"What Christians Get Wrong About Jesus"

On the BeliefNet Website, there is an interesting article entitled

What Christians Get Wrong About Jesus

I don't think there is anything that an informed Latter-day Saint (or even Evangelical or Catholic for that matter) would disagree with. However, there is a very important point made about how the true humanity of Jesus is forgotten or given short shrift by those within the broad Christian spectrum (at least those who do not hold to a Socinian Christology):

Forgetting Jesus Was Fully Human

Too often, as Christians, we get caught up in the deity of Jesus that we forget about the humanity of Jesus. Jesus was born as a human being while still being completely divine. The concept of the humanity of Jesus co-existing with His deity is difficult for our mind’s to comprehend, but Jesus’ nature – wholly man and wholly God – is biblical fact. There are those that reject these biblical truths and declare that Jesus was a man, but not God. There is also the view that Jesus was God, but not human. Both viewpoints are unbiblical and false.

The fact that Jesus was born as a human being is important for several reasons. Galatians 4:4-5 says, “But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.” Only a man could be born under a law. No animal or angelic being is “under the law.” Born under the law of God, all humans are guilty of transgressing that law. Only a perfect human – Jesus Christ – could perfectly keep the law and perfect fulfill the law, thereby redeeming us from that guilt. Jesus accomplished our redemption on the cross exchanging our sin for His perfect righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). The humanity of Jesus enables Him to relate to us in a way the angels and animals never can. “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are – yet was without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).

What You Don't Know About the 100 Most Important Events in Church History

I recently read a volume by Casey Paul Griffiths, Susan Easton Black, and Mary Jane Woodger, What You Don't Know About the 100 Most Important Events in Church History (Deseret Book, 2016)

While I was initially unsure about investing the money and time into the book as I thought it would be more focused on "faith-promoting" material at the expense of sound historical methodologies, Neal Rappleye "plugged" the book in a post entitled The 15 “Best Books” to Read BEFORE Having a Faith Crisis, so I decided to pick it up. I was pleasantly surprised as it deals with many issues of importance for those involved in LDS apologetics (e.g., different accounts of the First Vision; debate about the dating of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood; Mountain Meadows Massacre) as well as having a good bibliography for those wishing to delve deeper into such topics.

One can order the book on the Deseret Book Website in both paperback and ebook format.

Andrea Lavazza on Free Will and Neuroscience

The following article, referenced on episode 13 of the ever-informative Exploring Mormon Thought podcast, discusses the debate between neuroscience and human free will:


Andrea Lavazza, Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It

Recommended book on the Qur'an

While I am not an expert on the topic of Islam and the Qur'an, it is a minor interest of mine (I often teach with the missionaries whenever there is a Muslim investigator as I have read the Qur'an three times cover-to-cover and know more than the "next person" about Islam).

As I decided to study the Qur'an again recently, I read a very interesting volume today on the nature of the Qur'an based on a PhD dissertation in just the past few years which includes a lot of nifty information about the seven versions of the fall of Iblis (Satan) in the Qur’an for refusing to worship Adam:

Andrew G. Bannister, An Oral-Formulaic Study of the Qur'an (Plymouth, United Kingdom: Lexington Books, 2014)

Here is the description of the book on the back cover:

The Qur’an makes extensive use of older religious material, stories, and traditions that predate the origins of Islam, and there has long been a fierce debate about how this material found its way into the Qur’an. This unique book argues that this debate has largely been characterized by a failure to fully appreciate the Qur’an as a predominately oral product.

Using innovative computerized linguistic analysis, this study demonstrates that the Qur’an displays many of the signs of oral composition that have been found in other traditional literature. When one then combines these computerized results with other clues to the Qur’an’s origins (such as the demonstrably oral culture that both predated and preceded the Qur’an, as well as the “folk memory” in the Islamic tradition that Muhammad was an oral performer) these multiple lines of evidence converge and point to the conclusion that large portions of the Qur’an need to be understood as being constructed live, in oral performance.

Combining historical, linguistic, and statistical analysis, much of it made possible for the first time due to new computerized tools developed specifically for this book, Bannister argues that the implications of orality have long been overlooked in studies of the Qur’an. By relocating the Islamic scripture firmly back into an oral context, one gains both a fresh appreciation of the Qur’an on its own terms, as well as a fresh understanding of how Muhammad used early religious traditions, retelling old tales afresh for a new audience.

Stephen Smoot Discusses the Divine Council

My friend, Stephen Smoot, was interviewed by Laura Hales for the LDS Perspectives Podcast on the divine council:

Episode 42 The Divine Council - Stephen Smoot

Stephen has written a few articles on the topic, including:

Council, Chaos, and Creation in the Book of Abraham

The Eastern Orthodox Affirmation of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

In recent months, with the conversion of Hank Hanegraaff to Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), the topic of EO has come up in a few facebook groups I lurk, as well as some blog posts by Evangelicals trying to show that Hanegraaff is not a heretic, etc. Also, one youtube anti-Mormon has been flirting with EO quite a bit as of late. I just read a catechism for adults converting to the EO and the following discussion of the EO understanding of the Eucharist, including an affirmation of the Eucharist itself being a propitiatory sacrifice for both the living and the dead, the corporeal presence of Jesus in the bread and wine, and a change in the substance of the Eucharist that is similar to the scholastic terminology of Transubstantiation, shows that EO in many respects is just way out in left field as Roman Catholicism when it comes to many important elements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I do wonder how many Evangelicals and others who are friendly towards, if not (theologically speaking) flirting with EO will find the following objectionable:

The Elements of Bread and Wine are “changed” into the Body and Blood of Christ. This sanctification of the Elements is called change, transelementation, and depends mainly on the meaning of the words of Scripture: “This is my body”, and “this is my blood”. These words of Christ do not mean “my body” is present in the Bread, and “my blood” is present in the Wine. In reality the Elements of Bread and Wine become in substance the very Body and very Blood of Christ These words of Christ signify the actual “change” of the Elements rather than the co-existence of visible and invisible parts . . . The institution of the Holy Eucharist as Sacrifice took place on the Cross. Christ is the Sacrificer and the Sacrifice, for He offered His very Body and Blood to God the Father for the remission of the sins of the world. Christ instituted Holy Eucharist as Sacrifice in the two Elements, bread and wine, presenting explicitly the mystic separation of the Body from the Blood. This institution manifests Holy Eucharist as Sacrifice, for “Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat: this is my body’. and he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for may for the forgiveness of sins’”, Mt. 26:26-28. These words of Christ were spoken in the present tense and declare that this Sacrifice is ever-present—the bloodless Crucified-sacrifice . . . This is the very belief of the Church from the very beginning and is verified by an Ecumenical Synod: “The lamb of God is placed on the Holy Table, He Who lifted the sin of the world and is offered by the officiators of God as blood sacrifice” . . . The institution of the Holy Eucharist as the remembrance of the Crucified-Sacrifice is a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. However, it is not merely a reflection of the historical fact; it is a real Sacrifice inasmuch as Christ is present in the Eucharist. Both the Sacrificer and the victim is Christ Himself, on the Cross and in the Holy Eucharist. The former wrought the salvation of man; the latter, wrought man’s personal appropriation. The Sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered in remembrance of the Passion of Christ, and bears all the elements of every sacrifice: victim, sacrificer, purpose, destruction or change of what is offered. The Sacrifice in the Eucharist is a re-enactment of the Sacrifice on the Cross inasmuch as Christ is present in the Eucharist, accomplishing on earth what He accomplishes in heaven. The Eucharist brings forth the same fruits as the Cross, the source of divine Grace and all spiritual gifts. This Sacrifice, which is the propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead, is simultaneously a sacrifice of praise and intercession. (Rev. George Mastrantonis, A New-Style Catechism on the Eastern Orthodox Faith for Adults [St. Louis, Miss.: The OLogos Mission, 1969], 123-24, 127-28, 128-29; emphasis in original)

The Nephites and the Obsidian Order

Jasmin Gimenez of Book of Mormon Central gives a good overview of a presentation Mark Wright gave on the Nephites and their relationship to the Obsidian Order, not of the Cardassians of Star Trek (alas--the idea of Elim Garak having some connection to the Nephites would have been nerdtastic) but the Maya:

Star Trek Fan Theory: The Nephites were part of the Obsidian Order

Answering a critic on Book of Mormon Onomasticon

Eric Herman, who posts online as Grundunza, wrote the following on the Mormon Discussions forum in response to the article I plugged on my blog, Book of Mormon Names No Fiction Writer Would Choose:

Or Joseph thumbed through John Walker's pronunciation dictionary, published in 1823, which includes many of the Book of Mormon names:

http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp453.pdf

Firstly, it should be noted that Benjamin McGuire has soundly refuted Rick Grunder and his parallelomania in his Mormon Parallels: A Bibliographic Source (2008):

Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part One

Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part Two

Another flaw, among many, is that, allowing Joseph Smith to have read a copy of Walker’s volume, and even having it next to him during the production of the Book of Mormon does not explain the wordplays based on the Semitic background of the names in the Book of Mormon. Let us examine a few examples.

Jerson

The Hebrew verb meaning “to inherit” is ירשׁ  which would be transliterated yrsh or jrsh.

 ון  (-on) at the end of a word denotes “place of.” Jershon or Yershon would mean “place of inheritance.”

On its own, Book of Mormon “Jershon” has a valid Hebrew etymology, meaning “place of inheritance.” However, there is more.

“Jershon” (“place of inheritance”) is used in a parallelism in the Book of Mormon which plays on its Hebrew meaning:

And it came to pass that the voice of the people came, saying: Behold, we will give up the land of Jershon, which is on the east by the sea, which joins the land Bountiful, which is on the south of the land Bountiful; and this land Jershon which we will give unto our brethren for an inheritance . . . And now behold, this will we do unto our brethren, that they may inherit the land Jershon; and we will guard them from their enemies with our armies, on condition that they will give us a portion of their substance to assist us that we may maintain our armies. (Alma 27:22, 24)

And Alma, and Ammon, and their brethren, and also the two sons of Alma returned to the land of Zarahemla, after having been instruments in the hands of God of bringing many of the Zoramites to repentance; and as many as were brought to repentance were driven out of their land; but they have lands for their inheritance in the land of Jershon, and they have taken up arms to defend themselves, and their wives, and children, and their lands. (Alma 35:14)

Notice the parallelism (representative of Semitic literature) between "Jershon" and "inherit/inheritance" in these two passages, a parallelism that only works in light of the Hebrew meaning of Jershon (“place of inheritance”)

Zarahemla

Hebrew  ‎  זרע  (zerah) means “seed” (alt. offspring/progeny) and ‎  חמל (chemla)   means “compassion/pity.”

Zarahemla has a valid Hebrew etymology, meaning “seed of compassion/pity.” As with "Jershon" the Hebrew meaning plays a role in the narrative of the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith et al. could not have faked.

" . . . and we returned, those of us that were spared, to the land of Zarahemla" (Mosiah 9:2)

" . . . and then would our brethren have been spared, and they would not have been burned in that great city Zarahemla" (3 Nephi 8:24)

Now when Ammon and his brethren saw this work of destruction among those whom they so dearly beloved, and among those who had so dearly beloved them — for they were treated as though they were angels sent from God to save them from everlasting destruction — therefore, when Ammon and his brethren saw this great work of destruction, they were moved with compassion, and they said unto the king: Let us gather together this people of the Lord, and let us go down to the land of Zarahemla [alt.the land of the-seed-of-compassion] to our brethren the Nephites, and flee out of the hands of our enemies, that we be not destroyed. (Alma 27:4-5)

And now behold, I have somewhat to say concerning the people of Ammon, who, in the beginning, were Lamanites; but by Ammon and his brethren, or rather by the power and word of God, they had been converted unto the Lord; and they had been brought down into the land of Zarahemla, and had ever since been protected by the Nephites. And because of their oath they had been kept from taking up arms against their brethren; for they had taken an oath that they never would shed blood more; and according to their oath they would have perished; yea, they would have suffered themselves to have fallen into the hands of their brethren, had it not been for the pity and the exceeding love which Ammon and his brethren had had for them. And for this cause they were brought down into the land of Zarahemla; and they ever had been protected by the Nephites [cf. Alma 27:23-24]. But it came to pass that when they [the converted Lamanites] saw the danger, and the many afflictions and tribulations which the Nephites bore for them, they were moved with compassion and were desirous to take up arms in the defence of their country. (Alma 53:10-13)

Not only does Zarahemla have a perfectly reasonable Hebrew etymology, the Book of Mormon engages in wordplays in its narrative structure that plays off its Hebrew meaning. This only makes sense if the Book of Mormon text we have is a translation of a record influenced by Hebrew.

Gazelam

The name “Gazelam” is associated with a stone (cf. Joseph Smith’s seer stones [“Gazelam” was the code name for Joseph in early LDS editions of the D&C]):

And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelam a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations. (Alma 37:23)

There is a verb in Hebrew ‎  גִּזְרָה (gezerah) that means to cut/polish [a stone], and appears in the Old Testament. As one example:

Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing (‎  גִּזְרָתָֽם gizratam) was of sapphire. (Lam 4:7)

Gazelam, in Hebrew, would mean "stones cut by God."

Alternatively/additionally, it could be a pun on the abominations that “Gazelam” would reveal. Hebrew גֵּזֶל (gazel) refers to “robbery” while גָּזֵל (gazal) and גְּזֵלָה (gezelah) both refer to “robbery” and “loot.”

Again, we have another Book of Mormon name with a perfectly good Hebrew etymology and where the text engages in a word play based on the underlying Hebrew meaning.

Mulek

While not a word play, this is another “hit” for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Even allowing Joseph Smith to have derived Mulek from Mo'lok (p. 80 of Walker) does not explain why Joseph Smith would go against the commonly held belief even today that all of Zedekiah's sons died and had a surviving son called Mulek, as well as how he would "luck out" with respect to the Hebrew of Jer 38:6 and modern archaeological discoveries.

“Mulek” in the Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon was spelt Muloch and “Mulok” in printed editions from 1830 to 1852. The root in Hebrew, however, would be the same (‎*MLK   מלך)

The Book of Mormon informs us that one of King Zedekiah’s sons survived the Babylonian Conquest of Jerusalem and fled to the New World:

Now the land south was called Lehi and the land north was called Mulek, which was after the son of Zedekiah; for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south. (Helaman 6:10)

And now will you dispute that Jerusalem was not destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not slain, all except it were Mulek? Yea, and do ye not behold that the seed of Zedekiah are with us, and they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem? . . . (Helaman 8:21)

There is a possibility “Mulek” appears in the Old Testament. Firstly, a note on Hebrew names:

A name that contains the “divine element” (‘el; yah[u]) is called a theophoric (e.g., Isaiah—the iah is a transliteration of yah).

Sometimes, these divine name elements are removed to shorten the name. Such is the hypocoristic form of a name.

Book of Mormon Mulek represents a hypocoristic form of a longer name. This will be important in a moment.

Jer 38:6 in the KJV reads:

Then took they Jeremiah, and cast him into the dungeon of Malchiah the son of Hammelech, that was in the court of the prison: and they let down Jeremiah with cords. And in the dungeon there was no water, but mire: so Jeremiah sunk in the mire.

“Hammelech” is a mistake by the KJV translators. The Hebrew is ‎  הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ (ha-melech) which means “the king.” Instead of translating, they incorrectly transliterated the Hebrew.This figure Malchiah is the “son of the king”; the king would have been Zedekiah.

‎  מַלְכִּיָּהוּ (Malchiah in the KJV; alt. Malkiyahu) is made up of the yah[u] theophoric (יָּהוּ ) and the triconsonantal root ‎  מלך  (MLK)  which means “king,” similar to Mulek. This *MLK “son of the king [Zedekiah]” could very well be Book of Mormon Mulek.

A seal of this royal figure was found in 1997 written in Paleo-Hebrew, calling him "Malkiyahu, son of the king [Zedekiah].” It is a very real possibility that this seal attests to the historicity of a Book of Mormon character.

For more:

Jeffrey R. Chadwick, "Has the Seal of Mulek Been Found?" Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/2 (2003):72-83, 117-18

As LDS apologist, Jeff Lindsay, writes:

[O]ne thing is clear: the Book of Mormon account is highly plausible, and offers details consistent with modern scholarship in ways that seem to make Joseph Smith either a miraculously lucky guesser, or a miraculously blessed prophet who translated a genuine ancient record with the power of God. (Mulek, Son of Zedekiah)

One could go on, but it is clear that an appeal to Walker’s 1823 pronunciation dictionary to be a rather desperate attempt to explain away the onomasticon of the Book of Mormon.

Update

On the ever truth challenged Mormon Discussions forum, one poster made the following comment about this article:

The only person lacking in the intelligence department is “Grindael.” There is a difference between alleged parallels between texts and the poetical device of parallelism. Is Grindael really this disingenuous? It appears so.

Michael Flournoy Misunderstands Grace, Mormonism, and the Bible

(For previous responses to Michael Flournoy, click here)

In a recent article entitled Understanding Grace, Misunderstanding Mormonism, Michael Flournoy wrote the following:

[In] Alma 5:28-29 in The Book of Mormon says if we are not stripped of pride and envy we are not prepared to meet God, nor do we have eternal life. Where’s the grace in that? Doctrine and Covenants 82:7 says if we sin our former sins return to us. Where’s the grace in that? Moroni 8:14 states that should someone die while thinking children need baptism, his destination is hell. Where’s the grace in that? Alma 11:37 says that Jesus cannot save us in our sins. My friends, there is no grace in a religion that says we must amputate all sin from our lives before Jesus can save us.

All Michael has shown us that his exegetical skills of the Book of Mormon, not just the Bible, to be utterly pathetic.

Firstly, it should be noted that one would rework this paragraph against Flournoy’s new-found Evangelical Protestantism. After all, there are many similar texts in the Bible.

In Matt 3:8, Jesus commands the Pharisees and Sadducees to produce fruits meet for repentance--how can unregenerate people produce good works? Where is the grace in that? In Matt 22:37//Mark 12:30//Luke 10:27, Jesus tells the Jewish scribe that he must "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind"--where is the grace in that? In Gal 1:6-9, Paul condemns people for believing circumcision to be necessary before entering the New Covenant—where is the grace in that? In Acts 2:38, Peter commands the crowd to repent and be baptised before receiving a remission of their sins—where is the grace in that? In Jude 4, Jesus clearly does not save people “in” their sins—where is the grace in that?

It should be noted that Moroni 8:14 condemns heretics (in this case, those who add to the gospel, similar to the Judaizers Paul anathemised in Galatians) who preached the absolute necessity of infant baptism. Consistency would require Flournoy to reject Paul as an apostle (I know he won’t—consistency is thrown out of the window when one embraces Protestantism and becomes an anti-Mormon). Furthermore, what does Alma 11:37 actually state? Here is the text:

And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.

In this verse, Amulek is teaching that one cannot remain “in” their sinful, rebellious state and expect to be saved. The phrase "in their sins" in the Book of Mormon refers to people's on-going rebellion against God. It is a condemnation of those who believe that, as Jesus atoned for sins, ipso facto, people will be saved no matter how they live their lives. Notice how the locution is used throughout the Book of Mormon:

And, in fine, wo unto all those who die in their sins; for they shall return to God, and behold his face, and remain in their sins. (2 Nephi 9:38)

But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wifully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection.(Mosiah 15:26)

And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word . . . And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins. (Alma 11:34, 37 [note that this is the immediate context of Alma 11:36])

And remember also the words which Amulek spake unto Zeezrom, in the city of Ammonihah; for he said that the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them in their sins, but to redeem them from their sins. (Helaman 5:10)

And wo unto them who shall do these things away and die, for they die in their sins, and they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God; and I speak it according to the words of Christ; and I lie not. (Moroni 10:26)

In Helaman 5:10, quoted above, one reads of how Christ will save people from their sins, and, in v. 11, such is "because of repentance." Passages that explicitly state Christ will save people "from their sins" are quoted below which blows Flournoy's nonsense out of the water:

I say unto you, ye will know at that day that ye cannot be saved; for there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins. Have ye walked, keeping yourselves blameless before God? Could ye say, if ye were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble? That your garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ, who will come to redeem his people from their sins? (Alma 5:21, 27)

And Alma went and began to declare the word of God unto the church which was established in the valley of Gideon, according to the revelation of the truth of the word which had been spoken by his fathers, and according to the spirit of prophecy which was in him, according to the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who should come to redeem his people from their sins, and the holy order by which he was called. And thus it is written. Amen. (Alma 6:8)

Now Aaron said unto him: Believest thou that the Son of God shall come to redeem mankind from their sins? . . .Now Aaron began to open the scriptures unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and that there could be no redemption for mankind save it were through the death and sufferings of Christ, and the atonement of his blood. (Alma 21:7, 9 BOM)

And remember also the words which Amulek spake unto Zeezrom, in the city of Ammonihah; for he said unto him that the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them in their sins, but to redeem them from their sins. And he hath power given unto him from the Father to redeem them from their sins because of repentance; therefore he hath sent his angels to declare the tidings of the conditions of repentance, which bringeth unto the power of the Redeemer, unto the salvation of their souls. (Helaman 5:10-11)

 With respect to Alma 5:28-29, one does have to wonder how Flournoy would respond to John the Baptist if he were alive when John said the following attributed to him in Matt 3:8:

In Matt 3:8, recording the words of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees, the KJV reads:

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.

The Greek of this text reads:

ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας.

Literally, John is commanding the people “to do” (ποιεω) works that are “worthy” of repentance. The Greek adjective translated as “worthy” is αξιος. In New Testament soteriological contexts, it is always used to describe the reality of someone or something; it is not a mere legal declaration; in other words, something is counted/considered worthy because they/it are intrinsically worthy. We can see this in the Gospel of Matthew itself:

Nor scrip for your journey, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy (αξιος) of his meat. And into whateoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who it is worthy (αξιος); and there abide till ye go thence . . .And if the house be worthy (αξιος), let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. (Matt 10:10-11, 13)

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy (αξιος) of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy (αξιος) of me. (Matt 10:37-38)

Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy (αξιος). (Matt 22:8)

We can also see this in the verb form of this adjective (αξιοω) and its usage in the New Testament. Speaking of Christ and his worthiness, we read the following:

For this man was counted worthy (αξιοω) of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. (Heb 3:3)

 I am sure Flournoy would be quizzing John, asking "where is the grace???" if he were consistent.

With respect to aspirational texts such as Matt 19:21//Luke 18:22 (cf. Alma 5:28-29; Moroni 10:32, etc), the following from an Evangelical theologian should be sufficient:

Certain difficulties attach to assuming [we can achieve freedom from sin], however.  One is that it seems contradictory to repeatedly exhort Christians to a victorious spotless life unless it is a real possibility.  But does this necessarily follow?  We may have a standard, an ideal, toward which we press, but which we do not expect to reach within a finite period of time.  It has been observed that no one has ever reached the North Star by sailing or flying toward it.  That does not change the fact that it is still the mark toward which we press, our measure of “northerliness.”  Similarly, although we may never be perfectly sanctified within this life, we shall be in eternity beyond and hence should presently aim to arrive as close to complete sanctification as we can.” (Christian Theology. p. 986)

What about D&C 82:7? Here is how the text reads:

And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.

Sometimes, critics, and Flournoy is no exception, will point to this verse, especially the highlighted portion, as LDS soteriology being “mission impossible.” The following quotation from perhaps the best commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants helps provide some context:

When those who have sinned repent and are baptized, or, if already baptized, repent and renew their covenants by partaking of the sacrament, then their sins are forgiven them through the atonement of Christ. Even though a particular sin through weakness or other circumstances may recur, it is forgiven again upon further repentance. In the context of the gospel covenant, the Lord will continue to forgive and cleanse us as long as we sincerely repent (see Mosiah 26:30). The Atonement is a shield from all our guilt as long as we continue to repent and remain in the covenant.

Nevertheless, should we choose to break the covenant and refuse to repent, should we shift our loyalty and commitment from Christ to our sins, then the atonement of Christ can no longer shield us, and we become once again accountable for all our own sins. In the context of this verse, sinneth does not mean failing to be perfect; rather, it means to switch our loyalties, to break our covenants with Christ by choosing to serve sin (and, therefore, to serve Satan; see Romans 6:16). Doctrine and Covenants 82:7 must be understood against the backdrop of Mosiah 26:30: "Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me." Faithful Saints need not fear that their occasional weaknesses will put them outside the covenant and the power of the Atonement. On the other hand, those whose loyalty is to their sins first and to Christ second, third, or not at all, need not expect to be shielded from justice in any degree for all they may have done in this life. If we sin, we must repent. If we sin often, we must repent often. But we must never let go of the rod, never shift our commitment from Christ to our sins. Finally, should we repudiate our covenants, thus losing the shield of the Atonement, not only will our former sins return but they will bring with them a disposition to evil even greater than before (see Matthew 12:43-45). (Stephen E. Robinson and H. Dean Garrett, A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants 4 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004], 2:12-13).

Commenting on this text, Brigham Young and Howard W. Hunter offered the following comments:

It is present salvation and the present influence of the Holy Ghost that we need every day to keep us on saving ground. When an individual refuses to comply with the further requirements of heaven, then the sins he had formerly committed return upon his head [Ezek. 3:20] ; his former righteousness departs from him, and is not accounted to him for righteousness: but if he had continued in righteousness and obedience to the requirements of heaven, he is saved all the time through baptism, the laying on of hands, and obeying the commandments of the Lord and all that is required of him by the heavens—the living oracles. He is saved now, next week, next year, and continually, and is prepared for the celestial kingdom of God whenever the time comes for him to inherit it. (Brigham Young, JOD 8:124, July 15, 1860)

Whatever the past may have been in our individual lives, it is gone. The future lies ahead, and we must face it with resolution. There is always a point from which we can begin. Even though we may have been faithful in the past, if we turn away, that faithfulness will profit us nothing. "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." [Luke 9:62] (Howard W. Hunter, Conference Report, April 1961, p.18)

The biblical texts they referenced reads thusly:

Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. (Ezek 3:20)

 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. (Luke 9:62)

I wonder if Michael will ask “where is the grace in that?” to these passages? One problem of embracing Evangelical Protestantism is that it is a shell-game: instead of being given a “biblical” faith, one receives the consolation prize of an anti-biblical concept of salvation in this lifetime and damnation in the age to come.

A good parallel to the Mosiah 26:30 text is that of Moroni 6:8:

But as oft as they repented and sought forgiveness, with real intent, they were forgiven.

On a related point, often, Latter-day Saints will hear criticisms of their theology of forgiveness as something that is not just mere verbal confession, but one that, where necessary, incorporates restitution for one’s sins and/or other actions, such as true repentance (“Godly Sorry” to borrow from 2 Cor 7:10), and failure to do such resulting in punishments from God, such as the non-forgiveness of sins. (To read a good summary of LDS understandings on this topic, see the discussion in the booklet, True to the Faith, a publication by the Church, often given to newly baptised members of the Church). However, the biblical basis for LDS understanding of this doctrine permeates biblical teachings on this topic. As illustrative examples, consider the following:

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Lord; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin. (Exo 32:30)

Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now. And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word; but as truly as I live, all the earth slal be filled with the glory of the Lord. Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it. (Num 14:19-23)

And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them;: for there is wrath gone out from the Lord; the plague is begun. And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people and he put on incense and made an atonement for the people. And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed. (Num 16:46-48)

Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good. (Jer 18:11)

They said, Turn ye again now every one from his evil way, and from the evil of your doings, and dwell in the land that the Lord hath given unto you and to your fathers for ever and ever: and go not after other gods to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke me not to anger with the works of your hands; and I will do you no hurt. Ye have not hearkened unto me, saith the Lord; that ye might provoke me to anger with the works of your hands to your own hurt. Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts; Because ye have not heard my words, behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land and against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing and perpetual desolations. Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bridge, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle. And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. (Jer 25:5-11)

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. And his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. (Ezek 18:21-22)

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezek 33:11)

Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: and rend your heart and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of the great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the Lord your God? Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly: Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God? Then will the Lord be jealous for his land, and pity his people. Yea, the Lord will answer and say unto his people, Behold, I will send you corn, and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith: and I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen: But I will remove far off from you the northern army, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things. (Joel 2:12-20)

And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matt 3:2)

From the time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matt 4:17)

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matt 6:14-15)

The came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I will forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but Until seventy times seven. (Matt 18:21-22)

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised 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 2:37-38)

In Matt 6:14-15, we read the following:

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

A parallel text would be Mark 11:25:

And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

These are important texts, as they show that the Christian’s forgiveness of sins is contingent upon them forgiving others, showing that (1) one does not receive a “blanket forgiveness” of sins at justification and (2) shows that one could lose their salvation. As one scholar wrote on the Matthean text stated:

With this logion Matthew repeats the forgiveness petition of the Lord’s Prayer and puts it in parenetic form. Both the conditional wording and the “negative” v. 15, missing from Mark 11:25, make clear that human forgiving is a condition for divine forgiving. Thus with this statement the evangelist emphasizes precisely the part of the Lord’s Prayer where human activity was most directly involved. In contrast to the logion leading into the Lord’s Prayer (vv. 7–8), which emphasizes God’s nearness, this logion that brings the Lord’s Prayer to a close is designed to secure the relationship between prayer and action. Matthew makes clear that prayer is also part of Christian practice, and practice will again be the subject in 6:19–7:27. The forgiveness commandment corresponds in substance to the heart of his ethics, the love commandment. (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary on Matthew 1-7 [Rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007], 327; emphasis added)

While more could be said, it should be noted that what informs Flournoy's eisegesis is his acceptance of alien imputed righteousness. For instance, Flournoy made the utterly astonishing claim in the past that Christ's baptism is imputed to the believer in an interview with Dave Bartosiewicz. For a response to Flournoy on this point, see Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer

One should search on "imputation" and other like-terms on this blog to see how such a doctrine is based on eisegesis, such as King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology and my 7-part Study of λογιζομαι and its relationship to New Testament soteriology. Other articles would include

Does Genesis 15:6 prove Reformed soteriology?

Romans 4:9 and the Justification of Abraham

Lev 17:3-4 and Deut 25:1: Evidence of Forensic Justification and Imputation of Alient Righteousness in the Old Testament?

See also Don Garlington's article, Imputation or Union with Christ? A Response to John Piper

For a refutation of the formal doctrine of Protestantism, Sola Scriptura, see

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

The following from biblical scholar, Celsius Spicq on the meaning of δικαιοω further refutes the “legal fiction” Reformed apologists teach based on their (eisegesis-driven) reading of the passage (note especially note 88 with reference to Rom 4:5):

Several times St. Paul uses dikaoō in its forensic OT sense, “declare or acknowledge to be just,” especially when he is quoting the OT, but it would be wrong to extend this meaning to all the texts. In the first place, this would be to forget that “verbs in –oō mean to make whatever the root indicates. Thus dikaoō should properly mean ‘make just.’ This meaning is not found in secular Greek for rather natural reasons.’”[86] In the second place, it would overlook the fact that St. Paul, as a converted Pharisee, perceived as no one else did the opposition between the new covenant and the old covenant, law and grace, circumcision and baptism, and perhaps especially the inefficacy of the old legal dispensation compared to the efficacy and realism of the dispensation of salvation centered on the cross of Jesus. The consequence is a radical change in ideas concerning righteousness/justification, as is seen in the frequent linking of the verb “justify” with faith in Christ and in the explicit contrast between justification and the works of the law; there is a different scheme or process for attributing justice/righteousness in the new covenant than in the old covenant. The apostle gives dikaoō a causative sense, as appears from Rom 3:24—“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (cf. Rom 8:30; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:21); (henceforth) they are justified (present passive participle, dikaioumenoi) freely by his grace, through the redemption (apolytrōsis) that is in Jesus Christ.” God has shown his mercy, but not by pronouncing acquittal pure and simple; through Christ a price was paid, a ransom (lytron) with expiatory value (cf. verse 25: hilastērion), so that “sinners” have become just, have been made truly righteous.[87] Another clear text is Rom 3:26-“to show his justice/righteousness (his salvific action), so that (it might be established that) he himself is just and that he justifies (present active participle, dikaiounta) the one who has faith in Jesus”: the just God communicates his justice/righteousness and makes just.[88]

Notes for the Above

[86] M.J. LaGrange, La Justification selon saint Paul, Revue Biblique 1914, p. 121

[87] “The sacrifice of Christ has satisfied once and for all the demands for outward justice which God had deposited in the Law, and at the same time it has brought the positive gift of life and inward justice which the latter was unable to give” (P. Benoit, Exégèse et théologie, vol. 2 p. 39 n. 2); c. Rom 5:18—“justification gives life.” The best commentary is the Trinitarian baptismal text on the “bath of regeneration and renewal” (Titus 3:7), “so that having been justified by the grace of this (Jesus Christ) our Savior (ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι), we might become . . . heirs . . . of eternal life”: the aorist passive participle denotes the present state of this new and internal righteousness that permits entry into heaven, where nothing impure may go in. C. H. Rosman, “Iusticicare (δικαιουν) est verbum causalitatis,” in Verbum Domini, 1941, pp. 144-147.

[88] Cf. Rom 4:5—“The one who has no works but who believes in the One who justifies (δικαιουντα) the ungodly, will have his faith counted as righteousness.” M.J. Legrange (on this verse) comments: “δικαιοω in the active cannot mean ‘forgive’: it has to be ‘declare just’ or ‘make just.’ That God should declare the ungodly righteous is a blasphemous proposition. But in addition, when would this declaration be made?” H.W. Heidland (TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 288-292) explains λογιζεσθαι: “Justification is not a fiction alongside the reality. If God counts faith as righteousness, man is wholly righteous in God’s eyes . . . He becomes a new creature through God’s λογιζεσθαι.” (Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament [trans. James D. Ernest; 3 vols.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994], 1:340-42)

It is a shame to see someone who claims they want Christ to miss Him so badly as Flournoy does, but this is not the first time, nor, sadly, the last time such will happen in history. However, it does afford one an opportunity to contrast Flournoy's new-found false gospel with that of the true Gospel one finds within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Flournoy's eisegesis and misrepresentations notwithstanding, a classical case of good coming from evil.

Finally, for Flournoy's blasphemous claim that, in his newfound Evangelical view:

[G]race is better described as insurance, covering us in case we sin.

See Michael Flournoy's ignorance of Hebrews and the Eucharist

2 Samuel 23:17, Transubstantiation, and Exegetical Consistency

In 2 Sam 23:17, we read the following:

And he [King David] said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.

The LXX, when speaking of the relationship between the water and the blood of the soldiers slain to acquire such, reads:

τοῦτο εἰ αἷμα τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῶν πορευθέντων

While David is speaking of water from Bethlehem, the Greek shows that he intimately associated this water with literal blood; the demonstrative τοῦτο is a neuter singular and, grammatically, refers to αἷμα, also a neuter singular.

I raise this as an issue of theological and exegetical consistency. Latter-day Saints and many others who reject Transubstantiation and other related views (the Eastern Orthodox view; Consubstantiation, etc) are consistent in interpreting both this and similar passages figuratively and the words of Jesus in the institutional narratives of the Lord’s Supper, such as the phrase “This is my Body.” However, if a Catholic and proponents of a more "corporeal" understanding of “Real Presence” than that held by Latter-day Saints and others are inconsistent in taking an all-too-literal reading of “this is my body” but (correctly) exegete 2 Sam 23:17 figuratively.

Brief notes on D&C 132:26-27

One of the most misunderstood passages of uniquely Latter-day Saint Scripture is that of D&C 132:26-27, which reads as follows:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

In vol. 4 of A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, Stephen Robinson and H. Dean Garrett wrote the following:

26. They shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan. Every man and woman who comes to earth and receives the gospel of Jesus Christ is expected to remain true to their covenants, to endure faithfully to the end of their mortal lives. In this life, we seek constantly, through the blessings of the atonement of Jesus Christ and the powers of the Holy Ghost, to have our sins remitted and to stand clean before the Almighty. But none of us lives without error or misdeeds. That is true for the newest member of the Church as well as for seasoned members who have passed the tests of mortality and received the sweet assurance that their salvation is secured. Though not stated in this verse, it clearly implies that the individual who sins will repent and return to the gospel path. Thinking Latter-day Saints cannot suppose that they can sin willfully, remain in their sins, and go on to their exaltation.

To be sure, one who has received the assurance of eternal life has received the greater light, and thus sinning against that light brings a greater condemnation (see D&C 82:3). President Joseph Fielding Smith warned: "Verse 26, in section 132 is the most abused passage in any scripture. The Lord has never promised any soul that he may be taken into exaltation without the spirit of repentance. While repentance is not stated in this passage, yet it is, and must be, implied. . . . .

"I call attention to these two things. If covenants are broken and enormous sins are committed, but not unto death, there are certain punishments to be inflicted. The mere confession is not enough; the sinners are: 1—to 'be destroyed in the flesh'; and 2—to 'be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption.'

"Who in the world is so foolish as to wish to sin with the hope of forgiveness, if such a penalty is to be inflicted? No one but a fool! To be 'destroyed in the flesh' means exactly that. We cannot destroy men in the flesh, because we do not control the lives of men and do not have power to pass sentences upon them which involve capital punishment. In the days when there was a theocracy on the earth, then this decree was enforced. What the Lord will do in lieu of this, because we cannot destroy in the flesh, I am unable to say, but it will have to be made up in some other way.

" . . . Then to be turned over to the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, which is the resurrection, must be something horrible in its nature. Who wishes to endure such torment? No one but a fool! I have seen their anguish. I have heard their pleadings for relief and their pitiful cries that they cannot endure the torment. This was in this life. Add to that, the torment in the spirit world before the redemption comes—all of this, mark you, coming after severe and humble repentance!"

27. Ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood. This sin consists of denying Christ, fighting the truth, joining hands with those who crucified him, all the while knowing full well and with a perfect knowledge that he is the Son of God; it means pursuing this course after gaining a perfect knowledge, given by the Holy Ghost, that he is Lord of all. The innocent blood thus shed is his blood; those who so sin become murderers by assenting unto his death, an assent that is given with a full and perfect knowledge of his divinity.

Joseph Fielding Smith offered the following commentary on this passage in Doctrines of Salvation 2:94-99

I will make an explanation of the expression, "Sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise." This does not have reference to marriage for time and all eternity only, but to every ordinance and blessing of the gospel. Baptism into the Church is sealed by this Spirit, likewise confirmation, ordination, and all ordinances as well as marriage for time and all eternity.

The meaning of this expression is this: Every covenant, contract, bond, obligation, oath, vow, and performance, that man receives through the covenants and blessings of the gospel, is sealed by the Holy Spirit with a promise. The promise is that the blessing will be obtained, if those who seek it are true and faithful to the end. If they are not faithful, then the Holy Spirit will withdraw the blessing, and the promise comes to an end. [Sec. 76:50-54; 88:3-5; 124:124; 132:7; Moses 6:60.]

Verse 26, in Section 132, is the most abused passage in any scripture. The Lord has never promised any soul that he may be taken into exaltation without the spirit of repentance. While repentance is not stated in this passage, yet it is, and must be, implied. It is strange to me that everyone knows about verse 26, but it seems that they have never read or heard of Matthew 12:31-32, where the Lord tells us the same thing in substance as we find in verse 26, Section 132.

It is wrong to take one passage of scripture and isolate it from all other teachings dealing with the same subject. We should bring together all that has been said by authority on the question. . . .

The Lord said by his own mouth: "And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father. And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words. And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end." [3 Nephi 27:17-19.]

So we must conclude that those spoken of in verse 26 are those who, having sinned, have fully repented and are willing to pay the price of their sinning, else the blessings of exaltation will not follow. Repentance is absolutely necessary for the forgiveness, and the person having sinned must be cleansed.

John said: "There is a sin unto death." "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." [1 John 5:16.]

The Lord, in verse 27, has pointed out some sins unto death for which there is no forgiveness. It will do no good for one to pray for his brother for forgiveness from such a sin. All other sins, including blasphemy against the Son of God, may be forgiven men, on their true repentance. If they do not repent, then no matter what the sin may be, or the covenant violated, the guilty party or parties will never enter into the kingdom of God!

Here is something which those who contend that the Lord has granted immunity from their sins to some, if they have received certain sealings by the Holy Spirit of promise, have overlooked in this passage. I will call attention to these two things. If covenants are broken and enormous sins are committed, but not unto death, there are certain punishments to be inflicted. The mere confession is not enough; the sinners are: 1—to "be destroyed in the flesh"; 2—to "be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption."

Who in the world is so foolish as to wish to sin with the hope of forgiveness, if such a penalty is to be inflicted? No one but a fool! To be "destroyed in the flesh" means exactly that. We cannot destroy men in the flesh, because we do not control the lives of men and do not have power to pass sentences upon them which involve capital punishment. In the days when there was a theocracy on the earth, then this decree was enforced. [Gen. 9:4-6; Lev. 20:10.] What the Lord will do in lieu of this because we cannot destroy in the flesh, I am unable to say, but it will have to be made up in some other way.

Then to be turned over to the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, which is the resurrection, must be something horrible in its nature. Who wishes to endure such torment? No one but a fool! I have seen their anguish. I have heard their pleadings for relief and their pitiful cries that they cannot endure the torment. This was in this life. Add to that, the torment in the spirit world before the redemption comes—all of this, mark you, coming after severe and humble repentance!

Some among us have the idea that to confess their sins with their lips and to turn away from them constitutes all that is required of the repentant. This is not always so. It is our duty to forgive, but the Lord may require a severe penalty after this humble repentance. David sorely repented; read some of his Psalms and realize how he cried in anguish for relief; yet we understand that he is paying the price to this day and will until the Son of God comes to relieve him. [Psalms 16:10; 51:1-19; Acts 2:29, 34.]

I said that when the Lord ruled in a theocracy that punishment by death was the edict for certain crimes. Here is an example: "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." [Lev. 20:10.] There were also other crimes for which this penalty was exacted. [Rom. 1:28-32; Ex. 35:2; Deut. 13:1-11; 17:1-7; 21:20-23.]

No, the Lord has not prepared for favoritism. He has not placed exemption upon some because they have received marriage for time and for all eternity and had it sealed by the "Holy Spirit of promise." He has not given them the privilege of blaspheming his name, of committing any sin whatever, and then coming forth to receive an exaltation. We should all be grateful for the wonderful principle of repentance; we all need it. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the celestial kingdom is reserved for those who are sanctified and none others. Read Mormon 9:3-4.

Let it be remembered also that those who sin must repent in this life; if they die in their sins, unrepentant, then no matter what blessings they have received, they are not reinstated. [Alma 34:31-35; 3 Nephi 12:20; 27:17-19.]

When a man and a woman, in all sincerity, enter into a covenant of marriage for time and all eternity (and after they have "overcome by faith," and are "just and true"), [Sec. 76:54] the Holy Ghost—who is the Spirit of promise—bears record of or ratifies that sealing. In other words, he seals the promises appertaining to the marriage covenant upon them.

Now the Lord has said: "But there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the listing God; Therefore let the church take heed and pray always, lest they fall into temptation; Yea, and even let those who are sanctified take heed also." [Sec. 20:31-34.]

If one or both of these covenanting persons break that covenant by which they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, then the Spirit withdraws the seal and the guilty party, or parties, stand as if there had been no sealing or promise given. All covenants are sealed based upon faithfulness.

Should a person endeavor to receive the sealing blessing by fraud, then the blessing is not sealed, notwithstanding the integrity and authority of the person officiating. Instead of a blessing they will receive a cursing, the heaviest of all. [Sec. 41:1.] Therefore, a person who may deceive the bishop or any other officer, will stand condemned before the Lord, for he cannot be deceived and justice will be meted to all.