Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

This special issue of Guardian of Truth has been prepared to help Christians deal with a difficult problem-what to do when a Christian departs from the faith and returns to the world. The difficulty in getting brethren to act in discharging their responsibilities toward unfaithful Christians was serious enough prior to the Collinsville, Oklahoma lawsuit which awarded $390,000 to an admitted fornicator who had been withdrawn from by a local church. Now the problem of church discipline is compounded by the threat of lawsuits.

Problems With Church Discipline

Many churches have had problems with disciplining wayward members. I think that describing some of these problems will be helpful in making us aware of what some are going wrong in hopes that some will correct those problems. This will be the case if the problems stem from lack of knowledge or forethought.

1. Some churches simply do not exercise church discipline. There are churches which have never withdrawn from any wayward, unfaithful member. Because the local church has never before practiced church discipline, these brethren are content to continue as they are.

One of the reasons that we should practice church discipline is that Christ commanded it. Paul wrote, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thess. 3:6). The instructions to exercise church discipline are emphatic and imperative. We remind our denominational friends that Christ “commanded” baptism and emphasize that they do what Christ said. In a similar manner, we need to be reminded that Christ commanded that a church withdraw from disorderly members. The church which neglects or refuses to practice church discipline toward disorderly members stands in disobedience to the word of God.

The churches at Corinth, Pergamos and Thyatira were condemned because of their toleration of wicked men in their midst (1 Cor. 5; Rev. 2:14,20). Brethren must realize and accept the conclusion that a church which does not practice church discipline stands in disobedience to the word of God.

I have never gotten any pleasure in confronting a sinner with his sins. When a Christian goes to the door of his brother’s house with the intention of discussing his sin with him, he does not know how he will be received. Will he be hated, thrown out of the house, or loved? Despite the fear of rejection, a faithful Christian goes because of his love for the soul of the lost brother (Gal. 6: 1; Jas. 5:19,20). Confronting the sinner with this sin is a God-given obligation; it is not pleasant and enjoyable. Nevertheless, we must do what God says because He commanded it; it is a final effort to win back the erring brother.

2. Some churches are inconsistent in their application of church discipline. Trouble will come to any congregation which tolerates sin in some of its members, and then tries to discipline others for committing the same sins. Those who are influential, rich, or highly respected do not obtain special privileges from the Lord; His judgment is without respect of persons (Rom. 2:11). The church should imitate the Lord with respect to its disciplinary action.

When a church shows partiality in its administration of disciplinary action, discipline will be viewed as a tool to be used against those whom the leaders dislike. Resentment, bitterness, and strife will be caused by this sort of practice. The friends of the “victim” will feel forced to rise up in defense of a known sinner because of the inconsistent manner in which discipline has been administered.

Sometimes churches are faced with this problem as a result of their failures in administering any discipline at all. The church may have gone for years without administering discipline and then realize that they have been violating God’s word by their action. After they repent of their neglect, the first case of discipline will likely charge that partiality has been practiced in regard to the administration of church discipline. The only thing that the church can do in such a case is to admit its previous failures and begin from that point to practice church discipline without partiality.

3. Some churches use poor judgment in administering church discipline. I have known of churches waiting for long periods of time after the sinner has fallen away before doing anything to help save the soul of the fallen man. If a weak Christian returns to sin, he should be helped immediately. Those who are spiritual should seek to help the brother who is overtaken in a fault (Gal. 6: 1). Men should pray with and for him. They should do everything possible to restore him as quickly as possible. If all of this fails, the church should take action.

To wait for months (or even a year or more) before reading a formal announcement of withdrawal destroys the good which can be accomplished in church discipline. By that time, the sinner has already become used to having no fellowship with the saints and has become comfortable with the scornful. The discipline should be administered in such a period of time that the break in fellowship with the saints will have some impact on causing him to consider repentance.

Reading a letter months after a sinner has quit attending worship and has become involved in sin appears to have the effect of the church washing its hands of the matter. Some brethren reason something like this: The man was once on the church rolls. He does not come here any more. He never moved his membership anywhere else. What are we going to do with him? We will read a letter announcing that we are withdrawing fellowship from him.

