14. Christ Will Return to His Temple

Authors say LDS believe	LDS actually believe
1. Christ and Lucifer were literal brothers in the premortal existence	True, but LDS doctrine says that all people were literal brothers and sisters in the premortal spirit existence. See comments about page 25, line 26.
2. Christ was not born of the virgin of the Holy Ghost, but as a result of Mary having sex with God	Latter-day Saints believe the account in Luke 1:35 in which the angel said to Mary: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
3. “Jesus . . . was a man who had to prove himself in a mortal body in order to become a ‘God. ‘ “	Christ was a God before He was ever born on this earth (Heb. 1:2).
4. “Mormon theology ridicules the Trinity.”	Mormons believe in a trinity in the Godhead, but do define this trinity as literally three separate beings, as shown during the baptism of Jesus, when He came forth out of the water, and the Holy Ghost descended and God the Father spoke from Heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son” (Luke 3:22; Matt. 3:16-17); and again on the Mount of Transfiguration God said the same (Matt. 17:5).
5. The Mormon Holy Ghost cannot be a God.	LDS declare the Holy Ghost to be a God who is a personage of spirit. Just as Christ was a God before mortality so is the Holy Ghost now a God with a spirit body only. Some LDS people have felt that the Holy Ghost might someday receive a mortal body, but it is not LDS doctrine.
6. God is a man	God is an exalted, glorified man far more superior to mortal man than anyone can conceive.
7. The only way to become a god is to come to earth and prove yourself in a mortal state.	Since we know Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost attained Godhood without mortality, it follows that in some circumstances this is possible. We do not know all the reasons in these two circumstances, but it is clear that mortality is God’s way of opening up godhood opportunities for his children.
8. Latter-day Saints do not seem to know all that is involved in becoming a God.	True.

Page 201, lines 19-21

“The Melchizedek, or ‘High’ Priesthood, derives its name from the most mysterious figure in the Bible, who appears suddenly and briefly in Abraham’s day. “

The book ignores the fact that Paul spoke of the importance of Melchizedek, and reaffirmed David’s great Messianic Psalm (see Psalms 110:4) by quoting of Christ, “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:6). Paul also devoted an entire chapter (Heb. 7) to pointing out, among other things, that Melchizedek was a priest of the most high God, who blessed Abraham—a great man “unto whom even the patriarch Abraham” paid tithes (Heb. 7:4; Gen. 14:18). The brief Old Testament mention of Melchizedek underscores the need for more information on this great man, some of which is provided in LDS scripture.

Page 201, lines 24-27

“Occult groups and secret societies, including modern UFO cults, have laid claim to [the Melchizedek Priesthood].”

This claim is not documented by the book, but of course there is nothing to keep any group from copying ancient beliefs, as distinct from assuming the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is the power of God on earth. If the idea of Melchizedek or any biblical concept is contained in any group the book calls occult or in the LDS Church, that does not negate the biblical fact. It could even be further evidence of the LDS claim of restoration, since a man whom the Bible discusses briefly as being very important, but does not have a great deal of information about, has been elevated to his original importance through LDS modern scripture.

Page 202, lines 12 and 13

“Unfortunately, there is no historical evidence whatsoever that Joseph Smith was ever . . . ordained [to the Melchizedek Priesthood]. “

There are historical dates for just about every important aspect of the restoration of the Gospel. It is true that for some reason the Melchizedek Priesthood restoration has not yet been pinpointed by date, but the event has been narrowed by some historians to the latter part of May or early June 1829 (Larry C. Porter, Ensign, June 1979, pp. 5-10). Not a single date in Christ’s life or the lives of his apostles has been identified, but this does not keep us from accepting Christ. When a document is found giving the date for the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, will the critics become believers? Probably not. The fact that all the important dates in relationship to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon are available doesn’t make the authors believers of the Book of Mormon.

Page 202, lines 14-21

“Many journals [were] kept and even histories published during the early years of the Church, but none of them contains . . . mention of this most important event [the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood] until many years after the alleged occurrence.”

Both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery give specific details on the May 15, 1829, Aaronic Priesthood restoration which speaks of “Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, . . . which Priesthood . . . would in due time be conferred on us” (Joseph Smith History—1:72).

