Recounting a prophecy by Joseph of Egypt, Lehi, speaking to his son Joseph, is recorded to have said:
And his name shall be
called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be
like unto me; for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by
the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation. (2 Nephi 3:15)
Some have argued that this passage necessitates belief in exhaustive,
not contingent foreknowledge as, they argue, (1) this is an explicit prophecy
of Joseph Smith and (2) no other person could have fulfilled such, therefore
disproving Open Theism (within a Latter-day Saint framework). However, such is
not necessary, and can be read consistently within an Open Theistic framework.
How so?
In Open Theism, predictions are not always God telling people what
may/will happen in the sense of God looking down the corridors of time, but
instead, a promise of God demonstrating his powers and abilities in the future.
One can read this passage as a promise that God will somehow intervene in
salvation history and cause one person to be called "Joseph" and a
son to be called "Joseph" who will be called as a prophet as a
demonstration of his powers and abilities. Indeed, we see this in Scripture,
such as the naming of Jesus and John the Baptist being divine commands as a result
of divine intrusion, not God simply foreseeing the then-future free-will
actions of people.
Recounting the naming of Jesus, Joseph was told in a dream the
following:
And she shall bring
forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people
from their sins. (Matt 1:21).
The verb καλεω (to call/name) in this verse is καλέσεις, the second
person future indicative active. The future and/or indicative is often used as
an expression of what God commands (e.g., Matt 1:22; John 3:16; Phil 1:6; 2:9-11;
1 Thess 4:16; cf. Matt 4:14; Luke 11:50; John 4:14, 36; 12:40; 19:28; Acts 1:8,
11; Rom 3:18; 5:20; 7:13; 8:17).
With respect to John the Baptist, Gabriel commanded his father Zacharias
to name him “John”:
But the angel said
unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth
shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. (Luke 1:13)
Such broke with naming conventions:
And it came to pass, that on the eighth day
they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the
name of his father. And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be
called John. And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is
called by this name. And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.
And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they
marvelled all. And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and
he spake, and praised God. (Luke 1:59-64)
It would not be inconceivable that Lucy Mack and/or Joseph Smith senior
would have received a prophetic dream commanding them to name their child “Joseph.”
Indeed, if one reads Lucy Mack Smith’s memoirs (written in 1845 and published
in 1853), both she and her husband were the recipients of many prophetic dreams
and visions.
Furthermore, it could plausibly be argued that there were contingencies
that if something happened to the Smith family or Joseph Smith himself, that
God had a back-up plan. There was a family, the Joseph Knight family, who lived
within the vicinity of the Smith family, the father was called “Joseph” as was
one of the sons, and they lived very similar lives, and after their conversion
to the gospel, were the “second family” of the restoration due to the important
role they played in early Latter-day Saint history. While speculative, one
could argue that, if something happened to the Smith family, the father-son duo
from the Knight family could have “stood in,” if you will, to fulfil the role
of the future prophet described in 2 Nephi 3, including the requirements in v.
15 quoted above. The idea that a calling/office is not fixed upon a specific person can be seen in the textual
history of D&C 81:1. The current text contains a promise given to Frederick
G. Williams calling him to be a high priest; however, in
the earliest text, it was addressed to Jesse Gause. However, Gause left the
LDS Church due to apostasy, and, as a result, the promise was transferred to
Williams, as well as resulting in an editing of the pertinent text.
For a discussion of the Knight family and their important role in early
Church history, see:
William G. Hartley, Stand
By My Servant Joseph: The Story of the Joseph Knight Family and the Restoration
While 2 Nephi 3 is seen as perhaps the most difficult passage within uniquely
Latter-day Saint scriptures for Open Theism, I do not believe it is as
problematic as it may appear at first blush.
Interestingly, that
Joseph Smith's prophetic mission could have failed and he could have been
replaced at any time if he were to apostatise or something else were to happen
to him can be seen in the following revelation from December 1830:
And I have sent forth the fulness of my
gospel by the hand of my servant Joseph; and in weakness have I blessed him;
And I have given unto him the keys of the mystery of those things which have
been sealed, even things which were from the foundation of the world, and the
things which shall come from this time until the time of my coming, if he abide
in me, and if not, another will I plant in his stead. Wherefore, watch over him
that his faith fail not, and it shall be given by the Comforter, the Holy Ghost,
that knoweth all things. (D&C 35:17-19 [my thanks to my friend Braxton
Bogard for pointing out the “Open Future” theology of this pericope)