The question is not whether or not the man should be disciplined. The question is whether or not the manner in which the disciplined was administered did what the Lord designed church discipline to do. Such poor use of judgment probably does neither the church nor the sinner any good. The sinner is not urged to repent; the church has made no genuine effort in the use of its discipline to call the man to repentance.

Another kind of sinful action in administering church discipline is that which is done without prior efforts to restore the brother. Some elders make little or no effort to visit the erring before “leading” the church in administering church discipline. Elders should be examples to the rest of the flock (1 Pet. 5:3) in the kind of effort which should be made to restore the lost brother. Elders should personally talk to the erring brother-reproving, rebuking, and exhorting with meekness and love. The eldership should seek the opportunity to sit down with the wayward brother and bring him to repentance.

When little or no effort has been made to reclaim the lost brother, the discipline which has been administered will be viewed as that which comes from lack of love. He may believe that the church was glad to get rid of him. He may think that the members did not care about him (and he may be right). Instead of feeling this way, the erring brother should understand that the disciplinary action was taken because concerned Christians were seeking to save him from sin.

4. Sometimes the church rebels against church discipline which has been impartially and fairly administered. Not even in New Testament times did all of the congregation unite in administering church discipline (2 Cor. 2:6-“the many”). Sometimes individual members may not back the church in its disciplinary action because of one reason or another. However, on some occasions, the congregation rebels against the elders who led the congregation in administering church discipline.

I have known of some congregations which had to remove a preacher from the pulpit. His subsequent action was factious. In an effort to keep this preacher from dividing the local church, the elders announced to the congregation that the man was seeking to divide the congregation by gathering sympathizers who would go with him to start a new congregation. They warned brethren to avoid the man and withdrew from him. On some occasions, the church has split anyway. Rather than supporting the eldership in their disciplinary action, the church rebelled against it.

There are, no doubt, occasions when the eldership errs in how to administer church discipline; perhaps they even err in withdrawing from someone whom they should not discipline. In such cases, the last thing which the church needs to do is to compound its problem by adding a division to the list of problems. God-fearing Christians need to work together to solve their problems. Work with the elders to show them wherein they have erred; pray with them and for them, seeking to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

5. Some problems are caused between churches as a result of one church withdrawing for a brother and another church receiving him. In some towns, one church will not announce another church’s meetings, call on any of its members for prayer, or otherwise recognize another church because one church withdrew from a man and the other church received him. The result is that one church withdraws from another church.

There seems to be several things which can be said about this problem. One is that the receiving church should investigate a member who is seeking to identify with them. A church sometimes thinks that it has done this by simply talking to the individual seeking membership. The wise man writes, “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him” (Prov. 18:17). Hearing only one side of the disagreement makes one believe every word the individual told. When a congregation hears that q man had trouble at another congregation, the very least that the congregation could do was to seek to find out the other side of the matter.

We have developed such a concept of congregational autonomy that one eldership cannot even ask another eldership why it acted in a certain way without someone thinking that some kind of inter-congregational organization has been created. When a brother seeks to identify with a congregation from another congregation in the city, wisdom would recommend that the receiving church at least contact the church from which they are leaving to make sure that the members are not trying to circumvent some kind f disciplinary action by moving their membership.

The other side of this coin is that a church which withdraws from a member who is received by another church sometimes tries to persuade that church to also withdraw from the erring member. If the receiving church does not do so, they withdraw fellowship from the receiving church. Suppose the receiving church has totally erred in the matter. Are we to conclude that because they erred in this one matter at the present time (if the member is as wicked as the other church imagined, the receiving church will soon find that out), that the other church should cut off all contact with them? Would any of us suggest withdrawing from another church which made one other error? I am afraid that some strong-willed people have attempted to dominate, not only one local congregation, but an entire city in such situations.

A little common sense and common courtesy toward one another would go a long way toward easing tensions of this nature. If a receiving congregation in the same city heard that there were problems at another congregation, the elders could call to inquire about them when a member from that troubled congregation sought to identify with their congregation. This could be done without seeking to enter into the affairs of another congregation. They could suggest that any members who moved their membership at the time of this trouble would first be sure that whatever problems they had with the other church were corrected or that effort had been made to correct them before receiving these members. On the other hand, if a congregation were in the process of withdrawing from a member, and he ran off to another congregation, the elders of that congregation could contact the receiving church and explain to them what had occurred in a spirit of meekness and gentleness-not in a spirit of demanding that the receiving church act in any particular fashion. Brotherly relations could be enhanced by such common sense and common courtesy.

Conclusion

These and many other problems face local congregations in exercising church discipline. Because the problems are serious and a threat to God’s people, this special issue has been prepared. The writers hope that everyone will be encouraged by this material to follow God’s word in working to restore those who have turned back into the world.

Guardian of Truth XXIII: 19, pp. 578, 596-597
October 4, 1984

By Irvin Himmel

A number of New Testament passages bear directly on our attitudes and actions toward people from whom we have withdrawn. This article assumes that proper procedures have been followed prior to the withdrawal. When the withdrawal becomes a reality, what then?

“As an Heathen Man and a Publican”

In Matthew 18:17, Jesus said concerning a brother who has wronged another and refuses to correct the matter, even after it has been brought to the attention of the church and he neglects to hear the church: “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

This means that “he is to be treated as we properly treat heathen men and publicans, or men of wicked habits” (J.W. McGarvey). Such a person “must be considered as an incorrigible sinner, whose company and conversation being contagious, ought to be shunned by all who have any love of goodness. . . ” (James Macknight).

This does not suggest that we should refuse to speak to the person if we meet him on the street. It does not justify our acting in an uncivil manner toward him. “He is to be avoided; yet he is entitled to the earnest good will, and all the offices of humanity; the faithful disciples of Christ are to have no religious communion with him until he repents” (H. Leo Boles).

The one from whom the faithful have withdrawn due to persistence in evil is to be regarded as an outcast, but he is not to be hated and despised. He is no more to be regarded as in fellowship with God and the faithful than a pagan or a crooked tax-collector.

“Avoid”

In Romans 16:17, Paul admonished the saints to “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”

“Avoid” (Gk. ekk1ino ) means “to turn away from, to turn aside, lit., to bend out of” (W.E. Vine). It means not only to “keep out of their way, but remove from it if you fall in with them” (Marvin Vincent). The sense is: “have nothing to do with them” (R.C.H. Lenski).

The brother who has been disfellowshipped for causing divisions and offenses through teaching contrary to the doctrine of the apostles, and sometimes this is the specific reason for withdrawal, is not be sanctioned. People who cause divisions and stumbling in the manner under consideration are to be avoided “by refusing to recognize and associate with them as brethren” (David Lipscomb). Paul was calling for separation. “It was a separation of true brethren from false; and, without a reformation, it was final” (Moses E. Lard).

“Reject”

A term of somewhat similar meaning was used by Paul in Titus 3: 10 where we are told how to deal with heretics. “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.”

The word “reject” (Gk. paraitou ) is from a verb meaning “to ask of one and then to beg off from one” (A.T. Robertson). It means to “decline, refuse, avoid” (Marvin Vincent). “There seems to be a reference here to Matthew 18:15-17. Official exclusion from church-membership is probably indicated” (William Hendriksen).

“Not to Keep Company … No Not to Eat”

In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, Paul taught that we are “not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. “

This passage clearly forbids our mixing together with the disfellowshipped in an intimate and habitual manner. Whatever implies endorsement must be avoided.

“When we reflect that our Lord ate with publicans and sinners, and that Paul regards it as permissible to accept invitations to eat in heathen homes (x. 27), the detailed aoplication of this injunction is not easy. But the principle is plain. There is to be no close fellowship with anyone who claims to be a Christian, but whose life belies his profession. ” (Leon Morris).

