God Speaks, not Spake
Posted by Eric Nielson on August 4th, 2008I am giving a talk in Sacrament meeting on Sunday. I thought I might spit out a post as part of the preparation. The talk is to be based on Elder Hollands talk in General Conference called ‘My Words Never Cease’
There are people out there who are saying that Mormons are not Christians. This is not terribly original or new. It might surprise you to know that I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand of course Mormons are Christians. Good grief. We believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is the savior, that salvation can come only through his atonement. To simply say that Mormons are not Christians is either being ignorant or deceitful.
On the other hand, from a classical, traditional, Christian point of view Mormons are radiacally unorthodox. Whether it is our tritheistic view of the Godhead, preexistance, additional scripture, rejection of original sin dogma, modern prophets, three degrees of glory, and on, and on. We are unique and revolutionary at every turn. And from the classic and traditional viewpoint, I imagine we force them to question just how unorthodox must a Christian religion be before it should be considered non-Christian. And so to acknowledge our differences is an important thing. It is largely our differences that make us ‘true’ in my opinion.
In the previous conference Elder Holland claimed there were two primary reasons why people question how Christian we are, and at that time he addressed the first reason, which is our scripturally based view of the Godhead. In the most recent talk he addressed the second reason, that of an open canon of scripture.
The idea of additional scripture rubs many Christians the wrong way. This is largely out of their love for the Bible. It seems that they feel that if someone embraces additional scripture that they must be turning their back on the Bible. In doing so, these individuals shut the door on any current or future divine expression. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints feel that they have access to such additional divine expression in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. In addition to this, Mormons believe in a living, current prophet, and in personal revelation.
Elder Holland reviews the common argument against additional scripture or revelation, and gives the common answer to this argument. The argument involves quoting Revelation 22:18, and suggesting that this means that there will never be any more scripture.
The answer involves pointing out that most biblical scholars agree that several New Testament books were written after Revelation, including Jude, the epistles of John, and the Gospel of John. He also rightly points out that the New Testament as we currently have it did not exist at the time that John wrote his revelation. It is therefore quite reasonable that this warning only applies to the actual Book of Revelation and is not an absolute pronouncement that there will never be any more scripture.
Elder Holland goes to some length to point out that every prophet added to the words of the previous prophet. He asks that if the words of Moses were sufficient, then why have the words of Isaiah or any subsequent prophet. He then asks that if those who only had acces to Mark, should be offended by the subsequent accounts of Matthew, Luke and John? Following this line of reasoning, Mormons rejoice at the additional scriptures that we have access to.
People should not misunderstand us in accepting these scriptures. We love and revere the Bible, and we view it as an area of common ground with our Christian friends. In fact it has been stated that one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is to establish the truth of the Bible.
There is another point in Elder Hollands talk that I think is key. He quotes N. T. Wright as saying:
The risen Jesus, at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, does not say, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth is given to the books you are all going to write,’ but [rather] ‘All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me. In other words, “Scripture itself points . . . away from itself and to the fact that final and true authority belongs to God himself
The scriptures are really evidence of the ultimate source of knowledge, God himself. We believe in a living God who is engaged in our lives. Elder Holland then closes with his testimony that I will quote here:
I testify that the heavens are open. I testify that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is truly another testament of Jesus Christ. I testify that Thomas S. Monson is God’s prophet, a modern apostle with the keys of the kingdom in his hands, a man upon whom I personally have seen the mantle fall. I testify that the presence of such authorized, prophetic voices and ongoing canonized revelations have been at the heart of the Christian message whenever the authorized ministry of Christ has been on the earth. I testify that such a ministry is on the earth again, and it is found in this, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.





Good talk, Eric. Definitely among the top 2-3% of sacrament meeting talks.
Comment # 1 left by Mark IV on August 4th, 2008
Thanks Mark. I will probably fill in a few more areas. I hope it goes over well.
Comment # 2 left by Eric Nielson on August 4th, 2008
Elder Holland’s talk is one of the great conference talks of our era. I’d group it with his first talk on the Godhead and Elder Oaks’ talk about Good, Better, and Best. Great topic for a sacrament meeting talk.
Comment # 3 left by david on August 4th, 2008
Good job, Eric. My only suggestion? Really get YOUR testimony in there. As much as I love love love the pure doctrine (and if we can have favorites, Elder Holland is it), pure testimony in talks is something that really moves me. In a sense, you are preaching to the choir, so if I were in the audience, I would want to hear not just a review of the doctrine (which of course is important) but also why this matters to you, what an open canon and continuous revelation mean to you, how that makes a difference in your life, your family, your trials, your faith.
Let us know how it goes.
Comment # 4 left by Michelle on August 5th, 2008
David:
I did not originally think really highly about this talk until after reviewing it. Now I agree with you.
Michelle:
Great advice. I will add that.
Comment # 5 left by Eric Nielson on August 5th, 2008
I think it is interesting that mormons who admit freely to having different beliefs than mainstream christianity get pissed when mainstream christians say that they are not christian. It was only a couple of decades ago the church told members to NOT say they were christian, but mormons.
Now the church crys wolf when the media calls polygamist sects “fundamentalist mormons.” All the mormon break offs come from the same source, yet the church does the same thing to them as mainsteam christianity does to the church.
Pot meet kettle.
Comment # 6 left by Big Hos on August 8th, 2008
Big Hos:
Actually, I think you have a good point there. Personally I think Mormons should be less defensive about this sort of thing.
Comment # 7 left by Eric Nielson on August 8th, 2008
Thinking a little more about the second part of your comment. To understand Mormonism is to understand that there is a necessity in maintaining an ‘only true church’ claim. For Mormons, there can only be one Prophet who holds the priesthood keys. And only one priesthood structure for that administration. Because of this I do not see the church accepting some umbrella term that includes all break offs. I think all breaks from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints need to be clean breaks. Much like the Catholic/Protestant break off.
Comment # 8 left by Eric Nielson on August 8th, 2008
Eric, how did your talk go?
Comment # 9 left by Michelle on August 11th, 2008
Thanks for asking.
I felt really good about it, even though I felt a little rushed. I was the last speaker, and we had a really sharp youth speaker, and a capable second speaker, then a rest hymn, and I had about half the time I thought I would have. But I think it came off quite good. I got about four times as many comments from people as I usually do.
I got about 8 ‘Good talk’ comments.
Brother W. said my talk was interesting.
Sister B. said my talk had an edge to it.
Brother D. said he stayed awake through the whole thing
Brother O. asked if I thought Mormons were to weird to be Christians.
Sister M. said I should be some kind of professor.
Brother K. said I would make a good lawyer.
It’s nice to have people respond.
Comment # 10 left by Eric Nielson on August 12th, 2008