THE NEW MYTHMAKERS
A Reply to the Film “The God Makers”
Ed Decker’s recent film production, The God Makers, has brought another dimension to his energetic anti-Mormon movement. His basic approach, in this film, has been to cleverly and subtly distort the most sacred teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in such a way that they are viewed to be aberant, satanic, mystical, and shrouded in deceit. The expected result being to mar the image of the L.D.S. Church to such an extent that members of the “Christian” faith will have no desire for either dialogue or association with members of the L.D.S. Church.
This approach, however, is not new, having been tried and tested on the New Testament Church approximately 2,000 years ago. Anyone who has examined the ancient anti-Christian movement of the New Testament Church’s opponents has seen the same techniques, the same type of arguments, and distortions.
It has become historically evident that like the L.D.S. Church, the New Testament Church contained sacred teachings that were not intended for the general public, but only for those mature in the faith. These teachings should only be taught after the Holy Ghost had been received by the Church, and then only to those who had prepared themselves to receive the “mysteries.” These sacred teachings were not to be taught, except at the appropriate times, otherwise confusion would abound.
If this is correct, then the most likely method to distort the sacred truths is to reverse the pedagogical order. Work backwards from the divine plan by discrediting the sacred teachings, thus avoiding the basic principles upon which they are built. The Decker movement has simply taught in reverse order from the manner outlined by the Savior and the Apostles, in order that the recipient might not understand and accept the doctrines of the kingdom.
Let’s consider these two methods, distortion and reverse pedagogy, separately.
The film, though well produced and narrated, runs rampant with distortions and subtle misrepresentations. Isolated cases are used to depict general themes. Slight hints creep into the narrative twisting the meanings and intents of a number of the sacred doctrines. Even occasionally the film departs from subtle suggestions to make bold accusations of incredulous behavior.
The film reminded me of what the sacred teachings of the gospel would look like through the eyes of the distortion mirrors of a carnival’s Fun House. It also reminded me of distortions I had seen in the Communist press. An event in a track and field meet involved a Russian runner and an American runner. Following the event the Communist press announced, “Russian track star takes second place in an international track meet. An American comes in second to last.” What they didn’t mention was the fact that only two runners, the Russian, and the American, participated in the event. The American actually won the race, but since only two were competing, he could be considered to have taken second to last. Although the Russian lost the race he came in second to first.
With a similar type of deceit, the film accuses the L.D.S. Church of Satanic worship by connecting the Book of Mormon name, Mormon, with the Satanic name, Mormo.
Mr. Decker suggests that the LDS are really worshipping Satan because of their use of the word/name Mormon. By an “olympic leap” of his imagination, Decker changes the name Mormon into the Satanic name Mormo. Mormo is a Satanic, or “Infernal Name,” that appears in the Satanic Bible. The name is to be used when one is making certain covenants with the Devil. (The Satanic Bible, pp. 144-145.) Hence, “Mormons,” or better, “Mormons,” are really worshipping Satan.
But, by the same standard, Christians are worshippers of a Canaanite god name Zedek. One of the Canaanite gods was named Zedek, (See The Bible Almanac, p. 109, an evangelical publication) whom the Canaanites worshipped along with their other gods.
Notice, however, that Zedek was also worshipped by the Hebrews (and Christians) as well, as is indicated by the fact that the name of the great high priest Melchizedek means, “My King is Zedek;” and Jeremiah teaches that when Christ returns again at his second coming his name will be “Jehovah is our Zedek.” (Jeremiah 23:6, Hebrew edition.) Also, Jerusalem, the Holy City will be called “Jehovah is our Zedek.” (Jeremiah 33:16, Hebrew edition.)
It is interesting that at the time of Joshua’s conquest the Canaanite King of Jerusalem was named Adonizedek, which means, “My Lord is Zedek.” (Joshua 10:1).
Thus using the Decker method of reasoning it can be easily concluded that Jehovah, or Jesus, is simply a false Canaanite god, and Christianity, as well as “Mormonism” is false.
In addition to ridiculous reasoning, the extreme use of inductive reasoning in the film should be seen as a warning signal to all who view the film that they should be wary of the conclusions reached.
It is unfortunate that many people will only see and hear about the teachings of the L.D.S. Church from a film that distorts the truth and deceives the unwitting.
TEACHING THE SACREDREVERSE PEDAGOGY
The most sacred and difficult teachings of Jesus were not recorded in the four Gospels of the New Testament. They were not to be taught, Jesus said, until the coming of the Holy Ghost to the New Testament Church.
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will she w you things to come. (John 76:72-73).
The Holy Ghost was not given during the mortal ministry of Jesus. (John 7:39). Jesus said that he must go away so that the Holy Ghost could come unto them. (John 16:7). Only when the Holy Ghost had come could Jesus teach the “many things” they could not bear. (As a point of question, when were these hard to bear doctrines taught to the Apostles? And what were these esoteric teachings? What does the “Christian” world know about them? And why aren’t they teaching them today?)
The Bible does give us a few clues as to what these hard to bear teachings might be. When Luke, writing to his friend Theophilus, began his Acts of the Apostles he mentioned a forty day ministry of Jesus that followed his crucifixion and resurrection.
The former treatise have l made, 0 Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach.
Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
To whom also he spewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Acts 7:7-3)
What things did Jesus teach “pertaining to the kingdom of God” during these forty days he ministered to the Apostles? Where in scripture do we have an account of more than just a glimpse of this forty day ministry? Without question these teachings of the forty day ministry were the very same things that Jesus promised to the Apostles when he said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” They could only be taught to the disciples after they had received the Holy Ghost. (John 10:22).
Similarly, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refrained from teaching certain doctrines about Jesus and the Melchizedek Priesthood because they were “hard to be uttered” and because the people were “dull of hearing.”
Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Therefore leaving principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Of the doctrines of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 5:70 – 6:2; see also l Cor, 3:7-3).
Notice that these unmentioned doctrines would lead those who “have their senses exercised” on to perfection. But they would do so only “if God permit.” The reasoning being that once they were enlightened and having “tasted of the heavenly gift,” and being made “partakers of the Holy Ghost,” and of the “good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,” if they were to fall away they could not be renewed again unto repentance.
There is great responsibility connected with the teaching of these “hard to utter” and “hard to bear” doctrines. That is why Paul said that the Apostles were the “stewards of the mysteries of God.”
Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. (1 Cor. 4:7).
…God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, THE DEEP THINGS OF GOD. (l Cor. 2:70).
There certainly is justification for believing that certain special and sacred teachings were not taught openly, or publicly, but only to those that could bear
Early Christian writings indicate that there was a concern about the things taught in private, or secretly by the early church. Various sects of the pristine church claimed to know these secrets. (See The Mormon Faith Un-Decker-ated for a few references to these Christian writings.)
Christians who do not study their own history may not be aware of the growing challenge they face to defend their own beliefs. The somewhat quiet writings of the scholarly world is beginning to put a crack in the foundation of traditional Christianity. An example is the discovery of a secret gospel of Mark. (See professor Morton Smith’s books, The Secret Gospel, Clearlake, Calif.: The Dawn Horse Press, 1973, 1982; and his sequel, Jesus the Magician, Harper & Row, 1978.)
It is traditional Christianity, not the restored gospel of Jesus Christ that is most seriously threatened, because current trends in New Testament research at this point seem to fit comfortably with basic L.D.S. premises, but some are extremely challenging to many traditional Christian beliefs.
BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD
Professor Smith suggests that one of the secret, or esoteric teachings of Jesus, pertained to baptism. Perhaps a better guess would include baptism for the dead. Latter-day Saints do not consider this a secret doctrine but a sacred doctrine. But looking at its history it is quite likely that it belonged to the more esoteric part of the Christian kerygma, since it is only mentioned once in scripture but more frequently in Christian history. Baptism for the dead is practised in L.D.S. temples, hence it could be considered to be somewhat esoteric.
Early Christian writings attest to the fact that baptisms for the dead were performed, and that not only Jesus, but the Apostles, preached to the dead.
After their death the apostles visited Hades in order to preach there to such as had not heard the gospel and to baptize the righteous. (NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA, p. 43. also in THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, vol. 2, p. 49).
Do not the Scriptures show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood, or rather had been chained, and to those kept `in ward and guard’? And it has been shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the apostles, following the Lord; preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For it was requisite, in my opinion, that as here, so also there, the best of the disciples should be imitators of the Master; so that He should bring to repentance those belonging to the Hebrew, and they the Gentiles; that is, those who had lived in righteousness according to the Law and Philosophy, who had ended life not perfectly, but sinfully. . . . If, then, He preached the Gospel to those in the flesh that they might not be condemned unjustly, how is it conceivable that He did not for the same cause preach the Gospel to those who had departed this life before His advent? (THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, vol. 2, pp. 490-492.)
Epiphanius said that the Marcionites practised baptism for the dead. (Heresies XXVIII:7).
In spite of the historical evidence for the practise of baptism for the dead, the 397 A.D. Council of Carthage, Sixth Canon, declared baptism for the dead heretical and prohibited any further practise.
There is ample justification for a belief in the sacred doctrine of baptism for the dead and the preaching of the gospel to the dead by the Savior and his apostles. It is academic immaturity to belittle the beliefs of the L.D.S. Church when there is a genuine historical and scriptural foundation for them. Unbelief could be understandable, but not ridicule.
Another example of a sacred teaching is eternal marriage, also performed in L.D.S. Temples. The principles of the gospel are eternal principles, not mortal principles. The gospel of Jesus Christ is an eternal plan. Jesus conquered death, gaining victory over all enemies. Marriage is a covenant and a principle that is as eternal as any other principle of the gospel. It was the first principle taught to Adam and Eve in the creation. After Adam was created and before he had named all of the animals the Lord God said, “it is not good that the man (Adam, but also all mankind) should be alone.” (Gen. 2:18). At this time Adam was still in an immortal, or eternal condition, and it was not good for him to be alone. This occurred before the fall. So God created Eve and brought her to Adam. According to the Biblical account, Eve was taken from Adam’s rib. This is only figurative, showing the oneness of Adam and Eve. When Adam saw Eve he said, “This (Eve) is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” (Gen. 2:23). What could be stated more plainly. They were one flesh. Eve was called woman because she was taken from man. God then gave them the commandment, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave (the Hebrew word means, ‘as bone to skin’) unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
In order to be complete, to be a whole flesh, one must be man and wife. Now, notice that all of this is while man is still eternal or immortal. He is to be one flesh (male and female) while he is immortal, before death came into the world. God did not intend anywhere for man to be alone. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt. 19:6). To separate a man and his wife is to violate the original command of God. It violates the very nature of God’s creation. Man is in the likeness of God, male and female, (Gen. 1:26-27 & 5:2-1) just as God is male and female. Marriage is an eternal union when it is properly observed. This is why Peter said that husbands and wives are “heirs together of the grace of life.” (I Peter 3:7).
The Apostle Paul taught:
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
…So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. (Eph. 5:25, 28).
Husbands and wives are clearly, one flesh. If separated, they are no longer one flesh. It is not God’s intention to separate husbands and wives. However, as Jesus told his disciples, this will occur when there is a hardness of the heart. (Matt. 19:8).
When Paul commanded husbands to “love your wives,” he used the world “agape.” This is the same Greek word Paul uses in I Corinthians chapter 13 for “charity.” There Paul says, “charity never faileth,” it “endureth all things.” He said, “We know in part, and we prophesy in part, But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” Since agape, or charity, is not in part it will never be done away. The love and union of a husband and wife will never diminish. How can God separate them from that eternal union? “Whatever God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” If the marriage union is to cease it will be because of man’s doings, not God’s.
This may all be correct, but what about the question asked by the Sadducees, and Jesus’ answer that “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven?”
Unfortunately, this passage has led to a great deal of misunderstanding in Christian theology. It has been the dominant premise for all other interpretation. However, the account given by Luke is clear and does not lead to the confusion that seems to have come from the Matthew account. Let’s look at the Luke account.
After the Sadducees had given the circumstances of their question they concluded: “Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.” (Luke 20:27-37). Jesus answered the seemingly paradoxical question by saying, “The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.”
Why did Jesus answer by specifying that the “children of this world marry?” He seems to be limiting his answer to only the “children of this world.” He is not answering the question on the basis of his own followers and disciples. They were never called the “children of this world.”
When the Sadducees asked the question they must have assumed that Jesus believed marriage would continue in the resurrection or it would have been foolish for them to have asked the question. Their assumption was correct. Jesus did believe in the eternal nature of the marriage covenant, but only when it was joined by God in an holy ordinance, such as was the case of Adam and Eve. That is why he limited his answer to only those who are “children of this world.” When Jesus prayed for his disciples he said, “ye are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (verse 4).
The difference between the children of this world and the children of light is clearly depicted in the parable of the unjust steward. (Luke 16:1-12).
And the Lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. (verse 8).
The Apostle Paul has also been misunderstood concerning the eternal nature of marriage. In I Corinthians 7:7-9 he is not speaking against the eternal relationship of marriage but of the current necessity for temporary missionary work – see verse 26. It was only this present distress – missionary work – that Paul was concerned about and it applied only to those Corinthians who had asked the question, “is it good for a man not to touch a woman?” (verse 1). He was speaking to those temporarily engaged in missionary work, and the subject had to do with self-control, not the eternal nature of marriage. He taught clearly that the married were not to “defraud one the other” lest Satan tempt them. But during the present distress those who were not married but were engaged in missionary work should not marry.
That is Paul’s only meaning, since he taught very clearly to these same Corinthian Saints, “nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (I Cor. 11:11).
These two principles, baptism for the dead and eternal marriage, are the heart and soul of the temple. These principles are so sacred they are performed in the House of the Lord. To mar and mock these sacred teachings seems to convey a feeling of malevolence toward the Latter-day Saint people. Perhaps it would be better for some to spend more time studying their own histories than to cast stones at others. If Latterday Saints are believed to be in error, it would be better to teach them the truth than to distort their sacred teachings and present them to the public as if they were Satanic. It doesn’t seem to be the Christ-like way.
THE FIRST GODMAKER
As I was viewing the film, my mind went back to the New Testament and the first recorded account of a person accused of being a Godmaker. The person so accused was Jesus of Nazareth. After presenting a beautiful sermon about the “Good Shepherd,” Jesus made the statement, “My Father and I are one.” (John 10:30).
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them:
Many good works have l skewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou being a man, MAKEST THY SELF GOD. (John 70:37-33).
The Jews had accused Jesus of being a godmaker. Jesus’ answer to that question is one all should understand before they condemn the Latter-day Saints.
Jesus answered and said:
Is it not written in your law, I said, YE A RE GODS?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, AND THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, 1 am the Son of God. (John 70:34-36).
Why should the Jews condemn Jesus for being a godmaker, when their own scriptures indicate that those to whom “the word of God came” were “gods,” at least potentially? What people knew the scriptures better than the Jews? If the Psalmist said (and the scripture cannot be broken”) “Ye are gods,” why condemn Jesus for claiming to be the Son of God?
Jesus was quoting the 82nd Psalm. We need tc consider that Psalm in greater detail.
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the GODS.
…I have said, YE ARE GODS; and all of you are children of the Most High. (Psalm 82:7, 6).
The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) reads a little differently. It changes the word “mighty” in the first verse to “gods.” Actually the Hebrew says “gods,” but the construction is a little unusual. The Hebrew word for “God” and “gods” in this reference is “Elohim.” Who are the “gods” that Elohim stands in the midst of and judges among? They are the “children of the Most High.” As children they inherit the potential to become like their Father, Elohim. Unfortunately, as the Psalmist indicates, not all would achieve that lofty goal. They were sons of Elohim in the pre-mortal life, but like all who come to earth tc gain a mortal body, they must be “born again” of the Holy Spirit in order to achieve that status once again in mortality and the life to come.
We meet the sons of God (Elohim) once again in job.
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. (job 1:6; and also in 2:7)
More of these sons of God are found in Genesis 6:2:
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
…when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
These sons of God took unto themselves wives from the daughters of men. The prevalent interpretation that these sons of God were angels (spirits only) does not make sense. How could a spirit being have intercourse with mortal wives and produce mortal children? That is a greater mystery than the L.D.S. are accused of believing.
A son of God, according to scripture, is one who receives Christ:
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. (John 7:72).
But some may say how could one receive Christ in the Old Testament? The standard is set by Jesus. If there are sons of God in the Old Testament it is because they received Jesus. They are sons of God by the same criteria. That they could receive Jesus is not impossible since Moses esteemed “the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt.” (Hebrews 11:26).
The Apostle Paul gives further clarification on the manner by which one becomes a son of God.
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirit, that we are the children of God:
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans 8:74-7 7).
One who is led by the Spirit of God will “receive Christ;” so Paul is not in conflict with Jesus. But Paul makes clear the destiny of a son of God. They are the only ones who can say, Abba, Father, the same words that Jesus spoke when he prayed to his Father that his hour of suffering might pass him by. (Mark 14;36).
Abba is an aramaic term for father, similar to the Hebrew word Ab. It was what children first learned to call their father, quite like our term, daddy. It was a term which slaves were forbidden to use in addressing the head of the family. Only true sons were allowed this expression. (Vines Expository Dictionary of the New Testament Words, p.11).
If the Spirit of God “beareth witness with our spirit that we are children of God,” then we are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. He also cried, “Abba, Father.” This doctrine of heirship is not an isolated doctrine in scripture. Paul again refers to it in Galatians 4:1-7.
Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba. Father.
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Only a son can cry, Abba, Father. As a son, he becomes an “heir of God through Christ.”
Peter says that husbands and wives are “heirs together of the grace of life.” (I Peter 3:7).
The concept of heirship is brought to a culmination by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed HEIR OF ALL THINGS, by whom also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hash BY INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent name than they.
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, l will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, THY THRONE, 0 GOD, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (Hebrews 1:1-8).
Christ, as the “firstbegotten” of the Father is “appointed heir of all things.” As heir to the Father he “obtained a more excellent name” than the angels and they worshipped him. What name did Christ inherit by his birth? The name of his Father – God. The Father commands the angels to worship the son, but to the son, God exclaims, “Thy throne, 0 God, is forever and ever.” Jesus, as heir, is called “God” by his Father and is given a throne and a sceptre. As jointheirs with Christ, sons of God can also inherit a throne and the title “god.” What else would a joint-heir receive?
When Jesus comes again, John tells us, he will have written “on his vesture and on his thigh a name. . . KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.” (Rev. 19:16). Someone must become KING and LORD in order for Christ to be KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. Those who suffered with him were seen on thrones and judgment was given to them and they reigned with Christ a thousand years. These are the KINGS and LORDS.
And I saw THRONES, and THE Y SA T UPON THEM, and Judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and REIGNED with Christ a thousand years. (Rev. 20:4, see also verse 6).
John also says:
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. (Rev. 21:7).
After reigning with God and Christ for a thousand years, will the “sons of God” lose their positions and stagnate? NO! They will be prepared and ready for greater responsibilities. Peter says that their “inheritance” is “incorruptible and undefiled” and “fadeth not away,” but is “reserved in heaven.” (I Peter 1:4).
As sons of God and joint-heirs with Christ, they become “partakers of the divine nature.” (II Peter 1:4). Latter-day Saints need not be overly concerned by the film, The Godmakers. Jesus said that without the Holy Spirit these things would be hard to bear. It is not the responsibility of Latter-day Saints to teach the world the “mysteries of God.” They will come when people are ready, line upon line, and precept upon precept, as they receive the Holy Spirit. It is unfortunate however, that many will be taught about these “mysteries” by those who do not believe and who do not teach line upon line, and precept upon precept.
However, it is the responsibility of Latter-day Saints to teach the world that Jesus is the Christ and that all must repent, believe on him and come into
the waters of baptism and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. “Anything more or less than this” is beyond our stewardship. The meat is only for those who have first had the milk.
In summation. It has been shown that:
(1) Children of the Most High are called gods. Psalms 82:1, 6; John 10:31-36; Deut. 10:17.
(2) Sons of God are led by the Spirit of God and receive Christ. J oh n 1:12; Romans 8:14.
(3) Sons of God (husbands and wives are sons of God) are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. I Peter 3:7; Romans 8:17.
(4) Only sons of God, and Christ, can call the Father, Abba. Mark 14:36; Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6.
(5) Christ, as heir of all things, is called, God. Hebrews 1:1-8.
(6) Sons of God are partakers of the divine nature. II Peter 1:4.
(7) Jesus is KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. Revelation 19:16.
(8) Sons of God will have thrones and will reign with judgment. Revelation 20:4, 6.
Jesus was accused of being the first Godmaker–a valid accusation that he did not deny.
A FINAL WORD
Some may wonder why a point by point rebuttal was not made of the film. Although in most cases that would be the expected approach, in this case it is not the desired way. Those sacred teachings found in Latter-day Saint temples are not to be brought into public debate. They can be taught, but there is a time and a place, just as Jesus was selective and admonished his disciples to be the same.
It is a caution that Mr. Decker and others ought to think about. Anyone who has studied the temple ceremony knows that there is nothing done in the temple except it is uplifting and intended to enhance the participant’s efforts to live a Christ-like life. I have attended the temple many times and the insinuations and innuendoes of Mr. Decker are only imaginative and misleading. Anyone who has seriously studied the principles taught in the temple would never be so flippant and caustic in his discussions and presentations. If “Mormonism” is correct, then the film, The Godmakers, violates explicitly the directions of Jesus. It seems to be a rather foolish and dangerous approach. Jesus had many opportunities to ridicule that which was sacred in Judaism, but he didn’t. He corrected, but never ridiculed.
Now what is the purpose of the temple? Its purpose is threefold:
(1) To give the initiate an endowment – a gift, or spiritual blessing that will help him live a Christ-like I ife.
(2) To teach the higher principles of the gospel pertaining to (a) an understanding of the meaning and purpose of life, (b) the meaning of commitment and covenant, and (c) the straightness and narrowness of the way leading to perfection.
(3) Ordinances pertaining to eternal marriage and family union for the living and for the dead.
To those of you who have labored this far in reading this pamphlet, I leave you my witness that the environment of a L.D.S. temple is most holy and sacred and its affect is only uplifting and spiritual. There are thousands of L.D.S. who can stand in testimony that what is depicted in the film, The Godmakers, is not a valid representation of truth, but is a distortion.