Marshall E. Patton offers some pertinent comments on this passage in his fine book Answers For Our Hope:

“The phrase ‘no not to eat’ is in apposition to ‘not to keep company’ found in the same verse (also v.9). This means that the expression explains further what is involved in ‘not to keep company.’ Since Paul says ‘not to keep company’ does not apply to the world (v. 10), it follows that the eating forbidden is eating engaged in with the world, hence, a common meal. The idea is to preclude any social communion with a brother that would imply encouragement and endorsement of evil.”

“Count Him Not As An Enemy”

In 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Paul gave commandment to “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly.” “Withdraw” signifies “the withdrawing into oneself, a holding oneself aloof from the offender in question. This is not to be done in a spirit of superiority” (Leon Morris).

In verses 14 and 15 Paul said, “and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”

The companying that is forbidden “seems not itself to mean the absolute ignoring of the delinquent, but the refusal to hold free intercourse or have familiar dealings with him” (J.B. Lightfoot). So far as religious communion or sharing is concerned, he is “as an heathen man and a publican.” Any social communion that implies sanction or lends encouragement to his wickedness is forbidden.

But when we let him know that we are withdrawing from him due to his having broken the fellowship, we should admonish him “as a brother.” We must guard against improper measures. He is not to be considered as a personal enemy. The object of withdrawal is to make him ashamed.

“Receive Him Not . . . Neither Bid Him God Speed”

John taught (2 John 9-11) on how lovers of the truth should act toward false teachers – men who abide not in the doctrine of Christ. “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

The principle taught here would apply to all who have been disfellowshipped for not abiding in the teaching of Christ. They are not to be encouraged, aided, nor endorsed. This has no reference to people with whom we may have differences of judgment or opinion. John writes about people who clearly advance beyond Christ’s teaching.

One of the most difficult questions relating to our conduct toward the disfellowshipped pertains to the physical family. If a teenage daughter who still lives at home is disfellowshipped for refusing to repent of fornication, must she be kicked out of the house? David Lipscomb reasoned: “A daughter does not cease to be a daughter when she is guilty of fornication. The duty still rests on the mother to do what she can to save her daughter. If refusing to eat with her or driving her from home would help to save her from her sinful course, the mother should do it. If it would dishearten her, discourage her, and drive her deeper and more surely into sin, it would be wrong for her to send her away” (Queries And Answers , pp. 181, 182).

Personally, I do not view the withdrawal of ourselves from the ungodly as shutting out the fulfillment of duties in the husband-wife relationship, parent-child relationship, or other relationships that pertain to physical ties. However, this brings us to matters involving judgment.

There is a certain area of common sense that must be exercised in determining how long someone should be admonished before there is a withdrawal. in the case of the heretic, the Bible provides the answer. “If two admonitions will not stop the factious man he should be rejected at once. The more time he has the more trouble he will make” (R.L. Whiteside), Reflections). In other types of cases, more admonitions may be in order.

The same is true of our conduct toward the disfellowshipped. We may sum up what the Bible teaches in this way: We are forbidden to have religious and social communion with him or to do anything that would sanction, encourage, or lend support to his sinful course. But we must use our best judgment about what to do in various possible circumstances. If he shows any indication of remorse, or if we come in contact with him at work, because of family relations, or quite by chance, additional admonitions may be appropriate.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 581, 599
October 4, 1984

By Luther W. Martin

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” (Matt. 21-24).

Jesus was pointing out the inconsistency and the gullibility of Pharisees, a Jewish denomination of the first century. He used the above example of straining out gnats, but swallowing that which was obviously more gross. Therefore, I have made use of our Savior’s figure of speech, in pointing out the “Camels of Mormonism.”

Camel 1: The Book of Mormon: Its Origin

“I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see it if was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man” (An Address To All Believers In Christ, by David Whitmer, Richmond, Missouri, 1887).

“Martin (Harris) explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, ‘Written,’ and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraved on the plates, precisely in the language then used” (The Myth of the ‘Manuscript Found’ or the Absurdities of the ‘Spaulding Story,’ Salt Lake City, Utah, 1883).

The above two quotations related how the Book of Mormon was “translated” from an “Ancient Egyptian” language, inscribed upon golden plates. An angel had reportedly told Joseph Smith where to find these plates buried in a hill in the State of New York. They were inside a “stone box” along with two “seer stones” called “Urim and Thummin.” The golden plates were said to be seven inches wide and eight inches long. These plates were held together by three rings running through the plates near one edge. This formed a book of golden plates about six inches thick. The “seer stones” were said to be “in silver bows,” fastened to a breastplate inside the stone box.

In considering the testimony of the two witnesses quoted above, note that one states that “one character at a time” appeared. The other witness said that “sentences would appear.”

“Before this (the Book of Mormon) was offered to the world, the Lord confirmed it by opening the heavens in broad day light, and sending down an holy angel, who descended in the presence of four individuals, three besides Mr. Smith, and the angel took the plates, and turned them over leaf after leaf, while, at the same time, the voice of the Lord out of the heavens told them it had been translated correctly, commanding them to send forth their testimony to all nations, kingdoms, tongues, and people. They (Cowdery, Whitmer and Harris-LWM) accordingly attached their printed testimony in connection with the Book of Mormon” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. II, page 293).

“In council with the Twelve (Mormon-LWM) Apostles, Joseph Smith said, ‘I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book'” (A Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel, by Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1882).

From the above quotations, we learn from Mormon sources: (1) The Lord Himself endorsed the correctness of the translation of the Book of Mormon. (2) The Book of Mormon is “the mot correct book on earth.” (3) One can get nearer to God by following the Book of Mormon than by following the Bible! This is indeed quite a “Camel to swallow”!

Camel 2: The Book of Mormon: Its Contents

(a) The Book of Mormon teaches that Christ would be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).

(b) It teaches that there would be three days of darkness at Christ’s death (Helaman 14:20).

(c) The Book of Mormon claims to cover a period of time from 600 B.C. until 421 A.D., at which date, Moroni the last of the “Nephite historians” sealed the “sacred record” and hid it in New York state. Then, in 1827 A.D., this same Moroni (now resurrected as an angel) revealed the hiding place of the golden plates to Joseph Smith.

(d) Now, remember that the “sacred record” referring to the un-translated Book of Mormon was buried in 421 A.D. Yet, when Joseph Smith got through “translating” it into English, it contained Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, exactly as the King James Translators had given the Sermon on the Mount, in the year 1611 A.D., lacking two verses. Matthew 5 became 3 Nephi; Matthew 6 became 3 Nephi 13; and, Matthew 7 became 3 Nephi 14.

(e) The Book of Mormon has the name “Christian” being used by “believers” in 73 B.C. Yet, the New Testament states: “. . . the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). Thus, the Book of Mormon has “Christian” (meaning a follower of Christ) used before Christ had ever come in the flesh, to be followed.

(f) The Book of Mormon has the church being established about 147 B.C. Yet during His personal ministry, Christ spoke, “I will build My church . . .” (Matt. 16:18). This was approximately 30 A.D. So, if the Book of Mormon was right, then Christ’s church had been in existence for almost two centuries, and Christ did not even know it! Of course the truth is, the Book of Mormon is a conglomeration oi confusion!

(g) The expression “The Bible,” literally meaning “the books,” came to be used and applied to the canon of the individual books comprising the Holy Scriptures. This expression came from the Greek ta biblia about the fourth or fifth centuries A.D. But the Book of Mormon has another “Camel” for us to swallow, as the author bemoans with disgust, those who quote Scripture . . . The Bible!

About 550 B.C., the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 29:3) contains: “And because my words shall hiss forth–many of the Gentiles (non-Mormons–LWM) shall say: ‘A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.”‘

2 Nephi 29:6 continues: “Thou fool, that shall say: ‘A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?. . .

The above two quotations from the Book of Mormon simply show the Mormon reaction and attitude toward those who respect the Holy Bible, and who correctly consider the contents of the Bible to be complete and adequate in furnishing the child of God, with all needed instruction. (See 2 Tim. 3:15-17).

Camel 3: Changes and Alterations In The Book of Mormon

Under “Camel I” of this article, we gave quotations from early Mormon leaders who testified as to the correctness of the translation of the Book of Mormon . Now, let us notice some evidence, relating to the fact that many, many, changes have been made since the First Edition.

In my library, I have a photocopy of the first edition of the Book of Mormon. After the title and brief description is given, the title page says: “By Joseph Smith, Junior, Author and Proprietor. Palmyra: Printed by E.B. Grandin, for the author. 1830.” Later editions of the Book of Mormon dropped the “Proprietor” designation.

Also on the title page, Smith inserted a disclaimer, as if he realized his own lack of ability in writing and punctuating: “. . .And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men; . . .”

Although Joseph Smith had been active in a local literary and debating society, he had not learned to write. So, to begin with, his wife Emma wrote as Joseph dictated. Next, Martin Harris served as scribe. However, none of Smith’s secretaries had any knowledge of punctuation. When the manuscript finally went to press (They had contracted with the printer to pay $3,000 for 5,000 copies.) there were hardly any capital letters, commas, or periods in the entire manuscript.

The printer complained about the lack of punctuation or correct grammar. Of the first two hundred sentences, one hundred and forty of them began with the conjunction “And.” At first, when Hyrum Smith and Martin Harris would bring the manuscript to the print shop, they would carry it under their coats, and produce it only after they were safely inside the shop. One of the printers suggested that they leave the manuscript with him overnight, in order that he might proofread it and provide it with proper punctuation and grammar. But he was refused with the statement: “We are commanded not to leave it.” However, eventually the manuscript was left occasionally, so that some punctuation could be added.

Approximately 27,000 words were taken directly from the King James Bible. The daughter of Jared, like Salome, danced before royalty, and a beheading followed. A fellow named Aminadi, like Daniel, read some handwriting on a wall. Alma was accosted and converted like the New Testament record of Saul of Tarsus. Fawn Brodie writes, in her book No Man Knows My History, a biography of Joseph Smith, “The daughters of the Lamanites were abducted like the dancing daughters of Shiloh; and Ammon, the American counterpart of David, for want of a Goliath, slew six sheeprustlers with his sling” (p. 63).

Jack Free, writing in his book entitled Mormonism and Inspiration, states:

If, as Joseph Smith said, “the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth,” why was it necessary to make 6,593 changes in punctuation and 5,256 changes in spelling, wording and phraseology? When these changes are brought to the attention of Latter-day Saints, they say these changes are trivial. But, trivial or not, they are changes, and proof that this was not the “most correct book on earth” (p. 11).

Camel 4: Plural Marriage or Polygamy Practiced!

Just as many of the “stories” in the Book of Mormon were taken and modified from Old Testament episodes, so the practice of multiple-wives was borrowed from the Old Testament, and conveniently served to fuel the lust of the early Mormon leaders.

The Utah Mormons have received more publicity regarding the practice of polygamy than have the “Reorganized” group head-quartered in Independence, MO. In fact, the Missouri group for years denied that Joseph Smith ever was a polygamist. In recent years, however, it has been ascertained that the “Prophet” Smith had numerous “wives.”

Many of the “faithful” continued to practice plural marriage until the United States Government outlawed the practice. Some even continued the relationships for years after it was outlawed. I’m also sure that some of the members of the Latter-day Saints movement never did descend to engaging in polygamy.

The most comprehensive list of the wives of Joseph Smith has been compiled by Fawn M. Brodie in her biography of Smith entitled No Man Knows My History, published by Alfred A. Knopf, New York. A total of forty-eight wives are identified and named by Mrs. Brodie. Some of them cohabited with the “Prophet,” some bore his offspring, while others were “celestial brides.” The word “sealed” is used in denoting the bond of marriage. Some brides were “sealed for time,” some were “sealed for eternity.” A good number were “sealed for eternity” to “Prophet” Joseph Smith, after his death, The brides waited until the Temple was completed at Salt Lake City, and then the “sealing ceremony” took place in the Temple. Some of Joseph’s wives later were “sealed” to Brigham Young and others of the Mormon leaders. All of this business involving lust, licentiousness, and polygamy is another “camel to swallow.”

