A letter to my institute teachers

April 12, 2005

Dear Mr. Neilson and Mr. Felix,

It is unfortunate to say that Lindsay and I will no longer be attending the LDS Institute of Religion. There are a few factors involved in this decision that I would like to take the time to explain to you. We feel that it was important to let the staff at the Institute know the reasons why we will no longer be attending. It should first be said that the professors at the Institute made Lindsay and I feel very comfortable to attend, and we have enjoyed the discourse in class that has transpired as a result of our attendance. I would like to personally say that Mr. Neilson has a great gift of teaching and that our decision to leave was not due to a lack of quality teaching. We have enjoyed getting to know the students as well. The students who interacted with us were very kind.

As you may know (I know Mr. Neilson is aware), Lindsay and I are getting married in October and will be busy planning for our wedding during the spare time we have. We realize the extra time that we devote to the Institute must come to an end to provide more time for our marriage plans. This is one of two reasons we feel we must leave.

The main reason why Lindsay and I have decided to leave was because we feel, after much study and prayer, that it goes against our conscience and direction of the Holy Ghost to attend classes that are taught by the LDS Church. We have come to the conclusion that the LDS Church teaches doctrine that is contrary to the most fundamental teachings in the Bible. Thus, we feel that it would be inappropriate for us to participate in a class setting that may encourage others to adhere to such teachings. We believe that our conclusions are based in the pages of the Old and New Testament of the Bible and by the guidance of the Holy Ghost in our lives to understand spiritual truth. We have found many of the doctrines of the LDS Church to be contrary to the Bible, but the most fundamental objections include the nature of God, the nature of man, the means by which man obtains salvation into the Celestial Kingdom, and the function of the Priesthood.

During the Pearl of Great Price class it was confirmed to us that the LDS Church teaches that a council of God’s created the heavens and earth (Abr. 4), but we find in Isaiah 44:24 that God made all things by stretching out the heavens “by Myself”, and by spreading out the earth “all alone”. We also find in the pages of Isaiah that God is the first God and the last God, that there are no Gods beside Himself, and that He is not even aware of any other God that exists (cf. 44:6-8; 45:5; 46:8). The only other Gods that exist are the gods of the people, which are idols (Psalm. 96:5; 1 Corinthians 8:1-6). This is affirmed by the fact that the Bible is monotheistic at its core. The word monotheism comes from the Greek monos-theos. This phrase is contained in such passages as 1 Timothy 1:17: “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God…” and John 17:3: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God...” Among the Jews, the Shema was/is the most well known doctrinal statement. The Shema was commanded to be on the hearts of the Jews at all times. The Shema was, “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” (Deut. 6:4). The conclusion we arrived at from our Bible study is that there is only one God, and that this God has created all things that have ever existed.

Over the period of our time attending class, it was made very clear to us that a plurality of Gods exist do in part to the doctrine of Eternal Progression (i.e., there has been an endless cycle of men and women becoming Gods and Goddesses). We were taught that God was once a man like us who eventually progressed to the point of Godhood, and that we likewise can partake in the same. We find this problematic in a number of ways. The first way is in the arena of cosmology, and the other is in the arena of ontology. We find it problematic in the arena of cosmology because a God that had to become a God could not have had the capacity to create all things (i.e., all things that have ever existed. cf. John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Neither could He be absolutely sovereign over all things. For example, He simply would not have been around to create the planet that He was born on as a spirit baby. If there were other Gods that created other worlds, he would not have created all things, and He would not be sovereign over them. In response, one might jettison that argument by saying He has created all things… all things that pertain to this world. Nowhere in the Bible is God limited to just this world. However, in the Bible we read that “[God] is before all things, and in Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17). The point here is: God has the capacity to create all things on the basis that He has existed prior to all things, and it therefore follows that He is sovereign over all things. This argument makes void the notion that there were an endless amount of Gods that have been creating and organizing other worlds before ours got around to it. It also voids the notion that God did/does not have the power to create our spirits (cf. Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6 pg. 311). For if God has existed before all things, it would naturally follow that He existed prior to the existence of our souls since souls are in the category of all things. Thus, John can say, “apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (John 1:3).

Now with that being said, we shall explain why we find problems in the arena of ontology in addition to cosmology. Simply put, ontology is the study of existence. In our case, it is the LDS nature of God that concerns us. The LDS doctrine that God is necessarily dependent, progressive, changing, and finite is contrary to all fundamental qualities of God that are found in the Bible. For example, James E. Talmage says, “We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement—a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is there heritage to share” (A Study of the Articles of Faith, 29^th edition, pg. 430). In response, if God had to become a God, then where did God get his infinite knowledge? From whom, and which laws did He learn the paths of righteousness unto perfection? Where did the moral laws and standards come from which He had to follow to become a God? God already anticipated those questions and answered them when He asked the rhetorical questions: “Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counselor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?” (Isaiah 40:13-14). The answer to these questions is… nobody. It is a rhetorical question that has no answers because God isn’t the type of being that needed to advance in knowledge, that needed to progress in the paths of righteousness, that was dependant upon pre-set standards by which He needed to follow, or that needed to do anything in order to attain His exalted state. If it were so, He would be a needy God, and a finite one at that.

Joseph Smith (and others) made it clear to us that God is a finite being. We read in the History of the Church, vol. 6, pg. 305, “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” Brigham Young once stated, “It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pg. 333). However, we read in scripture that God has been God from all eternity—“…from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Psalm 90:2). To say otherwise would be to assert that God is not God by nature. However, scripture affirms that God is God by nature. Scripture says that people who do not know God, serve gods that aren’t gods by nature (Galatians 4:8). This is precisely what the LDS Church is doing—serving a God that is not God by nature. For a God that is God by nature does not have to become God. This can be illustrated by making a comparison to the President of the United States. The President is not President by nature because he has not always been President; he had to attain that status by hard work and a favorable vote. Lindsay and I find the God of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be likewise. He had to attain Godhood, and thus is not God by nature—a clear contradiction to scripture (cf. Psalm 90:2; Galatians 4:8)

Another objection that Lindsay and I had regarding what we learned in the Institute was that we could become Gods. We remember being taught that we could be the Gods of our own worlds, not unlike our Heavenly Father. Both of us could not reconcile that belief with scripture. For God says, “Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me” (Isaiah 43:10). All references to men being called gods must be reconciled against the totality of scripture. We can find nowhere in scripture that men can become divine like God is. We do, however, find that we may partake in the divine nature in such a way that allows us to demonstrate the characteristics of God for the purpose of glorifying God (viz., being holy, good, merciful, etc. cf. 2 Peter 1:3-4). This is far different than saying we can be gods by nature “with all power” (cf. D&C 132:20).

Apart from the Institute, Lindsay and I were made aware of other disturbing doctrines. These include the doctrine of Blood Atonement by which men must offer their own lives to atone for sins. Brigham Young stated, “There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, pg. 247). However, we read that Christ atoned for our sins once and for all (cf. Hebrews 7:23-27; 10:14).

Another doctrine that we found to be disturbing was the idea that, “no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom without the consent of Joseph Smith… He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in Heaven” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pg 289). However, we read in the Bible that, “Christ… appear[s] in the presence of God for us” (Hebrews 6:19). For it is through Christ that we gain access into the presence of God, not Joseph Smith. Secondly, Joseph Smith will not “[reign] there as supreme a being… as God does in Heaven” because, “[God] will not give [His] glory to another” (Isaiah 48:11).

Another disturbing doctrine is eternal polygamy. Brigham Young said, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, pg. 269). There are no commandments for Man to be in a polygamous relationship in the Bible. In addition, Christ says, “’Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven’” (Matt. 22:23-30). In context, Christ is denying polygamous relationships in heaven, or any marital relationship for that matter. Rather, we will be like angels.

Another disturbing thing that Lindsay and I have come across is Joseph Smith’s statement, “I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet” (History of the Church, vol. 6, pg. 409). We find this to be insulting and blasphemous. A true prophet who is filled with the Holy Ghost would not be able to utter such words.

There are many more things that Lindsay and I would like to discuss in this letter, but time and space do not allow. We feel that the contents present an accurate picture as to our thoughts and feelings of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have prayed about of the LDS Church, and we strongly feel that God has revealed to us that it is false. We leave you with a testimony that we believe Joseph Smith is a false prophet, the Book of Mormon is not true, and that President Gordon B. Hinckley is not a true and living prophet. May God direct you unto His paths of truth, as we feel He has done for us. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and for understanding our views. If you would like to talk to us about the contents of this letter, please contact us on my telephone 626-627-8236, or email me at GotRighteousness@aol.com.