Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 12

Chapter 11: Grace and Works

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 13: Communion and Baptism

Index of Claims made in Chapter 12: Heaven and Hell

Claim

• The authors state that the LDS believe that "a person is destined for one of six places after death," by which they mean Perdition, or Outer Darkness, the Telestial Kingdom, the Terrestrial Kingdom, and the three levels of the Celestial Kingdom.

Response

• By failing at the outset to make the critical distinction that these destinies are not determined until after the Judgment, not just after death, they sow the first seeds of confusion which permeate this chapter.

Claim

• The authors make the first error of "preaching to the choir" in the chapter, when they write that the key to understanding LDS soteriology is to "examine the biblical proof texts the Latter-day Saints use...to support their views."

Response

• Anyone who understands the Restored Gospel will know that we do not base our doctrine upon proof texts ^[1] from the Bible (or anywhere else, for that matter), but upon latter-day revelation. Since we do not believe our teachings contradict the Bible, it is quite normal (even normative) that we would preach from the scriptures, but they are the reflection of our doctrine, not its source-a confusion all too easy for a Biblicist to make, for whom the relationship between doctrine and scripture goes exactly the other way around.

Claim

• The first alleged "proof text" examined by the authors is 1 Corinthians 15:40, "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial...". They say that in light of verse 41, where Paul makes the comparison between the light of the sun, the moon and the stars as a simile for the difference in glories between the three kingdoms, that "many scholars believe that Paul was referring to heavenly bodies such as the moon, sun, and stars."

Response

• Well, yes—that is the whole point of a simile. If one were to say "my true love's eyes are like almonds," one is not writing an agronomy treatise, but, yes, one is referring to almonds. Paul's analogy works like this: "There are A, B, and C...so too is the resurrection of the dead (verse 42)"—a classic simile. To misunderstand such a fundamental literary feature as a simile does not bode well for the authors' understanding of the even more sophisticated literary forms that Paul often employs.
• The authors then say, "One thing for sure, there is no mention of 'bodies telestial.'" No, not in so many words, but Paul's simile is quite clearly tripartite, using the symbolism of the sun, the earth and the stars, so "telestial" (meaning "stellar," or "of stars") is hardly out of harmony with the verse. Because of their Biblicist background, they accuse Joseph Smith of a rather barefaced attempt to "bolster his erroneous doctrine" by inserting the word into the Joseph Smith Translation. However, it's well known that people in the nineteenth century often made what are technically called paraphrases (Thomas Jefferson made one of the New Testament which reflected his proto-Unitarian beliefs, for instance). A paraphrase is not a translation in the secular sense of looking at texts in other languages and then redacting (editing and recombing) the various texts and rendering the resultant consensus in the target language, and this latter, modern sense of translation has never been claimed by Latter-day Saints on behalf of the Joseph Smith Translation-it is, in fact, not canonical for precisely that reason (that is, his paraphrase as a study project was interrupted by his martyrdom so is incomplete at best). In any case, the term fits doctrinally and in the sense of the language Paul uses here, and its insertion would be problematic only for Biblicists (in other words, this is yet another error of "preaching to the choir").
• For a detailed response, see: 1 Corinthians 15:40 as a "proof text?" and History of the belief in a three-part heaven

Claim

• The next "proof text" the authors consider is 2 Corinthians 12:2-4: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such a one caught up to the third heaven..."

Response

• They start off in their usual way, with the circular assumption that we are basing our doctrines upon passages like this, rather than teaching doctrine from the scriptures, which is not quite the same thing. They then skim lightly over the scholarly tradition of Jews in a rather evasive way with the claim:

Using these passages to validate the idea of three kingdoms making up heaven ignores the Jewish tradition Paul would have known. According to that tradition, paradise was the abode of God, the place of eternal joy for God's people. However, Jewish custom never viewed a first or second heaven as alternative eternal destinations. Rather, these referred to the atmospheric heaven (the sky) and the galactic heaven (the universe).

• If this sounds remarkably, even anachronistically modern, it's because it is. It turns out not to be Jewish at all: their reference is to the eighteenth-century Enlightenment-era Protestant commentator Matthew Henry, who writes:

It was certainly a very extraordinary honour done him: in some sense he was caught up into the third heaven, the heaven of the blessed, above the aerial heaven, in which the fowls fly, above the starry heaven, which is adorned with those glorious orbs: it was into the third heaven, where God most eminently manifests His glory. ^[2]

• Such a glaring error leads one to believe that perhaps they don't think people will check their footnotes-another sign of the "down-market" audience for which their book seems to be intended.
• For a detailed response, see: 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 as a "proof text?" and History of the belief in a three-part heaven

Claim

• The authors state that Outer Darkness is reserved for those who commit murder or apostasize until they are resurrected and judged, and that those who fail to enter the Telestial kingdom after judgment will "return again to outer darkness, this time for eternity."

Author's source(s)

• n5
• George Q. Cannon n6
• Bruce R. McConkie n7
• Bruce R. McConkie n8
• Joseph Fielding Smith n9

Response

• The authors misinterpret the LDS concept of "outer darkness."
• For a detailed response, see: Fate of the "Sons of Perdition" and Will the "sons of Perdition" be resurrected?

Claim

• The authors claim the following concerning our understanding of the Telestial Kingdom:

It is said that it "surpasses all understanding"; and that even its inhabitants, the last to be redeemed, and even then deprived of the personal presence of God and the Christ, shall nevertheless receive the ministration of angels and the Holy Ghost...is completely foreign to the Bible.

Response

• Since the authors make absolutely no connection between how they interpret Biblical terms and modern LDS terminology, this claim doesn't even make sense. Their criticism could conceivably be true-if only we knew what they meant by the terms the Bible uses. Since the Bible itself so clearly teaches that Christ Himself went to minister to the souls in Hell (sheol), as referred to in 1 Peter 3:18-19 and 4:6, one can see that any serious attempt by a reviewer to take their criticisms at face value crashes upon the shoals of inconsistency and profound ignorance of the terminology used in the Bible.

Claim

• The authors misrepresent the LDS concept of "salvation," when they criticize the Telestial kingdom.

Response

• The gospel teaches that all inhabitants of kingdoms of glory-let us remember that even the Telestial Kingdom is a mansion of Heaven-receive salvation by dint of the universal atonement of our Savior. The Telestial Kingdom is sometimes referred to by LDS as "hell" but only in the sense that neither Christ nor the Father will be there. Its inhabitants will have to be satisfied with the ministrations of angels sent from higher kingdoms. Needless to say, this is a point that goes right over the authors' heads; it's not clear they even understand our position on it, let alone, of course, agree with it. The Telestial Kingdom is never confused with Perdition in LDS teachings-another point that goes over the authors' heads, it seems.
• But the Savior also gave us commandments and told us to build up his kingdom, and promised concomitant rewards to those who are more or less valiant than their peers. This is fundamental and clear New Testament doctrine that is ignored in embarrassment by Biblicists.
• We draw a distinction between universal salvation and exaltation, and anyone who wishes to make a credible criticism needs to understand the distinction we draw. Whether or not they believe it themselves, their failure to understand it leads them into making silly claims such as the Terrestrial Kingdom representing only a measure of salvation. In any case, since Biblicists are Trinitarian, the difference between the ministering of Christ in that kingdom and the ministering of the Father being reserved for the Celestial Kingdom is an odd thing for them to overlook. If Christ and God the Father are two different persons within the same being-as classical Trinitarianism teaches-what difference does it make, and how does it logically follow that one divine ministration is less than another? The Terrestrial and the Celestial Kingdoms would be the same. Thus, even on their own terms this criticism fails.
• It is also incorrect, as they claim, that we believe that exaltation only applies to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. The highest level has the distinctive characteristic that there is no barrier there to eternal progression-what ancient Christians such as Augustine called either theosis or deification. Augustine was, in fact, an eloquent expositor of this early Christian doctrine, forgotten long before the Reformation and only restored through Joseph Smith. See for instance, Benz, whose words stand as a non-LDS rebuke to McKeever and Johnson's comments about Restored Christianity's concept of exaltation being "egotistical." We'll come to this again, but Benz shows that the kind of opinion held by the authors is pure mischief:

Hence, the concept of Imago Dei [literally, the image of God, but in effect divinity] does not lead toward self-aggrandizement but toward charity as the true and actual form of God's love, for the simple reason that in one's neighbour the image of God, the Lord himself, confronts us, and that the love of God should be fulfilled in the love towards him in whom God himself is mirrored, that is, in one's neighbour. Thus, in the last analysis the concept of Imago Dei is the key to the fundamental law of the gospel, 'Thou shalt love God and thy neighbour as thyself,' since thou shouldst view thy neighbour with an eye to the image which God has engraven upon him and to the promise that he has given about him.' ^[3]

• The authors even contradict themselves by making this claim, that there is no difference between salvation and exaltation first, and then quoting Joseph Fielding Smith as referring to the Celestial Kingdom as the place where those who gain exaltation shall dwell.

Claim

• The authors claim that "Mormon males become gods of their newly inherited worlds" in the Celestial Kingdom.

Author's source(s)

• n17

Response

• The quote used by the authors says nothing about "Mormon males" becoming gods of "inherited worlds." It talks of looking "forward to an association in the postmortal world with a worthy spouse, and with those who were earthly children, fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters."

Claim

• The authors claim that the "highest level" of the Celestial Kingdom is known as "the Church of the Firstborn." They support this with a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith, in which they claim that he "admitted that many Mormons would never see this state."

Those who gain exaltation in the celestial kingdom are those who are members of teh Church of the Firstborn: in other words, those who keep all the commandments of the Lord. There will be many who are members of teh Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who shall never become members of the Church of the Firstborn.

Author's source(s)

• Smith n19

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

Claim

• LDS theology teaches that people can become angels. According to the authors, the "Bible, however, does not teach that people become angels. Angels are a distinct creation of God." They quote Psalm 148:2, 5,

Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts....Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created."

Author's source(s)

• Psalm 148:2
• Psalm 148:5

Response

• It's all too easy to be tempted to look up Psalms 148꞉2 and Psalms 148꞉5 and see what's in the intervening verses. Upon doing so, one learns that verses 3 and 4 include the exhortation to praise God to the sun and the moon and the stars of light, the heavens of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens. God created everything, including us, and including angels and including the physical universe.
• Note the reference to multiple heavens: "the heaven of heavens."
• There is no one-to-one relationship here that suggests that angels are not human species, merely humans at a different stage of development or playing a different role. That many today believe angels to be a different species of some kind is not an original Christian doctrine, nor is it an original Jewish doctrine.
• For a detailed response, see: Plan of salvation/Angels

Claim

• According to the authors, "Mormon males and their goddess wives will have the ability to populate the worlds they will inherit."

Author's source(s)

• Joseph Fielding Smith n23

Response

Claim

• The authors claim that,

Much of the LDS outlook on true salvation centers on the desires of the Mormon individual and not on Jesus Christ. Rather than the picture portrayed in the Book of Revelation, where God's saints pay rightful homage to the One who redeemed them, the Mormon heavenly system is more focused on personal power, gain, and sex.

• The authors go on to say the "Mormonism's heaven revolves around personal adoration and eternal sexual relations."

Author's source(s)

• Pratt n24
• Pratt n25
• n26

Response

• The authors have created a truly repulsive and offensive characterization of Latter-day Saint beliefs which is hardly worthy of response.
• The authors' characterization of theosis (deification, eternal progression), either in its early Christian or latter-day Christian form, as being self-centered ("more focused on personal power, gain, and sex" as they put it) is nothing more than a cheap shot. They unwittingly echo a common criticism by atheists of religion as a whole being self-centered. They contrast what they see in LDS doctrine with the image of worshipping God in Revelation, forgetting that Revelation is a canonical book for Latter-day Saints, too. They not only do not explain this contradiction, I seriously doubts it even occurred to them. In any case, for the record, all the speculations of nineteenth-century brethren aside (which, like the circular arguers that the authors are, they assume we lend all written material equal doctrinal weight-which we clearly do not) they assume all LDS writings are as indicative of LDS doctrine as are our canonical scriptures. This is circular because it argues a point of our doctrine based on one of their assumptions-that the written word is the Word of God, not a record of the Word of God. And in any case, uniquely LDS scripture happens both to echo the apocalyptic worshipping of God as in Revelation, along with the primacy of God in LDS soteriology (doctrines regarding salvation) and eschatology (doctrines concerning the latter days):

And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. (Mormon 7꞉7)

...for God said unto me: Worship God, for him only shalt thou serve. (Moses 1꞉15)

• For a detailed response, see: Do Latter-day Saints believe in "celestial sex?"

Claim

• The authors note that any "earth that a faithful Mormon hopes to eventually inherit, is predestined to be infected with sin" and that the "Mormon as 'God' will be in charge of the mess." Not content to treat the LDS as Biblicists by giving every speculative personal LDS commentary the same weight as scripture, the authors go on to draw their own conclusions and present this as if it were LDS doctrine:

"Every Mormon couple who obtains exaltation has no choice but to look forward to the day when one of their own children will serve as a tempter and cause one-third of the other family members to rebel and fall into sin."

Author's source(s)

• Young n31

Response

• As if this non sequitur weren't vivid enough, they bring in the names of Auschwitz, Rwanda, Tiananmen Square and Kosovo in a melodramatic attempt to paint a horrible vision of "Mormon eternity."
• There is no better condemnation of this kind of overheated prose than to quote the authors' own words against them: "Perhaps with our sin-tainted minds, such a wondrous concept would be difficult to grasp." Indeed. But the way to at least begin to grasp it is to ask the LDS what we believe, not presume to tell us what we believe.

Claim

• The authors state that "[o]nly a people ignorant of God's righteousness can think that they can establish their own righteousness and thereby meet the standard of God's absolute perfection. How disappointed they will be to hear the words found in Matthew 25:41: 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.'"

Response

Claim

• The authors claim that "those who beleive that personal merit will vindicate them will be horribly disappointed. Exposed as insufficient will be sin-tainted deeds performed with the anticipation of individual exaltation. A life dedicated to self-glorification will not be enough to assuage God's demand for perfection. A horrible end also lies in store for those who pride themselves in their false religion...neither the Jesus of Mormonism nor the Jesus of any other false religion has any power to save..."

Response

• The authors attempt to imply that Latter-day Saints do not worship the same Jesus that they do.
• For a detailed response, see: Plan of salvation/Three degrees of glory/Concept of Hell

Endnotes

1. [note] In apologetic terms, a proof text is typically a scripture, often pulled out of context, used to prove a doctrinal point.
2. [note] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary of the Whole Bible (McLean, Virginia: MacDonald Publishing Co., 1706), 6:641.
3. [note] Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, edited by Truman G. Madsen (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1978), 218-219.

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

Template code	Inserts this reference	Click to edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: 8: The Mormon Proposition}}	To learn more box:responses to: 8: The Mormon Proposition	edit
{{To learn more box:''Under the Banner of Heaven''}}	To learn more about responses to: Under the Banner of Heaven	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Robert Price}}	To learn more about responses to: Robert Price	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ankerberg and Weldon}}	To learn more about responses to: Ankerberg and Weldon	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ashamed of Joseph}}	To learn more about responses to: Ashamed of Joseph	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Beckwith and Moser}}	To learn more about responses to: Beckwith and Moser	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Beckwith and Parrish}}	To learn more about responses to: Beckwith and Parrish	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Benjamin Park}}	To learn more about responses to: Benjamin Park	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Bible versus Joseph Smith}}	To learn more about responses to: Bible versus Joseph Smith	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Bible versus Book of Mormon}}	To learn more about responses to: Bible versus Book of Mormon	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: ''Big Love''}}	To learn more about responses to: Big Love	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Brett Metcalfe}}	To learn more about responses to: Brett Metcalfe	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Bill Maher}}	To learn more about responses to: Bill Maher	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Bruce H. Porter}}	To learn more about responses to: Bruce H. Porter	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Carol Wang Shutter}}	To learn more about responses to: Carol Wang Shutter	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: CES Letter}}	To learn more about responses to: CES Letter	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Charles Larson}}	To learn more about responses to: Charles Larson	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Christopher Nemelka}}	To learn more about responses to: Christopher Nemelka	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Colby Townshed}}	To learn more about responses to: Colby Townshed	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Contender Ministries}}	To learn more about responses to: Contender Ministries	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Crane and Crane}}	To learn more about responses to: Crane and Crane	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: D. Michael Quinn}}	To learn more about responses to: D. Michael Quinn	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Dan Vogel}}	To learn more about responses to: Dan Vogel	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: David John Buerger}}	To learn more about responses to: David John Buerger	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: David Persuitte}}	To learn more about responses to: David Persuitte	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Denver Snuffer}}	To learn more about responses to: Denver Snuffer	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Dick Bauer}}	To learn more about responses to: Dick Bauer	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Duwayne R Anderson}}	To learn more about responses to: Duwayne R Anderson	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Earl Wunderli}}	To learn more about responses to: Earl Wunderli	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ed Decker}}	To learn more about responses to: Ed Decker	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Erikson and Giesler}}	To learn more about responses to: Erikson and Giesler	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ernest Taves}}	To learn more about responses to: Ernest Taves	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Fawn Brodie}}	To learn more about responses to: Fawn Brodie	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: George D Smith}}	To learn more about responses to: George D Smith	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Grant Palmer}}	To learn more about responses to: Grant Palmer	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Hank Hanegraaff}}	To learn more about responses to: Hank Hanegraaff	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Hurlbut-Howe}}	To learn more about responses to: Hurlbut-Howe	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: James Brooke}}	To learn more about responses to: James Brooke	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: James Spencer}}	To learn more about responses to: James Spencer	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: James White}}	To learn more about responses to: James White	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Jerald and Sandra Tanner}}	To learn more about responses to: Jerald and Sandra Tanner	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Jesus Christ-Joseph Smith or Search for the Truth DVD}}	To learn more about responses to: Jesus Christ-Joseph Smith or Search for the Truth DVD	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: John Dehlin}}	To learn more about responses to: John Dehlin	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Jonathan Neville}}	To learn more about responses to: Jonathan Neville	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Kurt Van Gorden}}	To learn more about responses to: Kurt Van Gorden	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Laura King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery}}	To learn more about responses to: Laura King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Loftes Tryk aka Lofte Payne}}	To learn more about responses to: Loftes Tryk aka Lofte Payne	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Luke WIlson}}	To learn more about responses to: Luke WIlson	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Marquardt and Walters}}	To learn more about responses to: Marquardt and Walters	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Martha Beck}}	To learn more about responses to: Martha Beck	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Mcgregor Ministries}}	To learn more about responses to: Mcgregor Ministries	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: McKeever and Johnson}}	To learn more about responses to: McKeever and Johnson	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: New Approaches}}	To learn more about responses to: New Approaches to the Book of Mormon	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Richard Abanes}}	To learn more about responses to: Richard Abanes	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Richard Van Wagoner}}	To learn more about responses to: Richard Van Wagoner	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Richard and Joan Ostling}}	To learn more about responses to: Richard and Joan Ostling	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Rick Grunger}}	To learn more about responses to: Rick Grunger	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Robert Ritner}}	To learn more about responses to: Robert Ritner	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Rod Meldrum}}	To learn more about responses to: Rod Meldrum	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Roger I Anderson}}	To learn more about responses to: Roger I Anderson	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ronald V. Huggins}}	To learn more about responses to: Ronald V. Huggins	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Sally Denton}}	To learn more about responses to: Sally Denton	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Simon Southerton}}	To learn more about responses to: Simon Southerton	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Thomas Murphy}}	To learn more about responses to: Thomas Murphy	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Todd Compton}}	To learn more about responses to: Todd Compton	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Vernal Holley}}	To learn more about responses to: Vernal Holley	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Walter Martin}}	To learn more about responses to: Walter Martin	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Wesley Walters}}	To learn more about responses to: Wesley Walters	edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Will Bagley}}	To learn more about responses to: Will Bagley	edit

Copyright © 2005–2024 FAIR. This is not an official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The content of this page may not be copied, published, or redistributed without the prior written consent of FAIR.

We welcome your suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Wiki article.

Sites we recommend: Mormon Scholars Testify: Messages of faith from scholars who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints