Stand on the Rock of Revelation Part 2

Mormonism 101, a book by Mormonism Research Ministries, Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, has helped many who want to understand what separates Mormonism from the Christian faith. In 1979, Mormonism Research Ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now, your host for today's Viewpoint on Mormonism. So glad you could be with us for this edition of Viewpoint on Mormonism. I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director of Mormonism Research Ministry, and with me today is Eric Johnson, my colleague at MRM. Where are Latter-day Saints to stand?

Well, according to Elder Lawrence E. Corbridge, an emeritus member of the Seventy in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of course are supposed to stand on the Rock of Revelation, and that is the title of an article in the October 2020 edition of Ensign Magazine. This is based on a devotional that Mr. Corbridge gave in January of 2019, and what he hopes to do is give guidelines to fellow members of his church as to how to evaluate information and ultimately arrive at truth. Yesterday we gave his introduction, but today we're going to look at a section he has on page 27 under the subtitle, Will We Stand Forever? He writes, The prophet Daniel said that in the last day shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms and it shall stand forever. And that's from Daniel chapter 2 verse 44. Now how does Mr. Corbridge interpret Daniel 2.44? How does he see this God of heaven who shall set up a kingdom?

He answers the question in the very next paragraph. The kingdom of God is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It will, quote unquote, stand forever.

Now let's think about this, folks. If in fact Daniel was not making reference to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Daniel 2.44, but he was referring to someone or something else, then I would conclude that that would be one huge mistake on the part of the LDS person. And certainly I do believe they've made an error in drawing this conclusion that Mr. Corbridge draws on page 27, that being that the kingdom of God is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you were to look at a number of biblical commentaries, and we looked at a few today, one was by John Gill. John Gill was an English pastor.

He preceded Charles Spurgeon. He says that the God of heaven who shall set up a kingdom is referring to Christ's church, the kingdom of Christ. He's not the only one that draws that conclusion.

Now think about this. If these biblical commentators are correct in saying that the kingdom of heaven is really Christ's church, that's not the credit Mr. Corbridge is giving it. And that is not the position of the LDS church, because Corbridge is not unique in drawing this conclusion. Others have said the very same thing who are members in the LDS church, including leaders.

In Mormonism there is a doctrine called the Great Apostasy, where all Christianity passed away and was revived, if you will, in 1830 when Joseph Smith sets up the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And so in Daniel 2.44, when it says, it shall stand forever, and if it is referring to Christ's church, then the LDS church has no claim to any kind of authority, because the church has never lost its authority from the time of Jesus Christ. In other words, the church continues on. And if the LDS people want to say, no, that's not true, we're going to say that the kingdom of God is really the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and it's going to stand forever. Basically what they are saying, folks, is that their organization is going to accomplish something that Christ's church failed to accomplish, and that is to stand forever, because you're absolutely correct, Eric, when you say that, because Mormon leaders have said that. If there was not a complete apostasy of the Christian religion, then there would be no need for the Mormon church to exist. It would be audacious to say that Daniel 2.44 would not have been referring to Christ's church, but rather it was a reference to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As you say, you miss the middle man, which would be the Church of Christ, and yet it wasn't able to stand. And so I see that being very problematic. I think you're being more than kind, Eric, by saying audacious. I would say that the conclusion that Mr. Corbridge gives here, which is the conclusion that other LDS leaders have given as well, is not just audacious, but it even goes to the extreme of being blasphemous. On the next page, on page 28, there's a subheading, deception is a sign of our time.

What does Mr. Corbridge say here? He writes, when the Lord described the signs of his coming and the end of the world, he mentioned many things, including wars and rumors of wars, nations rising against nations, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, and many other signs, including this one, quote, for in those days, this day, there shall also arise false Christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders in so much that if possible, they shall deceive the very elect who are the elect according to the covenant. And we probably should mention that that last citation that you gave is Matthew 24 23 from the Joseph Smith translation, otherwise known as the inspired version. So what we see here is that it's not uncommon for a Latter-day Saint to refer to the Joseph Smith translation when they can use it to their advantage.

Now let's think about this. When a Latter-day Saint talks about in the last days that there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, of course, folks, they're never going to think it's referring to them. False Christs and false prophets never introduce themselves with those kinds of titles. Cults never describe themselves as a cult. They just don't do that.

They tend to do what? They tend to describe themselves as the arbiters of truth. And if you don't believe them, obviously you are believing in error. So when he talks about in those days, there shall also arise false Christs and false prophets, of course, coming from our worldview, we would see that as describing the leaders of the LDS church and not just the LDS church alone. But I would say this would also pertain to other false groups that are out there that claim that they alone represent true Christianity. This would include, of course, the Watchtower Society and groups like that. Naturally, they have leaders that are teaching false doctrine.

They would fall into this category. But of course, there's no way that Mr. Corbridge is going to say, well, gee, that sounds like it might be talking about us. The reason why is because Mr. Corbridge has a worldview. He already has presuppositions that in his mind negates any such thought. His modem for determining truth, though it sounds noble later on in this article, is still clinging to the presupposition that his church is true and that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.

He cannot get away from that anchor. He has to hold on to that because that's what drives him to many of the conclusions that he holds. Two paragraphs later, it reads, there are many who deceive and the spectrum of deception is broad. At one end, we meet those who attack the Restoration, the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Next, we see those who believe in the Restoration but claim the church is deficient and has gone astray.

The doctrine that conflicts with the shifting attitudes of our day. Some without authority lay claim to visions, dreams and visitations to right the ship, guide us to a higher path or prepare the church for the end of the world. Others are deceived by false spirits. You get the impression, Eric, that in this paragraph he tends to address two completely different groups. One, I think he's kind of hinting to people like ourselves, those of us who are outside of the church that are very concerned as to what the church is teaching and what it teaches its people. And then you have those that are within the church that see problems within the church and as he says, tend to want to right the ship. He assumes that they have been deceived by the shifting attitudes of our day.

I can understand him drawing this kind of a conclusion because we do see that within Christianity. There are those that are doing the same thing. So the LDS Church is not immune from this as we would say that the Church of Christ, the true Church of Christ, as we understand it, is not immune from this either.

How do we address this and how do we talk about these things? And so as we see this as a concern, it doesn't surprise me that Mr. Corbridge sees it as a concern as well. But when he says at one end, we meet those who attack the Restoration, the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, it's easy sometimes to describe a critique as an attack. I find myself doing that occasionally and I have to correct myself because I want to be careful not to use adjectives that give a distorted view of what my position is. But I have seen LDS leaders describe their positions that I view as an attack and I'm sure Mr. Corbridge sees the same thing that we are doing as an attack, even though what we are addressing are things that usually come from their own sources. So this is where I find that kind of a description a little bit problematic. If I'm quoting your own material, if I'm quoting your own leaders, if I'm quoting your scholars and your apologists, I think defining that as an attack is a little bit over the top. Now, I could be saying it in an aggressive way and maybe that's what he's talking about.

I don't know because it's hard to tell on a printed page. But then again, I think as Christians, we should try to not allow the Latter-day Saint to draw that kind of a conclusion. We need to be careful in how we present the information to the LDS individual so that hopefully they will listen more carefully to what we have to say and I might add that they would see that there is a large element of genuine concern for them in believing something we see is an error.

Would you agree? I would, Bill, and I think one of the biggest things we need to understand is presuppositions or the rose-colored glasses that we come into the conversation with. Certainly, Lawrence Corbridge has a presupposition that his church is true and a very telling statement is when he says, Some without authority lay claim to visions, dreams, and visitations. Interesting because he thinks that his leaders, the prophet, his counselors, the twelve apostles, the general authorities, they are the ones with authority.

Those without the authority are not able to talk for the church or for Jesus Christ. And so that's his presupposition. We certainly, Bill, you and I have presuppositions as well. One of the things that we need to do is we need to take as objective of a look at the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, the Restoration, and we need to see what does the evidence say.

And then once we get the evidence, we need to go toward where whatever the conclusion is that the evidence is presenting. And I think that's something that I'm not sure he's willing to do because he is discounting, as we said on yesterday's show, anything that he was seeing in opposition to some of the major issues that people like us have with the LDS Church. And so if you're a Latter-day Saint or you're a Christian, you need to check your presuppositions and make sure you're not rejecting something just because that's the way you've been taught or that's the way you think currently. Tomorrow we'll continue looking at this article found in the October 2020 edition of Ensign Magazine, an article titled, Stand on the Rock of Revelation. You can request our free newsletter, Mormonism Researched. We hope you will join us again as we look at another viewpoint on Mormonism.