From: wcsa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Mormon FAQ (part 2 of 2)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill West - Naperville, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 11:21:41 GMT



                     GRACE AND THE PROCESS OF SALVATION

For sources on the the Process of Salvation (termed Plan of  Salvation),  one
can  find  very  simple  descriptions  in  almost  any LDS book. If one wants
detail, then the first ten chapters of _Articles of Faith_ will probably fill
most persons' needs. In the context of the network, I think that most readers
will find  Blake Ostler's "The Development of the  Mormon  Concept  of Grace"
(_Dialogue_ 24:57-84) to be a delightful summary.

Free Will and the Fall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mormons  believe  that  mankind was  innocent  **Before  the  Fall**  and, in
contrast  to  Augustine,  unable  to exercise free will, because they did not
have  alternative choices.  God  gave them  that  freedom  when  he  provided
opposing  commandments (2 Ne 2:15-16): Multiply and Replenish the Earth *and*
Do  Not Eat of the Tree  of  Knowledge.  If  the  conflict  is  not  obvious,
then  consider that  unawareness of one's nakedness (Gen 3:7) denotes a sense
of  innocence  concerning  how  babies  are made  and  (to put it delicately)
the inability to be sufficiently aroused in order to physically make babies.

LDS do not believe that The Fall is the result of a  *sin*,  because  Mormons
believe  that one cannot *sin* unless one has a knowledge of good and evil (2
Ne 2:13).  Sin is  an  act  which  violates  law,  has  a  moral  culpability
attached,  and is deserving of punishment. Sin cannot be derived from a state
of being which one inherits. Since the knowledge of good  and  evil  was  not
possessed by Adam and Eve until after the Fall (2 Ne 2:22), their actions are
not seen as a *sin*, rather as a *transgression* which is a violation of  law
without moral culpability.

As a result of the Fall, mankind became subject  to  physical  and  spiritual
death. Moreover, mankind **would have been** in a state contrary to the state
in which God had created them:  naturally  evil  (Mosiah  3:19;  Alma  41:11;
42:10),  captive  angels to the devil (2 Ne 9:8-9), and unable to choose good
because of their subjection to the devil (Mosiah  16:3); **except**  for  one
thing:  the  atonement  (2  Ne  9:6-7; Alma 42:14-16). Since the atonement of
Jesus Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world,  power  was
given Christ to give light to every human born into the world (John 1:9).  In
other words, because of the atonement, *all* persons are delivered from their
servitude  to  the  devil  and  evil  natures  and  are  made free to act for
themselves (2 Ne 2:26-27).

Although there is a sense of a  hypothetical  "Original  Sin,"  it  does  not
actually  afflict  anyone  unless  they  reject the atonement. In other words
people become evil as a result of the evil choices  freely  made  after  they
become  capable  of sinning and refraining from sin (unlike little children),
rather than as a result of inheriting  an  "evil"  state  from  Adam  (Moroni
7:16-19). If people freely choose evil then they become "Natural Men."

All persons are free to choose  among  alternatives  and  therefore  free  to
accept or reject God's grace, but the choice is ultimately made possible only
by God's grace. One *enters* the way leading to Eternal Life "by the word  of
Christ  with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who
is mighty to save" (2 Ne 31:19). Nevertheless,  **once  on  the  path**,  the
burden is on human agency to persist in faith by God's grace (2 Ne 31:15-16).

There is no guarantee of salvation by virtue of a persevering grace  (through
which  one  is  supposed to  resist  sin, see D&C 20:32). Moreover, Mormonism
rejects  every form of  irresistible,  efficient, and  operative  grace as an
invention of man.  In addition, Mormonism also rejects reprobation, arbitrary
election,  and  predestination.  Mormonism  does  have  a  notion  similar to
predestination,  termed  foreordination,  but  it  differs  significantly  in
several  ways:  it does  not have a  sense of  elitism, one may choose not to
fulfill what they were forordained to do, and it *always* implies work (i.e.,
one is  foreordained to  "build up the  kingdom", one is  chosen to perform a
task).

Light and Grace
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mormon scripture essentially adopts a different model of grace. They describe
God's saving activity using the metaphors of "light and darkness" rather than
using   "Pauline"   terminology.   This   paradigm  has  been adopted because
salvation   is   viewed  as  an   ongoing   and  internal  process  involving
participation  in  God's  own  divine  attributes  through  grace.  The light
of  Christ  is  not  merely  equated with the knowledge of good and evil, the
quickening  of  one's  understanding, or simply one's conscience. This divine
light:

  "proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of   space
  --The  light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which
  is the law by which all things  are  governed,  even  the  power  of   God"
  (D&C  88:12-13).

The relationship of Light as a specific  manifestation  of  Grace  is  easily
shown  in  LDS  scripture.  Compare  Grace/Light  and  Truth:  2 Ne 2:6; 1 Jn
1:14,17; Alma 13:9; Moses 1:6;  D&C  93:36;  D&C  88:6-13;  D&C  93:40.  Grow
Grace/Light:  2  Pet 3:18; D&C 93:13; D&C 50:24. Fall From Grace/ Sin against
Light: Heb 10:26; D&C 20:32; D&C 76:31,79; 2 Pet 2:20-21; D&C 82:3.

Mormon scriptures acknowledge  a  notion  similar  to  prevenient  grace  but
differs significantly in that it does not entail God moving the human will to
faith.  Actual manifestations of faith are  left  up  to  individual  agency.
Mormonism also expresses a notion that grace assists the human will in making
proper decisions. Accepting the divine light - or divine power and  knowledge
- empowers the human will in a way that involves grace as both concurring and
sufficient.  The process of Salvation is that one  grows in grace or receives
more light through  obedience to the  spirit of the laws, sacraments (Mormons
use  the  term  "ordinances"), and covenants of the Gospel of Jesus Christ so
that one is imbued with God's Grace/Light (see for example, Alma 19:6).

This synergistic view of grace is more concerned with man's  alienation  from
God  then  being  regenerated from a sinful state. One is cleansed from one's
sins because nothing filthy can dwell in the presence of God. One returns  to
God's presence (and complete happiness) by participating in the divine life.

Grace Through Ordinances
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To  this end  ordinances,  priesthood authority, and knowledge were restored.
Through  vicarious  participation  in  the same experiences that Jesus Christ
underwent,  God's divine  power becomes manifest in our lives (D&C 84:19-22).
For  example,  one  experiences  the death and resurrection of  Jesus  Christ
and  is  born  anew  through  baptism.  One   learns  to  navigate  mortality
through the temple experience. The covenants attached (in every case) to each
of these ordinances emphasize this synergistic grace.

Many Mormon terms explicitly equate ordinance with grace.  For  example,  the
Mormon  temple  ceremony is called "The Endowment," and Mormons who have gone
through the Temple are those who have "received their endowments."

Graded Degrees of Glory and Punishment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Several  years ago someone posted significant portions of the 76th section of
the D&C, which contains an account of  a  vision  received  by  Joseph  Smith
concerning  the  next  life,  and  denounced  it as unChristian. The poster's
behavior was understandable, he knew nothing of the context.

This account sharply contradicts the traditional model of an afterlife  based
simply  on heaven or hell. Instead it describes graded degrees of glory which
it compares to the light of the Sun, Moon and  Stars.  Simply  stated,  one's
final  state  in  the next life depends upon the degree of divine Light which
they received in this life or are able to receive in the next  life.  In  the
resurrection  one's body is quickened (given life) in accordance to the Light
that they have received.  As a result,  Mormonism  sees  no  tension  between
being  saved  by Grace and being judged according to one's works. Rewards are
based upon the level of Light offered and accepted by a person's free will.

Mormons view Hell as a place where people dwell who have  become  subject  to
the  devil as a result of the choices that they have made, and where they pay
the price for their choices until they  have  received  sufficient  Light  to
escape and be judged (D&C 76:81-85). It is very vivid:

  For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all,  that  they   might
  not   suffer  if  they would repent; But if they would not repent they must
  suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even  God,  the   greatest
  of   all,  to  tremble  because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to
  suffer both body and spirit (D&C 19:16-18).

Moreover, the process by which this punishment is accomplished is described:

  Wherefore, I command you  again  to  repent  ...  lest  you  suffer   these
  punishments   of  which  I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even
  in the least degree you have tasted at  the  time  I  withdrew  my   Spirit
  (D&C 19:20).

In summary, if one is not filled with Light (or Grace), then one has Hell.

The most extreme form of punishment is reserved  for  those  who  commit  the
unpardonable  sin  and  thus  are  never  redeemed.  The  unpardonable sin is
committed by one who has had the Savior revealed to  him  and  unquestionably
knows  the  truth  [through  the power of the Holy Ghost]; but then denys it,
crucifying Christ unto themselves,  and  putting  him  to  open  shame  [thus
denying the  Holy Ghost] (Heb 6:4-6; 2 Pet 2:20-22; Alma 39:6; D&C 76:34-38).
We  really  do  not  know what  is in store for them, but their  fate,  again
expressed in terms of light  and  dark, is described as being cast into outer
darkness.  These individuals, termed Sons of Perdition, are what Mormons  are
referring  to when they say that someone has  fallen from Grace. An important
note: ex-Mormons do *not* generally fall into this category.

Since Mormons  reject  persevering grace, they do not see salvation as a one-
time event. Hence, a Mormon  will probably react awkwardly to a question such
as  "Are you saved?" or "When were you saved?" This is because Mormons do not
accept  the  underlying  assumption of many  "orthodox" Christians about what
"salvation"  means or  how it works.  Salvation is viewed as a process rather
than an event.

This leads to the problem of what Mormons mean when they say one is  "saved."
There  are  several different opinions: At one extreme, there are Mormons who
believe "saved" refers to those who have been saved from the effects  of  all
their  sins, which means that only those individuals who eventually reach the
highest  degree of  glory in the next  life are  "saved." The other views are
variants  on  "saved"  meaning "saved  from the pains of Hell" OR "saved from
Natural  Man."  I personally  equate "saved" with  "those who are imbued with
God's Grace."

OBJECTION: Mormonism's view of salvation as a process involving  human  works
rather  than  a  progression  of  states  goes  against  all  known Christian
traditions.

RESPONSE:  On  the  contrary,  the  Eastern  Christian   theologians   didn't
necessarily  accept  Augustine's  doctrinal  revamping to the extent that the
Western Christian church did.   William  Placher,  _A  History  of  Christian
Theology_ (Westminster Press, 1983), explains why:

  Augustine's claim that we are saved by the grace  of  God  alone,   without
  regard   to  our  works  ...  would have seemed too extreme to most Eastern
  theologians.  It is not that the two halves of Christianity  disagreed   on
  specific   issues  so  much  as  that  they  thought about these matters in
  different ways. Western theologians  thought  in  terms  of  states.   With
  Adam's   initial  sin,  humanity  had  fallen  into  a state of sin. Christ
  redeems us, bringing us to a state of grace. The  emphasis  falls  on   the
  moment   of  conversion,  in  which  one  moves  from one state to another.
  Eastern theology,  on  the  other  hand,  tended  to  think  in  terms   of
  processes.  We gradually move toward deification. Since Western theologians
  thought of salvation as occurring at the moment of conversion, they   could
  say   that human works had no part in it and still leave an important place
  for human efforts after conversion in response  to  God's  grace.   Eastern
  theologians   ...  thought  of  deification  as  a  process  that continues
  throughout one's life. Therefore they had to build human works  into   that
  process. (p.96-97)

OBJECTION: Works and grace are contrary to the scriptures  which  state  that
one  is  justified  by one's faith, not by one's works, specifically "Knowing
that a man is not justified by the works of the law,  but  by  the  faith  of
Jesus  Christ,  even  we  have  believed  in  Jesus  Christ, that we might be
justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the
works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Galatians 2:16).

