Who living in Southeastern Idaho or Utah has never experienced church ball? Clear back as a teenager, I use to connect with friends; and we would battle it out at one of the local ward gyms, bones crushing against bones, sweat flying everywhere, chests heaving from full exertion. During these moments of nostalgia, I recall those events of bygone days as fantastic. With the delusion of age, I only remember my LDS friends and me as the invincible team from Glory Road.

But even now as a dad with four kids of my own, my spine still tingles with excitement when I step onto the hardwood floor of a ward gym. Now it is my ten-year old who diligently practices with other boys in hopes of being the mighty Hoosiers.

With all my background of being on a church gym floor, I rented the DVD, Church Ball. It might be a surprise to some but I have enjoyed some of the LDS flicks. They don’t carry the smut of Hollywood, like brutal and gory violence, crude sexual content, nudity, explicit sexual situations, crude language, cursing, strong profanity, graphic vulgarity, explicit drug use, and every other kind of foul nuance that can be dreamed up under the sun.

And hooray for those who designed ClearPlay!

But the humor of Church Ball seemed bizarre, extremely out of character for the LDS film industry. The script of this film tried to achieve the famed corkiness of Napoleon Dynamite but failed because of the flippancy over spiritual concepts. But maybe that was the whole point – frontload the presentation of religion with satire. That sounds like Hollywood.

I don’t think a movie like this helps LDS or evangelicals among pockets of community in Southeastern Idaho that are completely skeptical of religion.

Yet despite the movie, you can still pass me one of those basketballs dubbed with the title. I am ready to play.

John Miller did a short story in today’s Post Register in Idaho Falls on BYU prof, Rick Davis. Here are a few highlights.

“An eastern Idaho history professor who appears to link what he described as his region’s low welfare recipient rate with the fact that ‘we don’t have blacks in this area to speak of’ is drawing irate reactions . . .

‘Rexburg Mormons’–‘so red that you bleed,’ Davis said – ‘aren’t to be confused with Boston Mormons,’ his description of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints members from outside the Rocky Mountain West who may be more liberal. Rexburg’s population has ‘a very high education level . . . a very high income level,’ Davis told salon.com.

‘That equates with being conservatives,’ he said. ‘We’re fiscally aware of where the money comes from, and that it is doesn’t grow on the great tree in Washington. We don’t have any welfare state in this area at all. We don’t have blacks in this area to speak of. We’ve had them, and they’ve come and gone. Not to say they were driven out; they’ve just felt uncomfortable because there aren’t enough of them — like you and me moving to Montgomery, Ala.’ ”

Now, guys, I love Rexburg. Do you know where I took my wife on our last wedding anniversary? We stayed overnight in Rexburg, Idaho at one of the new motels! Had some good food in a new restaurant. And I like going to BYU-Idaho concerts. (I know, some of you Boston Mormons are thinking this guy is really lame.) But how am I suppose to get my black buddies over here to Eastern Idaho and do some skiing at Targhee (of all things) when Rick is cracking comments like this?

The other day, I purchased Sperry Symposium Classics: The New Testament (SLC: Deseret Book, 2006) edited by Frank F. Judd Jr. and Gaye Strathearn. I have only read two chapters so far – chapter 6, “The Book of Mormon As An Interpretive Guide To The New Testament” by Dennis L. Largey and chapter 19, “Walking In Newness Of Life: Doctrinal Themes Of The Apostle Paul,” by Robert L. Millet.

Dennis has a section of his paper entitled, “The Book of Mormon Confounds False Doctrine.” In the conclusion of this particular section, a number of doctrines are exposed for their falseness: “those who preach only for money (see Alma 1:3, 20; 2 Nephi 26:31); infant baptism (see Moroni 8); systems of religion that deny miracles, revelation, and prophecy (see 2 Nephi 28:4-6; 3 Nephi 29:5-6); systems that preach that salvation comes exclusively through obedience to the law (see Mosiah 13:27-32); being saved by grace alone and supposing that discipleship is not necessary (see 2 Nephi 25:23); and the philosophy that mercy can rob justice (see 2 Nephi 28:7-8). The Book of Mormon also offers a sober warning to those who refuse to receive additional revelation and scripture to that which they have already received (see Nephi 28:27-29)” (p. 72).

But what fascinates me is the preceeding paragraph by Dennis. Let me first include the BoM verse to preface his thought. “After describing the corruption of latter-day churches, Moroni spoke directly to his latter-day audience: ‘Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing’ (Mormon 8:35). The implication is that those responsible for the major work of compilation saw our day and, thus aided, selected what was needed based upon what they saw. With this thought in mind, it is interesting to ask ourselves why certain parts of the Book of Mormon were included. For example, why would the abridger give us Alma 31, a story about an apostate people who would go to a particular spot once a week to offer up a repetitious creedal prayer which proclaimed God to be a spirit forever? The Zoramites believed they were ‘elected’ to be saved, while others were ‘elected’ to be damned. The Zoramites’ belief in predestination to heaven or hell predates Calvin and exposes this belief as a false doctrine” (p. 72).

Now, I know Joseph Smith didn’t like the Calvinism of his day (in fact, there seems to be a little bit of caricature in one of the first Work and Glory DVDs); but is Dennis actually saying that Alma saw our day to warn us of the sweeping resurgence of Calvinism in America (see one of the recent front covers of Christianity Today – “Reformed and Restless”). Are such men as John Piper, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and C.J. Mahaney leading Zoramites in 2006? If they are such culprits, why does Robert Millet warmly, appreciatively quote rather than warn of John MacArthur (an internationally known, conservative Calvinist) in chapter 19? This seems to be a reoccuring theme that I simply don’t understand. What reasons are there that I should not interpret this as only outreach chrestologia?

And for those concerned that Christians might be promoting a gospel of salvation by grace alone to the exclusion of discipleship, please read John Piper’s new book, What Jesus Demands From The World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006).

I told Jacob over at his blog, New Cool Thang, that I would get back with him on penal-substitutionary atonement. In the commenting section, please notice the exchange between Jacob and me.

I don’t fault Jacob’s response to me on John 1:29. Listen to the words of the evangelical scholar, Leon Morris in his commentary on The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971): “The expression ‘the Lamb of God’ has passed into the general Christian vocabulary. But for all that it is very difficult to know exactly what it means. It is not found elsewhere in the New Testament (though Jesus is sometimes spoken as ‘the Lamb’, especially in Revelation), nor in any previous writing known to us” (pp. 143-144).

In the next several pages, Morris suggests nine meanings behind the title: (i) The Passover Lamb (John 19:36), (ii) The “lamb that is led to the slaughter” (Isa. 53:7), (iii) The Servant of the Lord, another way of seeing the origin of the expression in Isa. 53, (iv) The lamb of the daily sacrifices offered morning and evening in the Temple, (v) The “gentle lamb” of Jer. 11:19, (vi) The scapegoat, (vii) The triumphant Lamb of the apocalypses, (viii) The God-provided Lamb of Gen. 22:8, and (ix) A guilt-offering, since sometimes this was a lamb (passages suggested are Lev. 14:24) (pp. 144-147).

Twenty years later, D.A. Carson’s The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) echoes all the suggestions put forth by Morris but differs from Morris in his final conclusion (Carson does distinguish his interpretation from another evangelical, George R. Beasley-Murray). “When the Baptist identified Jesus as the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, he probably had in mind the apocalyptic lamb, the warrior lamb, found in some Jewish texts (I Enoch 90:9-12; Testament of Joseph 19:8; Testament of Benjamin 3:8 – the latter passages probably, but not certainly, pre-Christian) and picked up in the Apocalypse (Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:17; 13:8; 17:14; 19:7,9; 21:22-23; 22:1-3).”

Colin G. Kruse in John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) from The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series (an update from R.V.G.Tasker) welds together Carson’s interpretation with traditional thought. “In light of all this [his preceeding exegesis on John 1:29] we are probably correct to say that the evangelist would be happy if his readers took John’s witness to Jesus as ‘the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ to have a double meaning. He was both the apocalyptic lamb who judges unrepentant sinners, and the atoning sacrifice for the sins of those who believe” (pp. 79-80).

Craig Keener wrote in his work, The Gospel of John, A Commentary, Volume One (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), “The primary background must be that of the (sacrificial) Passover lamb, as many scholars have contended, although combinations with other sources like the Suffering Servant remain feasible . . . John’s emphasis may be on Jesus dying ‘on behalf of’ others (10:11, 15; 11:50; 18:14) rather than ‘propiatory’ sacrifice, but the ideas fit together comfortably and are in no way mutually exclusive (I John 2:2; 3:16; 4:10) . . . That the Fourth Gospel later portrays Jesus’ death in terms of the Passover lamb (18:28; 19:36) and writes in the context of a new exodus and a new redemption (1:23) expected by Judaism indicates that this is the sense of ‘lamb’ in view in the Fourth Gospel” (p. 454).

I can’t get away from the O.T. symbolism of the lamb as the substitute slain in penalty for man’s sin. The only way you can get rid of sin is through bloody sacrifice (Heb. 11:22), which I realize is highly offensive to our modern society. But neither do many highly regard the Scriptures.

In the recent commentary, John 1-11 (Chicago: Moody, 2006), John MacArthur seeks to remove all the cobwebs from John 1:29. “The concept of a sacrificial Lamb was a familiar one to the Jewish people . . . Though Israel sought a Messiah who would be a prophet, king, and conqueror, God had to send them a Lamb. And He did. The title Lamb of God foreshadows Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice on the cross for the sin of the world. With this brief statement, the prophet John made it clear that the Messiah had come to deal with sin. The Old Testament is filled with the reality that the problem is sin and it is at the very heart of every person (Jer. 17:9). All men, even those who received the revelation of God in Scripture (the Jews), were sinful and incapable of changing the future or the present, or of repaying God for the sins of the past” (pp. 55-56).

I am deeply thankful for the Lamb.

If Nephi 9 is to be dated A.D. 34, this predates the writing of the Gospel of John. So why didn’t the Holy Spirit communicate to the author of the Gospel that John 1:11-12 is a direct statement of the Lord Jesus Christ?

And did John’s Gospel recover the word, “power,” that apparently seems absent in 3 Nephi 9:17?

The KJV published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has footnotes connected to John 1:12. For example with the word “power,” you may follow in the corresponding footnote – “GR authority, right, privilege.” This is excellent because in any KJV Bible retaining the translators’ marginal notes, you will find “power: or, the right, or, the privilege.” Are we on the same page that “exousian” (power in the KJV) does not mean that we have some personal, special, inwardly-derived ability or power to become children of God. Do we agree that the privilege is freely given to us by grace as we fully believe in the Logos?

From an evangelical’s perspective in the LDS corridor, this title is my honest perception of the message preached by Joseph Smith at Kirtland, Ohio on May 6, 1833.

The content of D&C 93:2-11 is familiar because of my current study in John 1. For two months, I have been hunkered down, spiritually feasting on the first thirty-four verses of John’s Gospel. So excited by the material, I have been posting clips through banners and yard signs all over town. When approaching the first eleven verses of D&C 93, biblical phrases easily leap out in instant recognition; but the flow of thought sends my mind ricocheting and boomeranging back and forth from verse 9, to 14, to 10, to 14, to 1, to 3, to 4, to 3, and then back to verse 14 of John 1. The latter-day text attempts to dissect the sequential logic of John’s Prologue and then reconfigure the pieces for Joseph’s audience in the early 1830s.

Can I type with candor? D&C 93:11 is an enigma to me, appearing to be the flip-flop of John 1:14 minus the KJV parenthesis and any apparent indication of egenoto. Even the phrase “made flesh my tabernacle” (D&C93:4) seems incongruous with the concise declaration, “And the Word became (came into existence as) flesh and tabernacled among us.”

Yet my biggest flashpoint is the compound sentence in D&C 93:12-14: “And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; and thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.”

First, only for observation, John 1 (KJV) utilizes the English word, “fulness,” one time: “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace” (John 1:16). But the same English word explodes everywhere in D&C 93, I think, fifteen times in verses 4-34.

Secondly, here is the jarring disconnect. Rather than Christ’s fulness being the eternal flowing fountain for our reception of “grace for grace,” it is Jesus Christ that at one time needed grace for his eternal progression to fulness. Desiring not to be impertinent, I would simply ask, “Has there ever been a theos who has not required the continual receiving of grace for grace like a mortal creature such as myself?” I propose that John 1 answers the question positively and emphatically with the declaration of the monogeneis theos (John 1:18). Not in his earthly baptism but in his incarnation and possessing fulness, he is the exegesis of the unseen God to all mankind.

And finally, let me slip in just a few more questions, as I am thinking in public of heart issues for LDS friends. I just don’t have the background but would appreciate better understanding to avoid misrepresentation. How did Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Newel K. Whitney end their religious walks in life? According to LDS belief, if Jesus Christ received “fulness” early on in mortal life, why do most sincere, obedient latter-day saints seem stuck in their upward progression though they are trying really hard? Not enough faithfulness? Not enough keeping the Lord’s commandments?

Fundamentally, is wave upon glorious wave of “grace for grace” based on this?

And I would really love to hear an LDS friend’s interpretation of monogenous para patros (John 1:14).

Arius is popular among those in the Idaho/Utah I-15 corridor. Yet is he the man in church history that we want to follow?

The Missionary’s Little Book of Answers (American Fork: Covenant Communications, 2002), compiled by Gilbert Scharffs, answers, “The dispute over the Godhead is not new to our day. Both before and after the Nicean council in A.D. 325, most Christians favored the view of a man named Arius, that Jesus was a being separate and distinct from the Father. This idea was favored by church fathers Ignatius, Hermes, Justin Martyr, Origen, and others. When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire, bishops, who insisted on the Arian view of separateness, were replaced” (p. 22).

Chiming in on Arius as well from their book, What Da Vinci Didn’t Know: An LDS Perspective (Salt Lake: Deseret Book, 2006), Richard Holzapfel, Andrew Skinner, and Thomas Wayment share, “Constantine’s exact role in the conference is unclear, and he apparently neither directed the conversations nor stipulated the conclusions that the participants should reach. Among other things, the council decided that the views of Arius and his followers were heretical and should be rejected outright. Arian bishops were compelled to renounce their heretical beliefs and bring their views into harmony with the Church. With sufficient spin, the denunciation of Arius and his beliefs could be interpreted as a vote on the humanity of Jesus because the central issue of Arianism was whether Jesus had been created during birth. Arius did not stipulate that Jesus had been created during birth here on earth but only asked the question whether there ever was a time when Jesus did not exist.”

The authors further write, “The Arian faction narrowly lost, but some have confused this vote with the issue of Jesus’ humanity when, in reality, both Arius and orthodox Christians unanimously believed in the divinity of Jesus. Constantine appears to have had little concern over whether the Arians or orthodox Christians prevailed. Later in his life, he was baptized by a bishop with Arian sympathies, even after those beliefs had been denounced at the Council of Nicea” (29-30).

Surely, Arian Christianity is highly favored in our neck of the woods. But how do Arius’ teachings about the Word match up with implications of that Greek verb in John 1:1? Is this first verse a foundation for how we look at Jesus Christ throughout the entirety of the Gospel?

Thinking of heart issues

I have been pondering John 1:9: “That was the true Light (Ein to phos to aleithinon), which lighteth every man (ho photizei panta anthropon) that cometh into the world” (erchomenon eis ton kosmon).

Does the “cometh” (erchomenon) refer to “every man” or to “the true Light”? Joseph Smith seems to answer the ambiguity of the Greek text with his response in D&C 84:46, “And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit” and D&C 93:1-3, “Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am; and that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; and that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one–”

Personally, I believe that “erchomenon” is a description attached to the marvelous incarnation (in flesh) of the Light, the Lord Jesus Christ. Read John 1:15, 27; 3:31; 6:14; 11:27; 12:13. In each of these references, the “cometh” is reserved for Christ as He enters the world. He was born. Yes. A naturally human birth. He became 100% human. But He also preexisted before He was born. He came from heaven.

But is this true of every man, especially in light of the revealed revelation of John 3:31? Do you see the contrast between us and Christ in this verse?

Going back to John 1:9, the NASV translates, “There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every many.” The NIV translates John 1:9, “The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.” The ESV translates John 1:9, “The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.”

These translations connect the coming into the world directly with the Incarnate Christ, whom John is bringing forth as the Big Theme of the paragraph involving verses 9-13. But if you see this, you need to look again at the Koine Greek beyond the KJV translation, look at the phrase in other parts of the Gospel of John, and finally look beyond how Joseph Smith uses the John 1:9 (KJV) phrase in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Thinking of heart issues

1. Thomas A. Wayment is the editor of a book entitled, The Complete Joseph Smith Translation of the New Testament: A Side-By-Side Comparison With The King James Version (Deseret Book, 2005). Find John 1:1 and you will read, “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.”

Now unique to this particular book is that you will find the documentation where Joseph Smith actually crossed out words in the King James Version.

Here is my first question. Are you sure the Holy Spirit wanted Joseph Smith to cross out the third reference to Word (Logos) in John 1:1?

2. John W. Welch and John F. Hall in their book, Charting The New Testament (Provo: FARMS, 2002), declare in chart 18-12, “The Last Words Written in the N.T. – John 21:25.” But this is no longer believed to be the case among the newer profs in BYU academia, right? Like for instance in the latest book, Jesus Christ and The World of the New Testament (Deseret Book, 2006).

3. Let me provide one final quote from a book named, Verse By Verse – The Four Gospels (Deseret Book, 2006) by D. Kelly Ogden and Andrew C. Skinner. On page 30, they write concerning John 1:1-5, “This passage teaches that the Son was in the beginning with the Father (see D&C 93:21); that the gospel has been on earth from the beginning; and that the Father and the Son are two separate Beings. They have been carrying out their divine work together from the beginning.”

Even in Welch and Hall’s forementioned book, their chart 7-2 translates John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was [a] God.”

But now to be a little technical, how can you do that with Greek language? How can people translate, “a god,” as in “one among many”? I do realize that in the last phrase of John 1:1, the predicate nominative, God (theos), does not have a Greek article in front of it. Yet isn’t this almost expected when in the Greek, the predicate nominative comes before the verb and subject? And (kai) God (theos) was (en) the Word (ho logos).

Thinking of heart issues

Yesterday, Ben Huff entitled his entry, “Are Mormons Trinitarian?” over at http://www.timesandseasons.org. It is a core question. A true heart issue. Thanks Ben.

Ben’s article is here.