At the time the Church was organized in 1830 and even in the early days of the Church, the principle of keeping journals had not been observed and Joseph Smith was not the good journal keeper he became later in life. Nevertheless Oliver Cowdery referred to the incident of Melchizedek Priesthood restoration when he returned to the LDS Church in 1848 and two years earlier in a letter that has come to light. See page 207, lines 17-22. For seven accounts of priesthood restoration, see Richard L. Anderson, “The Second Witness of Priesthood Restoration,”Improvement Era, Sept. 1968, pp. 15-24.

Page 202, lines 22-23

That there is no definite account or date recorded for the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood “may come as a shock to most Mormons.”

LDS literature and speeches often mention that that date has not yet been found (HC 1:40 footnote).

Page 202, line 28 to page 203, line 7

An 1834 history written by Oliver Cowdery should have mentioned this tremendously significant event of Melchizedek Priesthood restoration.

We can only guess why this account glossed over the priesthood restoration. This history was not intended to be a comprehensive history. Perhaps since this record was for public consumption, it was decided to emphasize other aspects of the restoration such as the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps Oliver Cowdery did not want to give the public another issue to make light of, and he instead concentrated on setting the record straight on those issues of Mormonism that were being discussed by the public. Since priesthood and more angels might have renewed attacks on the Church, perhaps Church leaders intentionally did not want to talk about these sacred things at this tune.

Page 203, lines 3-7

Not until 1842 is it written in an LDS periodical that there were two priesthoods, and four angels.

The authors overlook the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants which says, “John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith Jr., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received . . . and also . . . Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles . . . and bear the keys of your ministry . unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom.” (D&C 27:8, 12-13. This section appeared as Section 50 in the 1835 edition.) The earliest priesthood restoration reference by Joseph Smith is now 1832, which is not mentioned by the authors, even though it has appeared in book form (Noel B. Reynolds, ed.. Book of Mormon Authorship {SaltLake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1982], p. 222). The original source for this material is an 1832 manuscript, much of it in Joseph Smith’s handwriting, held by the LDS Historical Department in Salt Lake City. This Joseph Smith 1832 history has been published; see Dean Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 4. 1842 was the first printing of any of Joseph Smith’s own history by the Church. It speaks of the coming of the Melchizedek Priesthood in connection with the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood on May 15, 1829 (HC 1:40). The Melchizedek Priesthood had apparently been restored by June 1829, since the June 1829 revelation known as Section 18 says Oliver Cowdery had been called as an apostle. Also the History of the Church introducing D&C Section 18 speaks of the Melchizedek Priesthood (HC 1:60).

On page 205, lines 20-22 the authors themselves quote Joseph Smith as saying, “The authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was . . . conferred” at this time (June 1831) on additional members of the Church.

Page 203, lines 13-17

“Mormon authorities themselves admit that there is no evidence to substantiate this claim about the ‘restoration’ of the Melchizedek Priesthood. . . . “

I’ve never heard this said and the statement is not documented. There are several evidences of the Melchizedek Priesthood being restored. LDS authorities have only said there was no known primary document with a date on it. See the previous several items.

Page 203, lines 17 and 18

“There is much evidence that documents were later altered and scriptures falsified. “

There were improvements, changes and revisions made in the history, mostly by Joseph Smith and also others. This is not the same as falsifying. See next item for further remarks.

Page 203, last two lines to page 206, line 18

The book at this time repeats many of the previous charges.

The authors are correct in pointing out that Joseph Smith edited earlier accounts of LDS history and added material that had been left out. However, Joseph forthrightly wrote several times in his journal that he was correcting the history. The same was said by Brigham Young and others who worked on the history after Joseph Smith’s death. These appear to be honest attempts to set the record straight. Why else would those working on the revision mention it so openly?

The book’s conclusion is that all these changes and additions were fabricated after-thoughts. Does anyone write anything and upon looking at it years later not find a better way to say it? Or do not most who write think of additional things they want to add when they are revising their work?

On this point one must simply decide whether the authors’ interpretation of the changes is correct or whether the LDS Church’s declaration is the correct one.