RESPONSE: I think the issue is really over what  each  side  means  by  being
Justified.   It  is  my  understanding  that  many  Christians  believe  that
Justification means that one is declared "not guilty" by God, and that one is
Justified if one has been regenerated from the effects of original sin.

Mormon view of Justification is similar, but still  significantly  different.
Justification is how one is judged Guiltless/Blameless before God, and one is
Justified if one is acceptable to God when entering into (and continuing  in)
a  covenant relationship with Him. In this context, Mormons will approach the
epistles to the Romans and the Galatians in this manner:

During Paul's time, "Judaizers" were claiming that one had to obey the Law of
Moses  (such as undergoing circumcision) before one could become a Christian.
Paul taught that one's covenant  relationship  to  God  was  not  offered  on
conditions  --  it has *always* been offered unconditionally (it is a grace).
One entered that relationship only on the  basis  of  their  faith  in  Jesus
Christ.   However,  once  in  that  relationship,  one  was still required to
observe the terms of the covenant relationship.

  Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of  the  Gentiles?  Yes,  of
  the Gentiles also:
  Seeing  it  is  one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and
  uncircumcision through faith.
  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith?   God  forbid:  yea  we
  establish the law.  (Romans 3:28-30)

One is Justified, i.e. enters the covenant  relationship  with  God,  through
faith  in Jesus Christ. Paul also taught that one could violate that covenant
relationship by rejecting Christ, by failing to trust in him, or  by  conduct
inconsistent  with  the  law of love - such as murder, fornication, or sodomy
(see for example, Gal 5:5-6, 19-21).

This view harmonizes Paul and James in this manner: Although Paul  and  James
use  the  same  term,  "justification," they seem to be using it differently.
When Paul refers to Justification he is speaking about  how  one  enters  the
covenant  relationship  with  God  through faith in Jesus Christ.  When James
refers to Justification, he is apparently using it in its  legalistic  sense:
how a person is finally judged righteous.

When James states: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not
by  faith  only"  (James  2:24), he is talking about the final judgment where
individuals are judged according to their works. In this  Paul  is  fully  in
agreement:  the final judgment is "according to deeds" and that the Christian
is expected to "run the race" if they expect to win. (Rom 2:6-7; 14:10-12;  1
Cor  3:12-17;  9:23-27; 11:29-32; 2 Cor 5:8-10; 6:1; Phil 2:12; 3:8, 14).  In
summary, Paul is talking about entering the  relationship  (being  Justified)
and  James  is  talking  about  continuing  in  the  relationship (also being
Justified).

The issue is, If Paul and James are using the same  terms  exactly  the  same
way,  then you have serious consistency problems: resolved either by ignoring
one or the other (as Luther once implied when he called James the epistle  of
Straw),  or  by  "forcing"  one  to  agree  with the other. IMHO, most of the
attempts to force agreement seem to ignore the effects:  either  one  has  to
ignore  other  specific  passages  that  contradict the harmonization, or one
ignores the free-will/no free-will implications, or one trivializes the Final
Judgment [being judged according to one's works becomes an inside joke :-)].

OBJECTION: Mormonism's rejection of "Salvation by Grace Only" is contrary  to
Biblical  teachings,  specifically: "For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God: Not of works, lest  any  man
should boast" (Eph 2:8-9).

RESPONSE: Mormons believe very strongly in salvation by grace. The difference
is  that  they  do  not  believe  that all persons who are saved are going to
receive the same reward. Everyone will be judged according  to  their  works.
One  enters  into  a  relationship  with God through grace (it is a gift that
cannot be earned), one continues in the relationship through grace and works:
respectively,  progressing from grace to grace and receiving grace for grace.
Outside  of  Grace  (or Light) there is no salvation, but once "on the path",
one  must  exercise their  free will so as to be filled with  Grace or  Light
(2 Ne 25:23).

One *enters* a proper covenant relationship with the Father only through  the
saving  action  of  Jesus Christ. This unconditional loving relationship is a
grace that was not and could not be earned by any works. The  only  condition
to  *entering*  the  relationship  was  faith  in Jesus (Rom 5:1-2;11:6). The
relationship could not be earned by obeying (for example) the Law  of  Moses.
In fact trying to *earn* the relationship through such works only showed that
one had betrayed Christ and transferred one's loyalty elsewhere (Gal 5:2-5).

It is also clear that while Paul disapproved of reliance on works of the  Law
of  Moses,  he  did not denigrate all works or all laws. In fact, Paul taught
that there are conditions to **remaining in** the covenant relationship  with
Christ  Jesus  (Rom 11:22). The conditions were observance of the "law of the
spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:2); or "the law of Christ" (Gal  6:2);
or  "Christ's  law"  (1 Cor 9:21); or "the law of faith" (Rom 3:27). The only
faith that was justified was "faith which worketh by love"  (Gal  5:6,13;  cf
Gal 6:4; 1 Cor 13:2; 2 Cor 9:8; Eph 4:16-17; Col 3:5-7).

In short, Paul expressed disapproval of "works" or  "law"  when  these  terms
referred  to  the  Law  of Moses, but he also expressed approval of the terms
"works" or "law" when they referred to the law of Christ  and  the  works  of
love.

One last note, Mormons have  found  their  views  of  synergistic  grace  and
Justification  to  be  very  compatible  with the New Testament, not with the
views of Augustine, Luther, or Calvin.  In  this  respect,  each  side  could
correctly  accuse  the  other  of  filtering the scriptures through their own
agenda. To this end, may I point out that the Mormon view is very  consistent
and also eliminates the tension between being justified by faith, being saved
by grace, being judged by one's works, and still allowing freedom of will.

OBJECTION: If one can get "another chance" to receive the gospel in the  next
life, why bother with Mormonism now. I can get "saved" on the other side.

RESPONSE: First, Mormonism views salvation as a process.   Second,  you  will
keep  your  character  with  all its attributes. If you were addicted to sin,
doubts, and cynicism on this side, you will still be addicted to them on  the
other  side.  Third, faith plays a significant part in the salvation process.
On the other side faith will be mighty hard to  develop  if  one  had  little
tendency to live by faith on this side.

Since salvation is neither simple or automatic, if you had little tendency to
be "saved" on this side, then it will be all the more difficult to be "saved"
on the other  side.   Since  Mormons  believe  that  individuals  are  judged
according  to  their works, even if it is possible to be "saved" on the other
side after having had a fair chance in mortality to receive the gospel  (only
God  would  know  what  a  "fair chance" was) but had still rejected it, your
reward would be significantly different.

OBJECTION: Mormons believe that humans become gods.

RESPONSE: Yes, this is true, but before one  starts  throwing  stones  please
consider the following:

First, It is a well documented fact  that  the  early  Christians  (from  the
second  through  the  fifth centeries after Christ) described the resurrected
physical body as being deified as well as immortalized, so that the  redeemed
and sanctified Christian was glorified with Christ and thus attained godhood.
The early Christian theological basis for man's deification  was  the  belief
that  God,  through the incarnation of Jesus Christ, had united the human and
divine natures of realms and thus made it possible for us to bridge  the  gap
in  the  opposite  direction. The tradition of divinization fell out of favor
with the later Christians as it conflicted with their developing philosophies
and  was  eventually  absorbed  into the mystical tradition of the Church. By
early Christians I am identifying specifically:

Irenaeus (177-202), who wrote: "And how shall  man  pass  into  God,  if  God
  [Christ]  had  not  been  caused to pass into man?" _Against the  Heretics_
  IV.33.4, cited in Norman, p 16. See also III.18.7; IV.20.5-6;  IV.38.4.

  "For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods  from   the
  beginning,   but  at  first merely men, than at length gods." cited Ostler,
  p 23.

Clement of Alexandria (c 190-215), "... the Logos [word] of  God  had  become
  man  so  that  you  might  learn  from  a  man  how a man may become  God."
  _Exhortation to the Greeks_ I.8.4, cited in Norman, p 16.

  And "the soul [which is kept pure], receiving the Lord's power studies   to
  become a god." _Stromata_ VI.14, cited in Norman, p 16.

Origen, "many become gods by participation in God; we should  flee  with  all
  our power from being men and make haste to become gods." _On the Gospel  of
  John_ 11.3.19, cf. 20.29, cited in Norman, p 16.

  And "... From Him there began the union  of  the  divine  with  the   human
  nature,   in order that the human, by communion with the divine, might rise
  to be divine, not in Jesus alone, but in all those who not  only   believe,
  but   enter  upon  the life which Jesus taught ..." _Against Celsus III.28,
  cited in Norman, p 17.

Athanasius (295-373), "He was made man that we might be made  God."  _On  the
  Incarnation  of  the  Word_ 65, cf. Oration Against the Arians  I.11.38-39,
  II,  119.47, and throughout his  writings.  cited  in  Norman,  p  17.  See
  especially Pelikan, p 206.

  "The Son of God became son of man so that the sons of  men,  that  is,   of
  Adam,   might  become sons of God ... partakers of the life of God ... Thus
  He is Son of God by nature and we by grace." Cited in Kelley, p 352.

Basile of Caesaria (c. 330-379), [The Holy Spirit aids  us  in]  "being  made
  like  to  God -- and highest of all, being made God." _On the Holy  Spirit_
  IX.23, cited in Norman, p 17.

Gregory of Nazianus (c.329-389), "I may become God to the same extent  as  He
  became man." _Orations_ XXIX.19, cited in Norman, p 17.

Cyril of Alexandria (Bp. 412-444), "We  are  made  partakers  of  the  divine
  nature and are said to be sons of God, nay, we are actually called  divine,
  not  only because we are exalted by grace to supernatural glory,  but  also
  because we have God dwelling in us." cited in Kelly, p 352.

Even  Augustine  subscribed  to  deification  although  he  broke  with   the
  traditional  view,  best  described  by  Irenaeus,  concerning  how it  was
  achieved:  from a process of maturing to  simple  adoption.  Commenting  on
  Psalm  49,  Augustine  quoted,  "I  have said, Ye are gods; and ye are  the
  children  of the Highest.  But ye shall die like men: and fall like on  the
  princes  ...", then explained: "It is clear that He calls men Gods  through
  their  being deified by His grace and not born of His substance ... Now  he
  who justifies, Himself deifies, because by justifying He makes [them]  sons
  of  God. 'For them gave he power to become Sons of God.'  If  we  are  made
  sons of God, we are also made gods; but this is done by grace of  adoption,
  and not  by generation."  Cited Ostler, pp 26-27.

For more detail on early Christian views of deification  see:  J.N.D.  Kelly,
_Early  Christian  Doctrines_,  rev.  ed.,  (1978);   Jarosalv  Pelikan, _The
Emergence of the Catholic Tradition_ (1971); Keith Norman, "Divinization: The
Forgotten  Teaching  of  Early  Christianity" _Sunstone_ 1: (Winter 1975), pp
15-19;  Blake Ostler, "The Concept of Grace in Christian Thought", _Dialogue,
a  Journal  of  Mormon  Thought_ 23: (Winter 1990), pp 13-43 (specifically pp
22-27).

Second, Mormons do not believe that one becomes a god in their own  right  or
by  merely  keeping  commandments,  they  become gods to the extent that they
participate **as one** in God's  glory and his experience. One does not become
a  god  and go off and "do their own thing." Their labors will be as one with
the Father.

Third, where Mormons differ from the early Christians (and  from  traditional
Christians for that matter), is that they reject the assumption that Man is a
created subspecies of God. They view all mankind as uncreated. The basis  for
this  position  can be derived from a careful examination of the 93rd section
of the D&C. To say that Mormons believe that mankind is of the same nature as
God  can  be  misleading. Most Mormons would say instead that mankind has the
potential to have the same nature as God to the extent that they receive  his
nature.

                               MISC OBJECTIONS

OBJECTIONS: Mormons believe that Adam is God the Father.

RESPONSE: The simple response is Yes and No. The more complex answer requires
us  to consider exactly what is meant by "Adam" and what is meant by "God the
Father." Along the way we have to consider also what  Brigham  Young  taught,
how  that compared to what was taught before and after his time, and consider
exactly how binding Brigham Young's remarks are.

The "orthodox" Mormon position on Adam can be stated briefly: Adam, like  all
inhabitants  of  the earth including Jesus Christ, was spiritually created by
God the Father prior to the creation of the earth. He was selected to come to
the earth and become the common father of all mankind. Adam's relationship to
Christ is subordinate as set forth in modern revelation:

  And the Lord [meaning Jesus Christ] appeared unto them, and  they  rose  up
  and  blessed  Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
  And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I  have set
  thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou
  art a prince over them forever (D&C 107:54-55).

But there is a twist. "Adam" is not just a name, it is also  a  title  and  a
type  (see  Rom  5:14  and  1 Cor 15:45-46). Moreover, anyone acquainted with
Biblical Hebrew will also be aware that the word translated as "Adam" can be,
and  often is, translated in the Old Testament as "man." Since God the Father
gives life and is the Spiritual Father of us all, it would be correct to call
him "Adam."  That is the official Mormon position.

This view of Adam was taught by  Joseph  Smith  during  the  later  and  most
theologically  significant  years of his life, and, for the most part, it has
taught this way throughout the  history  of  the  LDS  church.  There  is  an
exception.  Between  1852  and 1877, Brigham Young made remarks that departed
significantly from this position. These remarks are often  misrepresented  by
critics  of Mormonism as an "official" doctrine, or they are used to show how
"stupid" Brigham Young was, or they  are  used  to  show  inconsistencies  in
Mormon theology.

We have a pretty accurate and complete record of Brigham Young's sermons both
private  and  public.  The  vast  majority of his remarks would be considered
standard fare by most Mormons, but a very small number of his  remarks  would
be  considered  "strange"  or  "wierd."  Dr.  Reed Durham, a prominent Mormon
historian, once told me that on average, out of about 100 sermons by  Brigham
Young,  maybe 2 or 3 could be classified as part of this "weird" set. Of this
small set, Brigham Young's remarks on Adam-God is an even smaller subset.  In
short,  we  are  talking  about a number of *public* statements that could be
counted on one's hand. My point is that given the problems that relate to his
remarks,  this  is not enough material to construct any definite LDS doctrine
on.

For years LDS weren't even sure of what BY was talking about, whether or  not
he  was  misunderstood,  or  even  what  kind  of a logical paradigm could be
constructed around his remarks. It has only been through the efforts  of  LDS
historians, who have been digging around in diaries and whatnot, that we have
been able to construct some type of logical framework in  which  to  consider
the context of his statements. The result of all this digging is that Brigham
Young apparently held a very unorthodox view of the relationship of  Adam  to
the Godhead and especially to Jesus Christ.

BY believed that the individual most people think of as Adam was actually God
the  Father,  and  that  Christ and all the inhabitants of the earth were the
spiritual offspring of Adam. This view makes Christ subordinate to Adam.

Reaction to BY's remarks was mixed. Many LDS were skeptical, and  some,  such
as  Orson  Pratt  -  one of the senior members of the Twelve, openly hostile.
Pratt raised a number of problems that demonstrated BY's views could  not  be
reconciled  with biblical scriptures, modern revelation, or with remarks made
by Joseph Smith.

BY's reaction to this criticism is interesting. He publically  "dug  in"  and
insisted  his  remarks  were  logical and correct. However, he made some very
subtile changes in his views. One of  those  changes  involved  altering  the
meaning  and roles attached by most Mormons to the names Elohim, Jehovah, and
Michael.  This allowed BY to make statements that sound orthodox to  Mormons,
but  actually  reflected  his  unorthodox  views.  Instead of confronting the
differences and  trying  to  reconcile  his  views  with  scripture  or  JS's
teachings,  BY tried to go around it. As a result, when BY died, for the most
part, his views on Adam died with him.

This leads to the question, how  binding  are  BY's  views?  Should  they  be
accepted  as  official  doctrine, as anti-Mormons claim?  No, according to BY
they are not binding.

  I do not design to go into any mysteries or to take up worldly sciences  to
  any  great extent, but suppose I were to take up a few of them, I should be
  like the rest of you: tell what I know according to what I understand   and
  believe.   And  then  if I am wrong I would be glad if God or some man upon
  the earth would correct me and set me right and tell me what it is and  how
  it is ...

BY went on, expressed his views on Adam, and then continued:

  I tell you this as my belief  about  that  personage  who  is  called   the
  ancient  of days, the prince and so on. But I do not tell it because that I
  wish it to be established in the minds of others ...  (see  Buerger,   "The
  Adam-God Doctrine," _Dialogue_ 15:23)

Other remarks by BY also indicate he was not presenting his views on Adam  as
official doctrine (See JD 5:331-332 and JD 4:215-219).

OBJECTION: All kinds of different charges brought against the Book of Abraham
including the evaluations of Egyptologists, the Tanners, etc.

RESPONSE: Rather than try to handle all these objections without any sense of
context,  let  me  present  a  chronological  summary  of the Book of Abraham
controversy, including where it came from, who said what, when they said  it,
and the LDS point of view on each matter.

In 1835, Joseph Smith  was  approached  by  one  Michael  Chandler,  who  had
inherited  certain  Egyptian  artifacts  from an "uncle" who had worked as an
archeologist (read modern grave robber) in Egypt.  He sold  to  Joseph  Smith
the mummies and papyrus scrolls which he owned.

In 1842, Joseph Smith published a record which he called the Book of  Abraham
and  which  he  said  that he had taken from one of the papyrus. Accompanying
this record were reconstructions of some of the facsimiles (which  appear  to
have  been  damaged even before Joseph Smith owned them) found on the scrolls
along with an interpretation  of  those  facsimiles.  There  is  just  enough
ambiguity  in  Joseph  Smith's statement of where he got the BoA to raise the
question among Mormons, did he actually take the  account  directly  off  the
papyrus  or  did  he  reconstruct through revelation a record whose corrupted
version was contained on the papyrus?

In 1845, the majority of Mormons were forced to leave Illinois. JS's  mother,
who  was  allowed  to remain in Illinois, retained possession of the scrolls.
The next thing we know, the papyrus were  on  display  at  the  Chicago  Wood
Museum.  Exactly how they got there is anyone's guess - maybe Lucy Mack Smith
sold them to Col. Wood, we just don't know.  In any case,  the  Wood  Museum,
and its contents were destroyed by the great Chicago Fire.

The first major criticisms on the BoA were made in 1912.  The Bishop  of  the
Salt  Lake  Episcopal  Church, Franklin S. Spalding, enlisted the services of
eight prominent Egyptologists  and  asked  them  for  their  opinion  of  the
"prophet's"   interpretation   of   the   reconstructed   facsimiles.   These
Egyptologists were unanimous in their condemnation of JS's interpretation  of
the  facsimiles;  However, despite the fact that all eight experts assured us
that the facsimiles were common and well known, none of them could  agree  on
what  they  meant. For example, of facsimile #1 the following interpretations
were made:

James Breasted: Osiris rising from the Dead
Eduard Meyer: Body of the dead with a priest approaching it.
Albert Lythgoe: A mummy with the God Anubis leaning over it to protect it.

On not a single point did all the authorities  agree,  and  no  two  of  them
agreed  on  all points.  What to some is just a dead man is to another Osiris
himself; what to some is an ordinary priest or embalmer about to cut  open  a
cadaver is to others Anubis himself leaning over the body to protect it; what
to some is a body being laid away is to others a man rising  from  the  dead;
what  to  some  is  a  man's  soul  flying  away is to another the Horus hawk
approaching and to yet others the lady Isis.

The Mormons of 1912 asked for two things: examples of these common facsimiles
and  a  reconciliation  of  the  different interpretations. They got neither.
Basically, the experts avoided the problems arising from their  discrepancies
by  waving their degrees and credentials and condemning all Mormons for being
fanatical because they would not take their word as final.  (see Nibley, _Imp
Era_, Jan-Aug 1968).

Searching on their own, the Mormons discovered that  there  were  significant
differences  between  the facsimiles in the BoA and the Book of the Dead (see
Clark, _Story of the PGP_, pp 117-123).  The  Mormons  also  discovered  that
experts  were  arguing  among  themselves  concerning  the meaning of ancient
religious text such as the Book of the Dead. Transliterating  texts  was  one
thing,  determining their meaning was another. These differences introduced a
great deal of latitude into the translation process.  More than  one  Mormon,
with  a  degree  in Egyptology, has demonstrated that significant portions of
the JS's interpretations are reasonable.

One of the most curious things that came out of this first confrontation  was
a  statement  by  Budge,  that  JS's  creation  of  the Book of Abraham was a
fabrication clearly  lifted  from  apocryphal  literature.   Mormons  quickly
pointed  out  that the apocryphal literature available to Budge in the London
Museum of Natural History in the 1910's  was unavailable to JS in any form in
1835 thru 1842.

What  Nibley  and  others  have  done,  is  attempted  to  identify  possible
apocryphal  sources  available  to  JS to see if they explain the presence of
many apocryphal elements found in the BoA.  So far they haven't come up  with
any  likely sources or explanations and neither has the non-Mormon community,
who seem to *ignore* the significance of apocryphal elements.   For  examples
of  the  extensive  parallelisms  and lack of sources see: Anderson and Haag,
_Imp Era_ 1:707-13, 793-805; Nibley, _Imp Era_ Jan-July  1969,  Oct  1969-Apr
1970; Nibley, _Abraham in Egypt_.

