or
Are there real golden plates and did God and Jesus appear to Joseph?
“The idea
that we must be neutral and argue quite as much in favor of the adversary as we
do in favor of righteousness is neither reasonable nor safe,” stated
President Boyd K. Packer. “In the Church we are not neutral. We are
one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it. It is the war
between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are
therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in
the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it.”
The war in
heaven (the pre-mortal existence), the great war of words and philosophies
where a third of the hosts of heaven were lost to the adversary, continues
among us today.
I saw this BYU-published
(Mormon Studies Review) 2014 interview that Spencer Fluhman of the
Neal A. Maxwell Institute at BYU conducted with Ann Taves, a non-Latter-day
Saint religious studies scholar. In answer to an inquiry, she replied: “But
your question, I think, alludes to the work I’ve been doing on early Mormonism
and the contentious issue of the materiality of the golden plates, which
is what I’ve been lecturing on in various venues. The golden plates take us
straight into one of the most interesting challenges: taking the whole range of
evidence and views on contentious claims into account and making our way
through them as scholars in as transparent a fashion as possible. . . . I’m
sure it helps that I am setting up the ‘puzzle’ of the golden plates
with a claim that each ‘side’ holds dear—that is, that Joseph Smith was not a
deceiver or deluded and that there were no ancient golden plates”
(emphasis added).
This
friendly non-Latter-day Saints’ views, that impugn the existence of the gold
plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, are here found in a
tithe-subsidized BYU publication, that is not supposed to be supporting the
enemy in the war, but to be unapologetically defending the truth with no
question about what really exists.
In
contrast, we have this statement, given in General Conference, from President
James E. Faust:
As
a young Aaronic Priesthood boy, I received a firsthand confirmation of the
remarkable testimony of the Three Witnesses concerning the truthfulness of the
Book of Mormon. My stake president was President Henry D. Moyle, and his father
was James H. Moyle. In the summertime Brother James H. Moyle would visit his
family, and he would worship with us in our little ward in the southeast of the
Salt Lake Valley.
One Sunday,
Brother James H. Moyle shared with us a singular experience. As a young man he
went to the University of Michigan to study law. As he was finishing his
studies, his father told him that David Whitmer, one of the witnesses of the
Book of Mormon, was still alive. The father suggested to his son that he stop
on his way back to Salt Lake City to visit with David Whitmer face-to-face.
Brother Moyle’s purpose was to ask him about his testimony concerning the
golden plates and the Book of Mormon.
During that visit,
Brother Moyle said to David Whitmer: “Sir, you are an old man, and I’m a young
man. I have been studying about witnesses and testimonies. Please tell me the
truth concerning your testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon.”
David Whitmer then told this young man: “Yes, I held the golden plates in my
hands, and they were shown to us by an angel. My testimony concerning the Book
of Mormon is true.” David Whitmer was out of the Church, but he never denied
his testimony of the angel’s visitation, of handling the golden plates, or of
the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Hearing with my own ears this
remarkable experience directly from Brother Moyle’s lips had a powerful,
confirming effect upon my growing testimony. Having heard it, I felt it was
binding upon me.
(Personally,
as I read President Faust’s testimony, I received a witness that what he said
was true, that David Whitmer did actually hold real gold plates in his hands
and hear the voice of an angel; that David’s witness and James Faust’s witness
were both true.)
So on the one hand, we have BYU
publishing the views of worldly academics that deny the existence of the gold
plates, and on the other hand we have the testimony of an Apostle of the Lord
Jesus Christ bearing witness that the Spirit of the Lord gave him “a powerful,
confirming effect” and that “it was binding” on him. (After my own witness
gained from reading his, I feel the same way.) We must ask ourselves—whose side
of this war are the people at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute—that published the
rot—on? If just one Latter-day Saint questions their testimony of the Book of
Mormon because BYU is publishing the views of the detractors, such is a wholly
preventable tragedy. “I want to say in all seriousness that there is a limit to
the patience of the Lord with respect to those who are under covenant to bless
and protect His Church and kingdom upon the earth but do not do it” taught
Elder Packer.
Others, like Brian Hauglid (also of
NAMI), deny that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham papyrus, and have
concluded he cobbled some stuff together another way (something beyond the
scope of this post.)
Then I see
the most recent number of BYU Studies Quarterly, edited by Steven
Harper, that contains the proceedings of an academic conference, “held at the
Huntington Library in San Marino, California, to commemorate the two hundredth
anniversary of Joseph Smith’s First Vision.” I notice that at least two, and
probably more, of the presenters, were not Latter-day Saints and do not believe
that Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ in the
Spring of 1820. Yet their unbelieving views (though perhaps almost friendly in
an academic way) are published by BYU.
One of the
presenters (Ann
Taves again) filled her presentation with the views of anti-Mormon writers,
that she gave full credibility to, writers whose mission in life is to damage
or destroy Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling and teachings. Taves questions many
details from Joseph Smith’s history, and makes it plain that she really doesn’t
buy Joseph’s testimony of this great theophany. Richard
Mouw, an evangelical Protestant scholar, also presents a paper that while
friendly in some ways, ultimately denies the factual event of the First Vision.
BYU
Studies Quarterly, which is subsidized by tithing and carries the name of
BYU, and in the past has been a beacon of light and truth to its readers, is
here publishing the wholesale conclusions of nonbelievers, without refutation.
True, some of the other presenters were Latter-day Saints, but their papers do
not specifically offset the opposing views of the others.
