Reviewed by Eric Johnson
On January 12, 2014 at LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University, Tad Callister of the Presidency of the Seventy presented a devotional for young adults. The title of his talk was “What is the Blueprint of Christ’s Church?” It is found on the official LDS website, giving it some level of credence. (Note: In 2015, Callister wrote a 384-page book titled “The Blueprint of Christ’s Church”; the talk and not the book is the focus of this review.) Upon glancing through Callister’s talk, I noticed similarities between it and another list put together anonymously many years before. It was titled “Seventeen Points of the True Church.” According to one LDS website, it
supposedly was compiled by a group of people studying the Bible as students (or servicemen, or whatever), based on the church Jesus established as described in the New Testament. According to the story (of which there are conflicting versions), when these people broke up and went on about their lives (after college, after the war, whatever), each of them searched diligently among the various religions for the “true church” according to the list of points. Many years later, they all discovered that each of them had independently found… Guess! Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! Oh, isn’t that a heart-warming testimonial? Source
After providing introductory comments in his 2014 talk, Callister cites D&C 1:30 and explains why he believes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the most correct church on earth:
In the first section of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord makes this bold and significant statement: “[This is] the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30). What does this mean? It does not mean that other churches do not have some truth, for certainly they do. It does not mean that other churches do not render good, for they render much good. What it does mean is that this is the only church that has all the truth that has been revealed thus far in this dispensation—the only church that has the ordinances necessary for exaltation and the only church that has the priesthood of God to perform those ordinances with divine validity.
Callister provided an illustration to show the similarity between the blueprints he had for his home and the blueprints he believes were put together for Christ’s church. He explained:
Some years ago my wife and I needed a bigger home for our growing family, so we found a lot on which to build. We spent some time working on a blueprint that would best accommodate the needs of our family. My wife designed a folding door between our family room and living room that could open up for large family and youth activities. With some extra space over the garage, we designed a room where our children could engage in wholesome activities. A small room was built behind the garage to allow for food and other storage. These and other design elements were incorporated into a blueprint. The home was then built pursuant to these plans.
As the home was being constructed, we occasionally submitted to the builder a change order that revised the blueprint. When the home was finally completed, it was in exact conformity with our blueprint as revised from time to time. If you took our blueprint and matched it against every home in the world, how many homes would it perfectly match? Only one—our home. Oh, there might be an occasional resemblance here and there—a room the same size, some similar windows—but foundation for foundation, room for room, and roofline for roofline, there would only be one home that perfectly matched the blueprint—our home.
17 Points and “What is the Blueprint of Christ’s Church”: A Comparison and Review
With this as his main focus, Callister provides reasons very similar to what we previously given in “17 points.” This article will take a look at the original 17 points (underlined and numbered in the original order), with Callister’s similar point(s) in bold, and my comment in regular type.
Christ organized the Church (Eph 4:11-14)
The true church must claim divine authority (Heb 5:4-10)
In a similar way Christ built a home to best accommodate the spiritual needs of His children. It was called His Church. The spiritual blueprint for this Church can be found in the New Testament. Occasionally the Savior made a “change order” to the blueprint. Such a change order came in the form of a revelation. For example, the Savior initially commanded His Apostles to preach the gospel to the house of Israel but not to the Gentiles (see Matthew 10:5–6). After the Savior’s Ascension, however, He gave Peter a spiritual change order—a revelation by way of a vision—that the gospel should now be taught also to the Gentiles (see Acts 10). This experience of Peter taught at least two important governance principles in Christ’s Church: one, the blueprint could be changed, but only by revelation from Christ, and second, such revelation would come to the prophet who was God’s spokesman on earth. In other words, God’s Church would be governed by divine revelation and by order.
If one desired to discover Christ’s Church today, he would want to match the spiritual blueprint found in the New Testament against every Christian church in the world until he discovered a church that matched the blueprint—organization for organization, teaching for teaching, ordinance for ordinance, fruit for fruit, and revelation for revelation. In doing so, he might find some churches that had some similarities—a teaching or two that overlapped, an ordinance that is the same, some offices that bear common names—but he will only find one church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that matches the blueprint in every material respect.
Callister claims that this is a Church organized by Jesus and contains “divine authority.” If, however, it can be shown that its teachings are contrary to what the Bible teaches, then it must be understood that this organization has no authority and therefore has no claim to speak on behalf of God. Callister then said,
Now I would like to put that assertion to the test. Let us turn to the first page of the blueprint and discover what was the “Organization” of Christ’s Church as revealed therein.
The true church must have a foundation of Apostles and Prophets (Eph 2:19-20)
First, Christ’s Church was founded on apostles and prophets. When Paul was writing to some new members of the Church, he said that they were now “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20; italics added).
The Bible likens the Christian church to a building (1 Cor. 3:9), with verses 10-11 adding,
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Notice, Paul was talking about himself as the “wise masterbuilder” who “laid” and “built” on the “foundation.” In Ephesians, he talks about how the building’s foundation is made up of “apostles and prophets,” with Christ being the chief cornerstone. The apostles and prophets referenced were made up of men from that New Testament time as described in Acts. Nowhere does this verse infer that there would be later prophets and apostles who would be part of the same foundation.
If prophets and apostles are necessary for today, then how can it be determined that the LDS apostles and prophets are the correct ones? The Mormon can assume this is the case, but there are many in the world today calling themselves “apostles” and “prophets”–from Warren Jeffs, who remains the head of the FLDS church to Pentecostal leaders who also claim to have this authority. Unless we have a constitution, a main source from which we can gather truth, it all becomes very difficult to comprehend. If the Bible is God’s Word, though, then truth can be determined.The Mormon Church has no claim to authority just because it happens to have offices called “prophets” and “apostles.”
For more on this topic, check out Is it wise to place blind trust in mere men? and True and False Prophets. Another article to consider is church organization. http://www.mrm.org/church-organization
The Apostles understood the imperative need to keep the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles intact. When one Apostle, such as Judas, died and a portion of the foundation was “chipped away,” the other 11 Apostles gathered together and chose a successor so that the foundation would be whole again (see Acts 1:22–25).
If keeping the office of apostle intact was so important, then why did the apostles never assign another replacement after that first chapter in Acts? Were they in sin for allowing all the apostles to die off without replacing them? Such an idea would make these men culpable and anything they taught ought to be treated with suspicion. For more, let me just refer you to another article I did on this very issue. Click here.
This pattern evidenced the importance of maintaining a quorum of twelve Apostles. So important were these Apostles to the well-being of the Church that Paul declared how long we needed them: “Till we all come in the unity of the faith” (Ephesians 4:13). And then he explained why: So we would not be “carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14). Accordingly, the Apostles were critical to keeping the doctrine pure.
Yes, I agree the biblical apostles kept “the doctrine pure” through their oversight. Had there been people espousing the current teachings of Mormonism running around in those days, these apostles would have certainly pointed out the heresy of their teachings!
Suppose for a moment I were to tell a story to someone on one end of the row in front of me, and then he were to share it with the person next to him, and so on until it were to work its way down the rows to the end of the section. What would happen to that story? It would change. It always changes; that is human nature. So it was with the doctrine taught by the Apostles as they went out to the various towns and villages. As the doctrine went from one person to another, it started to change. As long as the Apostles were available, they could correct the doctrine by way of epistles or personal sermons. But when the Apostles were gone, there was no longer any check-and-balance system, no longer any correcting hand, and soon the doctrines became distorted or lost.
The Telephone Game idea is popularly used to show how biblical doctrine was changed over the years. In this party game, one player whispers a sentence to a second player, who communicates with a third, and so on. Once the message has gone through five, six, or even seven players, the last person writes the message down, which is then compared to the original. The game is entertaining when all the errors are discovered. Some skeptics ask, “Isn’t this how the Bible and its message was convoluted over the years?”
Actually, no, this is a terrible illustration. This is because there would be nothing at stake with the players of a telephone game. The goal is to make mistakes; the more ridiculous the message, the more fun the game. When it comes to transmitting the message of the Bible, the players had much more at stake. They did their best to avoid any mistakes. Scholars go to painstaking measures to understand what the original text actually said. We can go backwards and forwards to ascertain this message. As someone has said, “If you use an important, familiar message, allow for caution and repetition in passing it along, and permit players to double back, or write it down, you defeat the purpose of the party game.”
Thus, the players would not just be satisfied with the latest outcome and be satisfied. Rather, investigation is done to find out what the original said. The New Testament has more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts and more than 24,000 other manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls help us see that the Old Testament is accurate as well, as the earliest copies in existence go back to the Masoretic text from around AD 900; there is even access to a complete scroll of Isaiah dating to 125 BC, a millenium earlier than any texts we had before 1947! (Find out more about the Dead Sea Scrolls here.) To discover what the autograph (another way to say “original”) said, we can compare the earliest and (deemed) most accurate manuscripts that are out there. If the later manuscripts don’t match up or its source is not considered prime, guess which gets eliminated?
While the Bible is often criticized by Latter-day Saints, BYU professor Lloyd Anderson gave more credence to the historicity of the Bible than most Bible scholars! In 1963 he said,
One can disagree with the textual assumptions behind some of the modern translations of the New Testament and still not be overly concerned with differences that are immaterial. For a book to undergo progressive uncovering of its manuscript history and come out with so little debatable in its text is a great tribute to its essential authenticity. First, no new manuscript discovery has produced serious differences in the essential story. This survey has disclosed the leading textual controversies, and together they would be well within one percent of the text. Stated differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99 percent of all the verses in the New Testament. The second great fact that such a survey demonstrates is the progress that has placed the world in possession of manuscripts very near to the time of their writing. One would have to be a student of ancient history to appreciate how much superior the New Testament is to any other any book in its manuscript tradition ( “Manuscript Discoveries of the New Testament in Perspective,” Papers of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on the Archaeology of the Scriptures, Presented April 13, 1963, pp. 57-58).
There is no evidence that “plain and precious truths” were ever eliminated from the Bible, though this is the claim that is made. Latter-day Saints such as Callister want to shed doubt on the message that has been passed down to humanity through the writings of the apostles, but have these nay-sayers ever thought about how their flawed presupposition harms their persepctive on the Bible? After all, if doctrines “went from one to another,” as Callister maintains, how would it be possible to trust pet LDS passages such as Ephesians 2:20 (used above), 1 Corinthians 15:29 (baptism for the dead), or James 1:5 (praying about which church is true)? This seems to cause more problems than the Latter-day Saint will admit.
Finally, if we can’t trust the Bible, why should we be able to trust the Joseph Smith Translation? Check out these articles:
The Joseph Smith Translation
The Joseph Smith Translation: An Improvement over the Original? Or Much Ado about Nothing?
Why Isn’t the Joseph Smith Translation (Inspired Version) of the Bible used today?
The Joseph Smith Translation: Inspired by whom?
The true church must have the same organization as Christ’s Church (Eph 4:11-14)
The blueprint of the New Testament reveals other officers that constituted part of the organization of Christ’s Church: bishops (see 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1:7); elders (see Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5); deacons (see Philippians 1:1); evangelists (see Ephesians 4:11), meaning patriarchs; and pastors (see Ephesians 4:11), meaning such men as bishops and stake presidents who preside over a flock.
The sixth article of faith of the Church makes reference to this blueprint: “We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth” (Articles of Faith 1:6; italics added). In other words, we believe the current Church of Jesus Christ should have the same organization as existed in Christ’s original Church, subject only to revelatory changes. Therefore, each of these offices is present in our Church today.
I find this pick-and-choose method to be quite convenient. Let me explain why:
Elders and deacons: According to Titus 1:5-6, Paul ordained “elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.” In Mormonism, there is the office of “elder.” Every male who holds the priesthood has this office, beginning at the age of 18. If this is supposed to somehow be aligned with the Mormon missionaries (who go out to the field as early as 18), then why are the vast majority of the missionaries out on the field not married, let alone without children? And 12-year-olds can be “deacons” in the Mormon Church. According to the LDS.org website, deacons are supposed to:
Follow counsel, set a good example, and may (1) pass the sacrament, (2) collect fast offerings, (3) care for the poor and needy, (4) be a standing minister appointed to ‘watch over the church’ (Doctrine and Covenants 84:111), (5) assist the bishopric, (6) serve as a messenger, (7) participate in quorum instruction, (8) serve in quorum leadership positions, (9) fellowship quorum members and other young men, (10) be baptized and confirmed for the dead, (11) speak in meetings, (12) share the gospel, (13) bear testimony, and (14) care for the meetinghouse and grounds. (from Offices and Duties of the Aaronic Priesthood at www.lds.org)
This position is certainly for young men who are at least 12 years of age; those past high school age do not participate in the functions listed above. Yet 1 Timothy 3:11-12 instructs the wives of deacons to be “grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Why are instructions given to deacons and elders regarding their wives? It is obviously because the biblical teaching was referring to men much older than what the offices entail in Mormonism. So how is this proof that Mormonism’s elders and deacons are what were intended in biblical times?
Another office mentioned by Callister is “evangelists (see Ephesians 4:11), meaning patriarchs.” Wait a minute, if the office was called “evangelist” in biblical times, why did the church find a need to change this to “patriarch”? And when was the last time a “patriarch” stepped off a bicycle and knocked on your door to share his faith with you? Honestly, I have never encountered a “patriarch” who attempted to share his faith with me, whether at my home or on the street. The description of the Mormon “elder” seems to be more in line with this office than “patriarch.”
Callister does the same thing when he refers to “pastors (see Ephesians 4:11), meaning such men as bishops and stake presidents who preside over a flock.” Again, if the name given by the apostles of old was “pastors,” why is the LDS Church allowed to say this refers to bishops (a completely different office he already mentioned) and stake presidents? The point that the LDS offices are supposed to be the same as the biblical offices of old is without warrant. “Each of these offices is (not) present in (the LDS) church today.”
How were Christ’s Apostles and other officers chosen? Did the Savior go to the finest theological schools of the time and select the highest-ranking students? He did not. Instead, the blueprint tells us that He chose Peter, a fisherman, and Matthew, a tax collector, and later Paul, a tentmaker. Each was chosen from the rank and file—in essence, it was a lay ministry. Today the Church has a quorum of twelve Apostles who are likewise chosen from the rank and file of the Church. One may be a teacher, another an engineer, another an attorney, and so on.
I’m not sure of the point that Callister is making. Is he possibly suggesting that those who are professionally trained in biblical studies and theology are not as qualified as those from regular occupations? What a silly thing to say? If Callister wants to make his point complete, he ought to point out how the LDS leadership is made up entirely of white-collar workers? Fishermen and tentmakers are blue collar! When will the LDS Church nominate its first plumber or sanitation worker to the Brethren? In addition, Paul may have been a tentmaker, but he was no slough theologically. In Acts 22:3, Paul explained how he was theologically taught by one of the top rabbis of his day:
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God . . .
The officers must be called by God (Heb 4:4; Ex 28:1; 40:13-16)
Did Christ’s Apostles and other officers make application for the ministry? They did not. The blueprint tells us how Christ selected His officers: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you” (John 15:16; italics added). When Christ ordained His Apostles, what did He give them? Matthew and Luke record the answer: “He gave them power” (Matthew 10:1; see also Luke 9:1)—the priesthood power to act in His name and to do His work. That is why the blueprint tells us “the Son of man … gave authority to his servants” (Mark 13:34). Why? So they could act in His name with His endorsement. Every man who holds the priesthood of God in this Church today can trace his priesthood authority back to Jesus Christ, the source of all authority and power, so that he, likewise, is entitled to Christ’s endorsement—His stamp of approval—as is required by the blueprint.
According to Mormonism, the priesthood claimed by the male membership plays an important role in providing authority. We must accept the assumption that Mormonism indeed has restored the priesthood authority supposedly lost after the death of the apostles. This is not a given. In fact, the verses used by Callister from the Gospels never once infers that the authority Jesus game to the apostles included the “priesthood.” Callister and the Mormon position needs to assume this!
Besides, Callister offers nothing more than circular reasoning. The argument goes like this:
Christ’s church must be led by men called by God.
The apostles received authority (power) from Christ
In the same way, the male members of the LDS Church receive power through the (assumed) priesthood that goes back to Christ
The leaders of the church hold this priesthood and have a direct connection to this power
Therefore, only the leaders of the Mormon Church have direct authority and power of God to lead God’s people.
Callister makes an error in thinking that the Christian church needs humans to lead them. The Book of Hebrews says very clearly that it is Jesus who hold the office of Prophet. After all, Hebrews 1:1-2 says,
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake 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;
While I agree with the second premise, the third and fourth premises require the LDS priesthood—as taught in Mormonism—to be true. I reject the LDS priesthood and don’t believe John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John ever came out of heaven in 1829 to give authority to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. If that’s the case, then the while Mormon assumption falls apart and, indeed, this church has no authority whatsoever.
Here are some articles to consider regarding this topic:
Is the Mormon Priesthood really of ancient origin?
LDS Church goes into defensive mode with women and the priesthood
Priesthood: Restored or Retrofit
Jesus’ Unique Priesthood
The Holy Priesthood
What do Christians and Mormons say about Priesthood Powers
A Royal Priesthood (Blog)
The true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ (Eph 5:23)
What was the name of the church organized by Christ? If we are baptized in the name of Christ, if we pray in the name of Christ, if we are saved in the name of Christ, and if He is the founder and chief cornerstone of His Church, what would you expect the name of His Church to be? The Church of Jesus Christ. The Savior, when speaking to the people in Book of Mormon times, taught the underlying rationale as to why the Church needed to bear His name: “And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel” (3 Nephi 27:8; italics added).
It is for this reason that Paul reprimanded some of the early members of the Church—because they called themselves after certain disciples rather than after the name of Christ. Accordingly, Paul wrote:
“Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:12–13).
In other words, we do not take upon us any other name than Jesus Christ. Accordingly, the blueprint teaches us that Christ’s Church should bear His name. It has always seemed miraculous to me that the Reformation had been in existence for over 300 years before the time of Joseph Smith and no one thought to name his church after Jesus Christ. Of course, since the time of Joseph Smith, others have followed suit, but in some marvelous way the Lord preserved the use of His name until the time of Joseph Smith and the Restoration of Christ’s Church.
To me, this is a very silly argument. Is having a church’s name with Jesus in its title somehow authoritative. If we are to use the rule found in Third Nephi 27, are we then to assume that the church the apostle Paul addresses in 1 Thessalonian 1:1 was in a state of apostasy? After all, Paul refers to it as “the church of the Thessalonians”! Consider also that Paul refers to the body of believers in Corinth as “the church of God which is at Corinth” (See 1 Corinthians 1:2).
Another point is that the LDS Church’s title has not always had Christ’s name since its foundation on April 6, 1830. The Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants 20:1 reports that the original name of the church was the “Church of Christ.” In 1834, the name was changed to “The Church of Latter-day Saints” (History of the Church 2:63). This took place at a priesthood conference at which Joseph Smith was present. The vote was unanimous. Note that the name of Christ was completely omitted. This was the church’s official title until April 26, 1838 when it was changed again to its current name.
According to former LDS Apostle LeGrand Richards, a millennium and a half of the “complete apostasy” of Christianity necessitated a name change. Richards said that “the designation ‘Latter-day Saints’ was given to differentiate between the members of the church of Jesus Christ in this dispensation and those of the church established by Jesus in the meridian of time” (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, pg. 130).
Richard Lloyd Anderson, a professor of religion and history at Brigham Young University, attempted to explain the 1834 change. He says, “This alteration was not seen as a deemphasis of Christ; on the contrary, it was done in hopes that the name of the Church would more clearly reflect the fact that Christ was at its head” (A Sure Foundation, p. 195). How dropping the name of Christ in order to “reflect the fact that Christ was at its head” seems confusing at best.
For more on this issue, go to http://www.mrm.org/name-of-gods-church
The true church must teach that God and Jesus have bodies of flesh and bone (Luke 23:36-39; Acts 1:9-11; Heb 1:1-3)
Now, let us turn to the second page of the blueprint. What were the “Teachings” of Christ’s Church? Let us examine a few:
Is God solely a spirit, or does He also have a body of flesh and bones? What does the blueprint teach?
After Christ’s Resurrection, He appeared to His disciples, who mistakenly thought He was a spirit (see Luke 24:37). To correct their misimpression, He said, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:39; italics added).
To eliminate any doubt about the corporeal nature of His resurrected body, He inquired of His disciples, “Have ye here any meat?” (Luke 24:41). Then the scriptures record: “And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them” (Luke 24:42–43).
With that glorified, resurrected body of flesh and bones, Christ ascended into heaven (see Acts 1:9), where He sits on the right hand of God the Father and is, as the scriptures declare, in “the express image of his person” (Hebrews 1:3). This is the exact truth taught by Joseph Smith as part of the Restoration of Christ’s Church: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also” (D&C 130:22).
Callister swings and misses this point in a very big way. Notice his question: “Is God solely a spirit, or does He also have a body of flesh and bones.” Then he brings up evidence that Jesus had a body. Of this, Christians don’t degree. What we disagree with is what D&C 130:22 says: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” It’s the only verse he cites to support the idea that God the Father has a body. Yes, Jesus is God, but He is not the Father. Therefore, just because Jesus had a body does not mean that the Father did as well. Callister has a severe misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. To learn more about this essential Christian belief, go here: http://www.mrm.org/trinity-index
Read more on the Godhead by clicking here. http://www.mrm.org/nature-of-god
The true church must teach that God and Jesus are seperate and distinct individuals (John 17:11; 20:17)
Are God and Jesus the same Being, as taught by much of the Christian world, or two separate Beings? What does the blueprint say?
The number of references in the Bible to the separate identity and separate roles of the Father and Son is staggering. In the Garden of Gethsemane, recognizing the excruciating pain that was yet to be His, the Savior declared, “Not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). This is the grandest act of submission the world has ever known. But what submission would there have been if there was no other Being to whom He could submit—if He and the Father were one and the same Being? Why does the Savior pray to the Father or cry out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). How could He be forsaken if there was no separate Being to forsake Him? How did Stephen see Jesus standing on the right hand of God if They are not two persons (see Acts 7:55–56)?
When Joseph Smith emerged from the grove of trees, he had learned for himself the truth. He had seen God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, standing side by side; he had heard the Father refer to the other as His “Beloved Son” (Joseph Smith—History 1:17). On that glorious day the heavens shattered the man-made myths of the past about the nature of God and revealed and confirmed the simple truth as originally taught in the blueprint: that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, have a oneness of goals and will but a separateness of identity.
The ignorance of the Christian teaching of God and the Trinity is appalling for someone of Callister’s position. (He’s a General Authority—a Seventy, to be specific—right?) Again, Christianity does not teach that God the Father and Jesus are the same “individual” but different Persons. Please, Latter-day Saint, please get an accurate understanding about what Christianity teaches on the Trinity. There are a dozen article located here that will help provide an accurate view. http://www.mrm.org/trinity-index
The true church must practice baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:16&29)
What does the blueprint say about those who never had a fair chance to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ while on the earth? Are they damned? Are we without revealed knowledge as to their spiritual condition? This is a monumental question affecting billions of lives. Certainly God has spoken on this point. And in truth, He has. The blueprint contains the answer. Peter wrote, “For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit” (1 Peter 4:6). This doctrine was lost in the Apostasy following the death of Christ’s Apostles, but it was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Was baptism for the dead an ordinance in Christ’s original Church? It was. The members of the Church in Corinth were participating in an ordinance known as baptism for the dead. These people, however, doubted the reality of the Resurrection. Sensing the inconsistency of what they were doing as compared to what they believed, Paul used their participation in the correct ordinance of baptism for the dead to prove the correct doctrine of the Resurrection: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1 Corinthians 15:29).
For a look at 1 Corinthians and 1 Peter, I highly recommend reading Is Baptism for the Dead a Biblical Doctrine? This comes from a chapter out of Answering Mormons’ Questions. http://www.mrm.org/baptism-dead
Are there three heavens or one heaven? For years the Christian world has taught there is one heaven and one hell, but what does the original blueprint teach?
Paul taught, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars” (1 Corinthians 15:41). Paul subsequently confirmed the truth of this three-tiered heaven when he recounted the vision of a man “caught up to the third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2). Could there be a third heaven if there was no second or first heaven? Again, this doctrine restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith is in exact accord with the original blueprint.
While this is not one of the “17 Points of the True Church,” it remains a weak argument. (I wonder why the author of 17 Points didn’t consider this worthy to put into his/her list!) While Paul certainly referred to a “third heaven” in 2 Corinthians 12:2, there is no reason to believe he was referring to one of three distinct eternal destinations of mankind. To properly interpret Scripture, the context of a passage must be grasped, including what the listeners of Paul’s day would have understood it to mean. It is likely they would have interpreted Paul’s three heavens as the atmospheric heaven, the celestial heaven, and the believer’s heaven. Scripture supports this assertion.
For example, Deuteronomy 11:11 refers to the atmospheric heaven, where rain and clouds are formed: “But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven.” Psalm 147:8 likewise describes God as He “who covereth the heaven with clouds, who prepareth rain for the earth, who maketh grass to grow upon the mountains.” Matthew 24:30 tells about Christ’s return through this heaven: “And they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” Genesis 1:14 speaks of the celestial heaven, the abode of the sun, moon, and stars: “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.”
Finally, there is the heaven the Bible calls the “dwelling place” of God, which is referenced many times in the Old Testament. Isaiah 63:15 says, “Look down from heaven, and behold from the habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory: where is thy zeal and thy strength, the sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies toward me? are they restrained?” Psalm 102:19 says, “For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the Lord behold the earth.” And 2 Kings 2:11 says it was into this heaven that “Elijah went up by a whirlwind.”
New Testament commentator Philip E. Hughes agrees with the above assessment, writing,
The probability is that Paul had in mind the conception of the heavens as threefold. Thus [Johann Albrecht] Bengel explains that the first heaven was that of the clouds, that is, of the earth’s atmosphere, the second that of the stars (cf. the appearance of “the lights in the firmament of heaven” on the fourth day of creation, Gen 1:14), and the third a heaven which is spiritual. (Hughes, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 433).
Another passage Mormons use to support their view is John 14:2. Here Jesus says, “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.” Quoting this verse and then referring to revelations given to Mormonism’s founder Joseph Smith, Area Authority B. Renato Maldonado said,
The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that “mansions” may be understood to mean “kingdoms”—those kingdoms in which we will dwell in the life after this. . . . The Lord has said that we will be blessed and will live in a degree of glory in the next life according to the eternal laws we obey in mortality. (“The Three Degrees of Glory, Ensign, April 2005, p. 62).
A simple reading of chapters 13 and 14 of John can help the reader understand what Jesus meant. The Savior had just washed the disciples’ feet (13:1–17) and foretold His betrayal (vv. 18–30). He then told Peter he was going to deny his Lord three times (13:31–14:4). Thomas asked Jesus how His followers could know the way to truth (14:5–7), and Philip asked Jesus to show them the Father (vv. 8–14). In light of this context, John 14:2 describes the encouragement Jesus was giving to Peter and the others as He promised His friends He would not abandon them, even after His death. In John 14:2, the Greek word rendered “mansions” by the seventeenth-century King James Version translators might suggest that there are separate locations, or levels, involved. However, the word is better translated “rooms,” as it is used in modern versions such as the New International Version and the English Standard Version. Christian commentator Merrill C. Tenney writes,
The imagery of a dwelling place (“rooms”) is taken from the oriental house in which the sons and daughters have apartments under the same roof as their parents. (“John,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 9:143).
“Dwelling places” (“rooms”) is a very different concept from what is offered by LDS leaders, who insist that humans who achieve godhood will rule their own worlds, just as they believe Elohim, or Heavenly Father, rules this one. In the words of Jesus and Paul, there is no implication at all that there are three degrees of heavenly glory. The interpretation of three levels of heaven as separate eternal destinations has been forced upon biblical passages that were never intended to support such an idea.
Does marriage continue for eternity or end at death? What does the blueprint say? In accordance with the power given to the Apostles that whatsoever they should bind on earth should be bound in heaven (see Matthew 18:18), Paul declared, “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:11), meaning that the ideal is for the man and woman to be bound together forever in God’s presence. Peter confirmed this truth. Referring to husbands and wives, he stated that they should be “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7)—not individually, but jointly walking the path as inheritors of eternal life. That is the doctrine taught in the blueprint, and that is the doctrine taught in Christ’s Church today.
Two articles that you might want to consider in response:
Celestial Marriage and Eternal Exaltation
The Family and Being Together Forever http://www.mrm.org/together-forever
Can Families Really Be Together Forever? http://www.mrm.org/be-together-forever
The true church must baptize by immersion (Matt 3:13-16)
The third page of the blueprint reads, “Ordinances in Christ’s Church.” The blueprint is very specific in this regard. For example, do we bless or baptize infants and little children? What does the blueprint teach?
The Savior gave the clear example for us. Speaking of little children, the scriptures read, “And he [Jesus] took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them” (Mark 10:16; italics added). Matthew confirmed, as to little children, the Savior “laid his hands on them” (Matthew 19:15). The blueprint teaches that infants and little children are blessed, not baptized. In fact, there is not one account of an infant baptism occurring anywhere in the entire New Testament. Why? Because it was not an ordinance in Christ’s Church. Someone looking for Christ’s Church today would look for a church that blesses infants, not baptizes them.
Is baptism essential for salvation? What does the blueprint teach?
After Christ set the example by being baptized, He declared in unequivocal terms, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5; italics added). Peter taught similarly, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38; italics added). What is taught in the blueprint is exactly what is taught in Christ’s Church today.
Is baptism to be done by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion? The blueprint gives at least four evidences that baptism is to be done by immersion:
First, the Savior, our great Exemplar, came up “straightway out of the water” (Matthew 3:16), indicating He must have first gone down into the water.
Second, John the Baptist “was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there” (John 3:23; italics added). Why would he travel to a place of “much water” if sprinkling or pouring were accepted modes of baptism?
Third, Paul tells us that baptism is symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see Romans 6:3–5). As the new convert stands in the waters of baptism, he represents the old man about to die. As he is immersed in the water, his sins are “buried” and forgiven by the symbolic cleansing power of the water. Then, as he rises from the water, he stands as a representative of the new or resurrected man in Jesus Christ. All of that symbolism underlying baptism is consistent with baptism by immersion, but it is lost—totally lost—with sprinkling and pouring.
And fourth, the Greek word from which baptism is translated means to dip or plunge in the water.
Will Durrant, a noted world historian, knew what the blueprint revealed and thus observed, “By the ninth century the early Christian method of baptism by total immersion had been gradually replaced by … sprinkling—as less dangerous to health in northern climes.” It should be no surprise that Joseph Smith received a revelation on the manner in which baptism is to be performed that is perfectly consistent with Christ’s blueprint (see D&C 20:73–74).
Once someone crosses the doctrinal bridge and acknowledges that baptism is essential for salvation (which it is), then logically he is led to believe in baptism for the dead—there is no escaping it. Otherwise, how does one answer the difficult question “What about those who died without the opportunity to be baptized?” Those confronted with this question have four possible options from which to choose:
First, men and women who have not been baptized will be damned and go to hell. Such an answer, however, is inconsistent with the scriptural truths that “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34) and that God desires “all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4).
Second, perhaps God did not really mean what He said—perhaps baptism is not really essential for salvation. But this is unrealistic because God always means what He says: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself” (D&C 1:38; see also Mosiah 2:24).
Third, some believe that a new condition called “baptism by desire” may be substituted for baptism by water. In other words, if someone desires to follow Jesus but did not have the opportunity to be baptized in mortality, then his worthy desire becomes an acceptable substitute in lieu of water baptism. The problem with this option is that it has no scriptural support. The scripture does not say, “Except a man be born of desire,” but rather, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5; italics added).
The fourth option is that God really meant what He said when He commanded all men to be baptized, and because of this He mercifully provided a way for all men to be baptized even if no opportunity arose in mortal life. That is baptism for the dead. That is the option consistent with the blueprint.
A common passage used to support the view of baptismal regeneration (the necessity to be baptized in order to be saved) is Acts 2:38. It reads, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” The disagreement between Christian and LDS theology stems from the use of the word for in this verse. Those who accept baptismal regeneration argue that this means baptism grants remission of sins. However, the Bible emphasizes that it is the blood of Christ that cleanses a person from sin, not the water of baptism. For example, Colossians 1:14 says, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” First John 1:7 adds, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”
Because the meaning of a word is tied to its context, it can readily be seen how the Greek word translated “for” (eis) in Acts 2:38 cannot mean “in order to obtain” but rather “in view of” or “because of.” The usage indicates “the ground or reason for the action. It answers the question, Why?” (Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, p. 60). Consider a similar usage found in Matthew 12:41: “The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at [eis] the preaching of Jonas [Jonah].” Are we to assume that the people in Nineveh repented in order to obtain the preaching of Jonah? Or was their repentance in view of, or because of, Jonah’s preaching? The latter interpretation makes more sense.
Explaining Acts 2:38, Christian commentator Richard N. Longenecker writes,
In trying to deal with the various elements in this passage, some interpreters have stressed the command to be baptized so as to link the forgiveness of sins exclusively with baptism. But it runs contrary to all biblical religion to assume that outward rites have any value apart from true repentance and an inward change. (“Acts,” in Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 9:283-284). Following his sermon in Acts 2, Peter stated in Acts 3:19, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” No mention of baptism is made here. Longenecker noted, “This shows that for Luke at least, and probably also for Peter, while baptism with water was the expected symbol for conversion, it was not an indispensable criterion for salvation.” (Ibid, p. 284)
Christian theologian G. R. Beasley-Murray explained, “At the close of his address on the same day, Peter calls for his hearers to repent and be baptized, with a view to receiving forgiveness and the Spirit.” (Baptism in the New Testament, p. 105). The act of baptism is not something that saves a person but is an action that comes out of belief. Beasley-Murray wrote, “Baptism is an overt, public act that expresses inward decision and intent; since it is performed in the open, and not in secret, it becomes by its nature a confession of a faith and allegiance embraced.”(Ibid, p. 101).
Another biblical passage that should be considered is Acts 16:30–31, where the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas what he had to do in order to be saved. They told the jailor simply, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (v. 31). Paul and Silas eventually explained the “word of the Lord” to the jailor and “all that were in his house.” As a result of their saving faith, they were baptized (vv. 32–33).
Consider Acts 10:44–48 as well. Here, Peter delivered the gospel of truth to the Gentiles, and before anyone from his audience was baptized in water, the “Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” (v. 44 esv). Believing Jews who witnessed this event “were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles” (v. 45 esv). As a result, Peter asked the crowd, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (v. 47 esv). Peter obviously recognized the Spirit’s coming upon them as God’s confirmation that the Gentiles were a part of the church, just as the Jewish believers were part of the church.
It would be strange indeed for the Holy Spirit to fall on these Gentiles if they were not already believers. But as previously stated, it is not baptism but faith alone that justifies a person before God. Mormons might argue that if this is the case, they too are qualified for salvation since they also “have faith.” There is a difference, however. The Christian’s faith is based on the fact that Jesus’ sacrifice paid the entire debt of sin. Nothing more can be added to a debt that has been paid in full. Mormon leaders have argued that Christ’s sacrifice was not all-sufficient. As James Faust, a member of the First Presidency, stated, “All of us have sinned and need to repent to fully pay our part of the debt. When we sincerely repent, the Savior’s magnificent Atonement pays the rest of that debt.”(“The Atonement: Our Greatest Hope,” Ensign, November 2001, p. 18)
For more on this topic, go to Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith, Chapter 13: Baptism and Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, Chapter 2: Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost
The true church must bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17)
What does the blueprint say about the manner in which the gift—not the temporary presence, but the permanent gift—of the Holy Ghost is given after someone is baptized? Does it automatically descend upon someone following his baptism? Does it come like the rushing of the wind, or is there some divine ordinance, some divine procedure that must be followed to receive this gift? The blueprint gives the answer.
After Philip baptized some new converts in Samaria, Peter and John arrived. The scriptures then reveal the manner in which that ordinance is to be performed: “Then [Peter and John] laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:17; italics added).
This same procedure was followed after Paul baptized new converts in Ephesus:
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them” (Acts 19:5–6; italics added).
Once again the blueprint and Christ’s restored Church are in perfect harmony.
While there is nothing wrong with “laying on of hands,” this certainly did not occur every time when the Holy Ghost was commissioned. Look at Acts 2, for instance, the very same passed used by Callister earlier to support the requirement for baptism. Where does it say that the apostles laid their hands on the new converts? Or Acts 10 when the Gentiles became believers? There is nothing wrong with the laying of hands, but if it’s somebody who is teaching wrong doctrine, then there is no power with such a gesture.
“By their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matt 7:20)
The next page of the blueprint might read: “Fruits of Christ’s Church.” The Savior gave this test for truth: “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). What were the fruits of Christ’s Church as evidenced in the blueprint?
One, those early Saints strove to be a healthy people. Paul taught that our physical bodies are “temples” that house our spirits and, therefore, are to be treated as holy: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16; see also 1 Corinthians 6:19). Because of this, the members of Christ’s Church had certain health laws they obeyed, such as certain restrictions on drinking wine, found in Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 3. In accordance with this divine law of treating our bodies like temples, Joseph Smith received a health law from the Lord for the members of Christ’s restored Church, known as the Word of Wisdom. As a result of living this health law, repeated studies have confirmed that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are among the healthiest people in the world. This is one of the fruits of living Christ’s health law.
First of all, 1 Corinthians 3:16 is talking about the collective church body as the temple, not an individual body. Callister makes a common error by not considering the verse in its context.
As far as “drinking wine,” does Callister forget that the very first miracle that Jesus did was turning water into wine (see John 2). Mormons can make the argument that the wine was weaker than the wine we use today, but this cannot be proven. Obviously wine still played a role in people getting drunk, meaning it had alcohol content. For example, when the Christians at Pentecost were accused of being drunk on wine, Peter objected. Acts 2 says,
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. 14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
Meanwhile, Ephesians 5:18 says not to get drunk on wine. Therefore, if wine had enough alcohol content to make people drunk, and if Jesus turned water into wine, then it must be good. First Timothy 4:4 says, “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.” The Bible does not say to abstain from wine but to abstain from getting drunk on wine. The same principle can be made with money. Is money the root of all evil? No, it’s the love of money that is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10). There is a huge difference!
As far as the Word of Wisdom, consider chapter 14 in our book Mormonism 101. Also consider the following review to chapter 19 of the George Albert Smith manual http://www.mrm.org/george-albert-smith-manual-19
The true church must practice divine healing (Mark 3:14-15)
A second fruit of Christ’s Church was its miracles and gifts of the Spirit. They are recorded on page after page in the New Testament. They were an evidence that the power of God existed in Christ’s Church (see Hebrews 2:4). But unfortunately, with the advent of the Apostasy, the miracles waned—historians readily acknowledged it, and reformers admitted it. Paul Johnson, a noted historian, observed, “It had been acknowledged at least since imperial times [meaning the time of Constantine] that ‘the age of miracles’ was over, in the sense that Christian leaders could no longer spread the gospel, like the apostles, with the aid of supernatural power.”
Why did the time come when there were no more miracles and gifts of the Spirit? Because the tree that bore the fruit, namely Christ’s Church, was no longer on the earth and the faith of the people diminished. John Wesley noted this absence of the gifts of the Spirit from the church in his day: “It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries.” Suffice it to say, I can testify, like many of you, that this is a day of miracles and gifts of the Spirit in Christ’s restored Church, just as it was in His original Church.
The Mormon needs to show where these miracles are taking place today in its church. Callister criticizes the churches in “the advent of the Apostasy,” but I have never seen a miracle performed in a Mormon church. Or how about a healing session in a General Conference session? Where are the LDS Church’s miracles? If Callister wants to infer that these miracles in his church are spiritual, how would that be any different than many other churches? Besides, there are a number of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches today that also claim miracles. Would this claim make their churches true too?
There is a third fruit—the blueprint of Christ’s Church records many accounts of angels and visions. Some people look with skepticism today at a church that claims angels and visions, but in so doing forget that angels and visions were a critical part of Christ’s original Church: the angel announcing the birth of Christ to Mary; the angels coming to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration; the angel releasing Peter and John from prison; the angel speaking to Cornelius; the angel warning Paul of the impending shipwreck; the angel coming to John the Revelator; Stephen’s vision of the Father and the Son; John’s vision of the last days; and many more. The question should not be “How can The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be the true Church with its alleged angels and visions?” Rather, the question should be “How can any church today claim to be Christ’s true Church unless it has angels and visions—just as was the case in Christ’s original Church, just as it is revealed in His blueprint?”
Is Moroni—supposedly once a man (the last living “Nephite”) who became an angel—the evidence for this? Yet Callister suggests that “many accounts of angels and visions” is somehow a mark of Christ’s Church. When is the last time the church’s leaders claimed seeing angels or having visions? Why should a person accept this “blueprint” as a credible proof for the Mormon Church when there’s no evidence angels and visions really mark this organization?
There are many ot