Q: “I find it interesting that the day before he was killed that Joseph Smith drank wine and don’t Mormons have to be temple worthy to worship in the temple and one of the things that make them temple worthy is that they can’t drink alcohollic beverages? So wouldn’t that make Smith not be able to enter the Celestial Kingdom when he passed from this earth if he wasn’t temple worthy at the time of his death?”

A: The simple answer is that drinking wine wasn’t considered a violation of the Word of Wisdom at the time of Joseph’s death. As stated at FAIRMormon.org:

The text of the Word of Wisdom forbids “strong drink” (D&C 89:5, 7), which was initially interpreted as distilled beverages (hard liquor). Beer, unfermented or lightly fermented wine, and cider were considered “mild drinks” (D&C 89:17) and therefore acceptable (note that verse 17 specifically permits “barley…for mild drinks”). The complete prohibition of alcoholic drinks of any kind only became part of the Word of Wisdom following the temperance movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries; Presidents Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant supported the movement and Grant made complete abstention from alcohol in any form a requirement for a temple recommend in the early 1920s.

Q: Mormons think the fall was necessary to bring about God’s plan, so why would Satan encourage the fall? Wouldn’t that be helping to bring about God’s plan? Wouldn’t he have tried to get Adam and Eve NOT to eat of the fruit, so no spirit children would get bodies?

Also, if God had a plan for all spirit children to come and get a body, but then sent Adam and Eve to earth telling them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge which would bring about procreating…doesn’t that make Him a God of trickery? He essentially was saying “Don’t eat the fruit! (please please please disobey me and DO eat the fruit so all the other spirit children can get bodies!) Sounds deceptive. Could you please give the Mormon theology behind this belief and how it makes any sense? Thanks.

A: Disclaimer: My answer here is my own speculation, and should not be interpreted as anything approaching LDS Church doctrine.

In LDS temples Mormons watch a video that tells the story of the creation of the earth and the Garden of Eden. In that story, most of which would be familiar to any Christian, God puts Adam and Eve in the Garden, and tells them they can eat any fruit of any of the trees except the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which we will hereafter refer to as the TKGE. Lucifer/Satan tempts Eve into partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Eve gets Adam to eat it, and Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden (the Fall) into the world we live in today and they have kids, etc.

Where Mormons differ from some of Christendom is that we believe that the Fall was a necessary and planned event, hence the question above of why Satan would participate and encourage an event that was necessary and planned, as though he were helping God. If Satan wanted to frustrate God and tick Him off, why not get Adam and Eve not to take the fruit? Great questions! Here’s my theory…

It’s all about timing. That is, it was God’s plan all along for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, but for it to be done in God’s own time, when things were prepared. What Satan was doing by getting Adam and Eve to eat the fruit was to try and take control of the process himself and mess things up, not to do something that otherwise would have been done, but to do it at a different time than it would have been done. When God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, he wasn’t saying “Don’t eat it now or ever” he was saying “Don’t eat it until I tell you to.” But of course he didn’t need to add “until I tell you to” he just said “Don’t eat it.” He’d come back later and say “Ok, now you can eat it.” But Satan did it before God did.

Why do I think this is the case? Because in that movie Mormon watch in the temple there is a part where God confronts Lucifer after he has given Adam and Eve the fruit and God asks “What are you doing here?” and Lucifer responds “I am doing that which has been done in other worlds.” God asks “What is that?” and Lucifer again responds “Giving of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to them.” referring to Adam and Eve.

This seems to suggest that this is not the first time this process of introducing humans to a planet has occurred. It also appears to suggest that whenever a planet is populated, there is a “Garden of Eden”, although perhaps with a different name, and there is an Adam and an Eve, although also with different names and certainly different and unique individuals.

Lucifer appears to be attempting some humor with God, saying “Hey, what’s the big deal with me giving them the fruit? I’m just doing what is normally done.” But of course this is like the 4-year old child who feeds his 2-year old brother a huge bowl of ice cream and when he gets caught by his parents plays innocent and says “Hey, I’m just feeding him like you guys do!” Yeah, right. And “yeah, right” to Lucifer. Of course we know neither the 4-year-old nor Lucifer is innocent. Lucifer is trying to take the place of God, just as he did in the pre-mortal existence. “Fine, you’re going to kick me out of heaven? You won’t give me your glory? Well, I’m still going to go ahead and play God and let’s see how you like it.” seems to be the attitude Lucifer has.

