Update (Future posts//post-surgery, etc)

For those who follow this blog, they know that I had a series of procedures, including a surgery under general anaesthesia, last Wednesday. In the past few days, I have improved, concentration-wise, and have return to blogging a bit, though I am still using a lot of pain relief medication (and still coughing up blood here and there).

I hope to continue to improve and return to more regular blogging within the next 1-2 weeks. I do have a few posts planned for the next few weeks, but if there will be some silence/gap between posts, at least you know why.

For those who wish to financially support this blog and/or medical bills, one can make a donation via paypal.

Prayers/positive vibes/etc are more than appreciated, too!

Susann M. Liubinskas on Romans 4:6-8 and David

So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works. "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (Rom 4:6-8, NRSV)

Rom 4:6-8 is one of the best passages refuting Reformed theology. For a discussion, see:

 King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology (cf. An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology)

Commenting on the exegetical method Paul is using, Susann M. Liubinskas:

[I]n verses 6-8, he applies the Rabbinic exegetical principle of gezerah sawah, interpreting Gen 15:6 in light of Ps 32:1-2; in effect, stating that the reckoning of righteousness is equivalent to the nonreckoning of sins. Of note is Paul’s explicit reference to David, another key founding figure from Jewish history, who also has eschatological significance, since it is from his line that the Messiah was expected to come. In the psalm that Paul makes reference to, emphasis is placed on the psalmist’s acknowledgment and confession of transgression and God’s freely given forgiveness. There is no mention of the sacrificial system of atonement, as prescribed by the law. Rather, Paul refers to David as one who experienced blessedness as God’s reckoning of righteousness apart from works (4:6). This anticipates and recalls the eschatological promise that God would freely forgive Israel’s sin, if its people should repent, suggesting that, although the law provided a system for atoning for sin, the forgiveness of this sin ultimately resides in God who is free to establish any system of atonement he sees fit, including the present sacrificial atonement of Christ (3:24-26). Recall that Paul has already referred to God’s forbearance in passing over previously committed sins until the present (3:25-26), pointing to the penultimate status of the levitical sacrificial system of atonement. As Abraham was reckoned righteous due to his trust that God forgives the repentant sinner. Moreover, in the case of the latter, whose double sin of premeditated adultery and murder could not be atoned for under the Mosaic law (Acts 13:39), simultaneously underscores the degree of reliance on or faith in God that this founding figure exemplifies, particularly in light of his dire situation, and the mercy and faithfulness of the God upon whom he relies and in whom he trusts (both the theme of trust in God in dire circumstances and that of the infinite mercy and faithfulness of this righteous God are brought up by Paul time and time again as his arguments proceed. Moreover, both of these themes relate to his larger ethnographic aims). In this way, Paul draws a line from Abraham to David and, ultimately, to Christ via faith or trust in God as the one who both establishes and restores his people. Faith or truth in this God, then, is the trans-historical criterion identifying the people of God. (Susann M. Liubinskas, The Ethnographic Character of Romans: The Dichotomies of Law-Faith and Jew-Gentile in Light of Greco-Roman and Hellenistic Jewish Ethnography [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2019], 141)

Evidence against the Theory Brigham Young used "Adam" in a Polyvalent Manner When discussing "Adam-God"

A well-meaning but very errant apologetic is that Brigham Young never taught the Adam-God doctrine; instead, he used “Adam” in a polyvalent sense, with “Adam” being a title for God the Father, and that he was not often clear about “Adam” as in the person whose personal name as “Adam” and the title when applied to the Father. Elden Watson has an article on this:

Different Thoughts #7--Adam-God

There are many problems with this, including how it has zero explanatory value for Orson Pratt and many other early Latter-day Saints who understood Brigham to be teaching that God the Father and Adam were numerically one and the same person, and that those who commented on the dispute between Orson and Brigham understood it thusly. For a lengthy treatment of the topic from a more defensible position, see:

Matthew B. Brown, Brigham Young's Teachings on Adam

Indeed, such an interpretation appeared all over the globe, including Wales. In the Welsh LDS periodical, Zion’s Trumpet, or Star of the Saints, Dan Jones, prompted by an article in the Millennial Star (vol. xv, no. 48 [1853]) by Orson Pratt on God, wrote a series in response thereto and in defence of Brigham Young’s theology entitled “The God To Worship! Who is He?” which began in the February 4, 1854 issue (vol. vii, no 5, in Zion’s Trumpet: 1854 Welch Mormon Periodical [trans. Ronald D. Dennis; Provo/Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center/Deseret Book, 2015], 69-72). In the final installment which appeared in volume VII, No. 9, March 14, 1854, (Ibid., 133-40), part of a series on the nature of God, the author explicitly teaches that Adam and God the Father were numerically identical. For example, after quoting Rev 20:11-15, the author identifies God in that text with the Ancient of Days (Adam/Michael in LDS theology [per D&C 27; 116]) in Dan 7, and that this figure is the Father of Jesus:

The same glorious person called God by John, “God the Father” by the Son according to the foregoing quotation, is here called the “Ancient of Days.” The great work that he will do, that of judging the world, proves that the same time period is referred to by the one and the other; also, the fact that there will be but “one judgment day,” proves that the judge will be the same although he is called “God the Father,” but the one, and “the ancient of days” by the other. Also this kind of subjection of the Son to the “Ancient of days,” according to the vision of Daniel, which is, according to Paul, “God and his Father,” proves that the two were referring to the same person. (Ibid., 136-37)

Elsewhere, Michael (who is the same person as Adam in LDS theology) is identified with God the Father by the author in the following:

This Michael was our Leader in the early council,--Lucifer fought against him, and He and his armies cast him out of heaven: he will bind him with a “great chain,” and will drive him and the “beasts” who worship him, to the “second death.” If Michael was not the Father of the spirits in that war, who was their father, and why is he not mentioned, or why did he not support his obedient children against the oppression of the traitor? We learn through revelations that the Father asked the spirits in the early council, who would go to give his life for his brethren? His eldest Son responded, “Here am I, send me.” His second son said, “send me.” I shall send the first, said the Father, and the second son was angry, and “at that time he began to be Satan.” According to this, the two brothers were Jesus and Lucifer, sons of the same father,--who was that? If we have proved that the “Ancient of Days,” whom Jesus called “Father,” is the same as he who is called Michael, then Jesus acknowledges that Michael was his Father; if he is his father, and Jesus is our brother, why is this Michael not the Father and the God of all spirits, yes, the father of Lucifer also? It is strange, then, that he would be a suitable judge of the one, and the God of the others who obey him? If he is the God of the spirits, why is he not a suitable God for them while they are men? (Ibid., 138-39)

Dan Jones, of course, was in the know, if you will. He was a personal friend of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s and was an ardent defender of Brigham Young. If Brigham was actually teaching that Adam and God the Father were not the same person, and instead, “Adam” was a title (similar to “Elias” being used, both for OT Elijah and in a generic sense for a forerunner), he would have known, and so would have countless others who commented on the topic (e.g, Orson Pratt; Heber C. Kimball)

Indeed, many who left the LDS Church for other branches of the Restorationist movement clearly understood Brigham to be teaching that Adam and God the Father were the same person, contra Watson and others. One prime example is that of John Piece Hawley (1826-1909) who, later in his life, would join the then-RLDS Church. Commenting on his reasons for rejecting “Brighamism,” Melvin J. Johnson wrote:

Hawley next considered the Adam-God doctrine taught by Brigham Young, despite his thinking of it as “too insignificant to talk about.” Brigham Young taught Adam-God as early as 1852:

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later! (Journal of Discourses 1:51)

On January 9, 1855, Eliza R. Snow, a plural wife of Brigham Young read a poem extolling “Father Adam, our God” at a gathering in the home of her brother, Lorenzo Snow:

Father Adam, our God, let all Israel extol,
And Jesus, our Brother, who died for us all:
All the praise is imperfect, we now can bestow--
Our expression is weak, and our language too low:
But when Zion that dwells on a plant of light,
With the Zion perfected on earth, shall unite:
Sweet, rich, high-sounding anthems, all heaven will inspire,
As the pure language flows from the lips of the choir. (“Address,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 17, no. 20 [May 19, 1855]:320)

The church membership accepted it with various levels of scepticism or agreement. Historian Poly Aird wrote that George A. Hicks remembered that if Brigham said “Adam was the God of this world, the people believed it or pretended to believe it” (Polly Aird, Mormon Convert, Mormon Defector: A Scottish Immigrant in the American West, 1848-1862, 144). The day following the President’s announcement, Heber C. Kimball, Young’s first counselor, was recorded as saying that the “God and Father of Jesus Christ was Adam.” Ten years later, he wrote: “the Lord told me that Adam was my father and that he was the God and father of all of the inhabitants of this Earth” (Wilford Woodruff, Journal, April 10, 1852).

Apostle Orson Pratt, on the other hand, opposed the doctrine or some time. Samuel W. Richards and Wilford Woodruff recorded in their journals for April 11, 1856, of contention in the upper room of the President’s Office. President Young and Apostle Pratt engaged in a quarrelsome discussion about Adam-God. The President, according to Woodruff, said that “Elder Orson Pratt pursued a course of stubbornness & unbelief in what President Young said that will destroy him if he does not repent & turn from his evil ways. For when any man crosses the track of a leader in Israel & tries to lead the prophet—he is no longer led by him but is in danger of falling” (Samuel W. Richards, Journals and Family Record, 1846-1876, 113; Woodruff, Journal, March 11, 1856). The following month Woodruff recorded that

I met with the Presidency & Twelve in the prayer-circle. Brother G.A. Smith spoke in plainness his feelings concerning some principles of O Pratt’s wherein he differed from President Young concerning the creation of Adam out of the dust of the Earth & the final consummation of knowledge & many other things I am afraid when he come to write he will publish in opposition of President Young’s views but he promises he would not. (Woodruff, Journal, April 20, 1856)

As late as 1860, Orson Pratt still disagreed with the President, writing “that [the idea that Adam is the Father of our spirits] is revolting to my feelings, even if it were not sustained by revelation” (Thomas Bullock, “Minutes of the Council of the Twelve in upper room of Historian’s Office, April 5, 1860). Hawley recognized that Pratt had fought Young “on this, but Brigham had said it, and it was Pratt’s business to believe and teach what Brigham taught.” John Hawley though that Pratt, realizing “his living in the church and was liable to be taken from him,” submitted in shame to keep his position. So Hawley too “laid that [doctrine] to one side as not being profitable” (Hawley, “Experiences,” 238). (Melvin C. Johnson, Life and Times of John Pierce Hawley: A Mormon Ulysses of the American West [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2019], 148-50)

As one final example (much more could be reproduced), in a synopsis of Brigham Young’s comments given to the Salt Lake school of the prophets for December 11, 1869, we read the following:

Man will have to be sealed to man until the chain is united from Father Adam down to the last Saint. This will be the work of the Millennium and Joseph Smith will be the mane to attend to it or to dictate it . . . Some may think what I have said concerning Adam strange, but the period will come when this people will be willing to adopt Joseph Smith as their Prophet, Seer, Revelator and God, but not the Father of their Spirits, for that was our Father Adam. (Salt Lake School of the Prophets, 1867-1883 [ed. Devery S. Anderson; Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2018], 42-43)

For more, see:

Drew Briney, Understanding Adam-God Teachings: A Comprehensive Resource of Adam-God Materials

It is my hope that well-meaning but errant LDS apologists will drop this problematic apologetic and “explanation” of Brigham’s teachings on Adam/God.