I
understand the desire for (supposedly) faithful Latter-day Saint scholars to be
part of the conversation, and therefore influence it for good—but that doesn’t
mean BYU must publish the contrary views. All BYUSQ needed to do was
leave out the presentations that don’t support the history and teachings of the
Church—which is one reason why BYU exists. The old story of Brigham Young’s
counsel to Karl G. Maeser is particularly applicable here, that “even the
mathematical tables should not be taught without the Spirit of God.” (How can
you question the existence of gold plates or the first vision by the Spirit of
God?)
Now BYU has
an influential publication with views in it that are diametrically opposed to
the truth as given in the Proclamation
on the Restoration. The problems continue: in January, that same BYUSQ
journal will publish views opposed to the First Presidency’s 1909 doctrinal
statement “The
Origin of Man”—according to BYU biologists our bodies are the descendants
of animals—not descended from resurrected Heavenly Parents.
Some time
ago I read a book promotion interview on “reddit” done by Terry Givens, also of
NAMI. He was asked many questions by potential customers. In almost every case
where he had an opportunity to quote scripture or the prophets, he instead quoted
from the philosophers of the world; men who knew nothing of spiritual things.
When asked if faithful Latter-day Saints could one day become like God, he
equivocated and said he didn’t know instead of bearing witness of the teachings
of the scriptures and modern prophets of the true doctrine.
What we are
seeing are subtle attacks on truth by the adversary, using either knowing or
naively complicit (alleged) scholars working for BYU. The devil is active
behind the scenes, pushing to work his influence into scholarly discourse. President
Marion G. Romney warned against such capitulation and testified of the
truth:
Latter-day
Saints know that there is a God. With like certainty, they know that Satan
lives, that he is a powerful personage of spirit, the archenemy of God, of man,
and of righteousness. The reality of the existence of both God and the devil is
conclusively established by the scriptures and by human experience. . . .
We
know that to qualify us to prevail against Satan and his wicked hosts, we have
been given the gospel of Jesus Christ. We know that the Spirit of Christ and
the power of his priesthood are ample shields to the power of Satan. We know that
there is available to each of us the gift of the Holy Ghost—the power of revelation which embraces the gift of
discernment by which we may unerringly detect the devil and the counterfeits he
is so successfully foisting upon this gullible generation. Our course is
clear and certain. It is to strictly obey the commandments of the Lord, as they
are recorded in the scriptures and as they are being given by the living
prophets. . . .
I
know that God lives. Through my own experiences I have come to know of his
Spirit and his power. I know also that Satan lives. I have detected his spirit
and felt of his power—not to the extent as did
the Prophet Joseph, but in like experience. (Emphasis added.)
President
Ezra Taft Benson also gave warning; warnings that are ignored by these BYU
academics today:
In
the Book of Mormon the prophet Nephi exclaims: "O Lord, I have trusted in
thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of
flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh.
Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm."
(2 Ne. 4:34.)
Prophesying
of our day, Nephi said, ". . . they have all gone astray save it be a few,
who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in
many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of
men." (2 Ne. 28:14.)
Yes,
it is the precepts of men versus the principles of God. The more we follow the
word of God, the less we are deceived, while those who follow the wisdom of men
are deceived the most.
Increasingly
the Latter-day Saints must choose between the reasoning of men and the
revelations of God. This is a crucial choice, for we have those within the
Church today who, with their worldly wisdom, are leading some of our members
astray. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., warned that "the ravening wolves
are amongst us from our own membership and they, more than any others, are clothed
in sheep's clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the Priesthood. ...
We should be careful of them." (The Improvement Era, May 1949, p.
268.)
Sadly, and
shamefully, we must be careful of who we read and listen to at BYU, for some
few of these people are marginalizing true doctrine, and others are aiding and
abetting the enemy of all righteousness, giving him aid and comfort where
President Brigham Young would have had him spanked and thrown out by his heals.
Speaking of
his enthusiasm for the growth of so-called “Mormon Studies,” BYU professor Thomas Wayment
wrote: “Historically, the conversation about the Book of Mormon has been
defined by extreme viewpoints, with defenders and detractors aligned in ways
that permit little room for productive conversations to develop and with little
hope of finding common ground. . . . Old battle lines could have emerged,
believers could have found themselves staking their claims against the assaults
of academics.”
Have
Wayment and Harper and Givens and Hauglid and Fluhman not read the prophets, or
at least Brother Packer’s counsel? Do they not know that the devil uses such
naivete as a way to sneak opposing views and false doctrine into symposiums and
conferences and journals and books? Again, if even one Latter-day Saint loses
their testimony because of the unbelieving content in these BYU publications,
it is a terrible tragedy that need not have been.
God and the
devil drew the old battle lines and Michael, the archangel, will one day
overthrow the devil, but until then Satan seeks to increase his influence any
way he can, and academia is one of them. President Packer said that all
faithful church members who keep their covenants are at war, belligerents in
defense of the truth. But so many of these BYU academics don’t seem to catch on
to the fact that they are doing the devil’s bidding by publishing his views.
Far better today to learn the gospel from the prophets and apostles than from
BYU academics; those enabling and supporting the unbelievers and detractors—or
anyone, even themselves—who don’t know or believe that there really are gold
plates and that the Father and the Son really did appear to Joseph Smith.
The fact is
that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is founded on events and
occurrences that the university academies of the world will never accept since
they are profoundly supernatural, and most church members just don’t give a fig,
as President Lorenzo Snow would put it, what scholars and academics think about
it. Unless it damages testimonies. Some people, sadly, are foolish enough to
let the vastly imperfect scholarship and precepts of men overcome their witness
from the Spirit of God, of what is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment