Refuting the Tanners on Old Testament Practices and Mormonism: Cursing One's Enemies

In chapter 23 “Old Testament Practices” of their book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? the Tanners wrote:

There are several Old Testament practices that have found their way into Mormonism; one of these is the practice of cursing one’s enemies. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon state that this practice was to cease with the coming of Christ. Now that Christ has come, we are supposed to rely upon him and let him take all hate out of our hearts. If we have no hate in our hearts we will have no desire to curse our enemies or wish any evil upon them. The words that Jesus spoke in the Sermon on the Mount are also recorded in the Book of Mormon:

And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy;
But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you; (3 Nephi 12:43-44).

In the Bible, we read as follows:

Bless them which persecute you;
Bless, and curse not. (Romans 12:14)

In spite of these clear teachings in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith gave a revelation which sanctioned the cursing of one's enemies:

And inasmuch as mine enemies come against you  . . ye shall curse them:
And whomsoever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me of mine enemies. (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 103, verses 24-25). (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5^th ed; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987, 2008], 370)

Under the heading of “Wine and Curses,” the authors write:

The cursing of enemies was actually carried out in the Kirtland Temple. The Mormon Apostle George A. Smith gave this account:

Now I will illustrate this still further. The Lord did actually reveal one principle to us there, and that one principle was apparently so simple, and so foolish in their eyes, that a great many apostatized over it, because it was so contrary to their notion and views. It was this, after the people had fasted all day, they sent out and got wine and bread, and blessed them, and distributed them to the multitude, that is, to the whole assembly of the brethren, and they ate and drank, and prophesied, and bore testimony, and continued so to do until some of the High Council of Missouri stepped into the stand, and, as righteous Noah did when he awoke from his wine, commenced to curse their enemies. You never felt such a shock go through any house or company in the world as went through that. There was almost a rebellion because men would get up and curse their enemies . . .  Some of the brethren thought it was best to apostatize . . . The Lord dated not then reveal anything more; He had given us all we could swallow . . . (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 216) (Ibid., 370)

Elsewhere (pp. 370-72), the Tanners provide instances of early LDS calling down divine curses from heaven upon their enemies. On p. 372, they then conclude:

In Romans 12:20 we read: “Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; . . .” According to Charles L. Walker, Brigham Young taught just the opposite:

Sun., Apr. 28. Went up to the Tabernacle . . . Bro. Brigham . . . said that those who sell their provisions to feed our enemies either man or women should be cursed, and said he, I curse them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the congregation shouted, Amen. (“Diary of Charles L. Walker,” 1853-1902, Excerpts typed, page 12)

Jesus said, “love your enemies,” but the Mormon Apostle George A. Smith remarked:

You must know that I love my friends, and God Almighty knows that I do hate my enemies. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, page 110)

Jesus said that we should pray for our enemies. Heber C. Kimball prayed for his enemies in the following manner:

Pray for them? Yes, I pray that God Almighty would send them to hell. Some say across lots; but I would like to have them take a round about road, and be as long as they can be in going there. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, page 89)

The only apologetic response to such a criticism comes from Jeff Hardy who wrote:

God alone is the only one who can judge who should be cursed (something He did in both the Old and New Testament, Gen. 3:17, Gen. 5:29, Gen. 12:3, Mark 11:21).

The circumstances surrounding the D&C scriptures represented not just enemies against an individual man, but an even more important threat against the restoration of God's gospel to the earth. Because of this, God Himself gave Joseph Smith the permission and power to curse those who violently fought against the Kingdom of God so that it might be preserved. (source)

While the essence of this response is sound, I will build upon such in the rest of this blog post.

Writing after Jesus gave the command, and after the resurrection and ascension, Paul wrote:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:6-9)

The term translated as “accursed” is αναθεμα. While it can have a positive meaning (a votive offering), it is obviously being used in a negative sense here. As BDAG defines the term, with reference to Gal 1:8:

2. that which has been cursed, cursed, accursed )LXX as a rule=חֵרֶם: what is ‘devoted to the divinity’ can be either consecrated or accursed. The mng. of the word in the other NT passages moves definitely in the direction of the latter [like Num 21:3; Dt 7:26; Josh 6:17; 7:12; Judg 1:17; Zech 14:11, but also the curse-tablets from Megara, as IDefixWünsch 1, 17]) οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει· ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς no one who speaks by God’s Spirit says ‘Jesus be cursed’ 1 Cor 12:3 (on this subject Laud. Therap. 22 ὅταν ὁ δαίμων ἀλλοιώσας τὸν ἐνεργούμενον, ἐκεῖνος ὅλος λαλεῖ, τὸ στόμα τοῦ πάσχοντος ἴδιον τεχναζόμενος ὄργανον=when the divinity has altered the one it has influenced, then it is altogether the divinity that speaks, for it has skillfully made the victim’s mouth its own instrument; NBrox, BZ n.s. 12, ’68, 103-11). As a formula ἀνάθεμα ἔστω Gal 1:8f. For this ἤτω ἀ. 1 Cor 16:22. Likew. ηὐχόμην ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ I could wish that I myself would be accursed (and therefore separated) from Christ Ro 9:3 (CSchneider, D. Volks- u. Heimatgefühl b. Pls: Christentum u. Wissensch. 8, ’32, 1-14; PBratsiotis, Eine Notiz zu Rö 9:3 u. 10:1: NovT 5, ’62, 299f).

Commenting on Paul’s cursing of his enemies in Gal 1, Gordon P. Wiles, then-professor of religion of Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut, noted:

[There] are many examples of specific blessings and curses in the Old Testament, originally ‘power-laden words, spoken on cultic or other occasions and often accompanied by gestures or symbolic actions, through which the wholeness of the religious community was understood to be safeguarded or strengthened, and evil forces controlled or destroyed.’ (Gordon P. Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the Letters of St Paul [Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 24; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974], 25)

Elsewhere, with respect to Gal 1:8-9, as quoted above, writes that:

The first version of the curse (v. 8) is worded in such a way as to be a general apostolic and prophetic ruling about the unalterable nature of the gospel, rather than a judgment on particular individuals. The generalized nature of the maxim is indicated by its hypothetical syntax, ‘But even if we, or an angel . . . should preach,’ and by the two highly improbable instances adduced for consideration (apostle and angel). Furthermore, the possible omission of the first υμιν would serve to make the form still more general. The judgment is based ultimately not in Paul’s apostolic authority, but in the authority of the unchangeable gospel itself, which had been delivered to him together with his apostleship (1:1, 11f), and which in turn he had preached to them (1:8f.). His own apostolic authority is derived from the authority of the gospel, which he may prophetically interpret and apply, but not basically change. Such is the stable permanence and finality of that gospel of Christ (v. 7), that neither he nor even a heavenly messenger, have either the power or the authority to alter it.

In the second version of the curse (v. 9), Paul goes on to apply the general ruling to the actual Galatian crisis. The words ‘as we have said before’ probably refer to some earlier statement given by the apostle, perhaps in anticipation of the very situation which had now arisen. Thus the imprecation is claimed to be no merely hasty reaction to the immediate problem. The conditional clause is recast so as to suggest an actual happening: ‘if anyone is preaching to you,’ and the word τις may refer back to his description of the troublemakers themselves as τινες οι ταρασσοντες υμας. The gravity of heir defection from the true gospel is further underlined by the word παρελαβετε, an almost technical term in Pauline usage for the receiving of the traditional gospel message (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23, 15:2, 3, etc.).

Both versions include the authoritative traditional words αναθεμα εστω. In writing this grave juridical imprecation, Paul is assuming his full apostolic authority to apply a previously uttered ruling to a current crisis, and to take the sternest measures to protect the gospel against those who would distort it and mislead others. Certainly he intends at least excommunication from the church, although more than that would be included here. The curse must be read out liturgically at the eucharist in the Galatian churches, and the troublemakers solemnly handed over to the eschatological judgment and wrath of God, in the full assurance that they have been rightly judged. (Ibid., 127-29)

In effect, the apostle Paul is calling a curse upon his (theological) enemies, and all enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If the Tanners and others wish to absolutise the command to never curse one’s enemies and insist there are no allowable exceptions in extraordinary circumstances, there is a contradiction.