Late in the year 1967, Dr. Aziz Atiya rediscovered eleven  fragments  of  the
papyri owned by JS in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. The connection
with JS was established by the donor records, indicating that  it  came  from
one  of  the  members  of the Bidamon family, Mrs. Alice Heyser (Emma Smith's
second husband was a Bidamon).  The curators of the  Museum  sold  the  small
collection  to  the  LDS  church  that winter and photographs of the set were
published shortly thereafter.

The fragments included facsimile #1, portions of the Book of  the  Dead,  and
portions of a rather unusual version of the Book of Breathings.

In 1969, Jerald Tanner, a professional anti-Mormon, presented  evidence  that
he  thought  would  completely discredit the BoA. Tanner obtained a copy of a
1935 archive film of a collection of papers dealing with Egyptian Writing and
the  Book  of  Abraham  that  are  stored  in  the  LDS  Church's  Historical
Department.

Among the  works  photographed  was  a  bound  notebook,  which  was  labeled
"Egyptian  Alphabet  and  Grammar"  and  a collection of related manuscripts.
Some manuscripts had a portion of the Book of  Abraham  on  one  side  and  a
series of Egyptian symbols opposite each passage. The symbols apparently were
lifted from the portion of writings attached to the same papyrus as facsimile
#1 (in other words, from the Book of Breathings).

Here, claimed Jerald Tanner, was positive proof  that  Joseph  Smith  deluded
himself  into  thinking  that  he  was  translating  the Book of Abraham from
Egyptian papyrus, but that his translation was obviously incorrect, since the
passage from the Book of Breathings has nothing to do with Abraham.

The Tanners claim that the "Egyptian Grammar" shows what JS used  to  produce
the  BoA  and  that it shows the manner of "translation." The Tanners' theory
fails for four reasons:

1- The Grammar was produced in the wrong time period.

We can date, fairly closely, the periods of time that JS  personally  labored
with  the  translation  of the BoA.  We can determine these times through his
diary and through the diaries and journals of the  people  who  were  working
with  him  at  the time.  We can also determine the individuals who worked on
the Grammar through their handwriting.

We know that Joseph Smith did his initial work on the BoA from July 19,  1835
to  end of September, 1835 and then set the work aside until October 1840. We
know the approximate end point because of a complaint expressed in  a  letter
by  W.W.  Phelps (JS's scribe) to his wife, that the work was being set aside
just as it was getting interesting.

Now look at the  handwriting  of  the  people  who  wrote  the  Grammar.  The
handwriting  of  W.W.   Phelps and Warren Parrish (JS's other scribe) make up
99% of the entire work.  Here's the  catch:  Warren  Parrish  did  not  begin
acting as a scribe to JS until *after* 21 January 1836 (four months after the
project had been shelved) and worked for him until December 1837.

2- JS Translation Already Completed.

The Grammar shows evidence that the first chapters of  the  BoA  had  already
been completed by JS before the anyone had even begun working on the Grammar,
because the BoA text was copied down in  its  entirety  BEFORE  any  Egyptian
characters were inserted in the margins!

FIRST, note BoA Mss #1, at the end of the first page, the Egyptian characters
protrude  over  the  margin  and  ON TOP of the English text on the left hand
side.  SECOND, the margins are always accommodating the English text, but not
vise versa. Far too much room is allowed for the Egyptian symbols on the left
hand side. THIRD, note the English text on all the manuscripts.  There are no
breaks,  corrections,  hesitations,  no  words  crossed  out  or changed. The
English text flows too smoothly to be  a  composition  of  any  type.  It  is
clearly  being  copied  down from another source.  FOURTH, BoA Mss #2 and #3,
the margins and Egyptian characters disappear altogether. #2 begins with  the
the   last part of BoA Mss #1 (without the Egyptian characters) and continues
until it finally ends about half way thru the second chapter of the BoA.

3- The Grammar was Not a Translation from Egyptian to English

When the Tanners obtained a copy of the 1935 archive film of the Grammar they
were  not  aware  of  any additions made to the collection since the film was
exposed. When it was pointed out, by  James  Clark,  that  Wilford  Wood,  an
enthusiastic  collector  of  early Mormon manuscripts, had made a donation in
1945 that ended up in the collection,  and  that  the  significance  of  that
document changed the entire picture, the Tanners were caught flat footed.

The Wood acquisition shows that the Grammar is going in the wrong  direction:
instead  of  a  translation from Egyptian to English, the process seems to be
trying to relate the English text back to Egyptian characters.

Subscripts are added to the Egyptian characters and to the text opposite  it.
In  the  bound notebook, one finds an a whole series of "different" shades of
meaning that are  supposed to  be  related  to  the  characters  subscripted.
However the effort seems to peter out as quickly as it began because there is
no association between the remaining characters and the text, as  though  the
author "hoped" to discover some type of one to one relationship.  Everything,
the Wood acquisition and the "dictionary," is in W.W. Phelps' handwriting.

The Wood acquisition presents other problems to the Tanners'  thesis.   About
page  7 and 8, the BoA text is *altered* FROM its *final* form into a form in
which phrases and words are moved so that there is  a  different  word  order
much  as  you  would  see  in a Semitic language.  The word ordering strongly
suggests that the writer was attempting to recreate the  literal  word  order
that one would see in a Semitic language before translating it to English.

Many Mormon historians now consider this "Grammar" to be  a  private  project
pursued  by  W.W. Phelps who was attempting to figure out "how JS did it" and
"where he did it from" and had nothing to do with the  actual  production  of
the BoA.

4- Descriptions of Papyrus do not match up

The last stumbling block to the Tanners' model is that JS supplied a physical
description of   the portion of papyrus that contained the BoA and it doesn't
match the papyrus fragment (a portion of the Book of  Breathings)  which  the
Tanners' claim JS used.

JS stated: "The record of Abraham and Joseph,  found  with  the  mummies,  is
beautifully  written  on  papyrus,  with  black, and a small part red, ink or
paint, in perfect preservation." HC 2:348

The fragments of the Book of Breathings that were discovered in  1967,  don't
even  come close. First, it is not beautifully written.  The text is crowded,
uneven, and some characters look  as  if  they  had  been  (rather  clumsily)
retouched.  If  the  Book  of Breathings text was the only manuscript that JS
had, then maybe  one could argue that the thrill  of  owning  it  would  have
carried him away to the extent of thinking that it was a thing of beauty, but
he had a sizeable collection of handwritten Egyptian documents that were more
impressive than the Book of Breathings material.

JS indicated that the BoA had small notations  in  red  ink  or  paint.  Such
notations,  called  rubrics,  are  quite  common in Egyptian manuscripts, yet
there are no rubrics in the JS Book of Breathings documents.  Apparently  not
only is JS's copy of the Book of Breathings free of rubrics, but all existent
copies of the Book of Breathings seem to be free of rubrics as well.

Last  of  all,  JS  states  that  the  record  was  in  a  state  of  perfect
preservation.   The  copy  of  the  Book of Breathings was certainly not in a
perfect state of preservation at the time of JS.  The manuscript was  clearly
damaged  at  the  time  that  JS  owned  it:  four pieces were broken off and
missing. When the material was mounted the four pieces were not only  mounted
in  the  wrong  place,  they  were  mounted  upside down, suggesting that the
material was a jumbled mess when JS received it.

OBJECTION: Former Mormon and Egyptologist, Dee Jay Nelson, demonstrated  that
the BoA could not be derived from the papyri recovered in 1967.

RESPONSE: The  only  reason  I  included  this  objection  is  that  so  many
materials,  critical  of Mormonism, have repeated it. At this point it should
be clear why Dee Jay Nelson's observations are irrelevant. Mormons have never
believed that the papyri recovered in 1967 was supposed to contain the BoA.

Actually Dee Jay Nelson's role is very minor and not all that  supportive  of
the   anti-Mormon   position.   After  years  of  portraying  himself  as  an
Egyptologist, it was discovered, in 1982, that his degree did not  come  from
an  accredited  school,  rather  from a diploma mill in Washington State, and
that the schools where he claimed to have done graduate work had no record of
him.

There is  some  *circumstantial*  evidence  that  his  main  supporters,  the
Tanners,  knew  his  true educational background for many years but choose to
portray him as a "real" Egyptologist because it supported their  cause.  When
Nelson's  true  background  became  public knowledge, the Tanners published a
condemnation of his behavior.

OBJECTION: Reliable Egyptologists, such as Dr. Klaus Baer, have  also  stated
that the BoA facsimiles simply represent common funeral scenes.

RESPONSE: When this FAQ was being evaluated by other Mormons on the net,  Jay
Windley raised this issue and provided a response.

  It might also be worth noting that Egyptology was, during this  time  (late
  1960s   to  early 1970s),  materially  re-evaluating  its  position  on the
  funerary texts and illustrations.  Dr. Klaus Baer, who also evaluated   the
  Joseph Smith papyri, was decidedly of the old school.

  Nibley reviewed Baer's evaluation in _BYU Studies_ in 1970. I recall   that
  Nibley's   arguments  were  based  on a cadre of German Egyptologists which
  argued that Egyptian authors borrowed heavily from each others  works   and
  illustrations for inclusion in irrelevant material.

  The implication here is that the old school applied the common sense   test
  that   if  something  looked  like  a  funeral scene, then it WAS a funeral
  scene.   The  newer  conventional  wisdom  allowed  that  something   which
  resembled   a  funeral scene didn't have to be so interpreted; but that the
  author just stole the picture.  It used  to  be  thought  that   individual
  variations   in  illustrations  had  no importance, but now we realize that
  minor differences have major implications.

  The example with which I am familiar is the raised  leg  of  the   reclined
  figure   in  Facsimile  1.  The old school would have looked at it and said
  "So his leg is raised.  So what?"  The  new  school,  paying  a  bit   more
  attention   to  Egyptian iconography, sees this as a symbol of regeneration
  or deliverance.  In no case is it used when  the  reclining  figure  is   a
  corpse being prepared for burial.

  Hence, Baer's conclusions are not incorrect, according to  Nibley,   merely
  outdated.    Nelson would have fallen into the same trap, regardless of the
  validity of his credentials.

  The Tanners' newer edition of their book starring Dee Jay Nelson tends   to
  downplay   Nelson's  role.   Rather  than  portray  Nelson as an expert who
  disagrees with the church, they try to visualize him as a  victim  of   LDS
  propaganda  -- that the church tried to suppress his viewpoint and denounce
  him publicly.  Then they launch into three  or  four  pages  of   published
  commentary   from  other  sources  on  the  Book  of Breathings, which they
  conclude, on the evidence of the "Grammar," MUST be the  contents  of   the
  entire fragment library.

  I think it  is  sufficient  to  say,  beyond  Nelson's  fraud,  that   most
  published   commentary  --  even by respected Egyptologists -- must be read
  knowing that it was written when Egyptology took a  much  more   simplistic
  view of funerary texts and Egyptian literature in general.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
 Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnewsc!iwtgo!wcsa
  Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc