Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

A few weeks ago, brother Hoyt Houchen sent me a letter resigning his work with Guardian of Truth in the question-answer column. Brother Houchen has done a commendable job in writing this column, supplying us with the fruits of his study of God’s word. We appreciate his good work and commend him for it. We regret his decision to resign but recognize that changes sometime occur. We wish him the best in his continued service to God.

Clinton Hamilton to Write Column Upon brother Houchen’s resignation, a search began to find the best qualified person to write this column. Brother Clinton Hamilton has been selected to write the question-answer column for Guardian of Truth.

Brother Hamilton is well qualified for this task. Born 13 March 1924, he graduated from Freed-Hardeman University in 1944, received his B.A. from Union University in 1946, received a master’s degree in Medieval European history from Vanderbilt University in 1947, and his Ph.D. from Florida State University in 1964. Brother Hamilton joined the staff at Florida College in 1949 and served there as dean of students (1949-1954) and dean (1949-1950, 1954-1968). He then moved to Ft. Lauderdale, FL to work with Broward Community College as academic dean and has served as executive vice-president of that institution for several years. He is widely recognized for his accomplishments in education throughout the state of Florida. He also has served in the Rotary Club with distinction. In contrast to many educated and busy men who have turned away from God, brother Hamilton has exalted Christ as Lord of his life.

He was baptized into Christ at Vardaman, Mississippi in 1935 by his great uncle, E.L. Whitaker, Sr., at 11 years old. In December 1942, he began preaching and has continued preaching ever since. He has contributed articles to several magazines circulating among Christians and has served as elder in two congregations. He has held meetings throughout the country and made himself available to participate in such activities as the Arlington Meeting.

For several years, brother Hamilton has moderated the open forum at Florida College. His comments in that forum direct men to the text of Bible, which is the only source of authority and with which he shows intimate familiarity.

Several years ago, brother Hamilton had a heart attack which nearly took his life. Fortunately his life has been spared and he continues to serve the Lord’s people.

Brother Hamilton married Margaret Allen of Glasgow, Kentucky in 1946. They have two children and two grandchildren. They now reside in Plantation, Florida.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, p. 548
September 21, 1989

By Harry R. Osborne

On May 15 & 16, 1989, there was a public discussion on Mormonism at the meeting place of the Wonsley Drive congregation in Austin, Texas. The discussion was arranged as a result of a series of lessons presented by brother Robert W. LaCoste (who works with the Wonsley Drive church) on denominational doctrines. Brother LaCoste wrote various denominational churches inviting them to hear the lessons and respond to the teaching if they so desired.

Darryl Townsend, a stake president in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, came to hear the lesson and manifested a desire to respond when the occasion for such could be arranged. Mr. Townsend made it clear that he would not agree to a “one-on-one debate,” so a panel discussion was proposed with no more than three people on each panel. Therefore, the Wonsley Drive elders asked Joe Price (of Kaysville, Utah) and Harry Osborne (of Alvin, Texas) to participate in the discussion along with brother LaCoste. During the discussion, however, Mr. Townsend decided to take all of the time given the LDS group for speeches.

Synopsis of Discussion

A good number of brethren from various congregations in the Austin area had the opportunity to hear Mormon doctrine firsthand. Mr. Townsend made clear a number of basic positions of the LDS church. He stated the Mormon doctrine which declares that Adam’s sin was an essential part in the progression of man for, without Adam’s sin, man could not have received “mortality” and a body. It was further reasoned that if man had no body, he could not be raised with Christ and set out upon the Mormon hope of eternal progression which ultimately aims at men becoming gods of their own world. Not surprisingly, Mr. Townsend did not mention the last step in that theory (men becoming gods), realizing that teaching would not be viewed with great favor by much of his audience. If ever a theory claimed that sin caused grace to abound, this Mormon doctrine is the one!

In reviewing salvation, Townsend took the position that every person in human history approved by God was a “Christian.” He claimed that Adam was the first Christian (cf. Acts 11:26). He claimed that the Old Testament prophets knew and understood the plan of salvation declared in the New Testament (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10-12). Therefore, not only were the prophets Christians, but those who accepted the messages of the prophets were also Christians.

The Mormon concept of the church as a centralized, all-controlling institution became clear in Mr. Townsend’s presentations. In reviewing the first century church declared in the New Testament, Townsend asserted that Peter was the “chief apostle” and “presiding elder” despite the Bible teaching which would deny any place of primacy for Peter (e.g. – 2 Cor. 12:11; Gal. 2). Townsend also claimed that Jerusalem was “church headquarters” based on a misunderstanding of Acts 15 (cf. Gal. 1:15-17). He viewed those listed in Ephesians 4:11 as being the perpetual “church offices” which bring unity through their continued day-to-day supervision over official church decisions. Instead, the context makes it clear that the ones mentioned in verse 11 make unity possible through the truth that they revealed and declared (cf. Eph. 4:11-16). The focus for unity is on the message of truth in the Bible, whereas Mormonism puts the focus on official church structures.

Mr. Townsend also took a great deal of time giving the audience his “personal witness” that the Book of Mormon is from God. He spoke of the events and statements declared in the Book of Mormon and those within the Bible as equally true and authoritative. He related a personal story of seeing an archeological site in Central America which had what he claims was a ‘Jewish star of David” on the wall by an altar. He took this as a confirmation that Israelites had journeyed from the Middle East to the Americas around 600 B.C. as claimed in the Book of Mormon. This was an interesting claim since the “star of David” was not used by the Jews as a symbol of their religion until the late 18th or early 19th century! An excellent discussion of the “star of David” (called the “Magen David” among the Jews) can be found in the Encyclopedia Juddica (book 11, pp. 687-698).

It is true that the same symbol was found in Mesopotamia, Britain, India, Spain, the Roman Empire, and a host of other places earlier in history. However, it was not a symbol of Judaism and was often connected with pagan magic or used merely as a decoration. As a decoration, this six-pointed star was used alongside the swastika. Would our Mormon friends see proof in this of an early link between Jews and Nazis? If Mr. Townsend is correct about his unsubstantiated sighting of this hexagram, how does it verify that the Book of Mormon boat-people were Jews from Palestine? The fact is that Mormons have repeatedly made false claims from archeology which have been soundly refuted time after time. For instance, the Smithsonian Institute issued a letter to refute the fraudulent claim by Mormons that the Book of Mormon was used as a guide to archeological finds in the Americas. Even Mormon scholars in the archeology of the Americas have condemned the repeated attempts by other Mormons to use ruins and artifacts of a period postdating the Book of Mormon to verify the culture presented in the book. Maurice Barnett’s materia on Mormonism gives excellent detail regarding these matters.

Brethren LaCoste, Osborne and Price gave presentations and answered questions on three major areas. Joe Price spoke first on the Bible as the complete and final revelation of God’s will to man. Harry Osborne spoke on the nature of true and false prophets with specific application to Joseph Smith as a false prophet. Bob LaCoste spoke on the nature and organization of the New Testament church. Tapes of the discussion were made and are available by contacting the Wonsley Drive congregation in Austin, Texas (the address and phone number are listed in the directory at the back of this publication).

Lessons Learned

Having briefly reviewed the discussion, I would like to make a few remarks on lessons I learned in this endeavor. First, I was strengthened through the good work done by brethren LaCoste and Price in this effort. In an age where the world and many brethren herald the horrors of religious conflict, it is worth noting that the good done in this discussion was all as a result of brother LaCoste’s unabashed defense of the truth and the open, specific investigation of error. Some may decry such a clear and militant approach, but it has been and continues to be the way that people deceived by error may come to see the truth of God that they might be saved. I love Bob as my brother (we dropped the “in-law” long ago), but I love him for his work’s sake even more.

Brother Price was of far greater help in this work than can be told. Joe has lived in the Salt Lake City area among the Mormons for about 6 years. During much of that time he has carried on a daily call-in radio program to answer religious questions. His is probably the most knowledgeable person on Mormonism among our brethren today. He is able to perceive their points, analyze them in light of the Bible, and answer in a way that makes the truth clear to the ordinary Mormon. That talent was much needed in this discussion where an estimated 40 to 50 Mormons were present over the two nights.

A second lesson learned from this effort was the degree to which Mormonism has changed approaches to conform to mainstream denominationalism. When those of us preaching the truth made specific application of the principles taught to refute Mormon doctrine, Mr. Townsend and his fellow Mormons were outraged. In the words of one young “elder” (?), it was said, “I didn’t come to hear what You were against, but what you were for!” They told us they were “not comfortable” with a format that had any rebuttal regardless of how kind and honorable it might be. I remember as a boy that Mormons had a far more militant approach. They were out to convert those with whom they discussed their doctrine. They did not hestitate to compare doctrinal differences with others in a good spirit. The Mormons in this discussion were quick to acknowledge the kind spirit shown towards them in the differences, but believed that any “negative” teaching should not be done. They wanted us to accentuate the “positive” areas of our agreement and leave the other alone.

Before the Tuesday night session, Mr. Townsend referred us to a decision made regarding this matter in the last “General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” The Salt Lake Tribune quoted two church officials regarding the decision. Dallin H. Oaks of the “Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” said that church members should not “contend over doctrines” (cf. Jude 3). He went on to say that debates 6 tare not effective in acquiring gospel knowledge. Gospel truths and testimony are received from the Holy Ghost through reverent personal study and quiet contemplation.”

Glenn L. Pace, “second counselor, Presiding Bishopric,” was quoted as characterizing the comparisons of Mormon doctrines with conflicting teaching as “attacks.” He said, “As members of the church, we are appalled by such attacks. Hopefully, it makes us more sensitive and extra careful not to make light of the sacred beliefs of other denominations” (The Salt Lake Tribune, April 2, 1989, p. A-6). Thus, any discussion of differences was to be viewed as a personal “attack” upon Mormons and “making light” of their doctrines. Mr. Townsend suggested this was the reason he would not engage in any discussion of differences.

As a doctrine of man, it is not surprising that Mormonism would adopt this posture which is embedded in the religious world around us. The past few decades have seen the denominational would around us do the same thing. The only ones the religious world around us wants to condemn are those who condemn others! (Consistency, thou art a jewel!) They can debate most eloquently on the proposition that debating is wrong. Such is to be expected from those who do not believe, practice and preach the saving gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 1:8-13; 1 Pet. 1:22-25).

However, it is a troubling thing when our brethren seems to be “going to the Mormons” and other denominationalists in this matter! How many times lately have we heard our own brethren declare that we ought to “accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative” in our preaching? How many times have we heard it claimed that honorable controversy and debate “don’t do any good” in teaching and learning the truth? Recent months have seen our brethren decrying the open discussion of differences regarding divorce and remarriage as “personal attacks” and “making light” of others. Are we in the process of following the Mormons down a path of fearing honorable and open discussion of God’s truth? Do we have no more assurance than they in the things we have learned (2 Tim. 3:13-17)? 1 fear already that too many brethren would be more comfortable with the approach of the Mormons than that of the apostle Paul or even Jesus (cf. 2 Tim. 4:1-5; 2:16-19; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; Gal. 2:11-17; Matt. 22,23). If we do not stop this spirit of compromise, we may end up with the Mormons – for eternity.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, pp. 561-562
September 21, 1989

By Robert Wayne LaCoste

Regrettably, few religious teachers want their doctrine publicly examined in honorable debate or discussion. One reason no doubt is because, over the years, many debates have been nothing more than an exercise in two speakers trying to see which one could out insult the other. I’m not sure what that should be called, but it is not debating.

However, that’s not the main reason men who teach error reject honorable debate. They know full well their doctrines can not stand the test of public scrutiny. False doctrine just can’t be defended with any reasonable amount of success. In other words, when denominational teachers weigh the possible gain against the conceivable losses, they are quick to retort, “We don’t believe in debating.” As one Christian Church preacher told us several years ago, “We used to debate the instrumental music question, but we don’t do that anymore. The last time we did, we lost members left and right.” We don’t agree with that ideology, but we do understand it! Though he may not have intended to do so, this gentleman spoke for more than himself.

In the latter part of last year I had the opportunity to begin plans for a real in-depth study on denominational error. The effort was designed to look at the various main religious bodies from not only an historical standpoint (founder, origin, place, etc.), but focused in on main beliefs. As the series developed on paper, I tried to put myself in those folks place who would read our personal letters of invitation to attend. I did not like what I saw. If I were them, I would see this as simply another “church of Christ” preacher taking potshots at different churches. I was compelled to take a different approach. I began a diligent search for any material I could get my hands on written by respected men of the different churches. It didn’t take me long to gather quite a bit of material. What creed books I didn’t have of the different churches, I was soon able to obtain. I wanted more than that though. Soon, I had articles, interviews and tracts by well known men of every major religious body in America. I decided in all fairness to quote from their own materials and compare that with Scripture. Each one in the audience then could simply compare. The challenge to this was not in gathering the material or using it fairly. The challenge was going to be the actual manner of the comparison. How do you compare truth with error, showing the importance of one and the condemnation of the other and still retain objectivity and prudence? Every gospel preacher will tell you this is the greatest of challenges in the presentation of God’s word and the rebuke of error.

The main motive behind this series was not to inform members of the church on different denominations. The main reason was to invite different religious people to come and in a somewhat tranquil and unimposing atmosphere, get them to realize why we believe and teach as we do and get them to question why they are what they are religiously.

Still, something was missing. If fairness is going to be truly the order of the day, then why not invite any preacher of any of these churches to respond publicly on anything we say or do, with the repeated encouragement to correct us on any matter they feel we have misrepresented or misstated. This was not to be considered a “challenge” for a debate. This was simply a way to show all listeners how sincere and deeply serious we were about facts.

The series began. It went back to look how apostasy begins in any generation; how shortly after the church began there was corruption in the early church at Corinth (A.D. 60; 1 Cor. 1). From there we showed how it took nearly six centuries to eventually become the Roman Catholic Church. We took a look at the Reformation and Restoration periods and all the while we sent letters to the churches that came out of the many passing years. We did have different denominational people attend, but it wasn’t until we had our investigation on Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (The Mormons) that we received an opportunity to have a public discussion on our differences.

The Mormons realized this was no job for a young missionary or bishop of their own ranks. Mr. Darryl Townsend, their stake president for this part of Texas was their spokesman. He and I over many weeks tried to plan a period of study that would be beneficial. To them, debate was out of the question. Though they felt we would behave honorably, they simply felt “uncomfortable” with it. I didn’t push it therefore, but agreed to an exchange where affirmative material for the most part would be the main oratory. We agreed there should be given time to the audience for questions, as long as they were written down and were proper questions. We agreed that perhaps more than one speaker would be profitable. Though we were at liberty to use up to 3 speakers, no one was under any obligation in that regard. We knew who we wanted. Harry Osborne would come from Alvin, Texas and present material on “Prophets and Prophecy,” I would try to show facts concerning “The New Testament Church,” and brother Joe Price would deal with “The All Sufficiency of the Scriptures.” Joe Price has lived with, worked with and converted members of this church over the past seven years he has lived in the state of Utah. He preaches for the church in Kaysville, Utah.

I was disappointed that Mr. Townsend was their only speaker, but he was well qualified to espouse Mormonism and he conducted himself as a gentleman. Surely, we did the same.

The first night, a large crowd gathered and in our building that seats 300, there were few seats remaining. We were blessed to have many gospel preachers in the audience. Among them were Jim Ward, Robert Turner, Tim Coffey, Elton Haley, Jack Holt, and Robert Farish. Mr. Townsend spoke over an hour on the origin and some of the main doctrines of Mormonism. Joe Price and Harry Osborne then responded with the material mentioned above. Time ran out on us, but on the second evening I began by talking about the one true church and Mr. Townsend then talked about the Church whose headquarters are in Salt Lake City, Utah. Afterwards we dealt with the written questions we had received and Mr. Townsend answered some of the questions our brethren gave him. All speakers had about the same amount of time on the floor.

We know not what may have been accomplished by this activity last month. As God knows our hearts it was our desire to openly discuss matters which divide people spiritually. Of course, God doesn’t expect results from us, just the effort. He will take care of the results (1 Cor. 3:7). The feedback from brethren was encouraging. In fact, most said they thought it went better than most debates they have witnessed.

Certainly it was far from being the ideal arrangement, bu who knows? Perhaps in time, more people will see the need and importance of reasoning together in an effort to ascertain truth. Truth should motivate us to arrange the method or exercise necessary to preach the gospel. If false teachers refuse to sign propositions, then we must search for other opportunities to reach out to the lost. May our Father bless us in these efforts and defeat us in anything contrary to his will.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, pp. 560, 566
September 21, 1989

By Mike Willis

A government promoted campaign to curb drug abuse has reached into most cities and towns in America. Its message has been aimed at children, educating them regarding the dangers of drugs and exhorting them to say “no” to drug abuse. I am encouraged by the program because it is based on sound fundamental truths.

Presumptions of the Program

1. The program presumes that individuals must accept personal responsibility for their actions. In emphasizing that drug abuse can be controlled by the individual saying “no,” the program encourages individuals to take personal responsibility for their conduct. Each person is responsible for what he chooses to do.

2. The program presumes free-will. The program presumes that man has the ability to choose to use or not to use drugs. Each person is able to choose not to use drugs. There is no fatalistic, deterministic, beyond one’s control drive that forces one to choose to use drugs.

These presuppositions are sound and the program will work – it will inform children of the dangers of drug abuse and encourage them to choose not to use drugs. Not every child will choose to say “no” to drugs. Some children will use drugs, although they are informed of the dangers of drug abuse. However, the program presumes that most young people will choose to say “no” to drugs when they are properly informed of its dangers.

Will It Work In Other Areas?

As I have watched the enthusiasm with which this program is being received, I have wondered why other, similar programs cannot be started. Here are some sample proposals:

1. Just Say “No ” to Tobacco. We have been encouraged by Surgeon General C. Everrett Koop to curb tobacco use. Why not take that program into the grade schools and push it like we are pushing “just say ‘no’ to drugs”? Already some of this work has been done with good success.

2. Just Say “No” to Alcohol. Why not begin a similar program that is aimed, not at controlling drinking of alcoholic beverages, but at saying “no” to alcohol? Why not teach our children to totally abstain from this drug? We could raise a generation of sober citizens who did not slaughter each other on the highways while under the influence of alcohol. Instead of teaching our children “how” to drink, why not teach them to say “no” to alcohol?

Someone says, “This will never work.” Yet this is exactly the program which is used after a person admits that he is an alcoholic! The program is proven to work with alcoholics; why shouldn’t it work with those who are not alcoholics? If the program “just say ‘no’ to alcohol” will work after a person becomes an alcoholic, why not teach our young to “just say ‘no’ to alcohol” before they become alcoholics?

3. Just Say “No” Fornication. Instead of spending tax dollars to send Planned Parenthood representatives into the schools to teach children that there are no moral absolutes regarding sexual practice, how to use condoms and receive free birth control pills, and where to get an abortion, why not organize a program which teaches children the danger of pre-marital and extra-marital sex (venereal disease, illegitimate babies, AIDS, etc.) and teach them to say “no” to sex outside the marriage bed. Already I can hear the liberal establishment saying, “That will never work. Teenagers will experiment with sex.” Some children will, just like some children will choose to say “yes” to drugs despite all of the efforts to discourage its use. That should not deter us from teaching them to say “no” to fornication and adultery anymore than the fact that some will choose to use drugs should discourage us from encouraging young people to say “no” to drugs.

The very ones who criticize a “just say ‘no… program regarding fornication will resort to this very program after a diagnosis of venereal disease. Once a person is identified as a carrier of venereal disease, he is counseled, “Just say “no” to sex.” If the program will work after venereal disease has been diagnosed, why not use it before it has been diagnosed?

Can you imagine the impact a drug program would have if it were conducted like the Planned Parenthood organization conducts its sex education program? The program would say, “There are no moral absolutes about drug use. Each person must decide whether he chooses to use drugs or not. There are some dangers to using heroin, uppers, downers, etc., but clean drug use is innocent, stimulating, and safe. It you need clean needles for drug use, you can receive them at Planned Drug Use Clinics. If you want help in overcoming the harmful effects of drug use, you can stop in at the Planned Drug Use Clinic and receive your help. By all means, however, do not allow anyone to impose their moral standards on you regarding drug use.” Would you be happy with federal dollars funding such a clinic? We have that already in sex education – Planned Parenthood.

4. Just Say “No” to Homosexuality. Why not initiate a program which teaches that homosexuality is wrong, what its harmful effects are, and encourage young people to say “no” to homosexuality? People are responsible for their actions and have the ability to choose to abstain from homosexuality. Why not begin a program which encourages responsible humans to abstain from homosexuality before they get AIDS? That is exactly the program which is encouraged after they get AIDS. If it will work after they get AIDS, why won’t it work before they get AIDS?

Conclusion

Just maybe the time has come for personal responsibility to be emphasized in our society. Maybe our government has accidentally stumbled onto a program on drug abuse which they will apply in other areas as well. Maybe this program will change the thinking that releases drunkards from personal responsibility by saying that they have a disease called “alcoholism,” releases criminals from personal responsibility by the defense of “temporary insanity,” and releases homosexuals from personal responsibility by saying that they were genetically programmed to be homosexual.

Then, if this can be applied to these social problems, maybe we can persuade some of our Congressmen to “just say ‘no'” to fraud, embezzlement, influence peddling, womanizing, etc. Now, let’s not get too carried away. We may be able to persuade our children to “just say ‘no’ to drugs” but who can believe that we can persuade our Congressman to “just say ‘no'”?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, pp. 546, 565
September 21, 1989