Someone made me aware of a post on an ex-LDS page on Reddit presenting purported contradictions within Latter-day Saint Scripture. The author makes the following braggadocios claim:
Here are 10 (+1) of the more explicit contradictions in LDS scriptures. Keep in mind that many of these have no apologetic rebuttal (not even a bad one) beyond unexplained errors of men, this list is not comprehensive, and it doesn't include any of the changes from the last two centuries. These are errors as found in today's canon.
In reality, such “contradictions” have been well-known to LDS apologists and have been answered many times. Would that the author has demonstrated even a fraction of intellectual integrity and research skills as they have for bragging, then they would not have embarrassed themselves with this piece. The “contradictions” will be in black and my response will be in red.
Summary
|
Verses
|
Verse 1
|
Verse 2
|
Supplies were / were not abundant
|
2 Nephi 5:15 vsverse 16
|
15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.
|
16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.
|
There is no contradiction. 2 Nephi 5:15 is speaking of the abundance, from the perspective of Nephi (who had just spent almost a decade in the wilderness of Arabia and engaging in an oceanic voyage to the New World) of the abundance of wood, iron, copper, and other metals. However, in the New World, there were materials not available in the New that went into the construction of Solomon’s Temple (e.g., cedar trees; timber of fir; "great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones" [see 1 Kgs 5] and "precious stones" and the veil of the temple veil was made of fine linen in the expensive colours of blue, purple, and crimson [2 Chron 3:6, 14]). Also, even assuming Joseph Smith to be the author of the Book of Mormon, it is incredulous that he would contradict himself so explicitly, if the critics are to be believed in their interpretation of these texts, within one verse!
Summary
|
Verses
|
Verse 1
|
Verse 2
|
Priestcrafts are/aren't bad
|
2 Nephi 26:31 vs D&C 42:71-732
|
31 But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.
|
71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned; // 72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop. // 73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.
|
There is no contradiction; instead, the author only demonstrates their ignorance of what “priestcraft” means. Here is how Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines the term:
Priestcraft
PRIE'STCRAFT, noun [priest and craft.] The stratagems and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns; management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose on the credulity of others.
Such is a far cry from one receiving a just remuneration for their services in the Church.
Summary
|
Verses
|
Verse 1
|
Verse 2
|
David's concubines a sin/given by God
|
Jacob 2:23-24 vs D&C 132:39
|
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
|
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife;…
|
What is being condemned in Jacob 2 is not plural marriage per se, but Nephite kings taking an exponential increase in wives (cf. Deut 17:17), a sin that David and Solomon engaged in.
Indeed, Jacob 2:30 has long been cited as a text allowing for the practice of plural marriage if and when the Lord commands:
For if I will, saith the Lord of Hoses, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [monogamy]
What is often overlooked in this discussion is that Jacob 2: 24 is based on Deut 17:17, a text dealing with the ideal king from the perspective of the Deuteronomists:
Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. (Jacob 2:24)
Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (Deut 17:17)
The Deuteronomy text warns against a Davidic king “multiplying”the number of possessions he has, including gold, silver, and horses (see v.16). Contextually, it should be obvious that what is being condemned is not a linear increase of such things, including wives, but an exponential and/or forbidden increase thereof. In the case of King Solomon, he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kgs 11:3 [which also resulted in his embracing their idolatrous practices]), while David had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba, whom he would later marry as a polygynous wife, after murdering her husband to cover his tracks. Combined together, they truly had “many wives and concubines,” something condemned by Deut 17:17 and Jacob are unbecoming of a true Davidic king. That is what is abominable vis-à-vis the polygyny of David (and Solomon), not their polygyny per se, let alone the practice of polygyny in general.
Summary
|
Verses
|
Verse 1
|
Verse 2
|
Jesus is/isn't a corporeal God the Father
|
Mosiah 15:1-5 vs D&C 137:3
|
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. // 2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— // 3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— // 4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. // 5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.
|
3 Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son. (see also JSH 1:17, D&C 130:3, 130:22, 137:3)
|
1. With respect to Jesus being corporeal, Mosiah 15:1-4 was said by Abinadi before the incarnation, so Jesus existed as “only” a spirit as he had not yet entered morality and received a body, let alone a glorified, resurrected body (cf. Phil 3:21).
