In what has to
be one of the most poorly-researched anti-Mormon books I have ever read (and
yes, I include The Godmakers among
such volumes in that prestigious list), Richard E. Carroll writes:
Mormons do not discuss the deity of Joseph Smith with
outsiders; however, they consider him as a god and equal to God the Father in
every respect. (Mormonism and the Bible
[Mustang, Okla.: Tate Publishing 2015], 37)
As with Carroll’s
claim that LDS Christology is Arian, this is another lie; I wish I could say it
is down to an innocent misinterpretation due to a misreading of a text or a
language barrier between Reformed Protestants and Mormons, but not in this
instance.
Of course the
only critic to lie through his teeth about the role Joseph Smith plays in LDS
theology and soteriology. One can read email exchanges between LDS apologists and
scholars, such as Mike Parker and Daniel Peterson, with members of Reachout
Trust, including the late Doug Harris, on this very issue.
One of the
arguments forwarded by some (less than honest) critics is that LDS theology
holds that, if it were not for the shedding of Joseph Smith’s blood, the
restoration would not be in full-force (cf. D&C 135:5), which they claim is
an affront to Heb 9:17-18 and Jesus’ fulfilment thereof:
For a testament (alt. covenant [διαθηκη]) is of force
after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator
liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
In his essay, "The Martyrdom: Joseph and Hyrum Smith as Testators," Daniel B. McKinlay writes on this issue, under the
header, “Doctrinal Significance of the Martyrdom”:
After
the martyrdom, the Saints sought to make sense of the deaths of Joseph and
Hyrum. The Lord addressed this matter in a revelation to Brigham Young at
Winter Quarters: "Many have marveled because of his death; but it was
needful that he should seal his testimony with his blood, that he might be
honored and the wicked might be condemned" (D&C 136:39).
President Wilford Woodruff acknowledged that he was one who had
"marveled":
I used to have peculiar feelings about his death and the way in
which his life was taken. I felt that if, with the consent and good feelings of
the brethren that waited on him after he crossed the river to leave Nauvoo,
Joseph could have had his desire, he would have pioneered the way to the Rocky
Mountains. But since then I have been fully reconciled to the fact that it was
according to the programme, that it was required of him, as the head of this
dispensation, that he should seal his testimony with his blood.20
Elsewhere Woodruff more explicitly said, "If I were to tell
what I think about it, I would say it was ordained of God that our Prophet and
head should be sacrificed in the manner that he was."21 Decades later, President Stephen L
Richards, a grandson of Willard Richards, expressed the conviction "that
Joseph of his own volition gave his life for the cause entrusted to him, which
is the real essence of martyrdom." But he added, "I believe the
martyrdom was inevitable. By that I mean that it was foreordained and in the divine
plan."22
President Brigham Young taught that if the Prophet had
"been destined to live he would have lived."23 If the world in general had accepted
his testimony, according to Young, the Prophet's martyrdom might have been
avoided. But because he was largely rejected, the Prophet did seal his testimony with his blood, and
it is in force in the world.24 On another occasion Young stated that
the Prophet "sealed his testimony with his blood, consequently we can,
with impunity, believe on him a little better than if he were living. When he
was living, his testimony was not in force upon the people as it is now."25
The
efficacy of Joseph's martyrdom as a pure witness to those living in the
dispensation of the fulness of times depends partially on those of us who are
not required to die as martyrs. Elder Henry D. Moyle maintained: "We who
through the inspiration of the Almighty have received his testimony and that of
his faithful brother Hyrum, are charged with responsibility to accept and to
perpetuate and add our solemn witness thereto, that the blood of this
generation shall not be upon us."26
Elder Delbert L. Stapley, sidestepping mere allusion, positively
identifies the Prophet's martyrdom with the language of Hebrews 9:16–17:
"Where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of a testator,
and surely this was a testament unfolding and revealing again God's kingdom
with all of its saving ordinances, principles, and divine powers. A testament
is not of force until after men are dead. The Prophet gave his life to seal
that testimony, and thus the sacrifice of his life becomes a witness to all men
of the truth and power of his holy calling and ministry."27
As seen above, the passage in Hebrews 9 deals primarily with the
legitimizing of covenants, with a supplementary reference to wills or
testaments. The Christian world divides the Bible into the Old and New
Testaments. Now, in addition to those witnesses, church leaders have subtitled
the Book of Mormon "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." All three of
those works could appropriately be known alternatively as
"covenants." John Taylor explicitly says in the first verse of
Doctrine and Covenants 135: "To seal the testimony of this book [that is,
the Doctrine and Covenants] and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom
of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch." On the title
page of the Book of Mormon, Moroni describes one of the book's purposes:
"to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the
Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the
Lord, that they are not cast off forever." In his 1842 letter to John
Wentworth, editor of the Chicago
Democrat, Joseph Smith quoted the angel Moroni as telling him in
his initial visit that he was "sent to bring the joyful tidings, that the
covenant which God made with ancient Israel was at hand to be fulfilled."28 A
perusal of the Book of Mormon reveals that covenants figure prominently. So it
is clear that Joseph and Hyrum as testators have ratified the scriptural books
of covenants that pertain to our own dispensation.
Although Hebrews 9:16–17 refers to a general principle, it is
meant in its context to refer to Christ's consummation of a new testament or
covenant through the enactment of the atonement. In his role of atoner, Jesus
is absolutely peerless. But since several of the apostles who survived Joseph
Smith have applied the role of testator to him, is there a subordinate sense in
which that passage also pertains to him? A few church leaders have so taught.
Speaking of the Prophet, Elder Erastus Snow affirmed that "the Lord
suffered his enemies to destroy him in the flesh, to take away his life, and he
was made an offering—what shall I say? an offering for sin. Not in the sense in
which the Savior was offered, but he was made a martyr for the truth and his
blood was shed to attest the testimony that he bore to the world."29
President Joseph F. Smith summarizes the zenith of the Prophet's
mortal mission in the following statement: "Joseph Smith was true to the covenants
that he made with the Lord, true to his mission, and the Lord enabled him to
accomplish his work, even to the sealing of his testimony with his shed blood.
His testimony is now, and has been, in force among the children of men as
verily as the blood of Jesus Christ is in force and a binding testimony upon
all the world, and it has been from the day it was shed until now, and will
continue until the winding up scene."30 Brigham Young testified, "God
suffered him to be slain for His testimony, that it might become a law through
being sealed by his blood, which was the case the moment his blood was spilled,
the same as with the law of Jesus Christ when he spilled his blood. Then the
testimony became in force. It must be so; God suffered it."31
Again, it should be emphasized that the Prophet's martyrdom is
not on the same level as Christ's universal atoning sacrifice, but the law of
witnesses as it relates to the shedding of consecrated blood is at work here.
The violent death of the Prophet was necessary to enforce the spiritual powers
of the restoration, his death thus indirectly ratifying the atonement, which is
universal. It is interesting to note that a few days before his death the
Prophet exclaimed that he was "going like a lamb to the slaughter"
(D&C 135:4), a simile redolent of the sacrificial imagery found in Isaiah
53:7. This chapter of Isaiah is associated in Christian circles with Jesus as
the "suffering servant," or the vicarious sacrifice for sin. Several
of the General Authorities, as noted in this essay, have spoken of the Prophet's
murder as a sacrifice. Joseph Smith was witnessing to the truth of those
aspects of the everlasting gospel that pertained specifically to his realm or stewardship. Some prophets in
past dispensations also sealed their testimonies with their blood by dying a
martyr's death and thus left their generations without excuse. An example of
this is Abinadi, whose death at the hands of King Noah and his priests (except
Alma) bound them to his testimony, for which they were and are required to
answer. Even indirectly, we are also held responsible for his witness since it
has come to us through the Book of Mormon. In other words, either we accept his
teachings and repent and become clean or we "assent unto his death"
and share blame with those who killed him. All prophets in the history of the
world who have laid down their lives as a witness have been under the auspices
of the atonement; it is the atonement that makes their sacrifices binding.
Notes for the Above
20. Wilford Woodruff, in Journal of Discourses, 24:54 (27
January 1883).
21. Ibid., 22:232 (26 June 1881).
22. Stephen L Richards, "Joseph Smith,
Prophet-Martyr," in The Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermons, 1:103 (speech
given 7 December 1952).
23. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 13:95 (2
January 1870).
24. Journal of Discourses, 11:262 (12 August 1866).
25. Journal of Discourses, 18:242 (23 June 1874).
26. Henry D. Moyle, "The Greatest Gift," Improvement
Era 60 (June 1957): 412.
27. Delbert L. Stapley, Conference Report, October 1954,
49; see also Delbert L. Stapley, "An Unwavering Faith," Improvement
Era 73 (June 1970): 75–76.
28. Published in Times and Seasons 3 (1 March 1842): 707.
29. Erastus Snow, in Journal of Discourses, 25:33 (2
February 1884).
30. Joseph F. Smith, Conference Report, October 1917, 3.
31. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 4:352 (7
June 1857).
Some critics
have charged Latter-day Saints of engaging in an unhealthy veneration, if not
worship, of Joseph Smith due to the hymn, “Praise to the Man,” though that is
yet another error; I have discussed such an issue in a previous post here.
However,
Latter-day Saints have to realise how shocking our claims about Joseph Smith truly
are—in fact, on the face of things, they are simply outrageous. Not only do we
claim that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God who saw God and Jesus
Christ, as well as numerous heavenly visitors; found ancient golden plates and,
through a miraculous manner, translated therefrom, and produced the Book of
Mormon and other authoritative scriptures, which alone is an affront to our
modern secular society where naturalism is the norm, but we would claim, to the
horror of the so-called Christian world, that such events happened in space and
time, and are not simply parables to instil in us a greater morality, and,
furthermore, that they are part-and-parcel of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and
that Joseph Smith is just as much of a prophet and apostle of God as Isaiah,
David, Peter, James, etc, and that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants,
and Pearl of Great Price are just as “God-breathed” (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) revelation
as the Bible is. Of course, the message about Jesus is just as shocking (e.g., the
idea that a bloodied, mutilated Jewish criminal’s death on a cross is somehow effecting
salvation is preposterous on the face of things). In that respect, we have to understand
and appreciate how truly difficult it is for many to accept our faith’s
teachings about the person and work of Joseph Smith, though at the same time,
not to shy away from them and to teach them forcefully and truthfully.
As for the
Carroll’s of the world, I do have a final statement that will be shocking to
them—I truly hope and pray for the day when you can sing this hymn with me:
