The Repentance-less Gospel of some Mormons

Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins-- behold, he will confess them and forsake them. (D&C 58:42-43)

I was hoping to take a break from posting for a few days as I am jetting off to London for a few days, but I had to comment on this issue as it is a very sad commentary on the theology of many Latter-day Saints. On the Millennial Star, Meg Stout, who has embarrassed herself on topic of Joseph Smith's polygamy, has shown herself to be a purveyor of a repentance-less gospel (emphasis added):

The final session I was able to catch focused on female body image. The two main speakers are both involved in professions that focus on the human body. The first lady is not Mormon. She was a Playboy Playmate of the Month in 2011 and currently helps couples learn to more fully receive physical fulfillment from one another. The second, Sasha, is an active member of the church and her profession is dancing in strip clubs. Her tale is one of terrible abuse, homelessness, drug abuse, and rape. In short, a life from which becoming a very good stripper is a step up. And the entire time, as she struggled with the different stages of her life, she continually and faithfully came to church and held on to her faith in Christ.

In the comments section Meg desperately tried to defend her positive comments about Sasha' occupation with the following on facebook:

Come to think about it, if you have folks coming to Church as a result of hearing about the gospel from Sasha in the first place, who better to have as the Gospel Principles teacher?

If people attended Church and had her as a Gospel Principles teacher (heaven forbid--as one on a branch presidency, I would never allow her to teach such a class), it would show that the ward she attends a congregation that preaches a repentance-less gospel: instead of being a repentant stripper, they have a stripper who is not in a state of repentance. Read Luke 19:1-10, for instance--Jesus accepted repentant sinners (those who realised they were in a rebellious state, repented made restitution, and forsook their sinful lifestyles), not sinners who continue in their state of rebellion.

Stout contradicted herself with the following on the comments section of the blog:

Once more to Nick, you might want to read the minutes of Relief Society for June 9, 1842. This meeting happened after Joseph knew he had identified the ringleader of the seducers, and it was now a time when the penitent could be embraced. Mahala Overton had apparently been well-known for having participated in sin, yet Joseph and Emma urge the Relief Society to welcome her and embrace her.

One has to wonder if Meg bothered to read the minutes of this meeting. Here we read that there was a call to repentance, not a mere acceptance of the person in their rebellious, sinful state (emphasis added):

Respecting the reception of Sis. Overton, Prest. Smith It grieves me that there is no fuller fellowship— if one member suffer all feel it— by union of feeling we obtain pow’r with God. Christ said he came to call sinners to repentance and save them. Christ was condemn’d by the righteous jews because he took sinners into his society— he took them 〈up〉on the principle that they repented of their sins. It is the object of this Society to reform persons, not to take those that are corrupt, but if they repent we are bound to take them and by kindness sanctify and cleanse from all unrighteousness, by our influence in watching over them— nothing will have such influence over people, as the fear of being disfellowship’d by so goodly a Society as this. Then take Sis. O. as Jesus received sinners into his bosom.

Off to the London Temple!

Me outside the London LDS Temple





I will be in London between Tuesday to Thursday as part of a temple trip so I will not be posting for a few days. So to keep you guys busy, here are some very good youtube videos on the topic of the temple:

Matthew B. Brown, "The Israelite Temple and Early Christians"

David Seely and William Hamlin, "Solomons' Temple: Myth and History"

"Between Heaven and Earth"

Daniel Bercerra, "Washings and Anointings in Early Christianity"

Zacchaeus vs. Sola Fide

The narrative of Jesus and Zacchaeus is recorded in Luke 19:1-10:

He entered Jericho and was passing through it. A man was there named Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was rich. He was trying to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was short in stature. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree to see him, because he was going to pass that way. When Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, hurry and come down; for I must stay at your house today." So he hurried down and was happy to welcome him. All who saw it began to grumble and said, "He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner." Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, "Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much." Then Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost." (NRSV)

The soteriology presented in this pericope is in conflict with many popular theologies of salvation. As one critic of sola fide wrote:

In responding to Jesus' invitation, Zacchaeus says, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount." Here is true repentance. Zacchaeus is not just believing that Jesus is his personal Savior, but he is seeking to make a work of restitution and Zacchaeus is going above and beyond that law by offering to give as much as half his possessions (cf., Ex 22:1-3; Lev 6:4-5; Nm 5:7; 2Sm 12:6). This is just what Jesus told the Rich Young Man of Lk 18:22 in order to obtain eternal life, "Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Although the account does not state this, we might say that the Rich Young Man stole from the poor indirectly and thus needed to make "restitution."

Notice Jesus' response to this repentant tax collector after he volunteers to pay back the money he stole: "Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has some to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham . . . '" it is the faith in Jesus coupled with the works of restitution, amounting to sincere repentance on Zacchaeus' part, which in turn prompts Jesus to grant him salvation. We notice also that Jesus designates Zacchaeus as a "son of Abraham." This does not merely mean that Zacchaeus was a Jew but that he was a "Jew inwardly" who "walked in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham" who was also justified by his "faith" and "works" (cf., Rm 2:29; 4:12,16; Jm 2:24). (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 181)

Joseph Smith's Expansions to D&C 7

In my post, Biblical Prophets Changing their Words and the Words of Previous Prophets, I discussed the biblical evidence showing that prophets can and have changed the text of their revelations and the text of previous prophets (e.g., Jeremiah; Isaiah; Moses), so there was nothing improper with Joseph Smith having done the same. In this post, I will briefly discuss one of the more interesting examples of Joseph having changed (or, to be more precise, expanded) a revelation, and offer a possible explanation underlying such.

Section 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants purports to be a translation of a parchment composed anciently by John, the beloved disciple. When one compares D&C 7 with section VI of the 1833 A Book of Commandments and the text in Revelation Book 1, one will find a number of expansions (text in red denotes additional material; text in black is original to the Book of Commandments/Revelation Book 1 text):

And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you. And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee. And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people. And for this cause the Lord said unto Peter: If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? For he desired of me that he might bring souls unto me, but thou desiredst that thou mightest speedily come unto me in my kingdom. I say unto thee, Peter, this was a good desire; but my beloved has desired that he might do more, or a greater work yet among men than what he has before done. Yea, he has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make him as flaming fire and a ministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth. And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come. Verily I say unto you, ye shall both have according to your desires, for ye both joy in that which ye have desired.

Many, if not all, these changes, can be explained as the Prophet Joseph Smith expanding upon the subtext of the original translation of this parchment. What is “subtext”? Subtext is defined as "the unspoken or less obvious meaning or message in a literary composition, drama, speech, or conversation. The subtext comes to be known by the reader or audience over time, as it is not immediately or purposefully revealed by the story itself" (source). In the case of the first change we witness, the addition of “For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you,” such can be seen as the subtext to the initial question of Jesus to John, showing it was not just a question posed only out of sheer curiosity, but implicitly bearing a promise of Jesus wishing to fulfil the desire of the disciple. The other expansions to the original revelation can be seen, too, as explicating the subtext.

Origen and the History of Justification

As I have mentioned Origen (185-254) in two posts today, let me complete the hat trick (wow, I just used a soccer term . . . ) by plugging a highly recommended work:

Thomas P. Scheck, Origen and the History of Justification: The Legacy of Origen's Commentary of Romans (University of Notre Dame Press, 2008) (paperback also available here)

Needless to say, Sola Fide, as with Sola Scriptura, is without any meaningful patristic support.

Origen on God’s Foreknowledge, Evil, and Human Free will

Mark S.M. Scott, on this monograph on Origen’s theodicy, wrote the following:

Why does God endow human beings with freedom, especially in light of the disastrous results that God presumably foreknew? Origen offers two explanations. First, God did not want to create automata, creatures preprogrammed to worship and enjoy God. Rather, God desired that all creatures would choose to embrace and appropriate the goodness that God originally bestowed to creation: “For the Creator granted to the minds created by him the power of free and voluntary movement, in order that the good that was in them might become their own, since it was preserved by their own free will.” (On First Principles 2.9.2) Second, God wanted to create creatures the good. In answer to the question whether God can transform sinners into saints via divine fiat, Origen argues at the development of virtue of the integrity of free will. Without freedom, true virtue cannot be cultivated:

Was it impossible for God by divine power even to make men needing correction good and perfect there and then so that evil should not exist at all? These arguments may carry away the uneducated and unintelligent folk, but certainly not the man who analyzes the nature of the problem. For if you take away the element of free will from virtue, you also destroy its essence. (Contra Celsum 4.3)

Hence, God gives freedom to creatures so that they may freely internalize the goodness that God imparts to them by taking responsibility for their own actions and choices. (Mark S.M. Scott, Journey Back to God: Origen on the Problem of Evil [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015], 68-69)

Support Scriptural Mormonism

Origen vs. Sola Scriptura

In book 13 sections 27-30 of his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Origen (185-254) wrote the following, proving that he rejected the formal sufficiency of the Bible:

(27) For indeed, Scripture has not contained some of the more lordly and more divine aspects of the mysteries of God, nor indeed has the human voice and the human tongue contained some, as far as the common understanding of the meanings are concerned. "For there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were each written, I suppose not even the world itself would contain the books that would be written."

(28) John is forbidden to write when he is about to record all that the seven thunders said. Paul, too, says that he has not heard words that cannot be spoken. These were not words that were not permitted to be spoken by anyone, for angels were permitted to speak them, but not men, "for all things are permitted, but not all things are beneficial."

(29) And he said that "it is not permitted to man to speak" those things that he had heard, "words that cannot be spoken."

(30) Now I think that all of the Scriptures, even when perceived very accurately, are not only very elementary rudiments of and very brief introductions to all knowledge. (Origen: Commentary on the Gospel of John Books 13-32 [The Fathers of the Church vol. 89; trans. Ronald Heine; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1993], 74)

One can see the overwhelming biblical case, with an appendix on some of the patristic witness against Sola Scriptura in my new book:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura (Amazon; Amazon [UK])

I have added the “print” versions of the works of Origen and Justin Martyr from The Fathers of the Church series on this Wish List on Amazon. For those wishing to support this blog, do consider either Amazon gift cards [email: IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTCOM] and/or a donation via Pay Pal.

J. Ramsey Michaels on the use of "sacrifices" in Hebrews 9:23

far better sacrifices. The plural is surprising in that Christ’s offering of himself is more commonly pictured as a single sacrifice. The author has retained the plural for the sake of the parallel with “the blood of animals” (lit., “these”), and the plural lends itself to the assumption that although Christ’s sacrifice took place “once and for all” on the cross, his high priesthood, and consequently his priestly activity in heaven, is eternal and continual (for example, see 7:25). (Michaels, R. J. [2009]. Commentary on Hebrews. In Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews [Vol. 17, p. 408]. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers; emphasis added)

Suggested Commentaries on The Epistle to the Hebrews

Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (The New Testament Library)

F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New Internatoinal Commentary on the New Testament)

George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews (Anchor Bible)

Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (The New International Greek Testament Commentary)

David L. Allen, Hebrews: An Exgetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) (cf. his Lukan Authorship of Hebrews [New American Commentary Studiees in Bible and Theology])

William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (Word Biblical Commentary)

Ibid, Hebrews 9-13 (Word Biblical Commentary)

James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (International Critical Commentary)

Temple-related videos on Youtube

I will be heading off for a short trip to the London LDS Temple next week, so I think it only proper to plug some youtube videos on the topic. A very good listing on the Fair Mormon youtube page can be found here. One such example is that of David J. Larsen, Temple Themes in Psalms & the Book of Mormon:

Brant Gardner on New World Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Brant Gardner has written a number of important books and articles. His books, which are all must-reads, are Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (6 vols); By the Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon and Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History.

His presentation, New World Evidence for the Book of Mormon, is available on the Fair Mormon Youtube page in 5 parts:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Islam: Threat or Not?

I watched this (all too short) debate between Daniel Peterson and Robert Spencer:

Islam: Threat or Not?

As it was referenced on Dan's facebook page, I thought I would "plug" it here, too:

Support this blog

The Yetzer Harah and Christ's Temptation in the Wilderness

Thomas Farrar, a former Christadelphian who recently converted to Roman Catholicism, has a new article on his Dianoigo blog which I found to be very insightful:

What "Yetzer in the Wilderness"? A response to Jonathan Burke on the Devil in the Synoptic Gospels

The article is a response to Jonathan Burke who argues that the tempter in the wilderness is an external personification of the inward sinful desires of Christ, based on the intertestamental concept of the yetzer hara, "the evil impulse/inclination." Farrar shows that this is a rather desperate attempt to protect Christadelphian theology which explicitly rejects the ontological existence of supernatural evil as a tenet of faith.

See also Farrar's paper, The Devil in the Wilderness: Evaluating Christadelphian exegesis of the temptation narratives

For those interested, on the topic of the yetzer hara, a very good scholarly discussion can be found in the following volume:

Ishay Rosen-Zvi,  Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).

Not by Scripture Alone: Available on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk

The Amazon listing for my book on Sola Scriptura has been set up earlier than expected. One can order a copy here:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura (Amazon.com)

There is also a listing for the book on Amazon.co.uk here. The book costs $10 and £7.67, respectively, excluding shipping.

Not by Scripture Alone: Available for purchase on Create Space

My book, Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura is now available to order (at the affordable price of $10) in paperback format on Create Space:

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

This is the most sustained biblical critique of the formal doctrine of Protestantism, Sola Scriptura, by a Latter-day Saint in print. It should be available to order on Amazon in the next few days (will announce it here), and a kindle version is in the works, too.

Book Coming out in August!

Robert S. Boylan, Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Currently fixing a few typos and the like; I will announce the release of this volume when it is available for purchase.

Update: The paperback is available on Create Space, Amazon.com, and Amazon.co.uk

Debate: Veneration of Images & Statues

Yesterday there was a debate between William Albrecht (Roman Catholic) and Tony Costa (Reformed Baptist; author of Worship of the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters):

Veneration of Images & Statues - Biblical & Historical?

The overwhelming biblical and patristic evidence against the dogmatic decrees of the Second Council of Nicea (787 CE) can be seen in this debate; one will also see the special pleading the Catholic side is forced to engage in to defend the dogmatic teachings on this issue.

I have written on this issue myself:

Latter-day Saints and Religious Images

The Synod of Elvira vs. Second Nicea on Veneration of Images

Support this blog

Which Bible Translations do I use?

Apart from the King James Version which I use in my daily devotional reading, here are the other English translations that I use regularly:

New Revised Standard Version

Revised Standard Version

1985 Jewish Publications Society Tanakh

Lexham English Bible

New Jerusalem Bible

New English Translation

New American Standard Version (1995 update)

English Standard Version
New English Translation of the Septuagint

I own a number of English translations in print as well on Bibleworks (the main biblical software I use [though I also have Logos]).

Support this blog

More biblical evidence of "gracious merit"

In a blog post, Gracious Merit in the Bible, I interacted with, and refuted a Reformed Protestant apologist who took umbrage with the Latter-day Saint view of (gracious) merit. Other important texts proving the concept of gracious merit in the Bible include the following (the following are from the NRSV):

They are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous and ready to share, thus storing up or themselves treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life. (1 Tim 6:18-19)

From now on there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me on that day, and not only to me but also all who have longed for his appearing. (2 Tim 4:8)

For God is not unjust, he will not overlook your work and the love that you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. (Heb 6:10)

Support this blog

Robert Millet and Joseph Fielding McConkie on 2 Nephi 25:23 and Moroni 10:32

Commenting on 2 Nephi 25:23, Robert Millet and Joseph Fielding McConkie, in vol. 1 of their Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, wrote the following, showing that even among those who held a very “black and white” view of things, this passage was never understood in any legalistic/Pelagian sense (while still [correctly] rejecting sola fide):

23. For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Salvation—which is exaltation or eternal life—comes through the merits and mercy and condescensions of God: it comes by grace. It is a divine gift made available through the love of the Father and the selfless sacrifice of the Son. There are many things which are simply beyond the power of man to bring to pass. Man can neither create nor redeem himself; such activities require the intervention of beings greater than he.

Satan would have Christians err on this doctrine in one of two directions. First of all, there are those who contend that man is saved by grace alone, and that no works of any kind are of value. Such persons might reconstruct Nephi's language as follows: "We are saved by grace; after all, what can we do?" "Salvation by grace alone and without works," Elder McConkie observed, "as it is taught in large segments of Christendom today, is akin to what Lucifer proposed in preexistence—that he would save all mankind and one soul should not be lost. He would save them without agency, without works, without any act on their part.

"As with the proposal of Lucifer in the preexistence to save all mankind, so with the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, without works, as it is taught in modern Christendom—both concepts are false. There is no salvation in either of them. They both come from the same source; they are not of God." ("What Think Ye of Salvation by Grace?" BYU address, 10 January 1984, p. 49.)

On the other hand, there are those who become so obsessed with their own "works-righteousness," with their own goodness, that they do not look to Christ as the true fountain of all righteousness. Men and women must rely "wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save" (see 2 Nephi 31:19). In the purest sense, the works of righteousness which a person performs—ordinances of salvation and deeds of Christian service—are necessary but are insufficient to lead to salvation. No matter what a man may do in this life, his works will not save him: he will always fall short and thus be "an unprofitable servant" (Mosiah 2:21) without the grace or divine assistance of God. Indeed, it is only after a person has so performed a lifetime of works and faithfulness—only after he has come to deny himself of all ungodliness and every worldly lust—that the grace of God, that spiritual increment of power, is efficacious. In the language of Moroni: "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ" (Moroni 10:32; italics added).

"Salvation is free." (2 Nephi 2:4.) Justification is free," wrote Elder Bruce R. McConkie. "Neither of them can be purchased; neither can be earned; neither comes by the law of Moses, or by good works, or by any power or ability that man has.... Salvation is free, freely available, freely to be found. It comes because of his goodness and grace, because of his love, mercy, and condescension toward the children of men." Continuing, Elder McConkie explained, "Free salvation is salvation by grace. The questions then are: What salvation is free? What salvation comes by the grace of God? With all the emphasis of the rolling thunders of Sinai, we answer: All salvation is free; all comes by the merits and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah; there is no salvation of any kind, nature, or degree that is not bound to Christ and his atonement." (Promised Messiah, pp. 346-47)

In vol. 4 of the same commentary series, the authors provided the following interpretation of Moroni 10:32, again showing that they did not hold to a legalistic/Pelagian interpretation:

32. Come unto Christ, and be perfected in him] The Saints are commanded to be perfect (JST, Matthew 5:50; 3 Nephi 12:48). We are never justified in lowering the lofty standard held out to the followers of the Christ. Nor are our actions or attitudes approved of God if we suggest that the Savior did not mean what he said when he called us to the transcendent level of perfection. Our task is not to water down the ideal, nor to dilute the directive. Rather, we must view our challenge with perspective, must see things as they really are and as they really can be.

The fact of the matter is that no man or woman except Jesus—not even the greatest Apostle or the mightiest prophet—has ever traversed this mortal sphere perfectly, without flaw. Only the Son of the Man of Holiness stayed on the strait and narrow path perfectly. But he commands us to be perfect. Is is too late for us, given that we have already sinned? No, for perfection is a process, a lengthy process which begins here and continues hereafter. The key principle to be remembered by the disciple of Christ is that perfection is in Christ. Our Lord offers to make us perfect, meaning whole, complete, and finished. Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith (see Hebrews 12:2; Moroni 6:4), seeks to perfect us in the sense that he makes us whole and complete. Without him we are nothing and can do nothing of eternal value (see John 15:1-5). With him we are complete. As Nephi explained, above and beyond all we can do we are saved by the grace—the enabling power—of Jesus Christ (see 2 Nephi 25:23). Stephen E. Robinson has described the process as follows: "Perfection comes through the Atonement of Christ. We become one with him, with a perfect being. And as we become one, there is a merger. Some of my students are studying business, and they understand it better if I talk in business terms. You take a small bankrupt firm that's about ready to go under and merge it with a corporate giant. What happens? Their assets and liabilities flow together, and the new entity that is created is solvent....

"Spiritually, this is what happens when we enter into the covenant relationship with our Savior. We have liabilities, he has assets. He proposes to us a covenant relationship. I use the word 'propose' on purpose because it is a marriage of a spiritual sort that is being proposed. That is why he is called the Bridegroom. This covenant relationship is so intimate that it can be described as a marriage. I become one with Christ, and as partners we work together for my salvation and my exaltation. My liabilities and his assets flow into each other. I do all that I can do, and he does what I cannot yet do. The two of us together are perfect." ("Believing Christ: A Practical Approach to the Atonement," 1989-90 BYU Devotional and Fireside Speeches, pp. 120-21.)

In short, the Master offers not only to change us, but to exchange with us—to exchange his goodness for our sin (see 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13; Philippians 3:8-9; Hebrews 2:9). He came not only to cleanse our souls but also to fill our souls. He came not only to wipe away the stains but also to endow us with his righteousness and his power. He came to perfect us. Thus it is that those who go to the celestial kingdom are those who are "just men [and women] made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood" (D&C 76:69, italics added).

32. Deny yourselves of all ungodliness] This is one of the ways in which we bear the cross of Christ. "And now for a man to take up his cross, is to deny himself all ungodliness, and every worldly lust, and keep my commandments" (JST, Matthew 16:26).

32. Love God with all your might, mind and strength] "To love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength," President Ezra Taft Benson has taught, "is all-consuming and all encompassing. The breadth, depth, and height of this love of God extend into every facet of one's life. Our desires, be they spiritual or temporal, should be rooted in a love of the Lord." (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 349.)

32. Then is his grace sufficient for you] "No more heinous doctrine could exist than that which encourages lip service to God but discourages wholehearted obedience and the works attendant to discipleship.... And surely no more diabolical belief could exist than that which encourages the kind of smug self-assurance that comes from trusting in one's own works, relying upon one's own strength, and seeking to prosper through one's own genius. It is an affront to God and a mock of the atoning power of him whom God sent, for man to place himself at the center of things, for him to revel in his own greatness and marvel at his own achievements. Pure humanism is a doctrine of the devil: it places an inordinate emphasis upon fallible man and thus deflects man's vision away from the heavens and the powers of redemption.... The key to understanding this sacred principle—the relationship between the grace of God and the works of man—is balance, balance and perspective provided through the scriptures of the Restoration and the words of living oracles of this dispensation." (Robert L. Millet, By Grace Are We Saved, pp. 72-73.) It is only as we seek to rid ourselves of the taints of this telestial world that we prepare ourselves to receive the Lord's grace, his power and strength, which then enable us to do that which we could not do on our own. President Harold B. Lee wisely taught: "Spiritual certainty that is necessary to salvation must be preceded by a maximum of individual effort. Grace, or the free gift of the Lord's atoning power, must be preceded by personal striving." (Stand Ye in Holy Places, p. 213.)

Brian Hales and Gregory Smith vs. Grant Palmer on Joseph Smith's Polygamy

My copy of Grant Palmer's new book, Restoring Christ: Leaving Mormon Jesus for Jesus of the Gospels just shipped. From scanning through the book on Amazon, it appears that one of the chapters is that of “Sexual Allegations against Joseph Smith and His Practice of Concubinage, Polyandry and Polygamy.” Palmer’s study has been soundly refuted by Brian Hales and Gregory L. Smith, so one hopes that Palmer has demonstrated intellectual integrity and edited the essay accordingly (though I am not holding my breath). One can read the rather devastating review at the following page:

A Response to Grant Palmer’s “Sexual Allegations against Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Polygamy in Nauvoo” (pdf)

Joseph Pohle on Luther's doctrine of Justification

In his volume on grace, Roman Catholic theologian Joseph Pohle (1852-1922) wrote the following as part of his critique of various Protestant theologies of grace:

Another weighty objection against the Lutheran theory of justification is that it disregards the law of causation. According to Luther a man is justified by the firm belief and trust that his sins are forgiven. This "belief" is either true or false. If it is false, I can have no certainty with regard to my salvation, but am deceiving myself. If true, it presupposes that which it is to effect, in other words, it puts the cause before the effect. An orthodox Lutheran theologian of the old school would probably retort. My sins are actually forgiven by virtue of the atonement, because all men without exception are redeemed through the merits of Jesus Christ. If this be true, then why not be consistent and say: All men are justified because all are redeemed, consequently there is no need of faith and sacraments, and keeping the commandments is a matter of indifference! It is at this point that the incompatibility of Luther's teaching with the Bible and sound ethics becomes most glaringly apparent. True, Luther himself at times emphasized the necessity of good works; but this merely proves that he had lucid intervals when his honest nature rebelled against the inconsistency of his teaching. (Joseph Pohle, Grace, Actual and Habitual: A Dogmatic Treatise [St. Louis: B. Herder, 1915; repr., Bibliobooks, n.d.], 294; an online version of the work can be found here)

Hebrews as a pre-70 composition

My favourite book in the entire Bible is that of Hebrews. I am currently re-reading it as part of my daily Scripture reading at the moment. What is interesting is that even über liberal commentators on the New Testament admit that it is an early (pre-70) composition. Richard Carrier wrote the following in defence of the view that Hebrews pre-dates the destruction of the Second Temple:

The overall argument of this letter is that Jewish Christians should not backslide now, because Judaism can no longer guarantee their salvation (this letter does not advocate Torah-observant Christianity: e.g., Heb. 13.9). That the temple cult no longer existed (and God did nothing to save the Jews from destruction, not even as a nation, but neither to save his temple and the cult being paid to him there) would have been so extremely effective and important an argument in this context that for the author never once to use it is all but impossible—unless Hebrews was written before the year 70, before even the year 66 (when the Jewish War started, since that fact alone could hardly escape mention). For example (and this is just one example among many), in Heb. 10.1-4 it is clearly assumed the temple sacrifices are still being performed: because the author makes an argument against their effectiveness, yet the obvious argument—that they aren’t even being performed any more and therefore can’t be effective even if ever they were—doesn’t occur to him. He even asks as a rhetorical question if the effects of these sacrifices lasted longer than a year, ‘would they not have ceased to be offered [by now]?’ (10.3). It’s undeniably clear the author has no idea here that they had ceased. We must conclude, then, that they had not. I find this so decisive a point that maintaining a later date for Hebrews is simply not tenable. I know of no logically valid argument for that. (Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014], 539-40. Emphasis in original)

This is significant as Hebrews presents a very high Christology (e.g., 1:2, 10-12 affirms Christ’s personal pre-existence and role in the Genesis creation), showing that such is not a much later development within early Christianity.

Is Hebrews 5:7-8 speaking of Melchizedek or Jesus?

In Heb 5:7-8, we read the following:

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.

Interestingly, in spite of the context showing the text to be speaking of Jesus, perhaps due to the ambiguity introduced by v. 6, Joseph Smith believed that this passage was a parenthetical comment about Melchizedek, not Jesus. The NT mss for this passage reads thusly:

Note — the 7^th and 8^th verses of this chapter are a

                         pare<n>theses alluding to Melchisedec and not to

                         christ

‎In his footnotes to Hebrews, Kevin L. Barney wrote the following (p. 20 n. 200) which explains rather plausibly the reason why Joseph Smith understood this passage to be speaking of Melchizedek:

The proper antecedent to the relative is unclear. Since the immediately preceding name is “Melchizedek” at the end of the preceding v., it is natural on first blush to take Melchizedek as the antecedent. Indeed, a marginal note in a jst ms. suggests that vv. 7-8 “are a parenthesis alluding to Melchizedek and not to Christ.” The name “Melchizedek” is, however, part of a scriptural quotation. The subject of the two verbs preceding the quote is God the Father, yet it is clear from the material in vv. 7-8 that the Father could not be the intended referent. Although the jst is grammatically justified in reading the antecedent to the relative as referring to Melchizedek, the sense of vv. 7-8 requires the conclusion that those vv. are referring to Christ. Note that the 1979 lds edition of the kjv, after reporting this jst marginal comment, goes on to cross reference this material in these vv. to Jesus, not to Melchizedek. This cross referencing is correct. The confusion on this point derives from a grammatical mistake on the part of the author of Hebrews in his use of the relative without showing Jesus as the clear antecedent. Generally, modern translations render the passage in such a way as to avoid rendering the awkward relative clause into English.

Works of Swedenborg, Servetus, and Tertullian

Today, I read a very interesting volume:

Andrew M.T. Dibb, Servetus, Swedenborg and the Nature of God (University Press of America, Inc., 2005)

The volume contained a very good discussion of the theology of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit in the writings of these two figures, as well as Tertullian.

I am sure many readers of this blog will wish to pursue the writings of these three (often controversial) figures to compare and contrast the later theology of Joseph Smith:

Swedenborg Foundation: Swedenborg’s Writings Online

Works of Michael Servetus (Michael Servetus Institute)

Works of Tertullian (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

Brigham Young: Imputing to Leaders Infallibility is "reckless"

As just one of many instances of Brigham Young (and other early LDS leaders) explicitly rejecting their infallibility, Brigham once said the following:

I will say a few words in regard to your belief in being led, guided, and directed by one man. Brother Jackman has said that our enemies hate the fact of our being led by one man. Thousands of times my soul has been lifted to God the Father, in the name of Jesus, to make that verily, true in every sense of the word, that we may be led by the man Jesus Christ, through Joseph Smith the Prophet. You may inquire how we are to know that we are so led. I refer you to the exhortation you have heard so frequently from me. Do not be deceived, any of you; if you are deceived, it is because you deceive yourselves. You may know whether you are led right or wrong, as well as you know the way home; for every principle God has revealed carries its own convictions of its truth to the human mind, and there is no calling of God to man on earth but what brings with it the evidences of its authenticity. Let us take a course that leads to the perpetuity of the natural life which God has given us, and honour it. Should we pursue this course faithfully, and never bestow one thought for the life that is to come, we are just as sure of that immortal life as we are of the life we now possess. This, in fact, is the only way in which we can be prepared to inherit that more glorious life. What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually. (Brigham Young, January 12, 1862, JOD 9:149-50; emphasis added)

Just another passage from the Journal of Discourses critics will gloss over . . .

Charles W. Penrose on the Importance of Doctrine

The following lengthy quotation comes from a volume from 1904 by Charles W. Penrose (1832-1925), an early 20^th century LDS leader. It is a very good refutation of the relativism that is, alas, still alive today, where even Latter-day Saints have the attitude that it doesn’t really matter what people believe in as long as they are “good people” and/or “simply believe in Jesus”:

One of the great errors into which people have fallen in reference to religion is that God must accept any mode of worship, any sort of ordinances, and any kind of church that men may establish, so long as they are sincere in their intentions and devout in their desires. God must be worshipped not only in spirit but in truth. His word is truth. His Spirit is the spirit of truth. God's religion, then, will be the truth, and nothing but the truth, and he will accept of nothing short of this. The inventions of men, whatever may be their motives, are not of God and therefore are vain. The precepts and opinions and vagaries of man-appointed preachers and teachers, not being authorized or inspired of God, cannot be relied upon and are not acknowledged in heaven. Christendom as well as heathendom is in a ferment with human conceptions and conflicting theories in relation to God, his will, his purposes, and his requirements. The result is spiritual Babylon, which is confusion. God is not with it, for he is the author of peace, and order and harmony.

"Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it;" so said the great Teacher whom professing Christians regard as the Savior of the world (Matthew 7:14). He also declared: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheep-fold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1). Also, "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9). And further, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).

The nations that are called heathen are, no doubt, as sincere in their idolatrous worship as are the Christian nations in their opposing creeds and devotional exercises. If mere sincerity and devout motives are sufficient for God's acceptance, then heathendom is on a par with Christendom in the sight of heaven. But the objector will no doubt reply, "Heathen religions lack the one essential feature of acceptance with God, faith in Jesus Christ. Having that, doctrinal differences do not matter; faith alone is sufficient for salvation." "Christ is the way, the truth, and the light, and whosoever believeth in him shall have eternal life." That is another of the astonishing errors of modern religious people and teachers. Seizing upon a few isolated texts from the New Testament, relying upon the letter of the word alone, regardless of the spirit and meaning thereof, they altogether ignore numerous other texts in the same volume, which make plain the intent and signification of those which they select. Their eyes are blinded to the pure truth, they stumble in the way, and the blind leading the blind, they are in danger of falling into the ditch together.

Jesus of Nazareth truly said, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). But he also said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27). "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father" (John 14:12). "If a man love me, he will keep my words" (Verse 23). "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." (Verse 21.) "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." (John 15:10.) "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21.) "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46.) "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19-20.) "And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." (Matthew 7:26, 27.) "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:19.) When the rich young man asked the Savior what he should do that he might have eternal life, he was not told there was nothing for him to do but believe in Christ, but the answer was, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17.) After Christ's resurrection, when he sent his apostles into all the world to preach the gospel to every creature, he added, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:20.)

The apostles, thus authorized, obeyed these instructions, and not only proclaimed belief in Jesus Christ as necessary to salvation; but obedience to his teachings as equally essential. The history of their travels, as narrated in the book called the Acts of the Apostles, demonstrates this to be true. Such of their epistles as have been preserved and compiled in the New Testament also bear this witness. These records show beyond reasonable dispute that the faith in Christ which is sufficient for salvation comprehends faith in his teachings and obedience to his commands.

The belief in Christ which is taught by modern Christian sects is thus condemned by the Apostle James: "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:20, 24, 26). (Charles William Penrose, Rays of Living Light on the One Way of Salvation [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1904; repr., Forgotten Books, 2015], 4-7 [an online version of the book can be found here])

Two recent podcast episodes

Today I listened to the two following podcast episodes on two important, though very different topics:

LDS Perspectives Podcast Episode 45
Misunderstanding the Bible - Benjamin Spackman

Unbelievable?
An ex-abortionist & pro-abortion doctor debate - Haywood Robinson vs Wendy Savage

Van Hale/Martin Tanner vs. James White on Deification

I just came across the Van Hale/Martin Tanner vs. James White radio debate from 1992 on the topic of deification in the LDS and patristic traditions. The youtube account, "Restored Apologetics" has it on his Contrasting LDS & Early Christian Versions of Deification

I am sure some will find the interaction to be interesting.

White and Tanner would later engage in a public debate on the topic about a decade later:

Can Men Become Gods?

I reviewed this debate in the following article:

Brief review of the Tanner/White debate, “Can Men Become Gods?”

Did Joseph Smith Predict that the Second Coming would happen in 1890/91?

Often, critics will claim that Joseph Smith prophesied that Christ would come again in 1890/1891. Indeed, a recent “Watch Mojo” video on youtube made this claim (it appears as #9 in the following video):

Top 10 Failed Doomsday Predictions

Warren Cowdery, in Minute Book 1, wrote the following for 14 February 1835:

After an appropriate and affecting prayer was made the Brethren who went to Zion, were requested to take their seats together in one part of the house by themselves. President Smith arose and stated the reason why this meeting was called. It was this. God had commanded it and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion, our trials, sufferings &c &c. he said God had not designed all this for nothing, but he had it in remembrance yet, and those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, it was the will of God that they should be ordained to the ministry and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh, even fifty six years, should wind up the scene.[1]

That Joseph Smith’s intention was not that Christ would come again to begin the Millennium (the Parousia—the coming in glory of Christ) in fifty-six years but it would not take place for at least fifty-six years can be seen in many places. For instance, in a footnote attached to Joseph Smith’s comments about the coming of the Lord, we read the following (notice Joseph Smith’s confusion as to the meaning of the promise he received):

In 1843, JS told a group, “I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the son of man when I heard a voice repeat the following ‘Joseph my son, if thou livest until thou art 85 years old thou shalt see the face of the son of man.’” He continued, “I was left thus without being able to decide wether this coming referred to the beginning of the Millennium, or to some previous appearing, or wether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the son of man will not be any sooner than that time.” As JS was twenty-nine at the time of this February 1835 meeting, he would have been eighty-five in fifty-six years. However, it is not clear when he had the revelation to which he referred in 1843. (William Clayton, Journal Excerpt, 1-4 Apr. 1843, in JSP, J2:403-404 [D&C 130:14-17].) [2]

Commenting on Joseph Smith’s statements from the February 1835 meeting, and how Joseph was teaching, not when Christ would come, but the minimum time it would be before the Second Coming, Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon Cook wrote:

The Saints felt it a great advantage to have a prophet. For Joseph Smith's negative prophecy that Christ would not come before 1890 was an effective counterpoint to the fanaticism of an equally zealous and very popular millennarian movement led by William Miller. Although the Saints thought that Miller had predicted that the Second Coming would occur on 3 April 1843, just three days before this discourse was delivered (History of the Church, 5:326), actually Miller had predicted it could be as much as a year and a half later. Nevertheless, this was still not long enough time, for according to the Lord's voice to Joseph Smith the Second Coming would not be before 1890. [3]

In response to William Miller who claimed, based on his reading of Dan 8:14 that Christ would come again in 1844 (originally Miller stated it was 1843), Joseph said the following on 10 March 1844:

But I take the responsibility upon myself to prophesy in the name of the Lord, that Christ will not come this year as [William] Miller has prophecyed, for we have seen the bow. And I also Prophecy in the name of the Lord that Christ will not Come in forty years & if God ever spake by my mouth he will not come in that length of time & Jesus Christ never did reveal to any man the precise time that he would come, go & read the scriptures & you cannot find any thing that specified the exact [time] he would come & all that say so are fals teachers. Their are some important things concerning the office of the Mesiah in the organization of the worlds which I will speak of hereafter. May God Almighty bless you & pour out his spirit upon you is the prayer of your unworthy servant Amen. [4]

Again, Joseph Smith was confident, not that Christ would come at a specified time, but that the specified time would only be the earliest possible time of the Second Coming, a major difference in meaning, especially in light of the comment that “Jesus Christ never did reveal to any man the precise time that he would come”!

That early Latter-day Saints who knew Joseph Smith personally did not believe the Second Coming would happen in 1890/91 include the members of the First Presidency in 1851. For instance, in the July 12, 1851 issue of the Welsh LDS periodical, Zion’s Trumpet, we read the following from the Fifth General Epistle of the Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Of the day and the hour of the coming of Christ no man knoweth. It is not yet, neither is it far off; there are prophecies yet to be fulfilled before that event takes place; therefore, let no man deceive the Saints with vain philosophy and false prophecy; for false prophets will arise, and deceive the wicked, and, if possible, the good; but while the wicked fear and tremble at surrounding judgments, the Saints will watch and pray; and, waiting the final event in patience, will look calmly on the passing scenery of a corrupted world, and view transpiring events as confirmation of their faith in the holy gospel which they profess and rejoice more and more, as multiplied signs shall confirm the approach of the millennial day. [5]

Also during 1851, Dan Jones, a Welsh Latter-day Saint and close personal friend of Joseph Smith, printed a series of articles in Zion’s Trumpet on the Second Coming entitled “Coming of the Son of Man,” and, as with the presidency of the Church, stated that no one knew when the Second Coming would be; in light of his friendship and close association with Joseph Smith, if Joseph believed Christ would return to heard in the Parousia in 1890/91, he (and the members of the First Presidency, alongside many others) would have asserted such. [6]

Finally, in his work on the history of Latter-day Saint eschatology, Christopher James Blythe noted the following about those who believed Joseph presented this as a prophecy:

 

Some believed that the prophecy did not refer to the timing of the Second Coming, but rather to a preliminary appearance of Christ to the faithful. In 1886, John M. Whitaker wrote to his friend Anson Call, known for his account of the Rocky Mountain prophecy, to ask whether he had heard “the prophet say what Time the Savior would come to His people, and scenes incident to that time?” (John M. Whitaker, Letter to Anson Call, January 22, 1886 C[hurch]H[istory]L[ibrary]) In Response, Call wrote: “I have never heard him say what year, but I have formed an opinion from his conversation that in 1891 he would make his appearance to certain individuals of the priesthood not to reign as King, but would deliver His people and the Gentile reign would begin to wane and His people would begin to have dominion, and the Law of God would have influence in all the civilized nations of the earth. That the nations would be in commutation at this time” (Anson Call, Letter to John M. Whitaker, January 30, 1886, CHL). In January 1891, John Steele similarly expected that “if Jesus does not come this year, that some will be privileged to see him in the Temple of the Lord and no doubt the Prophet Joseph Smith also” (John Steele, Letter to “Dear Father and Mother,” January 11, 1891, CHL) . . . There is no indication that Mormons were devastated when Christ did not appear in 1890 or 1891. Many continued to expect the Second Coming would occur in their lifetimes or even in the very near future.[7]

 

In other words, even those who believed Joseph uttered a prophecy about a coming of Christ did not believe it would be the Second Coming, but only a physical appearance of Jesus to some Saints.

Writing in 1887 (only 3-4 years before 1890/91), Alfred Douglas Young (1808-1889) wrote the following, based on a vision he had, of the Parousia. What is striking is that he never once mentions any belief Jesus would come in 1890/91 to usher in the Parousia:

The Sign of the Coming of the Son of Man

 

Before them, over the water, I saw a personage in a pillar of light. It was made manifest to me that it was John the Revelator. I saw the waters under and around him heave up and roll away to the North, and the land come up, and connected the land on which the ten tribes were with the land upon which I stood. I saw the multitude come on to the land on which I stood.

 

The vision closed and it was not made known to me where the multitude went. I became excited at the sight, and raise my hands toward heaven, and glorified God.

 

Still continuing in vision, I saw a great multitude of Saints gathered in one place and dressed in white. At that time I knew noting about the robes of the Priesthood, but since I became acquainted with these matters, it appears to me as though they were dressed in the robes of the Priesthood. The angel said again to me, “Look.” I looked and saw a light in the east, and was made manifest to me that it was the sign of the coming of the Son of Man. The light grew gradually larger as it approached the earth. The Saints appeared to have upon them a spirit of great expectation. I saw them several times go forth in the form of an escort with the apparent expectation that the Savior would arrive.

 

The Second Coming

 

At last, I saw the whole multitude, both small and great, go forth dressed in white, with white coverings on their heads and with palms in their hands, whiter than the purest snow. They went towards that East, as they had before done. The Savior approached the earth. There was with him an innumerable multitude of angels and Saints. They appeared to be upon a cloudy, mistry element; it might have been a planet. I cannot tell. As they approached, the Saints who were upon the earth came forward, and threw down the palms that were in their hands, covering the earth with them for the reception of the Savior and his retinue. They bowed before him, and praised him.

 

I saw at the same time many of the wicked bow before him, and acknowledge that he was the Christ, and give up the ghost. [8]

 

The following comes from George Q. Cannon, "Enduring to the End," October 5, 1890. [9] Here, Cannon did not interpret Joseph’s words in D&C 130:15 to be a prophecy that the Second Coming would take place in 1890/91 (note that this sermon is from October 1890!):

 

Before I sit down there is one subject that I have felt I wanted to speak about. I think it of some importance to us as Latter-day Saints. It was referred to yesterday by two or three of the brethren. It is in relation to the events of 1891, and connected with the coming of the Lord. It was intimated by Brother Roberts that some people thought that such an event might perhaps happen, and he was anxious that the Saints should not be disappointed if nothing did occur during that year that would fulfil expectation, because a great many anticipations have been indulged in connected with that year, and I believe there has been altogether too much agitation upon this subject. I have seen a great many times in our history when sanguine men have attached a great deal of importance to certain dates. I remember when 1888 was coming in, I heard on all sides that there was something remarkable connected with that year. I fully endorse what Elder Thatcher said yesterday upon this point—that 1890 has been as important a year as we have ever witnessed. And I believe it will be so with every year. I do not think it is wise for us to fix our minds too much upon any year as bringing to pass some very  wonderful things. Perhaps it will be so. I do not question that; for every year comes to us freighted with great and wonderful changes. It is not one year alone; but all the years between us and the coming of our Lord will be big with events. They will be crowded with stupendous occurrences. God has thus spoken. Judgments will be poured out upon the inhabitants of the earth, and will increase until the Lord Himself shall come.

 

I took occasion to have the sermon that Brother Joseph preached hunted up, and I will read a little from it to show you what he said upon this very subject, and to show you also that we need not expect that 1891 will bring any such thing as the coming of the Lord. It was said yesterday that no man knoweth the day nor the hour. This is true. But I will tell you what men can know. They can know that such and such a time is not the time. Men can prophesy that 1891 is not the year. Although they cannot tell you the day nor the hour, they can tell you that He will not come this year or next year, according to the words of God already given. There are several revelations which speak plainly upon this point, allusion to some of which was made yesterday by the brethren who spoke. There are a great many events to take place that have not yet occurred; and the Savior will not come until they do take place. Be assured of this, and be not concerned in your minds and agitated on these matters, because it is easy to understand that there are many things yet to be fulfilled before that grand and glorious event will come. Yet, as he has told us, He will come as a thief in the night. He will come when the inhabitants of the earth are unprepared for him.

 

Joseph said:

 

I was once praying earnestly upon this subject [that is, concerning the coming of the Son of Man] and a voice said unto me, "My son, if thou livest until thou are 85 years of age, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man."

 

This was what the voice said to Joseph:

 

If thou livest until thou are 85 years of age thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man.

 

He continues:

 

I was left to draw my own conclusions concerning this, and I took the liberty of concluding that if I did live to that time He would make His appearance. But I do not say whether He will make His appearance, or I shall go where He is. I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written, the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am 85 years old.

 

Now, at the time Joseph made this prophecy, Miller, of the Millerites, was making predictions about the coming of the Son of Man—about the years 1842-3-4. In these years, as you who have been kept informed will doubtless know, there was great excitement throughout the United States about the coming of the Son of Man, and Joseph prophesied that He would not come for the next forty years.

 

He goes on and says:

 

The coming of the Son of Man never will be, never can be, till the judgments spoken of for this hour are poured out, which judgments are commenced. It is not the design of the Almighty to come upon the earth and crush it and grind it to powder; but He will reveal it to His servants, the Prophets. Judah must return. Jerusalem must be rebuilt, and the Temple, and water come out from under the Temple, and the waters of the Dead Sea be healed. It will take some time to build the walls of the city and Temple, etc., and all this must be done before the Son of Man will make His appearance. There will be wars and rumor of wars, signs in the heavens above and on the earth beneath, and the sun turned into darkness, and the moon to blood; earthquakes in divers places, the seas heaving themselves beyond their bounds. Then will appear the grand sign of the Son of Man in heaven. But what will the world say? They will say it is a planet, a comet, etc. But the Son of Man will come at the sign of the coming of the Son of Man, which will be as the light of the morning coming out of the east.

 

Now, the Prophet explains this in connection with his statement as to what the voice had said to him. He did not assert that Jesus would come in the clouds of heaven even if he lived to be eighty-five; but he was told that he should see Him, and he qualified it, so that there need be no misapprehension upon this subject.

 

I might read to you many revelations in this Book of Doctrine and Covenants (having the book in his hand) upon the same subject, in which the Lord plainly says that certain things shall take place.

 

And again, verily I say unto you that the Son of Man cometh not in the form of a woman, neither of a man traveling on the earth. Wherefore be not deceived, but continue in steadfastness, looking forth for the heavens to be shaken and the earth to tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man, and for the valleys to be exalted, and for the mountains to be made low, and for the rough places to become smooth; and all this when the angel shall sound his trumpet. But before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose; Zion shall flourish upon the hills and rejoice upon the mountains, and shall be assembled unto the place which I have appointed.

 

These are the words of God concerning the coming of the Son of Man. These revelations give unto us with great clearness the signs that shall precede His coming. Therefore, do not let us get unsettled in our minds. I feel it important that this Conference should not separate without having it clearly stated to you that you need not look for the coming of the Son of Man either this year or next. Though we cannot prophesy the day or the hour, we can prophesy some things concerning His coming, that is, that will take place before His coming. God has not left us in doubt upon these points. If you have time, read the 29th section of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the 45th section, and the 88th section. Therefore, Latter-day Saints, go ahead and perform your duties carefully, consistently, and with a determination to do that which God requires at your hands. Do not look for some great cataclysm to occur, which will show all the world that this is the Kingdom of God. Perhaps such a thing will occur; but I will tell you what I have observed during my life—that God works in natural ways. His purposes come around seemingly perfectly natural—so natural that the world cannot see the hand of God in them. It requires faith and the Spirit of God to show these things.

 

Therefore, there was no false prophecy uttered by Joseph Smith. Indeed, he was correct—the Second Coming did not take place before 1890/1891.

For more on the prophecies of Joseph Smith, see my
Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Notes:

[1] The Joseph Smith Papers Documents Volume 4: April 1834-September 1835, eds. Matthew C. Godfrey, Brendan W. Rensink, Alex D. Smith, Max H. Parkin, and Alexander H. Baugh (Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2016), 225. Emphasis added.

[2] Ibid., 225 n. 36. Emphasis added. Some may ask about Joseph Smith seeing the face of Christ. It is possible that this was fulfilled in the Kirtland Temple in April 1836 when Jesus Christ appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, as recorded in D&C 110.

[3] The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary accounts of the Nauvoo discourses of the Prophet Joseph, eds. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 1991), 273 n 14

[4] Ibid., 332. Emphasis added

[5] Zion’s Trumpet: 1851 Welsh Mormon Periodical (trans. Ronald D. Dennis; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2012), 216

[6] Ibid., 309, 310-20, 325-28, 341-46, 357-62, 373-76

[7] Christopher James Blythe, Terrible Revolution: Latter-day Saints and the American Apocalypse (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 183, 184

[8] Benson Knowles, ed., The Refiner’s Fire: An Autobiographical Account of the Visions, Miracles and Trials of Mormon Pioneer Alfred Douglas Young (GDP Consulting Inc., 2020), 40-41

[9] In Collected Discourses, 2:120-22.

Update: Thomas S. Medford on the 1890/91 prophecy

Against the claim that Joseph Smith taught that the second coming of Christ would be within 56 years, Thomas S. Medford, in an unpublished study on purportedly false prophecies of Joseph Smith, noted that:

 

a. “Even 56 years should wind up the scene” is not necessarily a statement of absolute fact since the word “should” can be used in statements that carry a sense of doubt or uncertainty (Perrin, Porter G. and Smith, George H., Handbook of Current English, Scott Foresman and Company, 1955, pp. 335-336). If the statement was that definite it would have probably been included in the Doctrine and Covenants or at least had more notoriety than to be buried in such a simple statement in the History of the Church. Also, one would expect a more definite word than should.

 

b. In no other place in the writings of Joseph Smith are there teachings, predictions, prophecy, etc., that the Lord’s second coming would be on or before 1891 or within 56 years from 1835. If this indeed was a prophecy of Joseph Smith, it would definitely have received more attention as other significant doctrines and revelations he and the Lord repeated.

 

c. To our knowledge, this particular teaching is not found repeated or documented in any of the writings of those who attended the meetings in which it is alleged it was taught. (Thomas S. Medford, “A Response to Eight False Prophecies of Joseph Smith,” January 6, 1980, M230.9 M488re 1980, Church History Library)