2. With respect to the charge that Jesus is the person of God the Father, this is a canard that has long been refuted as it rests on an eisgetical and rather naïve reading of the pericope. As my friend Blake Ostler wrote on this text:
40. Modalism or Distinction in Unity? Those who adopt a modalist reading of Mormon scripture rely heavily on Mosiah 15 as a proof-text for their view. The focus of this scripture is to explain how Jesus Christ is both God and man. The primary issue is thus what we would now callchristology. However, the explanation of Christs dual humanity/divinity is elucidated in terms of the Sons relation to the Father. Their are four key comparisons in Mosiah 15 that elucidate this relationship. First, "the flesh" is parallel to the "spirit." Second, the Son is identified with the flesh and the Father is identified with spirit; that is, possession of flesh is predicated only of the Son and the Father is identified with the spirit. Third, the Sons will is subordinated to, or "swallowed up in," the Fathers will as a result of the Sons death of the flesh. Finally, the Son becomes "the Father and the Son" whereas the Father already is the Father but never the Son.
41. For purposes of exegesis, I will also introduce the principle of identity of indiscernibles. The importance of this logical principle is that any expression of the relation between the Father and the Son which can be termed patripassionism (i.e., that the Father suffers in the Sons suffering because the Father is identical to the Son) or modalism must satisfy this principle. Roughly this principle asserts that something is identical to another thing if and only if everything that is true of that something is also true of the other thing. For purposes of reviewing this scripture, I will present it in parallelismus membrorum form:
God himself shall come down
among the children of men,
and shall redeem his people.And because he dwelleth in the flesh,
he shall be called the Son of God,
and having subjected to the flesh
to the will of the Father,
being the Father and the Son --
The Father because he was conceived by the power of God;
and the Son because of the flesh;
thus becoming the Father and the Son --
And they are one God,
yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth.
And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit,
or the Son to the Father,
being one God,
suffereth temptation....
Yea, even so he shall be led,
crucified and slain,
the flesh becoming subject even unto death,
the will of the Son
being swallowed in the will of the Father.
And thus God breaketh the bands of death,
giving the Son power to make intercession
for the children of men. (Mosiah 15:1-8)
Now let's ask a few questions. How many wills are there among the divine persons? The answer seems fairly transparent. There are two. The Son has a will of his own but he subjects it to the Fathers will by undergoing death in furtherance of the Fathers will. How many wills are expressed in the Sons life? There is only one will functionally expressed because the Sons will is swallowed up in the Fathers will. Because the Father's will is embodied,so to speak, in the Son, the Son becomes both the Father and the Son. Will this scripture satisfy the principle of the identity of indiscernibles? Manifestly it will not because the Son has a number of properties that the Father does not have. The Son has a distinct will which is subjected to the Fathers will. Thus, the Son has the property of having a will subjected to the Fathers will and the Father does not. The Father gives power to the Son to make intercession, the Son thus has the property of receiving power from the Father to make intercession and the Father does not. The Son has the property of being made flesh and is called the Son because he possesses this property which the Father does not. The Son has the property of being conceived by the power of the Father and the Father does not. It follows that the Father and the Son are not identical although they are intimately united by a common will.
42. Thus, there are two divine persons having distinct wills in this passage, the Father and the Son. However, there is only one God. The Father and the Son in relation to one another "are one God." It is of utmost importance to note that whenever the Mormon scriptures predicate oneness of God, it is always, without exception, a relationship of the Father and the Son, or the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to one another, and never a reference to just one of the divine persons. This usage can be compared to references to "one God" in the Old Testament which refer to a single divine person, Yahweh (Dt. 6:4), or in the New Testament where the Father is sometimes called the one God (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6) or "the only true God" (John 17:3)
43. There is another feature of this passage which is important to note. The Book of Mormon views possession of a body as a necessary condition for humans to experience suffering. (2 Nephi 2:15-25) Moreover, God is no exception to this general rule. It is true that the Book of Mormon views the Son as the God of the Old Testament who delivered the Law to the Israelites. (1 Ne. 19:7, 9-10; Alma 7:8-13; 3 Ne. 11:14; 15:5-9) It is the very God of Israel who is incarnated as the Son of God. However, the Book of Mormon is careful to specify that whenever the God of Israel suffers, he does so only "according to the flesh." (Alma 7:8-13, "the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh"). There are fifteen references in the Book of Mormon which predicate suffering of God, and all fifteen references are attributed to "the flesh" or to the Son of God as a mortal and never to the Father or God simpliciter. (1 Ne. 19:9; 2 Ne. 9:5, 21-22; Mosiah 3:7; 17:15, 18; 15:5; Alma 7:13; 33:22; Hel. 13:6; 14:20) The Son has the property of suffering according to the flesh and the Father does not.
44. Moreover, the Book of Mormon refers to the Son as "the Father of heaven and earth" five times (Mos. 3:7; Mosiah 15:4; Alma 11:39-40; Ether 3:14-17). Each time that the Son is called the Father of heaven and earth it is always and only in the context of: (1) the Son becoming mortal and taking upon himself flesh, and (2) the Son as creator. For example, Mosiah 3:5-8 states that "he shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay .... [And shall] suffer temptations, pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer ... And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things ...." It seems to me that the best way to understand references to the Son as the "Father of heaven and earth" is that the Father's will has become embodied in the Son because the Son fulfills the Father's will by becoming enfleshed. This is exactly the conclusion of Mosiah 15:3 which states that the Son "becomes the Father and the Son" because he was conceived by the power of the Father and became flesh as the Son. Further, the Son is recognized as the Father's exact duplicate in creation of heaven and earth because he embodies the Father's will in such activities.
45. There is of course a rival interpretation of this passage which attempts to square it with modalism. If I have properly grasped the view presented by those who argue for a modalist interpretation, they would suggest that in Mosiah 15 the divine person who is the Father is spirit and the same person became flesh as the Son. Thus, this one person is called both the Father and the Son because the Fathers spirit has entered flesh and become the Son, thus becoming both Father and Son. The Father has certain properties as a spirit before becoming mortal and then has other properties subsequently as flesh. For example, as a spirit the divine person who is called the Father cannot experience pain but when this same divine person takes upon himself flesh as the Son he is capable of experiencing pain. Thus, it may be argued that the incompatible properties refer to successive states of being of the same divine person.
46. However, this interpretation cannot account for all of the aspects of this text. According to Abinadi, the Son as flesh has a distinct will which is "swallowed up" in the Fathers will as spirit. The Father has a will at the same time that the Son has his will. This modalist interpretation leads to the absurdity of saying that "the Father's will was swallowed up in his own will, but as the Son." This interpretation fails to recognize the distinction of wills presented in the text. It also leads to the absurdity of saying that "the Father gave himself power to make intercession." This interpretation fails to recognize the relational giving from Father to Son in the text. It also leads to the absurdity of saying that "the Father conceived himself." The Son has properties as flesh while at the same time, and not in a successive state, the Father has different properties. Thus, this interpretation seems to me to violate the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals and cannot account for the text in its totality.
Summary
|
Verses
|
Verse 1
|
Verse 2
|
God dwells/doesn't dwell in the heart
|
Alma 34:36 vs D&C 130:3
|
36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell (for more on dwellings see Alma 18:35, Mosiah 15:23, Mosiah 3:6, Mosiah 2:37, Alma 7:21, D&C 8:2)
|
3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false. (see also D&C 130:22)
|
This is nothing short of eisegesis. If one reads the context, one will see that Alma is talking about the Spirit of the Lord (whether it is the Holy Spirit or the operational presence of the Father [the text is ambiguous on that point), and not the Lord Himself:
For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white, through the blood of the lamb. (Alma 34:35-36; emphasis added)
D&C 130:3 does not deny that the Spirit of the Lord can dwell in a man's heart; in fact, such is affirmed for the Holy Spirit.
