 Howard W. Hunter, "Follow the Son of God," Ensign (November 1994), 87.

38 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 268.

39 1 Corinthians 4:14-16.

40 Luke 9:1-2, Mark 3:14, John 15:16.

41 Ephesians 4:11-15.

42 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 270-271.

43 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Second edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 239.

44 Letter from Bruce R. McConkie to Eugene England, February 19, 1981, .

45 The One-Volume Bible Commentary, edited by J.R. Dummelow (New York: Macmillan, 1909, 1936).

46 Matthew 26:69-75.

47 1 Corinthians 7:6-7.

48 1 Corinthians 7:10.

49 1 Corinthians 7:12.

50 Isaiah 28:10.

51 Acts 2:42.

52 2 Kings 5:13-14.

53 1 Kings 17:15-16.

54 1 Kings 17:24.