So is there trickery on God’s part? No, I think He was going to give Adam and Eve the fruit himself, in his own due time. Of course he knows the future and knew what would happen, but it all ends up playing into His hands anyway, which must be incredibly frustrating for Satan. As for why Lucifer didn’t try to keep Adam and Eve from eating the fruit, that would have been a fruitless endeavor (pun intended), because Lucifer knew God was going to give them the fruit anyway. Lucifer couldn’t prevent them from eating the fruit, he could only get them to eat the fruit at the wrong time, so he committed as much mischief as he could within the bounds by which he was constrained.

Q: How do Mormons explain Isaiah 44:6?

This verse says that God does not even know of another god. Now if Mormons believe that God the Father is married to multiple mother goddesses, who He would clearly know of if He was, then how can the possibly claim to believe the Bible and deny the basic doctrine of Isaiah 44:6.

A: Let’s start by reading the scripture:

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Sounds pretty cut and dry, right? Beside me, there is no God, right? Not a lot of room to interpret that any other way. Or is there?

If we skip forward in Isaiah just a tad to Isaiah 47:8, 10, we read this:

Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:

For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.

(emphasis added)

This isn’t God speaking, this is the city of Babylon. Is the city of Babylon saying that no other city except Babylon exists? As duly pointed out by FAIR, this would cause some consternation to the city of Ninevah, who in Zephaniah 2:15 states:

This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

So what are we to think? Obviously these words weren’t meant to indicate that no other cities existed. They clearly indicate the supremacy, authority, excellency, and/or superiority of these cities. Applying this same interpretation to Isaiah 44:6 we can see that what the scripture clearly means is that God is supreme, and there is no other God at his side, or on the same level he is on. In Isaiah 44:6 God is speaking to people who had a lot of trouble with worshipping idols or other gods, and this scripture was meant to say “You’ve got all these other gods you worship, but I don’t recognize them, they don’t even exist, there is no other god you’ve got that can compare to me. Drop your idol worship and your worship of false gods and worship me.” It was not a statement that there are no other gods, or that man cannot become like God, but rather that there is no other god man should worship, and that the gods these people were worshipping were false gods.

In responding to comments on another post I did quite a bit of research on the question of whether Mormons worship Joseph Smith, so I thought it was worthy of it’s own post.

The question seems to arise due to the amount of praise and attention heaped on Joseph Smith by Mormons. I won’t deny this is the case. We have pictures of Joseph Smith in our churches, we have lessons about him in our classes, we study his life, and we do honestly revere him. But we don’t worship him. Some quotes from LDS leaders past and present should be enough to clarify our position:

President Gordon B. Hinckley said “We do not worship [Joseph Smith] the Prophet. We worship God our Eternal Father and the risen Lord Jesus Christ. But we acknowledge the Prophet; we proclaim him; we respect him; we reverence him as an instrument in the hands of the Almighty in restoring to the earth the ancient truths of the divine gospel, together with the priesthood through which the authority of God is exercised in the affairs of His Church and for the blessing of His people” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Joseph Smith Jr.—Prophet of God, Mighty Servant,” Ensign, Dec 2005, 2–6). See Do Mormons worship Joseph Smith?.

From Apostle Henry B. Eyring “The Prophet Joseph is an example and a teacher of enduring well in faith. I do not worship him, but I thank and love him as the Lord’s prophet of the Restoration. He has helped me pray with the intent to obey. I am better able to feast in the word and the love of God. Because of him I feel the Holy Ghost more often in the moments when I try to build the faith of a person in the Lord’s kingdom. And because of what I know of the Prophet Joseph and the scriptures which were revealed through him, I more often feel the love of God for His children and of His for me when I reach down to lift someone up.” – Henry B. Eyring, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, An Enduring Testimony of the Mission of the Prophet Joseph,” Ensign, Nov. 2003, 92.

Elder Penrose said “I bear testimony to you that I know this Church is the Church of Jesus Christ; that it has been built up by the power of God; that God Almighty has revealed it; that Jesus Christ, His Son, has manifested Himself, and that this Church is His Church, because He has built it up, and He guides and directs and controls it, through His servants who stand at the head of the Church. They are but men. We do not worship any man. We do not worship Joseph Smith, as some people imagine; but we look upon him as a very great Prophet, and we have reasons for this.” – Elder Charles W. Penrose, The Latter-Day Saints’ Millennial Star, Volume 54, p. 462

Mormons view Joseph Smith the way the children of Israel who were led out of Egypt saw Moses, or how the saints around 60 AD might have seen Peter or Paul. Brigham Young, in a letter to Mary Ann Young (16 Oct 1840, LDS Church Archives), spoke of Joseph Smith as “our Moses that the Lord has given us”.

