Regarding a couple of editorials made last week relative to the article "The Book on Mormons," I felt compelled to address the extracurricular issues raised by these enthusiasts for so-called "orthodoxy." If Sharon King's thesis is true that "Mormons" are "not orthodox Christians," she may be surprised by the agreement of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Indeed, if by "orthodox" she measures such a theosophy on the basis of the Nicean edict of 325 AD, which most mainstream Christians hold to, she is correct ... Because we reject the neo-platonic view of Deity so hellenized by Grecian thought. Such doctrine is alien in the scriptures, and by that I am not exclusively talking about the Book of Mormon ... I am exposing the true orthodoxy of our Biblical writers. Adam Averill's statement that, "The Bible hasn't changed its doctrine in thousands of years...," is also essentially true. But he, and like-minded advocates, fail to comprehend their doctrinal history and metamorphosis over the centuries.

A simple, but significant premise raised by Adam Averill and Sharon King deals with their consternation about the revealed doctrine and character of God. Undoubtedly, adhering to such confusional proclamations stated in various Nicean or Athanasian creeds, will not square well with the Biblical doctrine of the Godhead. Mr. Averill's unitarian position is case in point. Whether the mainstream says 3 Gods or 1, was the initial argument for about 25 years with the early 4th century church, while they tried to hash it out after 14 ecumenical councils. So after severe debate and coercion, Constantine, et al came up with the solution to reconcile such numerical differences as irrationally ... "equal," and then sealed it up as "the great mystery." Well in essence it should remain a mystery if one is going to consult with the Biblical text. It is plainly spoken that God the Father had a Son, Jesus Christ who sent him to work out the atonement for all mankind (John 6:38-40). The great intercessory prayer offered by Jesus in John 17 by itself should have absolved any further debate regarding such identity confusion. It recognizes that "knowledge of God" is key to eternal life, not some incomprehensible being. Additionally, the concept of "oneness" was explicity detailed in Christ's revelatory prayer as he compared his relationship with his Father in Heaven in the same context of his disciples (John 17:21-22). If Jesus and the Father "was" one in the same, then it leaves raised eyebrows as to why he would be praying to himself? Why would he beg himself to remove the bitter cup (Luke 22:42)? Why would he forsake himself (Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34)? And in an era where in "the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established", Christ categorically used this position in order to convince his rivals between He and his Father as the witnesses of "two men" (John 8:17-18). Unfortunately, the answer from such Nicean adherents would default into the apostatized mystery category because of the popularity of a man made creed vs prophetic revelation.

It is also very inherent both in the Biblical text all the way up to the early 5th century, that the doctrine of godhood and of gods was in fact, a tenet doctrinal position (Psalms 82:6, John 10:30-35, 2 Cor 3:18, Rev 1:6, etc...). But in the mindset of "mainstream orthodoxy" vs traditional, people of Adam and Sharon's persuasions immediately forms the false conclusion that somehow so-called "Mormons" want to replace God, as they mistakingly quote scripture that insist that there is "only one" and that there is "no other God beside me". This is easily resolved if they chose to read what the Biblical text states, regarding such matters. The Apostle Paul made this simply clear when he stated:

"For though there be that are called gods, whether IN HEAVEN or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; AND one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."(1 Cor 8:5-6, emphasis added)

So here we have no anxiety from the ex-sanhedrin about the existence of gods and lords whether there are many "in heaven", but the emphasis on our attention and eternal worship is to the Great Heads of the celestial family...God, the Father "and" the Lord Jesus Christ. Basic Biblical math of one "AND" one does not physically equal "1" (John 8: 17-18). Instead this is Biblical doctrine 101 regarding exaltation. So the notion of replacing God is completely fabricated by those who wish not to understand what has been taught from the beginning or the nature of the family, no more than anyone wanting to replace their own earthly fathers and mothers, just because they themselves became as such. Furthermore, the design of "no God beside me" is specifically referenced to the sin of idolatry and has no contradiction within the context of the eternal family unit, when one considers who is "above" (John 14:28) vs who is "below" (Eph 3:14-15, Romans 8: 16-17). So anyone willing to follow the advice of Mr. Averill to research this on their own, I would also agree because one ought to come to these conclusions quite easily,...especially in this day and age of accessible information. For why these decade old arguments remain alive is often perplexing. But for those mainstream advocates who insist on ignoring the doctrinal text of the ancient Biblical record, then I strongly suggest you also seek out the writings of these individuals ... for starters:

Irenaeus (ca AD 115 - 202)

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150 - 215)

Origen (ca AD 185 - 251)

Justin Martyr (d. ca AD 163)

Hippolytus (AD 170 - 236)

Athanasius (b. ca. 296-298 - d. 2 May 373)

Augustine (AD 354 - 430)

Jerome (AD 340 - 420)

Why? Because they all taught the same doctrine of deification from the same Biblical texts. It also should come to no surprise from simple research that one of the most loved and admired 20th century Christian writers, C.S. Lewis, was equally adamant over such a self-evident doctrine:

"The command Be ye perfect [Matt. 5:48] is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and he is going to make good His words. If we let Him - for we can prevent Him, if we choose - He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said."

(Mere Christianity, p. 160)

Finally, the Bible is emphatically clear that Jesus was born by natural processes (Luke 1:31-35), grew into both intellectual and physical maturity (Luke 2:52, Heb 5:8-9), died (Matt 27:50, etc..) was resurrected (1 Cor 15:4, etc...) and ascended into Heaven (Acts 1:9-11). Joseph Smith said, ""The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it". Adam and Sharon shouldn't have a problem with that, but they are still disturbed by the fact that we believe God "...was once a man like us..." It should be noted that "man" here is indeed referrent to the mortal corporeal nature subject to pain and death, which is exactly what Christ was subject to according to scripture. And the Bible further vindicates that Christ's mortality and actions, previously described by the Prophet Joseph Smith, was nothing more than following the blue-print of his (our) Father which Jesus himself claimed:

"...The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19)

So what did Jesus see the Father do? Answer: The same thing He himself was basically exposed to. And this shouldn't downplay the role for either party, unless the picture of a little baby in a manger scene now becomes a question for greatness.

J.T. Patterson is a Hayden resident.