I would like to thank Barry Bickmore for engaging in this debate in such a charitable manner. His approach has been scholarly and at the same time friendly. I sincerely appreciate his patience in granting as much time as I needed to complete each of the rounds, and especially my closing statement. My only regret in this entire debate is that we did not limit the number of words for each round of statements. Barry is obviously a prolific writer and researcher, although I must admit that some of what he has written is completely lost on me. I do try to understand what Barry is attempting to say, but some of his arguments simply don't make sense to me from a logical point of view. In this closing statement I hope to be able to respond to some of the specific arguments presented by Barry in his previous statements. I will also address some of the comments brought up in his last statement and then summarize my position with regards to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Hopefully I will be able to adequately cover everything in my closing statement in a straightforward, easily understood manner. If that is not the case I would welcome any questions, comments, or suggestions from readers so that I might clarify the Catholic Church teachings and beliefs presented here. Please feel free to contact me at stevec@transporter.com

I also appreciate the numerous comments I have received via e-mail from Mormons and non-Mormons alike concerning our debate. It has caused me to do more in-depth research and to consider the various arguments presented by all sides (Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, and non-Christian). I hope it has stirred the same level of interest for those who have taken the time to read our discussions. We must continue to study, pray, and dialogue together in charity in order to learn more about what we have in common with each other and what separates us.

Missing the Point?

Evading the Issues?

Barry accused me of evading the issues in my rebuttal. He cites as an example my assertion that the office of Apostle was only a temporary provision. I made this point because having twelve living Apostles at all times is not a necessary requirement of the true church as Barry claims. The Apostles and the first disciples of Christ are the chief witnesses in the early Christian community. It was their calling to give testimony that they personally knew Our Lord and that they could bear witness to His resurrection. When John died at an old age he was the last of the Twelve Apostles. From then on the successors to the Apostles (bishops) would take great care to trace their authority back to one of the Apostles in order to establish their credibility. They taught what they had heard from the Apostles or what they had learned from the closest disciples of the Apostles, like Mark. In such fashion was the Gospel handed down. I quoted Acts 1:20-22 to support my contention that to be an apostle the requirements were: 1) to have accompanied the Lord Jesus, from the baptism of John until the day when He was crucified; and 2) to be a witness of His resurrection from the dead. This whole episode was being played out in the upper room prior to Pentecost in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (Psalms 69:25 and Psalms 109:8). Peter stood up among the brethren (about a hundred and twenty people, including the Apostles, the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and the other brethren) to chose a successor to Judas. From all of these people only two were identified as meeting the requirements. Barry states, "the scripture never says that these were to be general requirements for all future Apostles - only that these were the guidelines they chose to use when selecting a replacement for Judas." To this I would reply that the scripture never says that there will be future Apostles, either! What scripture does tell us is that the main purpose of being numbered as one of the twelve was to be a witness of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Successors of the Apostles who were entrusted with the authority to teach were very careful not to add or remove anything from what they had received. Some of these things were written down but most of it was oral Tradition in the early years of Christianity. It was not until 393 and 397 A.D. that the Canon of Scripture was compiled by the Catholic Councils of Hippo and Carthage. The early Church preserved the distinction between apostles and bishops, noting that the apostles could have no successors with the exception of Judas. I would also like to point out that "they" (the Apostles) did not chose these guidelines, it was Peter as their leader who took the initiative to name a successor to Judas based on Old Testament Scripture.

In the early Church, the apostles are called bishops but the bishops are never called apostles. Catholic bishops are not new or recycled apostles. They are men who have received the fullness of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, members of the episcopal college, and successors of the Apostles. "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them 'their own position of teaching authority' ". Indeed, "The apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time." (CCC 77) The early Church carefully preserved the distinction between apostles and bishops. To their unique foundational roles, the apostles could have no successors. Their extraordinary charisms of apostleship were not transmissible. ¹

In his opening statement Barry speaks of the suggestion by some that "the apostles were just twelve men whom Christ ordained for a specific mission - and were thus no longer needed after the Church was established in the world." I have demonstrated from scripture that this suggestion is correct. They are the foundation stones upon which the church was built, with Jesus Christ Himself being the cornerstone. (Ephesians 2:20) As with any building, there can only be one foundation and one cornerstone. Everything else is built upon the foundation. We cannot call the bricks of the walls the "foundation", nor can we call the windows and doors the cornerstone.

He Chose Twelve - and Paul ²

But what about Paul? Wasn't he an apostle too? Saint Luke, the companion of Saint Paul on his second journey and his loyal aide, refers to both Paul and Barnabas as "apostles". (Acts 14:14) Luke tells us that while they were worshipping the Lord and fasting in the church at Antioch, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." (Acts 13:2) So now we have the Twelve Apostles, Paul, and Barnabas - that's fourteen apostles. Did Paul and Barnabas count themselves as one of the Twelve? In 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 Paul makes the distinction between the Twelve and other "apostles" such as himself. Paul tells us that after Christ died and was raised on the third day, He first appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the Twelve, then to more than 500 brethren, then to James, then to all of the apostles (not just the twelve), and last of all to Paul. Paul says that he is the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because he persecuted the church of God. (1 Corinthians 15:3-9) So here we clearly see that Paul and the early church made a distinction between the twelve and other apostles (or eye witnesses of Christ's resurrection). As I mentioned in my opening statement, the word "apostle" comes from the Greek apostolos, which means one sent off or commissioned. Paul considered himself as commissioned by the Holy Spirit and sent off on a mission to preach the Gospel by the church at Antioch, therefore he called himself an apostle but not one of the Twelve Apostles. Their role within the church was unique and not transmissible.

The Gospels tell us that the Twelve Apostles were literally ordained by Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 10:1-2, Mark 3:14, Luke 6:13, John 6:70) and that Matthias was "enrolled" with the eleven, most likely a reference to the laying on of hands. There is no such literal ordination for Paul or any other apostle mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament. In Galatians Paul greets the churches of Galatia by calling himself an apostle - "Not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father". (Galatians 1:1) Therefore Paul was not enrolled as an apostle by the other Apostles, but he was called by Christ Himself.

Barry mentions that apparently Jesus' brother James had become an apostle and that Polycrates reported the tradition that Philip had become "one of the twelve apostles." James and Philip are both listed in all of the New Testament lists of the Twelve Apostles, so Barry must think these are different people from the ones listed. First, it is important to note that when the Bible speaks of the brothers of Jesus, it does not mean Mary and Joseph had other children. The Jews regarded cousins as brothers and sisters. In fact they did not have a separate word for "cousin" as we do. The brethren referred to here were Jesus' cousins, James and Judas of Alphaeus, the brother of St. Joseph (see Matthew 13:55 and Matthew 27:56). Most commentators think that "James the Lord's brother" is most likely James the Less (Mark 15:40), also called the son of Alphaeus (Luke 6:15) and author of the letter which bears his name. ³ The author to the Epistle of Saint James introduces himself simply as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". (James 1:1) According to the Navarre Bible Commentaries it is fairly clear that the Epistle of Saint James was written by James, "the Lord's brother" and bishop of Jerusalem, who was probably the same person as the James, son of Alphaeus, listed in the Gospel as an Apostle. ⁴ (Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18)

Paul did not state that the FULL Church organization must always include (Twelve) Apostles, prophets, etc. as Barry would have us believe. (Ephesians 4:11-14) Here Paul is referring to certain ministries or offices in the Church which are performed not only in a charismatic way, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but as an assignment or ministry entrusted to the particular individual by the glorified Lord. ⁵ These charismatic gifts are given by Jesus Christ, the head of His Mystical Body (the Church), to specific individuals within His Church in order to strengthen its unity and love. They are not necessarily gifts to be present in the Church at all times. In fact they cannot be present today because no one meets the criteria outlined in the New Testament to be one of the Twelve (must have accompanied Jesus during His life on earth and must be a witness to His resurrection from the dead).

The "Twelve Apostles" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints certainly do not meet this Biblical criteria. Ephesians 4:11-14 also does not mention the two other titles, Seer and Revelator, used by the Mormons to describe their Prophet. Nor does the Bible say that the church should have a president and two counselors, also called presidents. These three are also called "Apostles", so in fact the LDS church has fifteen rather than twelve apostles. Furthermore, where do we find evidence in the Bible for a "First Quorum of the Seventy" and a "Second Quorum of the Seventy" (neither of which actually have seventy men in them)? It seems odd that the Mormons see no problem with adding offices to the church organization without any Biblical basis and yet insist that the offices listed in Ephesians must always be present. If these other offices are necessary for the Restored Gospel to be true, why weren't they there when Jesus Christ gave us the Gospel in the first place?

Barry concedes that there might have been some legitimate priesthood authority retained by the Catholic Church up to the Middle ages, but he wrongly concludes that it must have been taken away when some bad popes possibly violated fourth century Catholic canon law. Sin does not diminish the authority of the papacy nor does it sever apostolic succession. I must sadly admit that there have been Catholic bishops who have cut themselves off from the Church, and there have also been some less than admirable popes throughout the past 2,000 years. However, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His CHURCH. He also told us to "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." (Matthew 7:15) Elsewhere in Scripture we read that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and that the CHURCH will last until the end of time (Matthew 16:18). In the Letter of Paul to the Ephesians we are told that "unto Him be glory in the CHURCH by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end." How could the CHURCH glorify God "throughout all ages" if it were about to apostatize as Barry would have us believe? It makes no sense to think that an apostate church can give glory to God. Despite the weaknesses of men, God has kept his promise to protect His Church against error, especially TOTAL apostasy, until He comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead. The Church is more than the sum of her weakest parts.

In Acts Chapter 5 we read about a member of the Sanhedrin named Gamaliel who is speaking to the members of the council and all the senate of Israel as they were debating over what to do with the apostles after they had condemned the Jews for killing Jesus. The members of the council were enraged and wanted to kill the apostles. Gamaliel proclaims with rabbinic wisdom, "So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them." (Acts 5:34-39) If it is indeed God's work, the Church cannot be overthrown from without or within. If Gamaliel was correct, then the Mormon theory of the "Total Apostasy" would mean that this new Church was not established by God. Thus, according to Scripture, to suggest that the Church failed is to deny that it was established by God through His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ. Certainly Barry does not mean to suggest this.

In the Gospel of Saint Matthew we read about the two foundations. Jesus said, "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock", and "everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand." (Matthew 7:24-27) This is an important passage demonstrating that when Christ builds His Church, it will last because it will be built upon rock. If the Church Christ founded washed away in total apostasy then logically Christ is the fool in this passage who builds His Church on sand. Which foundation did Jesus use to establish His Church? (Matthew 16:18) If we believe Jesus to be a "wise man" and not a "fool", then we must also believe that He built His "house" on rock and not sand.

Anachronistic Interpretation?

Barry accuses me of being anachronistic (representing something as existing or occurring at other than its proper time) in my assertion that public revelation ceased at the death of John the Beloved, the last Apostle. In Deuteronomy 12:32 God commanded that the Israelites not "add anything to it, nor take anything away from it". I agree with Barry that when He said these things through Moses He was speaking in the context of the Mosaic Law. As I said before, Jewish tradition distinguishes between the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings of the Old Testament. (Luke 24:44 and CCC 702) But certainly this commandment from God did not preclude the Holy Spirit from speaking through the prophets at a later date. The Catholic Church considers "prophets" to be all whom the Holy Spirit inspired in the composition of the Sacred Books, both of the Old and the New Testaments. The primary purpose of these prophetic writings was to prepare the world for the "fullness of time" when God would send the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ. (Galatians 4:4) Jesus fulfilled the messianic hope of Israel in his threefold office of priest, prophet, and king. After His mission was completed on earth through revelation of the Gospel to His chosen Apostles there was no longer a need for public revelation. All that the prophets had foretold had been fulfilled.

Doctrine of LDS Apostles

When did the LDS doctrine of "prophet" and "apostle" as an ordained office first appear? Barry has made reference to the LDS prophets and apostles as being members of the restored church of Jesus Christ returned to earth by heavenly messengers. It is interesting to take a close look at the early Mormon church hierarchy to see what role prophets and apostles played in the newly restored organization. According to former LDS historian and author D. Michael Quinn, the term "apostle" as an ordained office and presiding quorum did not exist until 1835. Prior to that time, from 1829 to 1835, Joseph Smith was seen as one prophet among potentially many and the "apostles" consisted of anyone who received their callings charismatically (through vision) rather than institutionally (through ordination to office). By the end of 1830 the designation of apostle (without ordination) also included an evangelical call to missionary service. Mormon missionaries were called "apostles" as late as the end of 1832. David Whitmer, one of the Book of Mormon's Three Witnesses, considered himself one of these non-ordained apostles because of the vision he had received along with Joseph Smith. He later stated, "During 1829, several times we were told by Brother Joseph that an elder (not apostle) was the highest office in the church." It was not until 1835 that the calling of apostle became an ordained office in Mormonism. This first "quorum" of twelve did not include any of the Book of Mormon witnesses. ⁶ Why did it take six years from the time the LDS church was first organized until the Mormon hierarchy included the Twelve Apostles as an ordained office and presiding quorum? It would seem that such an important part of the church's foundation would be the first matter of business for these "angelic messengers" to perform in their restoration efforts. Certainly that was the way Christ established His Church according to the Biblical accounts. The Book of Mormon also tells us that it was one of the first things that Jesus did in the New World when He called and commissioned (ordained) Twelve Nephites to be His disciples. (3 Nephi 12:1)

The Shepherd of Hermas

Since Barry has once again brought up the writings of Hermas, I would like to address them in more detail. According to William A. Jurgens these rather lengthy works belong to the category of apocryphal apocalypses. Jurgens goes on to say that the work of Hermas is "obviously much fictionalized, or at any rate, of the apocalyptic and visionary genre". Eusebius Pamphilus listed The Shepherd among the "spurious" writings rather than the recognized books of Scripture. ⁷ Note that this list was compiled by Eusebius in his History of the Church some 61 to 97 years prior to the official canon of the New Testament being promulgated by the Catholic Councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397).

Barry stated in his response, "But it never occurred to anyone to close the canon until nearly the third century!" He goes on to say, "the very existence of a document such as the Shepherd of Hermas shows that the possibility of a new word of revelation was nothing to be wondered at." It was exactly because of the existence of "spurious" documents such as the Shepherd of Hermas and others which were confusing the faithful that it was necessary for the Church to infallibly determine the canon of scripture. The Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, settled and declared the inspired books of the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. The Old Testament used by the earliest Christians, as well as Jesus Himself, is known as the Alexandrian Canon (Septuagent). It included the Deuterocanonicals (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees). The King James Version of the Protestant Bible used by the LDS church has intentionally removed some of the original books of the Canon of Scripture by excluding the Deuterocanonicals. In the earliest days of the Church the Septuagent version of the Old Testament continued to be used by Jewish Christians while those who rejected Christ also rejected the Deuterocanonicals. The Catholic Canon of Scripture has always contained the Deuterocanonicals and the original King James Version of the Bible included them as well. When and why they were removed is another story in the sad episode of the Protestant Reformation when Christians separated themselves from Holy Mother Church.

Barry would have us believe that the key to interpreting Hermas' purpose is contained in the first section of his work, the Visions. Here the Church was represented as a tower being built of stone, the stones representing individual Christians. Hermas related:

And I began to ask her about the times, if the end were yet. But she cried out with a loud voice saying, "Foolish man, do you not see the tower still being built? Whenever therefore the building of the tower has been finished, the end comes. But it will quickly be built up; ask me nothing more." ⁸

I agree with Barry that the tower is indeed the church, as the woman says. However, if you read it carefully you will see that the completion of the tower does not occur until the end of time! The message from Hermas is that those who hold off repentance until the end will be rejected - it will be too late. If, as Barry asserts, this is a reference to a looming total apostasy, then he faces two huge problems:

First, a tower successfully completed is not a suitable metaphor for an apostasy. If the tower being built were to "apostatize", it would be described as falling into disarray or corruption. This is not the case! According to the writings of Hermas it is being built of solid stone, unified and complete:

"Hear now with regard to the stones which are in the building. Those square white stones which fitted exactly into each other, are apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons, who have lived in godly purity, and have acted as bishops and teachers and deacons chastely and reverently to the elect of God. Some of them have fallen asleep, and some still remain alive. And they have always agreed with each other, and been at peace among themselves, and listened to each other. On account of this, they join exactly into the building of the tower." "But who are the stones that were dragged from the depths, and which were laid into the building and fitted in with the rest of the stones previously placed in the tower?" "They are those who suffered for the Lord's sake." "But I wish to know, O Lady, who are the other stones which were carried from the land." "Those," she said, "which go into the building without being polished, are those whom God has approved of, for they walked in the straight ways of the Lord and practiced His commandments." "But who are those who are in the act of being brought and placed in the building?" "They are those who are young in faith and are faithful. But they are admonished by the angels to do good, for no iniquity has been found in them."

The second problem with seeing the completion of the tower as the prelude to apostasy is the actions of the builders when they have completed it:

"The building of the tower will be finished, and all will rejoice together around the tower, and they will glorify God, because the tower is finished."

Additionally, the woman who interprets the vision is also representative of the church, as the text states repeatedly. She appears in the first four visions. It's interesting that in vision one, she's an old, weak woman. Vision two shows her younger and stronger. Vision three, younger and stronger still. In vision four she is a bridal virgin, full of life and vigor. If she is the church, and if the church were about to apostatize, the order would be reversed. She would start out as a bridal virgin and end as an old, weak woman crumbling to the ground.

Barry insists on twisting the visions of Hermas to supposedly be a prophecy that the wicked world was to continue, but not the church. This is not the case! Over and over again the woman in the visions tells Hermas that the completion of the tower (the church) would come at the end of the world. A careful look at the fourth vision (http://newadvent.org/fathers/0201104.htm) clearly shows that the foundational theme of the visions is purely eschatological (from the Greek word eschaton, meaning "last"). In this fourth vision we see the woman (the church) appear after Hermas has passed by the beast of the tribulation. He is told to go back and tell the elect of the Lord that they too can escape the tribulation of the beast if they prepare themselves, repent, and turn to the Lord. There is absolutely nothing in the text that would suggest that the "inferior place" will replace or succeed the tower. Rather, they are spoken of as existing simultaneously. Most likely the "inferior place" is the process of penance that sinners would have to undergo before their eventual re-admittance into the church. This fits well with the context, which mentions the sinners suffering and being purified, and finally being "transferred." The overall theme of the Shepherd of Hermas is a call to repentance and living a righteous life in the church (tower). These writings were important to early Christians because of the ethical concepts they contained and their relationship to the Sacrament of Penance.

Clement of Rome

Mr. Bickmore has once again challenged my assertion that Clement of Rome [ca. A.D. 80 (92-101?)] was speaking with apostolic authority as the Bishop of Rome when he wrote his letter from "The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth". Barry tries to put the writing of Clement and Hermas on the same level and in fact claims in a previous statement that Hermas actually wrote his "Visions" at the time of Clement. Jurgens writes in his introduction to Clement's letter that "The traditional dates of Clement's pontificate, A.D. 92 to A.D. 101, are unworthy of credence. Believing that there is good evidence for dating his sole extant authentic writing ca. A.D. 80, a work clearly written while he was Bishop of Rome, the present author dates Clement's pontificate accordingly." In his introduction to The Shepherd of Hermas, Jurgens dates this writing at ca. A.D. 140/155. ⁹ This means there was approximately 40 to 75 years separation between the writings of Clement and Hermas. According to the dates established by Jurgens, they were not contemporaries by any stretch of the imagination.

Dr. Warren H. Carroll, Professor of History at Christendom College, states that Clement's letter "is the most striking of all the historical proof of the general acceptance by Christians, from the beginning of the Church, of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and the head of the whole Church." ¹⁰ There is no doubt that Clement spoke with authority as the Bishop of Rome when he wrote his Letter to the Corinthians.

Dispensations - a Gospel for All Ages?

Barry states that "Whenever the Gospel has been preached, however, and the priesthood given, sooner or later apostasy occurred and the authority and truth of God was removed." What proof does he offer to back up this claim? First he cites a number of LDS references. Naturally these materials support the LDS theory of a total apostasy. I would suggest that these are not the most objective resources available on the subject. Next he uses the writings of the Early Church Fathers in an attempt to justify Joseph Smith's new concepts and doctrine. Do the Early Church Fathers agree with the Book of Mormon or was the Book of Mormon written in such a way as to appear to agree with the Bible and the Early Church Fathers? The purpose of this debate is to determine whether or not a TOTAL apostasy in the early Christian church actually occurred. The validity and accuracy of the Book of Mormon as a historical document (See statements by the Smithsonian and National Geographic) or as the inspired Word of God (the canon of Scripture was closed at the Catholic Councils of Hippo and Carthage) is not at issue here. If it were, I would argue that this spurious document should not be relied upon as "Another Testament of Jesus Christ", for it is based solely upon the private revelations allegedly received by Joseph Smith and his "witnesses".

Joseph Smith claims in the revelation given to him in May 1833 that, "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29) Thus a Mormon must believe that we too exist eternally, along with God the Father. Yet the Bible very clearly tells us in both the Old and New Testaments that God created heaven and earth. This contrast between heaven and earth is a way of expressing totality by using two opposite terms, spiritual and material. So when we read, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) it means God created everything that was created. What did He create from? Joseph Smith would have us believe that God didn't "create" anything, He simply "reorganized" pre-existing intelligence and matter. Thus He is not All Powerful, He is just more powerful than we are right now.

According to the Mormon Plan of Eternal Progression, exaltation and GODHOOD may be achieved by anyone who lives in accordance with the Mormon teachings. Lorenzo Snow, the fifth President of the LDS church, claimed he received this revelation: "Now I will say what I received in vision, which was just as clear as the sun ever shone. The knowledge that was communicated to me I embraced in this couplet: As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may be." ³¹ Did you catch that? God was once a man who worshipped His Father! That means our God is inferior to His Father because His Father reached perfection before our Father did. And God's Father had a Father, who must have gone through the same progression to reach exaltation even earlier. LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith said, "Our father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father". ³² According to Mormon doctrine God wasn't always what He is now, He has changed from a mere mortal man with limited knowledge to an exalted god, one of many. How many gods are there? Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt stated in a discourse given at Temple Block (Square) in Salt Lake City in 1855, "If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds." ³³

Barry uses as one of his proof-texts a passage from Genesis 1:1-2 to claim that the creation account indicates creation from a watery chaos. He cites from the New English Bible, a translation, incidentally, not approved for use by either Mormons or Catholics, quoting, "In the beginning of creation... the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters." (Genesis 1:1-2 NEB). The dots indicate text has been dropped from the quote. The entire quote from the NEB translation actually reads like this: "In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters." Notice how Barry has attempted a sleight-of-hand trick with his quotation! He removed the words "when God made heaven and earth" to give the illusion that the earth was created from watery chaos and not from nothing. Once again the contrast between heaven and earth is a way of expressing the totality of creation. After the earth was created God brought the watery chaos into order.

Rather than using the King James Version, the only version approved by the LDS church for use by its members, Barry inexplicably quotes from the New English Bible (NEB). The King James Version says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (Genesis 1:1-2 KJV). The Word of God speaks clearly. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." PERIOD! We find no indication of God's creation from a "watery chaos", or anything else for that matter (pun intended)!

Barry correctly cites 2 Maccabees 7:28 (another Deuterocanonical book from the Septuagint), and Romans 4:17, which both assert clearly that "God made [the sky and the earth] out of nothing..." (2 Maccabees 7:28 NEB), and that "God... summons things that are not yet in existence as if they already were." (Romans 4:17 NEB) These are excellent examples to reaffirm Genesis 1:1-2 which teaches that God created the heaven and the earth out of nothing. Also, 2 Maccabees was written around 124 B.C., so the idea of creation "ex nihilo" did not originate with the second-century Gnostic philosopher Basalides as Barry would have us believe. They may not have used the term "creatio ex nihilo" but both Paul and the author of 2 Maccabees understood the concept of creation out of nothing and taught it in their writings.

Let's continue with Barry's examples from 2 Peter 3:5 and Hebrews 11:3. The KJV reads "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" (2 Peter 3:5 KJV) and "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3) Again, we do not see the verbal joining of heaven and earth as one. In 2 Peter they are spoken of separately and in Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews he only speaks of the "worlds". There is no indication in either of these texts that God did not create the matter with which He created the heavens and the earth. In fact, I suggest that they fit perfectly with the other biblical accounts of "creatio ex nihilo". The two other sources Barry cites are from the second-century Pastor of Hermas and Philo the Jew who lived at the time of Christ. With these two authors he confusingly cites passages in support of both "creation from nothing" and "creation from chaos". Which presuppositions from these non-biblical sources are we to believe? The Word of God should be the obvious choice of every Bible-believing Christian: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ("ex nihilo", "out of nothing"). (CCC 290-292 and CCC 296-298)

"The Offspring of God"?

What does Paul mean when he quotes the Greek poets who say, "For we are indeed his offspring."? (Acts 17:28) Here Saint Paul speaks about the nearness of God and His mysterious but real presence in every man and woman. Saint Augustine echoes this teaching when he exclaims, "Yet all the time you were within me, more inward than the most inward place of my heart, and loftier than the highest". ³⁴

If we back up to verse 22 in Acts 17 and read from that point forward (Acts 17:22-28), we see that Paul was speaking in the Areopagus to the men of Athens. The word "areopagus" can refer to either a hill where the Athenians used to meet or to a session of a tribunal or city council gathered together to listen to Paul's teaching. While speaking to the men in the Areopagus, Paul noted that the city of Athens was full of idols. He said that obviously they were very religious people because everywhere he passed he would see the objects of their worship. He mentioned one altar in particular that he had seen with the inscription, "To an unknown god." What Paul attempts here is to introduce them to the "unknown god" of their idols, the living and true "God who made the world and everything in it", the God of the Jews and the Christians. He says this true and living God is not far from us and that we should seek Him out, for 'In him we live and move and have our being'. At this point Paul quotes from the Greek poets when he says, "For we are indeed his offspring". Did he teach that we are literally the physical offspring of this "unknown god" or did he mean that the living God is within each one of us, unlike these impersonal stone gods? In verse 29 and beyond (Acts 17:29-34), Paul gets down to the point. If we are indeed offspring of this "unknown god" which he has just introduced, then we are in some way like him. We are not made of gold, or silver, or stone, or some other representation of art or imagination, but rather we have God's spirit within us and the men of Athens should recognize that God is spiritual rather than physical. This is not to say that material representations of God do not serve a useful purpose. Human knowledge begins with experience from the senses. Visual images help us to realize that God is present and they help us to adore him. Veneration of images is quite different from idolatry. An idolator thinks that God dwells in the idol, that he acts only through the idol, and in some cases he actually thinks that the idol is God. ³⁵ So, we are the "offspring of God", not in a literal physical way, but in the sense of adopted sonship that Paul speaks of in his Epistle to the Romans, "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!" it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him." (Romans 8:14-17) If we are led by the Spirit of God then we are sons and daughters of God. "Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him." (Romans 8:9)

"Men, who are incapable of existing of themselves," Saint Athanasius writes, "are to be found confined by place and dependent on the Word of God. But God exists of himself, he contains all things and is contained by none. He is to be found within everything as far as his goodness and power is concerned, and he is outside of everything as far as his own divine nature is concerned". ³⁶

What do Mormons believe concerning the nature of God and our relationship with him? LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie writes:

"Implicit in the Christian verity that all men are the spirit children of an Eternal Father is the usually unspoken truth that they are also the offspring of an Eternal Mother. An exalted and glorified Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57) could not be a Father unless a Woman of like glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a Mother. The begetting of children makes a man a father and a woman a mother whether we are dealing with man in his mortal or immortal state. This doctrine that there is a Mother in Heaven was affirmed in plainness by the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund) when, in speaking of pre-existence and the origin of man, they said that "man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father," that man is the "offspring of celestial parentage," and that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity." (Man: Origin and Destiny, pp. 348-355.) ³⁷

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken -- HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming "great is the mystery of godliness," and tell nothing. It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. ³⁸

What about Jesus Christ and the Virgin Birth (Incarnation)? Brigham Young taught that, "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." ³⁹ Modern-day Mormons would have us believe that this was simply a private statement from Brigham Young and it does not reflect the current LDS doctrine on the Virgin Birth. However, LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie makes it clear in his 1979 publication Mormon Doctrine under the heading ONLY BEGOTTEN SON that, "These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." ⁴⁰ ( In other words, Mary wasn't a virgin when she conceived the child in her womb by the "Father in the flesh". She conceived in the normal fashion through sexual relations with a celestial Being who, according to the "First Vision" account of Joseph Smith's encounter with God the Father, is a being with a physical body of flesh and bones. This is a flat contradiction of the mainstream Christian teaching of the Incarnation, that the eternal Son of God assumed a complete human nature and was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:28-35)

According to Barry, Mormons believe that God is a perfect being with all knowledge and all power. However the LDS also believe that God is not "totally other", He wasn't always a perfect being, and He wasn't always God. The Father has a body in human shape which He obtained from His Father at the time of His own mortal existence on another planet. Joseph Smith gave a discourse before about twenty thousand Mormons at the April conference of the LDS Church in 1844. The occasion for this discourse was the funeral sermon for a deceased LDS Elder named King Follett. Joseph Smith said, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, -- I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another." ⁴¹

Joseph Smith went on to say, "Here, then, is eternal life -- to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me." ⁴²

What does the current president of the LDS church have to say about the nature of God? During an interview with Don Lattin published in the San Francisco Chronicle on April 13th, 1997, President Gordon B. Hinckley was asked if Mormons believe that God was once a man. President Hinckley responded, "I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about." ⁴³

In an interview with TIME, President Hinckley seemed intent on downplaying his faith's distinctiveness. The church's message, he explained, "is a message of Christ. Our church is Christ-centered. He's our leader. He's our head. His name is the name of our church." At first, Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods, suggesting that "it's of course an ideal. It's a hope for a wishful thing," but later affirmed that "yes, of course they can." (He added that women could too, "as companions to their husbands. They can't conceive a king without a queen.") On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it." ⁴⁴

It would appear that somewhere along the line between the specific teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and the current teachings of their successor, Gordon B. Hinckley, public acknowledgement of Mormon doctrines has changed. Where once there was no doubt in their statements that God was once a man and that man may become a god, there is now a reluctance to speak about it. Why? Could it be that the new image being developed by the Mormon spin-doctors is not compatible with their actual beliefs? I must admit that I admire Barry's courage for speaking the truth about what Mormons actually teach and believe. Many people are not willing to be so bold in these times of "political correctness" and "media savvy".

"God is Spirit"

"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24) What did Jesus mean when He said these words? Did He use them to describe only God's actions and relationship with men as Barry would have us believe, or did He mean something more? Let's look at this verse in context. In Chapter 4 of the Gospel of St. John we read about how Jesus stopped at Jacob's well and spoke to the Samaritan woman. He asked her to give Him a drink of water. She said to Him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" Jesus answered, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water." So she questions Jesus about how He is going to draw the water from the deep well when he has nothing to draw it with. She asks, "Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?" She tells Him that the Lord of Israel is to be worshiped on Mt. Gerizim according to the Samaritan custom rather than following the Jewish practice of worshiping God on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. Thus, when Jesus tells the woman "God is spirit" He means that God is not limited in time and space to one location (either Mt. Gerizim or Mt. Zion) by a physical body. Because He is spirit (present everywhere and at all times) He should be worshiped in spirit (everywhere and at all times). (John 4:1-26)

In the Gospel of St. Luke the resurrected Christ explains the nature of a spirit by saying, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:39) Jesus is quite clear in stating that because of His incarnation He has a body but spirits do not. When He says in John 4:24 "God is spirit" (RSVCE) or "God is a Spirit" (KJV - notice the capitalization of Spirit which would indicate a title of divinity) He means that God the Father does not have a physical body which limits Him to being present in one place at a time.

The Catholic church teaches us about the nature of God:

In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband. (CCC 370)

Aristides of Athens

Let us proceed, then, O King, to the elements themselves, so that we may demonstrate concerning them that they are not gods, but corruptible and changeable things, produced out of the non-existent by Him that is truly God, who is incorruptible and unchangeable and invisible, but who sees all things and changes them and alters them as He wills. ⁴⁵

Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is Himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the Maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible and untouchable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. This we know by the evidence of what He has created; and we perceive His invisible power by His works. ⁴⁶

First it must be remembered that God is incorporeal. He does not consist of certain parts and distinct members, making up one body. For we read in the Gospel that God is spirit: invisible, therefore, and an eternal nature, immeasurable and self-sufficient. It is also written that a spirit does not have flesh and bones. For of these the members of a body consist, and of these the substance of God has no need. God, however, who is everywhere and in all things, is all-hearing, all-seeing, all-doing, and all-assisting. ...The power of God, therefore, which is equal and inseparable, has the names of functions and members. Thus the power by which He sees is called eyes; the power by which He hears is called ears; the power by which He does things is called hands; the power by which He is present is called feet: and so on, through the various functions of His power. ⁵³

"Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting!" (Psalms 41:13) What did King David mean when he used the words "everlasting to everlasting" in sending praises to God? Barry suggests that words such as "everlasting" and "forever" are relative terms used by a people with no conception of "eternity" and "infinity". Thus he implies a limitation on the amount of blessings and praises that should be given to God by His people. Barry would like us to believe that to the ancient Hebrew, God could not be both transcendent and yet a loving Father. He suggests a dichotomy between the "Hellenistic" Christian understanding of the transcendence of God and the ancient Hebrew and Jewish Christian understanding of the immanence of God (He is present in His creation but not part of it). To the Catholic Church these are not mutually exclusive ideas! It is a Scriptural fact that He is both our Father and our God. We call God "Father" because our Lord Jesus Christ taught us to speak (pray) to Him in that way. Calling Him "Father" does not diminish His immutability (unchangeableness) as the creator of heaven and earth. Thus King David praising the Eternal Almighty God of Israel is equally as proper as Jesus teaching us to pray, "Our Father Who art in Heaven..." (Matthew 6:9-13)

The word "transcendence" comes from the Latin transcendere. It means "to go beyond or to surpass", and describes the relationship between two things when one is superior and surpasses the other. God transcends all of His creatures. (CCC 42) The Old Testament is replete with passages indicating that God's chosen people never viewed Him as having once been their equivalent. (God is infinite - Job 36:26, Psalms 145:3, Wisdom 11:23; God is eternal - Psalms 90:2, Psalms 102:25, Isaiah 57:15, Daniel 7:14; God us unchangeable - Numbers 23:19, Psalms 102:26, Malachi 3:6; God is omniscient - 2 Chronicles 16:9, Job 21:22, Job 28:24, Job 34:21, Psalms 139:1-6, Psalms 139:16, Proverbs 16:2, Sirach 39:20; God is almighty - Genesis 17:1, Genesis 35:11, Exodus 6:3, Ruth 1:20-21, Job 6:14, Job 22:17, Psalms 91:1, Isaiah 13:6, Ezekiel 10:5, Judith 8:13, Wisdom 7:25, and many others) Nor does Scripture imply that God has subsequently progressed to become superior to man and therefore worthy of our worship. God is unique; there are no other gods besides him. (Isaiah 44:6, CCC 212) In Israel, God is called "Father" inasmuch as He is Creator of the world. (Deuteronomy 32:6, Malachi 2:10, CCC 238-239) God is infinitely greater than all His works: "You have set your glory above the heavens." (Psalms 8, Sirach 43:27-30, CCC 300) Because of His transcendence, God cannot be seen as He is, unless He Himself opens up His mystery to man's immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. The Church calls this contemplation of God in His heavenly glory "the beatific vision". (CCC 1028) (See also http://newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm#III)

Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -- as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords" -- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6 RSVCE) Did he mean to say that there actually are other gods on other planets as the Mormons would have us believe? No, not at all! If we look at these verses in the context of the entire chapter (1 Corinthians 8:1-13), we can see that Paul was addressing the issue of whether or not a Christian should eat food that has been offered to idols. The many "gods" and many "lords" Paul is talking about here are the divinities believed by pagans to exist in the idols they worshiped. The newly converted Christians of Corinth were faced with the practical dilemma of whether or not they should purchase and eat the meat sold in the marketplace, most of which came from animal sacrifices to the pagan gods. Paul sandwiches his many "gods" and many "lords" comment contained in verse 5 between verse 4 ("there is no God but one") and verse 6 ("there is one God, the Father"). He is telling the Christians who are knowledgeable in the faith that they already know this simple truth (there is but one God) and in practice it would not be wrong to eat the meat offered to a non-existent god. However, for the sake of those who are new to the faith from paganism and who may have their consciences defiled at the sight of a knowledgeable Christian eating meat offered to idols, they should abstain from eating this meat. As he says, "Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do."

In his previous statement Barry uses some comments from Origen and Irenaeus to try to show that they might have believed in a plurality of gods (polytheism). Let's look at some other quotes from Origen and Irenaeus to see if he is right.