Summary
|
Verses
|
Verse 1
|
Verse 2
|
God can/can't revoke decrees
|
Alma 41:8 vsD&C 56:4-52
|
8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.
|
4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord. // 5 Wherefore, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servants Thomas B. Marsh and Ezra Thayre, and give a new commandment unto my servant Thomas, that he shall take up his journey speedily to the land of Missouri, and my servant Selah J. Griffin shall also go with him.
|
Now the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared them whosoever will may walk therein and be saved. (Alma 41:8)
Wherefore I the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord. Wherefore, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servant Thomas, that he shall take up his journey speedily to the land of Missouri, and my servant, Selah J. Griffin shall also go with him. (D&C 56:4-5)
If one wishes to absolutise such texts to produce a "contradiction," he will have to jettison Exo 32-33 and similar passages from the Bible (see above). Furthermore, he will have to throw out the book of Jonah and the following passage from Jeremiah, among many other passages:
If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planned, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. (Jer 18:7-10 NIV)
In reality, there is yet again no meaningful contradiction. The commands or decrees will not change in their definition, as per the Alma text. Revoking means that God does not always require us to follow the commandment in question. Such was the case with the contingent promises discussed in D&C 56:4-5 as well as Jer 18:7-10.
Summary
|
Verses
|
Verse 1
|
Verse 2
|
Dying without the law - terrestial or celestial?
|
D&C 76:72 vs D&C 137:7
|
71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world... // 72 Behold, these are they who died without law;
|
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
|
Notice the qualification in D&C 137:7 about those that would be heirs to the Celestial Kingdom:
Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel who would have received it, if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God.
Ultimately, only God can judge how a person, had they been in a different historical context, would have acted, but God, knowing all possibilities, not just actualities, can determine those who would have fully received the gospel had they received it in this life time and others who, while dying “without law,” would not (as per those who are heirs of the terrestrial kingdom), as Alvin Smith would have, per the teaching of this vision.
Summary
|
Verses
|
Verse 1
|
Verse 2
|
Priesthood is/isn't required to see God
|
D&C 84:21-22 vsJSH 1:17
|
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; // 22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.
|
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
|
This is a common misreading of D&C 84:21-22:
And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh. For without this, no man can see the face of God and live.
The text is not stating that one needs to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood to be able to see God the Father and live—instead, it is speaking of “the power of godliness.” As Joseph Smith, like many ancient prophets, was protected by the Holy Spirit, he could endure the presence of the Father. Note the following texts:
For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh except quickened by the Spirit of God. (D&C 67:11)
And [Moses] saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore, Moses could endure his presence . . . But now mine own eyes have beheld God: but not my natural but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him. (Moses 1:2, 11)
And [God] said unto Moses, Thou canst not see my face at this time, lest mine anger be kindled against thee also, and I destroy thee, and thy people; for there shall no man among them see me at this time, and live, for they are exceeding sinful. And no sinful man hath at any time, neither shall there be any sinful man at any time, that shall see my face and live. (JST Exo 33:20)
There is no problem with Joseph Smith having seen God the Father in his First Vision in 1820 prior to the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Notwithstanding, it should be noted that Joseph Smith was foreordained to the priesthood in the pre-mortal existence. Such was attested in a non-canonised revelation to President John Taylor in Salt Lake City on June 27, 1882:
Behold, I raised up my servant Joseph Smith to introduce my Gospel, and to build up my Church and establish my Kingdom on the earth; and I gave unto him wisdom and knowledge and revelation, and intelligence pertaining to the past, the present, and the future, even to that extent which was not known among men; and I endowed him with power from on high, and conferred upon him the Priesthood of Aaron, and the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which is after the order of the Son of God, even the holiest of all, and after the power of an endless life, and administereth forever in this world and the world to come. He was called and ordained to this office before the world was. He was called by me, and empowered by me, and sustained by me to introduce and establish my Church and Kingdom upon the earth; and to be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to my Church and Kingdom; and to be a King and Ruler over Israel. (Revelation to John Taylor, June 27, 1882, John Taylor Papers, LDS Church Archives, as cited by John A. Tvedtnes, Organize My Kingdom: A History of Restored Priesthood [Bountiful, Utah: Cornerstone Publishing & Distributing, 2000], 13)
Summary
|
Verses
|
Verse 1
|
Verse 2
|
One God/many gods created everything
|
Moses 2 vsAbraham 43
|
1 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.
|
1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
|
The author of the piece contradicts his bragging at the beginning when he wrote the following:
In all fairness, apologists have attempted to respond to some of the ones I've listed. Most notable is that they attempt to reconicile some contradictions by holding to the idea that both contradicting claims are equally true (such as the I God vs they (the gods) in Moses 2 vs Abraham 4 - in doing so they ignore the doctrinal transition of the 1830s).
The FairMormon article he links to does a good job at answering this so-called “contradiction.” For another article, see my The Number of God in the Book of Abraham and Alma 11
Furthermore, as for the charge of doctrinal transition, one should pursue, among other good studies refuting this:
Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths
Summary
|
Verses
|
Verse 1
|
Verse 2
|
Joseph did/didn't consider all religions false
|
JSH 1:10 vs1:18
|
10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?
|
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
|
This is not a contradiction, but only a demonstration that the author cannot think critically. Joseph was questioning which Church to join, if any, as he was not sure which, of the many he would have been familiar with, was preaching the true gospel. However, that does not mean that he concluded none was preaching the true gospel. Confirmation that none of them were true, however, only came later when Jesus condemned them as preaching falsehoods and that none had his divine authority in the First Vision.
Summary
|
Verses
|
Verse 1
|
Verse 2
|
Bonus: Murder is/isn't forgiven1
|
3 Nephi 3:20 vsD&C 42:18
|
20 Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel. (see also Alma 39:6)
|
18 And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come (See also D&C 1:32, 58:42, 82:1)
|
In a footnote, the author adds:
I was hesitant to put this on the list because I think the scriptures actually work in theory (gentiles forgiven vs church members never forgiven); however, it doesn't work in practice nor in current teachings. Most notably, John D Lee of the Mountain Meadows Massacre had his blessings restored. This shows an implied forgiveness both in this world and the world to come.
The decision made in April 1961 (and carried out the following May) to restore John D. Lee back his blessings does not mean that the Church is agreeing that murder can be if one is a communicant Latter-day Saint. While I disagree with the decision, excommunication and other acts are judicial decisions made by the Church, either at a local or global level, and are not infallible nor free from any error (cf. the excommunication of Avraham Gileadi in 1993). Furthermore, just because one is not condemned in this lifetime or wrongly condemned does not mean it is 1:1 in the hereafter, as God, not the Church, holds the final “say so” in judgement—John D. Lee, as a murderer, is under condemnation, whether or not the Church made the right decision in May 1961 to restore him posthumously after his excommunication in 1877.
Furthermore, as the author is aware of, from the context of the passages, the D&C texts are speaking of communicant Latter-day Saints while the other passages are speaking of non-Latter-day Saints. Just as with greater levels of gospel knowledge comes greater responsibilities, it also brings with it greater levels of condemnation if one knowingly rebels against God. 3 Nephi 30:1-2 reads:
Hearken, O ye Gentiles, and hear the words of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, which he hath commanded me that I should speak concerning you, for, behold, he commandeth me that I should write, saying: Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel.
D&C 42:18 reads (emphasis added):
And now, behold, I speak unto the church, Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.
3 Nephi 30:1-2 is speaking about being forgiven of murders and other heinous sins one committed prior to one’s initial justification. The text in D&C 42:18 is speaking to those who have already been baptised and have had received an initial remission of one’s sins, through the instrumentality of water baptism, that is, to those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior and covenanted to obey the laws and ordinances of the gospel and then commits murder. It is comparing apples and oranges. Such is consistent with passages such as Hebrews 6:4-9 and 10:26-29.