Though less authoritative, below are links to articles and other informational resources that should make clear how Mormons regard Joseph Smith, and that while we reverence him as a prophet, we do not worship him, nor consider him to be equal to God or Jesus Christ:

Is Joseph Smith Greater than Jesus Christ?
Joseph Smith/Status in LDS belief
Parallel Prophets: Paul and Joseph Smith

Aside from this, a quick Google search for “do Mormons worship Joseph Smith?” will pull up countless responses from LDS faithful stating that they see Joseph Smith as a modern-day Moses, Peter, or Paul, and not a being to worship. If the LDS Church is teaching members to worship Joseph Smith or put him on a pedestal, it seems the message has not gotten through.

It therefore seem fair enough for any Christian to question whether Mormons worship Jesus Christ or Joseph Smith. After all, didn’t Christ say “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”?

But with only slightly closer examination it becomes clear that there is no contradiction between the Bible and Brigham Young’s statement. In fact, they support one another.

As Stephen R. Gibson has pointed out, in every period of time throughout history when there have been prophets or apostles of God upon the earth, rejecting the words of those prophets and apostles has been the same as rejecting God or Christ. As Christ himself stated “He that receiveth you receiveth me” (Matt. 10:40), which means the converse “He that receiveth [not] you receiveth [not] me” is just as true.

If one lived in the time of Moses and rejected the message Moses delivered, he would also be rejecting God. Moses is the passport to heaven for the people who lived in that time, as well as for us, at least in a sense, since we also have his words and are responsible for our obedience or lack thereof to them. Likewise if one rejects Joseph Smith’s teachings, he is rejecting Christ, since Joseph Smith is merely communicating Christ’s teachings to the world.

If that doesn’t do it for you, consider this analogy. Imagine a city surrounded by a wall, with only a single gate granting entrance into the city. We could say that no one comes into that city except by that gate, right? Then let’s suppose a guard is placed by the gate, and no one can enter the gate without first obtaining permission from the guard. Does this invalidate the statement that no one enters the city except through that gate? Of course not, the gate is still the only way into the city, and having a guard at the gate doesn’t change this. The gate is Christ, the guard is Joseph Smith, Moses, Peter, or whichever prophet or apostle is Christ’s authorized representative, depending on time and place.

(1) Does it claim to have a special revelation that ignores the clear teaching of the Bible?

The LDS Church does claim to receive special revelation, but does not ignore the clear teaching of the Bible, so it appears Mormonism easily passes this first question.

(2) Does it lift up the Lord Jesus Christ or itself?

The entire purpose of the LDS Church is to bring souls to Christ. “Jesus Christ” is part of the name of the Church and the focus of everything the LDS Church stands for. Without Christ there would be no reason for the LDS Church to exist, so it appears the Church also passes this question.

(3) Do you feel like worshiping the Lord Jesus Christ or the person giving the prophecy?

The LDS Church teaches that we should only worship God and Jesus Christ. There is absolutely no room for worship of anyone or anything else. A lot of people say Mormons worship Joseph Smith, but this simply isn’t true, so the LDS Church also passes this question.

(4) Does it call upon sinners to repent of their sins or just give them an emotional experience?

Oh boy, does the LDS Church call upon sinners to repent. I’d say the Church has one of the most extensive “repentance systems” around. It’s woven into every part of the Church and the gospel teachings. Emotional experiences are also part of what members of the Church may receive, but that certainly isn’t the intent or purpose of the Church. So there’s another question the Church gets right.

(5) Does it inspire you to preach the Biblical doctrine of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? If it preaches a works salvation, it is not from God.

The LDS Church believes that we are saved only in and through the atonement or sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We could perform works all day long, but without Christ those works would get us absolutely nowhere. We would be in the same bad spot as though we did nothing at all. Zing! Another one down.

(6) Does it unite or segregate the body of Christ, the church? God is not the author of confusion. If it scatters the sheep, it is of the devil.

The LDS Church builds around 350 new church buildings each year. Despite that growth, no matter where you go in the world you’ll find that one church congregation functions exactly like any other. A Church member from Los Angeles, California can go to Hong Kong, Russia, or Brazil and immediately feel at home and like they fit in. Everything is orderly, organized, and clear. So there’s very little confusion, the sheep are gathered rather than scattered, and the members are definitely united. Winning.

(7) Do people who follow their prophecy become more like the Lord Jesus Christ, or more like the world, the flesh and the devil? Christians are like the Lord Jesus Christ of the Christian Bible as expressed in the four Gospels.

As stated above, the entire purpose of the LDS Church is to bring souls to Christ. Of course no Church member is perfect, and many of us have grave faults, but we’re trying and inasmuch as people follow the teachings of the LDS Church then yes, they certainly do become more Christlike.

And so the LDS Church passes this test with flying colors. Have any questions you’d like to add to the test?

The question goes like this–The Book of Mormon and Mormons in general claim that all Native Americans are descendants of the people of the Book of Mormon. If this is true, then we should find matching DNA between modern-day Jews and modern-day Native Americans. But we don’t, so therefore the Book of Mormon is false.

The statement sounds reasonable enough until you start thinking about it some more and learn more about what Mormons actually believe.

1. Neither the Book of Mormon nor Mormons in general claim that ALL Native Americans are descendants of the Book of Mormon people. Some are, some aren’t. What percentage are? Who knows. Maybe 90%, maybe 50%, maybe 1%. We don’t know. Unfortunately, prominent Mormons have assumed that a majority of Native Americans were descendants of the Book of Mormon people, and it’s easy to see how they came to this misconception such that they never questioned it, but the Book of Mormon itself says no such thing, neither is there any revelatory statement of such.

2. How do you go about getting the right DNA samples? As far as I know we don’t know what the DNA profile of a Hebrew or Jew from 600 BC, when the Book of Mormon people separated from those at Jerusalem, looks like. We don’t even know how “Jewish” the Book of Mormon people really were, in DNA terms. They could have already been quite mixed up with other strains of people. Then you combine what I said in point #1 and ask “If the Book of Mormon people were a relatively small group compared to others, how mixed up is that DNA with all these other people?”

That pretty much does it. In other words, any claims that DNA evidence refutes the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is based on flawed assumptions about what the Book of Mormon says, or on flawed science. For some more detailed explanations, check out these articles:

DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective

A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist

Who Are the Children of Lehi?

Before DNA

How do you interpret the passage where Jehovah God says to Isaiah, “Before me there was no God formed; neither shall there be after me.” (Isa 43:10) in light of the LDS teaching that Elohim was a God formed before Jesus (Jehovah, in LDS theology)?

Now that’s a good question! Not that the other isn’t, but this certainly takes it a step further…further? Farther? Whatever. Anyway, the title of this post is slightly misleading, in that due to not having much time to research what other Mormons think about this scripture, I’m just giving my own opinion, based on thinking it through and referring to some other sources that indirectly touch on this matter. Here are a few thoughts, loosely organized.

First, Mormons believe that all of us humans are “gods”, the same way that a child is a man, if by “man” you mean human. If by “man” you mean grown, male adult, then that’s a different matter. Suffice it to say, we are gods in a child-like state. We may not reach the goal God has set for us, but we are his offspring nonetheless, and therefore of the same species.

Second, Mormons believe that we all existed from all eternity to all eternity. Who we are has no beginning and no end. I don’t pretend to fully understand what that means, at least the “no beginning” part, but if we take it literally, then neither God, nor Jesus Christ, nor we were “formed” at all, that is, created out of nothing. We always existed. Therefore Elohim was not a god before Christ, that is, they were of the same species and always have been contemporary in that sense, although he became God the Father (i.e. an adult) before Christ, the same way a human father becomes an adult before his child.

Third, Jehovah doesn’t always mean Christ in the Old Testament. We believe most instances do, but not all. And really, what’s the difference? Jesus is God’s representative, they’re of one heart and mind, and in a sense they’re interchangeable. One isn’t going to deliver a message that the other wouldn’t, and vice versa.

Fourth, is this a literal statement or a manner of speech, a colloquialism familiar to the understanding of those to whom this message was originally addressed? If we were to apply the same rigor of analysis to the statement “I know everything about flowers from A to Z,”  that many people apply to passages of the Bible, what would we conclude is meant? Probably something quite different than what is truly meant, that is “I know a lot about flowers.” Could it be that God was merely saying “Look, you idol-worshippers, there’s no other God you need to recognize, got it? Get rid of your false gods and your idols, and worship the one and only God you need to worry about.” I suppose he could have added “And since I know that what I’m saying right now is going to end up in this so-called ‘Bible’ someday, and people 3,000 years from now are going to get all confused about what I’m saying, let me clarify that yes, there are other gods, but I am the only God anyone on earth needs to worry about. Also, although it may be clear that I am God, and not Jesus Christ, the people 3,000 years from now won’t have access to all the information you do, so let me clarify that this is God the Father speaking, not the Son. Not that it matters, since we both say the same things, and my Son is authorized to speak as though he were me, but again, I need to clarify for those other people. Yeah, I know this doesn’t apply to you people right now, and you’re wondering why I even bring this up because it’s all clear to you, but trust me, I need to say this for the sake of the other people 3,000 years from now, even though I’m going to send them the Book of Mormon, prophets and apostles, the Holy Ghost, and all sorts of other things so that they can figure it out on their own fairly easily.” Yes, I suppose God could have added that, but it doesn’t seem to be his way of doing things.

“Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God [i.e. the Mormon Church] and the other is the church of the devil [i.e.. the Christian Church]; wherefore whosoever belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.” (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10).

“…I must join none of them [Christian Churches], for they were all wrong…that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight” (Joseph Smith History 1:19).

A: First off, it would be helpful for anyone reading this post to read two other posts I’ve made previously:

Who do Mormons believe is the church of the devil?
Who do Mormons believe is the church of the Lamb of God?

I readily understand why someone would be offended, put off, etc. by these statements. Nobody likes to hear someone else tell them that what they believe is true is, in reality, false. But that is the reality of discussing religion, since the nature of religion is such that they are mutually exclusive, at least to a point. The very existence of the various Christian denominations is the result of people disagreeing with the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. If everybody agreed on doctrine, there never would have been a Lutheran Church, and today there would be no Baptist Church, no Assembly of God, no 7th Day Adventists, no Methodists, Quakers, Shakers, etc. Everybody would be Catholic. It was the act of someone saying “I’m right and you’re wrong” that led to all these various churches. Even within religions there is ample disagreement. Religions are cohesive only to the point people can look past their differences and come together based on what they agree upon, although I won’t deny the impact of community, tradition, etc.

So what if Mormons think everyone else is wrong? Doesn’t anyone who belongs to any religion effectively make the same statement by joining a religion? In fact, even an atheist makes such a statement, since they are in effect saying they believe anyone who believes in God is wrong. My attitude is more or less “Yeah, we think you’re wrong, you think we’re wrong, but hey, that’s no reason why we can’t be friends. Let’s discuss our differences and maybe we’ll both learn something new, and maybe we’ll both change our minds on a few things, even if we don’t join each others’ churches.”

But there’s a bit of a difference between believing someone is “wrong” in their doctrine, and calling them an unbeliever. I don’t ever use the term unbeliever, nor have I ever heard it used to refer those of other faiths in my 35 years of church attendance, but if I were to refer to someone as an unbeliever or non-believer, there’s only one person who would receive that title, and that’s the person who explicitly states that they do not believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. By definition that person is a non-believer, and I assume they would not be offended by such a title since it merely points out what they themselves have claimed to be. Or to put it the other way, if you say you believe in Jesus Christ, then by my definition, you’re a believer.

Of course this is just semantics. We’re merely talking about what a word means to me, and the same words often mean different things to different people, since we all have our own custom definitions. But for Mormons it goes farther than that. Although I’m no expert on other Christian religions, the impression I get is that many of their adherents believe that if you do not believe as they do, that you’re going to hell. I’ve gotten this impression as a result of adherents of other Christian faiths telling me that I am going to hell, unless I leave the Mormon faith. This is one prime difference between Mormonism and other Christian faiths, that is, to paraphrase Joseph Smith, “While they believe that we are going to hell, we believe that even they can be saved.”

That is, although we believe other religions are incorrect in their doctrines, we don’t see it as a pass-or-fail situation. That is, being Mormon doesn’t mean you go to heaven, and being a non-Mormon doesn’t mean you go to hell. There will certainly be many non-Mormons in much better graces with God on the other side than many Mormons. And we believe in a “second chance”, as it were, although it really isn’t. We simply believe that the judgment that determines whether one lives with God or goes somewhere else is not based on baptism and membership in the Mormon faith anymore than graduation from Harvard is based on admittance. That is, you cannot graduate from Harvard without being admitted, but being admitted is merely the beginning of things. The real work takes place after you are admitted, and the real work of being able to live with God is not based on doing certain things, although those things are necessary, but rather on becoming something. In order to live with God, one must become like God. A Mormon who thinks he is saved because he’s a Mormon and who believes he can relax is sadly mistaken. The woman who lives naked in the dust of an African wilderness, tending goats, and who never hears of God or Jesus Christ in her life, may in fact have become more like God during her life than the aforementioned Mormon, and thus be better off in the next life. She may be much better off, in fact, since she may have done the best with what she had, whereas the lazy Mormon who is given much and does little comes under serious condemnation.

How will she be saved if she never heard of Christ and was never baptized? This is why Mormons baptize on behalf of the dead. We believe everyone gets a chance to fully understand and accept the gospel, either in this life or the next. It’s not a second chance–it’s a first chance. And just because someone rejects the Mormon missionaries in this life, does not mean they’ve already had their chance. Someone who does not fully understand the gospel, or at least some part of it, has not had the opportunity to reject it. And with all the confusion in our current world, who can blame someone for rejecting Mormonism when they’ve been fed so many conflicting beliefs? In other words, yes, I believe even those who come on this blog and who debate Mormonism with me have not rejected Mormonism. If they don’t understand it (which seems to be the case with 100% of those speaking against it here) then how can they reject it? Of course, I can’t judge that, only God can, but I’m inclined to believe that most people, even those who come in contact with Mormonism, do not have a full opportunity to hear the truth in this life, and will receive that opportunity in the next.

I hope this is helpful in explaining why Mormons rarely, if ever, use the term “non-believer”. It doesn’t really make sense to us, because it’s a statement about a transitory quality–something that could easily change by tomorrow, or likely will between now and 200 years from now, which isn’t really all that much longer than a day, from God’s perspective. It’s not in our nature to draw boundaries and say who believes and who doesn’t, but rather to focus on spreading our message to anyone who will hear it. You could say the main distinction we draw is between those who have heard the word, and those who have not heard. We do not see it as our responsibility to make sure anyone believes, we only see it as our responsibility to make sure as many people as possible have the opportunity to hear.

But where Graham gets it wrong is when he says “Without exception, these later so-called ‘revelations’ deny the Bible’s teaching about Jesus’ divinity, or say that He cannot save us.” In this case, he is making a blanket statement about any religion that claims to have scriptures other than the Bible, which certainly matches with Mormons, if not with any other religions. Graham may have it right when it comes to some other religion I don’t know about, but Mormons do not deny the Bible’s teachings about the divinity of Jesus, nor do we say that He cannot save us.

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  Nobody else is. Oh, we’re all spiritual children of God, to be sure, but only Christ had God as his father in this world. With a body created half by God and half by a mortal, Christ had powers none of the rest of us has. I suspect this power was necessary for him to perform the Atonement, when he suffered for all our sins, in that any fully mortal man’s body could not have withstood it. But Christ had power over death, and therefore could support the anguish of the Atonement without his spirit separating from his body, which is the definition of death.

Mormons certainly don’t say that Jesus can’t save us. If he can’t, who can? There is no one else Mormons look to for salvation other than Jesus Christ. There is no one else we can look to. As far as I understand, God himself cannot do for us what is achieved through Christ, although of course God does do it, but only through Christ.

But perhaps I misunderstand. Perhaps Graham is misinterpreting the Mormon belief that Christ cannot save us in our sins.  That is, Mormons believe that in order to be saved, one must do what God and Christ say is necessary to gain salvation. Some religions claim all that is necessary is to believe in Christ. If by “believe in Christ” they mean keep his commandments, follow him, be baptized in his church, and do everything else he tells us to do, then yes, we believe likewise. If they mean all one has to do is say the words “I believe in Christ” with no change of heart, no change of actions, no repentance, etc., then no, we do not believe Christ has the power to save such a person, because he himself has said that only those who do his will, which is God’s will, can be saved. And of course the person who says they believe in Christ but then does not do what he says they need to do is lying. But I’m not sure if I know what Graham is referring to or not. I’m just guessing.