Even during the lifetime of Jesus, there were allowable curses. Indeed, Jesus cursed Jerusalem and faithless Jews of his time by his symbolic cursing of the Fig Tree:

And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. (Mark 11:12-14; cf. Matt 21:18-19a; Luke 13:6-9)

Commenting on the meaning of this incident, F.F. Bruce, an imminent Protestant New Testament scholar, wrote:

This incident is related by Mark and, in a more compressed form, by Matthew. According to Mark, Jesus and his disciples spent the night following his entry into Jerusalem in Bethany. Next morning they returned to Jerusalem. On the way he felt hungry, ‘and seeing in the distance a fig tree in lea, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing, but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.’ Then come the words quoted above [“May no one ever eat fruit from you again” Mark 11:14]. They continued on their way into Jerusalem, where that day he cleansed the temple; in the evening they returned to Bethany. Next morning, as they passed the same place, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. And Peter remembered and said to him, ‘Rabbi, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered’ (Mark 11:20-21).

Was it not unreasonable to curse the tree for being fruitless when, as Mark expressly says, ‘it was not the season for figs’? The problem is most satisfactorily cleared up in a discussion of ‘The Barren Fig Tree’ published many years ago by W. M. Christie, a Church of Scotland minister in Palestine under the British mandatory regime. He pointed out first the time of year at which the incident is said to have occurred (if, as is probable, Jesus was crucified on April 6th, A.D. 30, the incident occurred during the first days of April). ‘Now,’ wrote Dr. Christie, ‘the facts connected with the fig tree are these. Towards the end of March the leaves begin to appear, and in about a week foliage coating is complete. Coincident with [this], and sometimes even before, there appears quite a crop of small knobs, not the real figs, but a kind of early forerunner. They grow to the size of green almonds, in which condition they are eaten by peasants and others when hungry. When they come to their own indefinite maturity they drop off” (W.M. Christie, Palestine Calling [London, 1939], pp.118-120). These precursors of the true fig are called taqsh in Palestinian Arabic. Their appearance is a harbinger of the fully formed appearance of the true fig some six weeks later. So, as Mark says, the time for figs had not yet come. But if the leaves appear without any taqsh, that is a sign that there will be no figs. Since Jesus found ‘nothing but leaves’—leaves without any taqsh—he knew that ‘it was an absolutely hopeless, fruitless fig tree’, and said as much.

But if that is the true explanation of his words, why should anyone trouble to record the incident as though it had some special significance? Because it did have some special significance. As recorded by Mark, it is an acted parable with the same lesson as the spoken parable of the fruitless fig tree in Luke 13:6-9. In that spoken parable a landowner came three years in succession expecting fruit from a fig tree on his property, and when year by year it proved to be fruitless, he told the man in charge of his vineyard to cut it down because it was using up the ground to no good purpose. In both the acted parable and the spoken parable it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the fig tree represents the city of Jerusalem, unresponsive to Jesus as he came to it with the message of God, and thereby incurring destruction. Elsewhere Luke records how Jesus swept over the city’s blindness to its true well-being and foretold its ruin ‘because you did not know the time of your visitation’ (Luke 19:41-44). It is because the incident of the cursing of the fig tree was seen to convey the same lesson that Mark, followed by Matthew, recorded it. (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983], 208-9. Comment in square bracket added for clarification)

Indeed, there are many "imprecatory" prayers in the New Testament itself that request God to avenge believers of their enemies, as well as promises of the same, too, including:

Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble (θλιβω, oppress/afflict) you. (2 Thess 1:6)

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that brought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Pet 2:1)

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and all of their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 14-15)

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried out with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? (Rev 6:9-10)

When one prays an imprecatory prayer, and in the case of the Doctrine and Covenants, requests God to curse one's enemies, they are actually following the divine prescription that only God can issue vengeance against the sinner, and he has the right to call down that vengeance. As Paul writes in Romans ch. 12:

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Rom 12:19)

As an aside, it is interesting that, while verses from this chapter of Romans is cited by the Tanners, they never (1) quote this particular verse and (2) exegete it, as such is strong evidence against their arguments.

In an attempt to add to current apologetics on this topic and related issues, I would like to introduce something similar to the concept within Catholic Canon Law, "Intrinsic Cessation." This is a teaching that holds that, if and when a practice or moral teaching, while good at the time of its revelation, when its purpose/telos ceases, loses its force, or proves to be a stumbling-block to faith, it ceases to be binding ipso facto. As one commentary on the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law put it:

A law may cease to bind in two ways: either by repeal, which is called extrinsic cessation, or by becoming inoperative without repeal, which is called intrinsic cessation. It is common doctrine that a law ceases to bind without repeal in two cases: first, if the circumstances are such that the law has become positively harmful or unreasonable; second, if the purpose of the law has entirely ceased for the entire community. (T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam C. Ellis SJ, Canon Law: A Text and Commentary [Milwaukee: Bruce 1946], 35)

Another source, this time commenting on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, wrote:

Likewise, the law initially might be accepted but could become obsolete or harmful over time and fall into desuetude, the phenomenon known as the intrinsic cessation of law. (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, eds. John P Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green [New York: Paulist Press, 2000], 59)

In this light, and in light of the fact, as Hardy noted, that the Church was facing great persecution, there was a (temporary) intrinsic cessation of the command not to curse but to only bless one’s enemies. Indeed, when one examines the context of JOD 5:110 from George A. Smith (August 2, 1857), and not the mere snippet the Tanners reproduce, we read of the great persecution and slander suffered by Church members at the time:

Under these circumstances, as big a coward as I am, I would say what I pleased; and for one thing I would say that every man that had anything to do with such a filthy, unconstitutional affair was a damned scoundrel. There is not a man, from the President of the United States to the Editors of their sanctorums, clear down to the low-bred letter-writers in this Territory, but would rob the coppers from a dead nigger's eyes, if they had a good opportunity. If I had the command of thunder and lightning, I would never let one of the damned scoundrels get here alive. I have heretofore said but very little about the Gentiles; but I have heard all that Drummond has said, and I have read all his lying, infamous letters; and although I have said but little, I think a heap. You must know that I love my friends, and God Almighty knows that I do hate my enemies. There have been men, and women, and children enough who have died through the oppression and tyranny of our enemies to damn any nation under heaven; and now a nation of 25,000,000 of people must exercise its wealth in violation of its own principles and the rights guaranteed by the blood of their fathers—blood that is more sacred than their own heart springs; and this they are doing to crush down a little handful who dwell in the midst of these mountains, and who dare to worship God as they please, and who dare to sing, pray, preach, think, and act as they please.

And with respect to Heber C. Kimball's comments in JOD 5:89 (July 26, 1857), here is the next paragraph adding important historical context to his comments:

I have been driven five times—been broken up and my goods robbed from me, and I have been afflicted almost to death. I am here with wives and children, and as good women as can be found in the United States. You may search the States through, and you cannot find as good ones. Have others here got as good? I do not know that I will talk about others; but I will say what I have a mind to about my own. I have got women that were brought up decently and respectably; and they are virtuous women; and you may send all the men from hell, and they cannot come around my women and brother Brigham's, notwithstanding some have told in Carson Valley that our women are all prostitutes, and that they could use any one of them they pleased, as I have been informed.

This highlights something important: Always check the Tanners’ sources. They tend to leave a lot out (for more documentation, see, for example, D. Charles Pyle and Cooper Johnson, Did Early LDS Leaders Misunderstand the First Vision? and my blog post, Answering the Tanners' Misrepresentation of Brigham Young on the “natural man”)

Finally,  early Christian inscriptions provide evidence that they would “curse” opponents on occasion. The following examples (just three of many) come from Gary J. Johnson, Early-Christian Epitaphs from Anatolia (Texts and Translations 35; Early Christian Literature Series 8; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).

From a marble stele from Perinthos-Herakleia (Thrace), we read (p. 55):

If anyone should harm this tomb,
he will leave behind orphaned children
and a bereaved wife.
He will run totally in fire; he will
die under the hand of evil men.

In an inscription “to the happy (dead)” from Bomos from Ishikli/Eumeneia (p. 87), we read:

If any other endeavors
to inter someone (here),
he will reckon with the living God.

Finally, from a stele from Iznik/Nikaea (p. 151), we read:

If any other should violate it,
he will give account to God
on Judgment Day

The phrase “on Judgment day” translates εν ημερα κρις[εως] (p. 150), showing that not just a temporary curse/punishment is in view, but eschatological judgement/condemnation!

As we can see, the Tanners’ argument against early Latter-day Saints on this issue flounders in light of careful examination and research, as with so many of their arguments against the Church.

Elsewhere (p. 372) they raise the issue of animal sacrifices. I refuted their arguments on this issue elsewhere at:

Old Testament Practices and Mormonism

An expanded version appeared in Chapter 14: Old Testament Practices and Mormonism in my book, After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood (pp. 198-213)