Research by Kerry A. Shirts

Our beloved brother Jim Spencer, through the years, has continued to amaze us with his antics against Mormonism. It is more of the same with his most recent newsletter "Through the Maze."[1] In this newest issue Bro. Spencer notes with almost bated breath that the Mormon Church has identified the source of the Book of Mormon, an Angel of Light gave it to Joseph!

All the excitement, to be sure, is that Jim thinks he has discovered a major flaw in this, since Bruce R. McConkie in his book Mormon Doctrine said that an Angel of Light is the Devil, of all things.[2] He photocopied McConkie's book on page 35 where his entry of Angel of Light does indeed say "See Devil."[3] So when we trot on over to page 192ff, and read about the "Devil" we note that the reason McConkie said to reference to this is because Satan was one of the sons of God in the pre-existence, who was considered "an angel of God" but who became a devil (2 Nephi 2:17)[4] This is nowhere saying that the angel of light, neither that all angels designated as an angel of light, is the devil at all. Bro. Spencer has made a real blunder here.

Bro. Spencer next shows that even the Bible at 2 Corinthians 11:13-14 says Satan himself was transformed into an angel of light, deceiving mankind. Then he notes that Galatians 1:6-9 says that though an angel comes and preaches a different Gospel, do not believe it. And, of course, Bro. Spencer then merely asserts "Let us be sure that Mormonism is 'another gospel.'"[5]

So with a nifty little sleight of hand, Bro. Spencer automatically seems to indicate that *any* time angels appear, they are really the devil! But is this accurate? Had Bro. Spencer merely looked on the other side of the page where McConkie references the angel of light to the devil, he would have found that "angel" also references to Christ, messenger of salvation, etc.[6]

In all 102 instances in the Old Testament when the word "Angel" appears, it is as the angel of the lord, or some other positive aspect, the Hebrew word being "Mal'ak" meaning "messenger specifically of God."[7] And in all 96 occurrences of the word "Angel" in the New Testament, without exception the Greek term "angelos" is used, meaning a messenger, and that includes the passage that Bro. Spencer used at 2 Corinthians 11:13-14.[8]

Apparently Bro. Spencer cannot fathom that there are several types of angels, so that when *any* angel is mentioned involved with Mormonism, it is automatically suspect, which is ludicrous. In fact, we are told by other evangelical Christian scholars that one of the special functions of supernatural messengers, by their very presence, is to present an aspect of God's own glory! We see this in Gen. 28:12-17; Cf. the angels in Isa. 6, Ezekiel 1; Revelations 4:6-8, and the Cherubim in the Holy of Holies. Angels also lead in active praise of God at Ps. 148:2, Isa. 6:3.[9]

The Bible scholar William F. Albright noted that the "Angel of Yahweh has clearly been substituted for Yahweh."[10] So there is an excellent example of an angel being good. Frank Moore Cross in his classic study noted that "The 'Angel of the Presence,' or the angel 'in whom is Yahweh's name,' is given to Israel to guide them in the Exodus-Conquest."[11] We read elsewhere that the Angel of Yahweh "alone had the ministry of intercession with God in behalf of men (Zech 1:12; 3:1-5).[12] We also read that "In the Jewish view, only the chieftest of the Angels were before the Face of God within the curtained veil, or "Paragod", while the others, ranged in different classes, stood outside and awaited his behest," thus showing that many classes of Angels were from God, though they had differing levels of knowledge.[13]

John Macquarrie in his excellent study on the symbolism of light notes that the symbol was involved with enlightenment, was involved in godly theophanies of the ancient prophets, both from the east and west, was involved with fire, brightness, creation, as in Genesis 1, and finally notes that the Bible claims that Christ is the light of the world and that even God is light![14] So if Christ is light and God is light, would that make them the devil? Following Bro. Spencer's logic (which I call lijjick), it would.

However, lets take a closer look at the scripture that Bro. Spencer so woefully misuses here. 2 Corinthians 11:13-14 does *not* say the Devil *is* an angel of light, but that he "transforms" into one. The Greek term here is most instructive. "Metaschematizo" means essentially to "disguise" not to become as in having the essence of.[15] Spiros Zodhiates notes that it means "to change the outward form or appearance of something."[16] In fact, Bro. Spencer would have done well to look into Zodhiates as we do here since he uses the very scripture as Bro. Spencer so erroneously used! Here is what he notes: "It is possible for Satan to "metaschematizo", transform himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14), i.e., he can change his whole outward semblence. But it would be impossible to apply "metamorphoo" to any such change for this would imply an internal change, a change not of appearance but of essence, which lies beyond his power."[17]

Bro. Spencer would have us believe, against one of his own evangelical scholars here, that the devil *is* an angel of light, and therefore that *any* angel of light spoken of is the devil, an utterly spurious proposition in light of the Bible itself and biblical scholarship, all of which Bro. Spencer completely ignores to make his vain attempt against Mormonism. It's a crying shame such a Christian minister has to act this way.

Jean Danielou has noted that the devil, of course, has his own angel's, i.e., messengers which work with him, as any of us know who read the scriptures, so there are dark angels also. But this no more means all angels are devil's angels in the Bible as Bro. Spencer wants to postulate in order to get his digs in against Mormonism.[18] The Dead Sea Scrolls also demonstrate this understanding of a dualistic interpretation of the divine realms as well as world realms with the classic apocalyptic showdown of the sons of light with the sons of darkness, recognized by virtually any Dead Sea Scrolls scholar.[19] Philo in "De Gigantibus" noted that as men speak of good and evil devil demons, as well as souls, so likewise are the angels, both good and bad.[20]

We note in passing that sometime God himself is described as the author of light in the Bible, and in religious terminology dealing with symbolism, sometimes He is associated with light, sometimes He is identified with light. Light, in fact, is used to describe the work of God (not the devil!) in the whole order of creation and redemption.[21] The very word "epiphany", used to describe a vision or visitation of God to man is derived from the same Greek root as "phos", i.e., "light." Epiphany is the shining or manifestation of something into visible realms from a hitherto veiled or hidden thing.[22]

Paul's conversion after his epiphany was described as occurring when there shone about him a light from heaven, (Acts 9:3). Using Bro. Spencer's logic (lijjick) we would have to accuse Paul himself as being deceived by the devil! A proposition I am willing to bet my computer on that Bro. Spencer would himself reject. Jon D. Levenson has noted that "It often happens in the Hebrew Bible that the line between God and his angel is so indistinct that the two can be interchanged artlessly (for example Gen. 16:7-13).[23] A point obviously not understood by Bro. Spencer. Even in the Talmudic Lilith accounts of Adam and Eve, it is God who sends his angels, something he obviously also does throughout the Bible.[24]

And finally, what of Paul's exhortation to avoid any other Gospel being taught even though an angel does so? Critics, such as Bro. Spencer here, assume that if angels bring the Gospel then they are suspect! But is that what Paul means? Paul notes to the Galatians that they have already left the Gospel he had taught them, as he notes in Galatians 1:6. Note what Paul tells them. "though we [meaning he or his companions or other Apostles] or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Note here that Paul is not saying that angels do not preach the Gospel (as he himself knew they did!), but if they taught anything other than Paul taught, then they would be accursed. So the question is, what was the Gospel that Paul taught? Paul says that when Christ ascended to heaven he gave men some gifts to use in the Gospel. At Ephesians 4:8-11 he noted that prophets were given.

The Gospel that Paul taught was obviously a miraculous one. He taught the casting out of the devils, the speaking in tongues, he taught the laying on of hands for healing, the apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, etc., for the perfecting of the saints. These were not to be discontinued, that is, until the perfecting of the saints. When we look around, we do see that this has not been accomplished yet.[25]

The very idea of continuing revelation with God was also in Paul's Gospel he taught. These ideas are the ones that Paul is saying to the Galatians that were the Gospel he taught them, and if anything else is taught, even though by angels, then they were accursed. We know he received the Gospel by revelation in Galatians 1:11-12. In fact, Paul first used this principle to deny the gospel of circumcision, and afterward he stressed that the council had settled the question by revelation!

Now my question is, since Bro. Spencer essentially has no officers of Christ's church in his own ministry, i.e., apostles, prophets, etc., whose Gospel is he following? Following the words of Paul, he stands accursed, and he is the one to accuse Mormonism of having a different Gospel? It's really a shame that a Christian minister acts this way.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again, if you Protestant Christian ministers and missionaries have to lie about Mormon Christians concerning the restoration of the Gospel through revelation, angels of God, prophets etc., then you have absolutely nothing to offer in return, *nothing.*