Camel 5: Proxy-Baptism, Or Baptism For The Dead

The Latter-day Saints practice “proxy-baptism,” wherein a living “saint” may submit to baptism in behalf of a deceased person, was not a “saint.” This false doctrine and practice, in essence, provides a “second chance” after death . . . something only countenanced by the Catholic doctrine of purgatory and prayers for the dead. Baptism “for the dead” is not a biblical teaching. However, there is one New Testament passage that has been distorted by the Mormons to supposedly teach proxy-baptism.

The-verse is 1 Corinthians 15:29-“Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why they are they baptized for them?” In studying any passage that is difficult, or seems to be hard to understand, one should always consider what precedes and what follows the verse in question. The entire 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians is devoted to the subject of the resurrection of the dead, and particularly, Christ’s resurrection . Some of the Corinthians were questioning and doubting the matter of Christ’s coming again. Apparently they had anticipated that He would return in the clouds of the air, as they had been told that when he departed. Now, they were tired of waiting . . . they were discouraged . . . they were wondering if He had even been raised from the dead. So, the apostle Paul takes up their very doubts and reasons with them, very logically, that if they had been baptized for a dead Savior, instead of a living, triumphant Christ, that they were of all men most miserable. Paul devotes twenty-eight verses to this argumentation, and then asks a rhetorical question: . . . What will they do, who are baptized in the name of a dead (Savior)? If as the Sadducees teach, there is no resurrection of the dead, they why be baptized?

Paul further wrote: “If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also “I be revealed with Him in glory” (Col. 3:14).

Conclusion

There are many honest and upright people numbered among the Latter-day Saints. Some have accepted this religion from their immediate ancestors with scarcely any questioning on their own part. Consequently, they have rather gullibly swallowed a scheme of religion that is founded upon fallible men, and fanciful theories, rather than upon a book, chapter and verse, from Holy Scripture, the Bible . . . and for this age of the world, the New Testament.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, pp. 564-566
September 20, 1984

By Raymond E. Harris

We Americans have a terrible time with the word “love.” The word is often used in the place of sex. It is confused with passion and TV writers seem to want to apply it to everything. Think about the TV commercials for a moment. Few words are used more. They always “just love” whatever their product is. Hence, we see people who “love” their new fangled baby disposable diapers, their shampoo, their new car or Mrs. “Puckers” new chocolate cake mix.

All this commercial misuse of the word “love” has formed a smoke screen that prevents the American public from understanding the deeper, richer meaning of love. Obviously, the word “love” can have several meanings, but we must never lose sight of its more meaningful usage.

When one is taught to “love” God, he is taught to reverence, respect, fear and obey Him! When husbands and wives are taught to love one another, they are taught to honor, prize, respect and cherish one another. When parents and children, and brothers and sisters love one another, there is to be the warm natural affection that can even be found in the animal kingdom. And in the Bible we learn that in the broadest sense the word “love” is defined by the “Golden Rule.” (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” [Matt. 7:12].)

Hence, when the word “love” is considered in the context of Bible usage it is a warm, wholesome, moral word that demands action.

Jesus said the first and great commandment was to “love God with all our heart, soul and mind” (Matt. 22:37). From Matthew 22:39, we learn that the second greatest commandment is to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” And, a more extensive examination of the Scriptures unfolds to us a yet clearer understanding of “love.” Please note:

a. In Romans 12:15, we learn that when we are filled with love we will “rejoice with them that rejoice, and weep with them that weep.”

b. A heart filled with love is a heart of compassion and forgiveness (Col. 3:13).

c. Love motivates us to “Bear one another’s burdens” (Gal. 6:1-2).

So, it was a most serious thing when Jesus commanded is followers to “love one another” (1 John 4:7,11).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, p. 554
September 20, 1984