Joseph Smith was not an accurate journal keeper, especially in his early life, and often he did not write anything. This is understandable, with all the other priorities and crises in his life. Those who make history usually don’t have time to write history. Perhaps Joseph did not want to publish certain sacred things, to avoid more persecution. Maybe he was told by heavenly messengers to not say anything yet. In the 1838 account of the First Vision Joseph Smith declares, “Many other things did he [Jesus] say unto me, which I cannot write at this time” (JS-History 1:20).

The accounts of Priesthood restoration and the First Vision were cautiously told. Their reality does not depend on frequent repetition. “There is a corollary operating—an inverse law of sacredness which dictates that the highest gifts will be reported guardedly and reverently” (Richard L. Anderson, Book of Mormon Authorship, p. 223).

Joseph Smith also relied heavily on scribes and historians who were sometimes very negligent. Some parts of the history these men wrote have not been found and could contain some things that cannot now be accounted for.

The authors are correct in saying that changes have been made in LDS history, but their conclusions are their own speculation and interpretation, and do not square with the evidence. Actually all histories of nations, religions, and all aspects of the human story are changed as new documents and evidence come to light. Even background Bible history is affected in this way.

The possible reasons for the changes and additions in the early LDS history are more rational and believable than the authors’ conclusions. Following are examples of mistakes on their pages 204-206 alone:

 

The book’s charges	Historical evidence
1. ” . . . . The 1842 account was fabricated. . . . to shore up the ‘Prophet’s’ sagging authority” (p. 204, lines 103)	1841 and 1842 were perhaps the most peaceful and successful years in Joseph Smith’s life. There were far more troubles in his life prior to and after this time. This also explains why Joseph Smith had time to revise his history at this time.
2. “How else can we account for the undeniable fact that journals, letters, diaries. . . [don’t mention these remarkable events? They can’t be an oversight[ )page 204, lines 12-18)	2. “How else can we account for the undeniable fact that journals, letters, diaries. . . [don’t mention these remarkable events? They can’t be an oversight[ )page 204, lines 12-18)Maybe Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery simply did not want to talk about them. It could have been intentional or perhaps they were commanded to be silent. There were numerous other experiences with deity and angels. Joseph kept these rather quiet, too. The D&C mentions his having received such visits from Adam, Gabriel, Raphael, and numerous angels. We wish that Joseph Smith had told us more about them (D&C 128:20-21). There were many significant events in Christ’s life that we wish someone had recorded. For example, John’s Gospel says, “There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25)
3. Why did the 1833 Book of Commandments omit the priesthood revelations (page 204, line 26)	The Book of Commandments (without the priesthood revelation), the building and the press it was printed on were destroyed by a mob. Two men were tarred and feathered. Such attacks could have been why certain sacred things were held back for a time. Joseph Smith’s 1832 history and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants do mention Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods (Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith [1984] p. 4).
4. Two accounts, Joseph Smith’s and David Whitmer’s, both mention that the Melchizedek Priesthood was first conferred in June 1831. “No one remembered to rewrite this telltale statement when the later (and now official) claim was made that Peter, James and John had already conferred this priesthood two years earlier, in 1829” (page 205, lines 20-34).	There is no conflict. The 1829 date could be when Joseph and Oliver, the first and second elders of the Church, received the Melchizedek Priesthood. June 3-6, 1831, could be when other leaders of the Church received the higher priesthood. According to David Whitmer some were ordained elders in 1829. However, since this was before the organization of the Church on April 6, 1830, such ordinations would be repeated, just as baptisms were repeated that had been done prior to Church organization.
5. “In 1835 . . . Joseph Smith [said] the office of an elder comes under the priesthood of Melchizedek. Unfortunately, this ‘revelation’ created further contradiction” (page 205, lines 35-40).	This shows how one faulty premise leads to subsequent faulty conclusions. Yes, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were elders as of 1829 and held the Melchizedek Priesthood as of 1829. The calling of elders in 1831 (previous point) was not a claim that that incident was the first restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood or the first elders in the Church. The fact that elders were called in 1831 necessitated that those who called them already had that Melchizedek Priesthood.
6. “Elders were instructed concerning ‘the Priesthood of Melchizedek, to which they had not as yet been ordained’ ” (page 206, lines 2-5).	William Smith, writing after certain individuals had received the Melchizedek Priesthood, calls them by their newly given title (“elders”) and is merely saying that these individuals (who were now elders) had first received instructions.
7. “How the ‘appendage’ [or Aaronic Priesthood] could exist [by earlier ordination] independent of and prior to conferment of the [Melchizedek] Priesthood to which it is appended has never been explained” (page 206, lines 5-11).	The reason seems obvious; just as John the Baptist with the Aaronic priesthood preached prior to Christ, so was this appendage restored first in Joseph Smith’s day. It is logical to give the lesser priesthood before the higher one.

*The Book of Commandments was the first attempted venture at printing some of Joseph Smith’s revelations and is considered the forerunner to various editions of the book known as the Doctrine and Covenants, another volume Latter-day Saints hold as scripture.

Page 206, lines 19-29

“Under the alleged direction of an ‘angel’ . . . unbaptized Smith baptized Cowdery; then Cowdery whose baptism was invalid, baptized Smith. Next, improperly baptized Smith conferred upon also improperly baptized Cowdery the Aaronic Priesthood, which he himself didn’t have to confer; after this, improperly ordained Cowdery conferred upon Smith the Aaronic Priesthood by virtue of having supposedly received it from Smith, which clearly wasn’t possible, since Smith hadn’t yet received it, and never did.”

This logic by the authors would be sound, but for one fact: Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery first received the priesthood keys from the angel, John the Baptist. The authors omit this vital fact, which changes their premise and makes their conclusion wrong. Joseph Smith’s and Oliver Cowdery’s independent testimonies (both found in the Pearl of Great Price) state that before all of the above happened:

A messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying: Upon you my fellow servants in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins . . . (Joseph Smith—History 1:68-69).

This is a classic example of the misuse of logic. You can prove a reasoned case with logic, but all logical arguments are based on a premise or premises. The authors’ premise is that Joseph and Oliver received no priesthood before they baptized each other. Obviously the first two individuals to again perform authorized baptisms after a lapse of centuries would first have to receive the authority to do so.

The authors perhaps feel justified in using their incorrect premise because they do not believe that John the Baptist bestowed the priesthood on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. To not believe the testimonies of these two men is one thing, but to omit a crucial element from the testimonies of the two participants while employing other elements to develop a “reasoned case” is hardly an example of pure logic.

The logic of the Aaronic Priesthood restoration as related by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery is in every way sound.

Page 206, lines 28-29

“[This farce of the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood] is the foundation upon which the Mormon Church stands today. “

My comments about the previous item as regards the book’s use of “logic” will help the reader to determine where the farce really is being enacted.

Page 206, line 29 to page 207, line I

“It would have been far more believable if John the Baptist, who certainly was competent, had simply baptized Smith and Cowdery. Why didn’t he? No explanation is given.”

Is an explanation needed? Had John the Baptist done the baptizing of Joseph and Oliver, that in itself would still not have given Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the priesthood. It seems that the LDS version makes more sense than the sequence the book suggests. Priesthood had to be given first before any valid baptizing could be done.

Page 206, footnote

“Why with four Apostles on earth a total apostasy could have occurred requiring ‘restoration’ from heaven is not explained.”

The book assumes there is a problem, since Latter-day Saints teach there was a complete apostasy of Christ’s church and yet there is i teaching in the LDS Church that at least the New Testament apostle John (John 21:22, D&C 7:2-6) and three of the special Book of Mormon disciples (3 Nephi 28:7) have not yet died and are still in the world a large until Christ’s second coming.

The Book of Mormon twelve are usually referred to as disciples Moroni 2:1 uses the term “apostles” and so did Joseph Smith on at leas one occasion (HC IV:538). The Book of Mormon twelve are certainly subordinate to the twelve apostles in the Holy Land since the Book of Mormon says they will be judged by the “other twelve whom Jesus; chose in the land of Jerusalem” (Mormon 3:19).

In any event, it seems as if four disciples could be free to roam the earth to bless people even though they had no ecclesiastical assignments since God’s authorized church was not on the earth. An apostasy does not mean that works of righteousness cannot be done by individuals, aided at times by one of the four men referred to Actually, the Apostle John, along with Peter and James, was involved in the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, just as the Savior, Moses and Elias had earlier bestowed the same priesthood keys or Peter, James and John (Matt. 16:19; 17:1; HC 3:387).

Page 207, lines 1-3

“By the time the angel had been turned into John the Baptist it was too late to rewrite the entire story. “

How can a story be rewritten that has not been written? Why this would be “too late” is not made clear since the book claims most of Joseph Smith’s history was fabricated at a later date (1838). Resurrected beings are often referred to as angels, and so “John the Baptist” and “angel” are one and the same personage. Moses and Elias appeared as angels to the Savior and Peter, James and John on th( Mount of Transfiguration (Luke 9:31).

Page 207, lines 17-22

“After rejoining the Church in 1848, . . . Oliver Cowdrey declared: ‘I was also present when the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood . . . was conferred by the holy angel from on high.’ “

The book claims Oliver Cowdery said this to “get back in good graces” with the LDS Church, claiming that he was unaware that “holy angel” had become Peter, James and John during his absence from the Church. Had the authors checked the original source they would have found Oliver said angels, not angel (Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings ofMormonism, p. 241).

The authors ignore a letter written two years earlier in 1846 by Oliver Cowdery to his brother-in-law Phineas Young which indicates Oliver was contemplating rejoining the LDS Church. In this letter he does mention Peter: “I . . . stood in the presence of John with our departed brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater [Priesthood]” (Ensign, February 1977, p. 78).

Would Oliver Cowdery want to return to an organization that was the seam the book claims? He never received any special benefits by returning. What I have learned about Oliver Cowdery is that he was a man of honesty. He, perhaps more than any living person besides Joseph Smith, would know whether or not the LDS Prophet was a fraud. Oliver Cowdery, who felt he had been treated wrongly, had every reason to expose Mormonism, if he had not known it to be true and of divine origin.

His reference to Peter on one occasion and to angels instead of naming all three angels (Peter, James and John) could have reference to the one who spoke to him in the blessing. When Latter-day Saints refer to any ordinations or confirmations, they seldom refer to anyone in the “circle” except the person who speaks the blessing.

Page 207, line 27 to page 208, line 3

“[Mormons must be disconcerted that] those three ‘counterfeiters’ [as Joseph Smith at one time called them] Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris . . . ordained all of the first twelve Apostles of the Church. “

Eight things are necessary to note concerning the foregoing statement:

1. Would Joseph Smith dare say anything negative about those men if the work weren’t true and he thought they might expose a “fraud”?
2. They all at this time had been guilty of breaking commandments, and excommunication was in order to maintain Church integrity.
3. Calling the three witnesses “counterfeiters” was a mild rebuke to what they deserved at that time.
4. Christ at times rebuked those whom he loved and then accepted them, as when he called Peter “Satan” (Mark 8:33).
5. Joseph Smith made efforts to have the “fallen” three witnesses return.
6. Even with the three witnesses being guilty of later transgressions, that did not invalidate earlier ordinations they had made. When a priesthood holder ordains someone the validity of his action is obviously not dependent on his future worthiness.
7. A fundamental doctrine of the LDS Church is repentance. It is certainly understandable that Joseph Smith might have occasion to speak against his former close associates when they were cut off from the Church. To have two of the three witnesses want to return and to have the LDS Church grant forgiveness is an example of mercy. Rather than being “disconcerting” as the book charges, it demonstrates the LDS belief in forgiveness, mercy and repentance.
8. The twelve apostles were ordained before the three witnesses began having problems. Years after their excommunication two of the witnesses returned to the Church. None ever denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon.

Page 208, lines 9-16

“The Church has . . . built a monument to its own astonishing hypocrisy in the form of the Martin Harris Memorial Amphitheater. “

The book makes this statement because of the fact that at times Martin Harris was at odds with the LDS Church. It is true Martin had his problems, and when he was responsible for losing the first 116 pages of the manuscript of the Book of Mormon, he was rebuked for breaking promises and called a “wicked man” (D&C 3:12, 10:7).

Like all of us, Martin Harris had both strengths and weaknesses. Instead of complimenting the LDS Church for its policy of forgiving and welcoming back a former member with open arms, as the Savior taught in the parable of the prodigal son, the book takes a critical stand. See previous item for further remarks.

Page 208, lines 19-27

“Joseph Smith himself claimed he ‘saw the twelve in the celestial kingdom of God. ‘ In fact at least half of the original twelve apostles were excommunicated. “

It is presumptuous for anyone to claim that the first Twelve Apostles in the LDS church will not all someday be in one of the degrees of the celestial kingdom. Perhaps God is more forgiving than the authors. Some of the original Twelve remained faithful and four of those excommunicated or disfellowshipped returned to the LDS Church after they admitted their errors and repented. Again we see Joseph Smith was so sure of the truthfulness of what he was doing that those not keeping the commandments of God were expendable, because he would not compromise the integrity of the Church leadership. A conspiracy could not afford to remove members of its own leadership. The Twelve is a body regardless of who constitutes its membership.

Page 208, lines 29-32

“Long before Hitler and Stalin used the technique so effectively, Joseph Smith had already learned by trial and error that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, many people will eventually believe it.”

Truth repeated often enough will also find many people who will believe. Actually, the truth or falseness of an idea is independent of how many times something is repeated.

The LDS Church has survived much longer than any of its critics and will continue being a force for goodness, mercy, advocating the keeping of God’s laws, strengthening the family and testifying of Jesus Christ.

The really big lie in the world is saying that “sin is not sin.” Such sins as lying, cheating, adultery are being imposed upon our society by the technique of repetition. It is ironic that the authors condemn LDS works and efforts to teach and live Christian principles but are infuriated by some differences over doctrine that Latter-day Saints proclaim. The authors are guilty of the same technique by repeatedly insisting their version of Christianity is true because it is “traditional,” when in fact “traditional” Christianity is far removed from what Christians believed for a century or so following Christ’s ministry.

Page 208, last line to page 209, line 8

A number of new charges are made, though most were stated before. One is that the LDS prophet said there are men on the moon. See earlier discussion about page 79, line 21. Mormons say “The Holy Ghost [can turn] Gentile blood into Jewish blood. ”

See previous remarks in connection with page 7, lines 5-14.

“Jewish-Gentile-Christian-Mormon Temples . . . prominently display the upside-down, five-pointed star {Goat of Mendes]. “

Does the use of stars on the flag of the United States or on generals’ uniforms indicate an occult connection?

The authors fail to mention that there are also stones on the Salt Lake temple representing the sun and moon. In LDS theology the sun, moon, and stars are used to symbolize the three kinds of heaven (celestial, terrestrial and telestial) which mankind will inhabit in the eternities as taught by Paul when he said: “There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial . . .. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars” (I Cor. 15:40-41). The sun, moon, and star carvings on the Salt Lake Temple are mainly decorative and undoubtedly represent the LDS concept of these three heavens that Paul spoke of. (See also 2 Cor. 12:2).

Some scholars have maintained that when a star has two of its points pointing upward, that in certain societies it is known as the “Star of the East” with the two points representing outstretched arms to receive truth from the heavens.

My colleague, Don F. Colvin, has pointed out that the Salt Lake Temple has 104 five-pointed stars as part of the architectural design, of which 32 point downward. However, no goat’s head is part of these stars, as is often the case with the Star of Mendes.

Some portrayals of the ancient Egyptian Goat of Mendes that I have seen do not have the upside down stars that the book claims, but regular stars (Richard Cavendish, Man, Myth and Magic[1970), 8:1118-1121; 2:217). Boy scouts have a tenderfoot badge with two upside down stars. Does that make Boy Scouts an occult movement?

Page 208, lines 32-34

“Every Mormon temple stands as an astonishing monument to a lie so huge and so bold that it becomes convincing.”

To refer in this way to these sacred buildings constructed with great love and sacrifice and dedicated as “The House of the Lord” is a gross insult.

Page 208, lines 35-36

“These temples are supposed to be like the ones Enoch, Noah, and Abraham worshipped in, yet there were no such temples. “

There is no documentation in the book verifying the authors’ assertion.

LDS doctrine does not claim to have information whether the foregoing prophets worshipped in temples.

Page 209, lines 5-8

“[In the temple] blond, blue-eyed, pseudo-Aaronic Priests . . . [perform] secret pagan rituals and openly wear a fig-leaf apron that symbolizes Lucifer’s ‘Power and Priesthoods.’ “

Actually, no Aaronic priesthood holder may participate in this temple ceremony. The Melchizedek Priesthood holders and women participating are of all the human family’s colorings.

Page 209, lines 9-22

“There will be no temple in the New Jerusalem. Nor is there so much as a hint in all the Bible that temples of any kind, except the one temple for Israel . . . are . . . to be built.”

The main ideas about LDS temples come from modern LDS scripture.

Page 209, lines 16-18

Joseph Smith prophesied that during his lifetime a temple would be built in Independence, Missouri.

The Lord did direct the LDS prophet to construct this temple, but I am not aware that Joseph Smith claimed he would live to see it completed. Just as the biblical people lost their temple on two occasions and still have not realized their dream of rebuilding it, so Latter-day Saints await a Missouri temple.

One of the revelations in connection with the Independence temple even states that “after much tribulation come the blessings.” Only then might those living in Missouri “be honored in laying the foundation [of the temple],” not necessarily see it completed (D&C 58:4,7).

Zacharias prophesied that Jesus would save the Jews from their enemies and deliver the Jewish nation (Luke 1:67-75). This of course did not happen at that time and is still to come.

Page 209, lines 21-22

“[The Missouri temple must be built to] prepare the way for Christ to return with Joseph Smith to rule the world.”

See comments about page 7, lines 5-14, for earlier discussion on LDS doctrine about Joseph Smith and the Millennium.

Page 209, lines 23-25

“It is only when we see Mormonism as a revolutionary secret society determined to take over the world that we begin to understand the real purpose behind its Priesthoods.”

This statement is misleading. Latter-day Saints, like most other Christians, believe in the coming millennial reign of Christ as many prophets predicted. Latter-day Saints claim to be forerunners to this event, but the LDS Church has absolutely no revolutionary plans for U.S. or world conquest. The function of Mormonism in this preparation for Christ’s second coming is merely to develop as many righteous people as possible from whom Christ can draw for leadership to carry out the righteous works of his kingdom. If Latter-day Saints are correct, having the priesthood involved is logical. Since the authors maintain Mormon priesthoods are satanic, why do they worry? Do they think an omnipotent God would permit the LDS priesthood to have any involvement in the Millennium if it is satanic?

Page 209, lines 33-34

“Joseph Smith boldly declared: 1 intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. ‘ “

The book leaves out what the LDS prophet said two lines later: “It will not be by sword or gun that this kingdom will roll on” (HC 6:365). Without the inclusion of this nonviolent statement the one the authors quote makes the LDS movement appear militant, which it is not.

Page 209, lines 34-36

“Apostle Orson Hyde boasted: “What the world calls “Mormonism” will rule every nation.’ “

See earlier comments about page 209, lines 23-25, and page 143, lines 10-15.

Page 209, line 36 to page 210, line 2

John Taylor stated “. . . that kingdom which the Lord has commenced to establish upon the earth . . . will not only govern all people in a religious capacity, but also in a political capacity. ”

In lines that precede the quote, John Taylor says: “God will establish his kingdom upon the earth, ” and a few lines later, “God will introduce a rule and government of his own upon this earth, and that all nations, all rule, all power, all government will have to submit to that rule” (/D 7:53; italics added). Most Christians believe this.

John Taylor’s message, when the whole talk is read, is that the LDS Church is the beginning of a kingdom that will prepare for Christ’s kingdom. John Taylor makes it clear the LDS Church’s role prior to the Millennium is “to teach faith in Jesus Christ, repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. . . .”

Although omitted by the book, LDS scripture on the second coming is clear.

Be prepared for the days to come, in which the Son of Man shall come down from heaven, clothed in the brightness of his glory, to meet the kingdom of God which is set up on the earth.

Wherefore, may the kingdom of God go forth, that the kingdom of heaven may come, that thou, 0 God, mayest be glorified in heaven so on earth. . . . (D&C 65:5-6)

In these verses there definitely is a distinction between the LDS Church kingdom of God and Christ’s millennial kingdom of heaven. The former is strictly a religious entity. This agrees with the Apostle John who spoke of a “new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven” (Rev. 21:2).

John Taylor in a few lines following the initial quote by the authors also says, “We respect, honor, and obey the Constitution and laws of the nation with which we are associated.”

Page 210, lines 7-9

“The plan of said Smith, the Prophet, is to take this state [of Missouri], and . . . the United States and ultimately the whole world.” The book says Ms statement was made by Thomas B. Marsh, “disillusioned former President of the council of the Twelve Apostles.”

Some errors need to be clarified:

1. The foregoing is a quotation from a dissertation by Leland Gentry, A History of letter-day Saints in Northern Missouri from 1836-1839, p. 414. The God Makers does not point out that in Marsh’s affidavit he is referring to a “conversation between Dr. Samson Avard and other Mormons.” Dr. Avard headed a group of LDS vigilantes called the “Danites” who were using unlawful means of striking back at those who were fighting against the LDS Church at the time. Avard was excommunicated from the LDS Church for his actions.

From the same dissertation we also learn:

The Mormon prophet emphatically denied that the Danite order had any official status in the Church and issued stern warnings to the saints to be aware of all groups whose spirit was foreign to the gospel of Jesus Christ (Gentry, p. 361).

Also, Avard had a history of lying and later blamed Joseph Smith for his own unlawful activities, and to avoid any convictions for the Danites’ illegal activities. He hardly is a credible source.

2. Marsh did not leave Mormonism because he was disillusioned, as the authors seem to be implying, but because he was excommunicated for supporting his wife when she was called to account for deceptive business practices. Marsh, in later years, moved to Salt Lake City and asked to return to the LDS Church, admitting his mistakes and regretting his apostasy. He was forgiven and readmitted.

Speaking of Marsh and other LDS dissenters during the last days in Missouri, Gentry said, “These men had been, for all intents and purposes, lost to the cause of Zion for some time” (Gentry, p. 168). This indicates that those who left the LDS Church at this time did not become disillusioned at what was happening, but rather slipped away from their faith before illegal Danite activities became a problem in Missouri.

Page 210, lines 10-13

“The temple ceremonies . . . have nothing to do with the grace of God or the sacrifice of Christ for our sins.”

By extending salvation to those who would be denied this blessing, LDS temple work is a manifestation of the grace of God. It makes God’s grace available to all, something many interpretations of Christianity have not been able to do.

As to the temple having nothing to do with the sacrifice of Christ, just the opposite is true. Latter-day Saint doctrine teaches that temple-goers can become more Christ-like when they emulate the Spirit of Christ’s sacrifice by doing essential work in the temple for themselves and those who have passed beyond. These ordinances are done on behalf of those who could not do them for themselves while they lived, just as part of Christ’s atonement was in payment for the sins of those who accept him as their Savior.

Page 210, lines 13-14

“Secret names, signs, symbols, handshakes, and formulas of classic occultism and ritual magic [must be used by the LDS temple initiate] to ascend the ladder of hierarchy and thereby gain access to the coveted powers of the ‘Gods.’ This was Satan’s promise.”

There are several points which should be made in regard to the foregoing statement:

1. Any power bestowed in the temple is contingent on worthiness, not on names, signs, symbols, etc.
2. There are no occult formulas or ritual magic in the temple.
3. If by the term hierarchy the authors mean advancement in LDS Church positions, then there is nothing in LDS temple rituals which leads up such a ladder.
4. The authors’ statement does not define classic occultism. There are as many varieties of occultism as there are versions of Christianity.
5. The role of Satan is portrayed in the temple, but his “promise” comes word for word from Genesis 3:3-5. The promise, “Ye shall not surely die,” was a lie, and Adam and Eve’s transgression in hearkening to Satan meant death to them as God stated in Genesis and is quoted in the temple ceremony.
6. The book ignores the fact that much of the LDS temple ceremony can be found in biblical and LDS scripture that anyone can read. It is presented in a manner to enhance effective teaching.

Page 210, line 24 to last line

“[Priesthood] is the law that governs and controls all things, and will eventually govern and control the earth and the inhabitants that dwell upon it. . . .” The authors interpret this Brigham Young quotation as explaining “the occult power and real purpose behind the Melchizedek Priesthood. “

President Brigham Young in this talk was actually defining the differences between Satan’s and God’s purposes and was renouncing Satan’s methods (JD 10:32). The authors have completely misinterpreted the intent of Brigham Young’s speech. His message: The LDS Church is a product of God’s (not occult) priesthood.

Latter-day Saints do believe they possess the priesthood which belongs to Christ. If the authors are correct and Latter-day Saints are disillusioned, LDS people will certainly have no part in the Millennium, because Christ will make sure that no “pretenders or satanic usurpers” are part of his kingdom.