The Lateness of the Practice of Reserving the Eucharist for Worship

Commenting on the very late origin of the reservation of the consecrated Host for worship in Catholic practice outside the celebration of Mass, Catholics Noèle Maurice Denis Boulet and Roger Béraudy wrote:

Both ancient history and present practice of reservation of the Blessed Sacrament stresses that viaticum is its first and principal end [of reserving the Eucharist]. The church organized the worship of the Eucharist outside Mass only in the twelfth century after the controversies over the real presence. Formerly, as we have seen, the Eucharist was reserved only with a view to communion; but this primarily concerned viaticum. (Noèle Maurice Denis Boulet and Roger Béraudy, The Church at Prayer, volume 2: The Eucharist, ed. A.G. Martimort [trans. Damian Smyth, Miriam Hederman, and Daniel Farrelly; Shannon, Ireland: Irish University Press, 1973], 220-21; comment in square brackets added for clarification, emphasis in bold added)

Daniel Ludlow on Isaiah 29:4

A common "proof-text" Latter-day Saints often use to support the Book of Mormon is that of Isa 29. I have written about the problems of appealing to Isa 29 as biblical evidence for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon here. Interestingly, Daniel Ludlow, in his popular work on the Book of Mormon from 1978, wrote that Isa 29 is about the Old World and the New World; not that it is exhausted by the Nephites exclusively:

Isaiah 29:4. “And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground.”—What at first looks like a prophecy about Jerusalem’s downfall is seen, in the light of Book of Mormon history, to include the remnant of Jerusalem’s children that settled in early America. (Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978], 47, emphasis in bold added)

Eliza R. Snow, The Assassination of Generals Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith (1873)

Many “Progressive Mormons” disdain the hymn “Praise to the Man,” and many are hoping that the Church removes it from the forthcoming new hymnal. I, for one, love the hymn and hope that the Church will retain in (see my article Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology) Furthermore, I also vote that the following should also become part of the new hymnal which also praises the life and mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum (and to further annoy “ProgMos”):

The Assassination of Generals Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith

By Eliza R. Snow--1873

Ye heavens, attend! Let all the earth give ear!
Let Gods and seraphs, men and angels hear:
The worlds on high—the Universe shall know
What awful scenes are acted here below!

Had nature’s self a heart, her heart would bleed
At the recital of so foul a deed;
For never, since the Son of God was slain,
Has blood so noble flowed from human vein,
As that which now on God for vengeance calls
From Freedom’s ground—from Carthage prison walls!

Oh, Illinois; thy soil has drunk the blood
Of prophets, martyr’d for the truth of God.
Once-lov’d America! what can atone
For the pure blood of innocence thou’st sown?
Where all the streams, in tear torrents shed
To mourn the fate of those illustrious dead,
How vain the tribute for the noblest worth
That graced thy surface, O degraded earth!
Oh, wretched murderers, fierce for human blood!
You’ve slain the Prophets of the living God,
Who’ve born oppression from their early youth,
To plant on earth the principles of truth

Shades of our patriot fathers! can it be,
beneath your blood-stained flag of Liberty,
The firm supporters of our country’s cause,
Are butcher’d while submission to her laws?
Yes, blameless men, defamed by hellish lie,
Have thus been offer’d as a sacrifice
To appease the ragings of a brutish clan
That has defiled the laws of God and man!
‘Twas not for crime o guilt of theirs they ell:
Against the laws they never did rebel.
True to their country, yet her plighted faith
Have prov’d an instrument of cruel death!

Great men have fallen, mighty men have died
Nations have mourn’d their fav’rites and their pride;
But two so wise, so virtuous, and so good,
Before, on earth, at once, have never stood
Since the creation—men whom God ordain’d
To publish truth when error long had reign’d;
Of whom the world itself unworthy prov’d;
It knew them not; but men with hatred mov’d
And with infernal spirits, have combin’d
Against the best, the noblest of mankind!

Oh, persecution! shall thy purple hand
Spread utter desolation through the land?
Shall Freedom’s banner be no more unfurled?
Has peace indeed been taken from the world?
Then God of Jacob, in this trying hour
Help us to trust in thy Almighty power--
Support thy Saints beneath this awful stroke,
Make bare thine arm to break oppressions’ yoke.

We mourn the Prophet, from whose lips have flow’d
The words of life thy Spirit has bestow’d--
A depth of thought no human art could reach,
From time to time roll’d in sublimest speech.
From thy celestial fountain, through his mind,
To purify and elevate mankind;
The rich intelligence by him brought forth
Is like the sunbeams spreading o’er the earth.

Now Zion mourns—she mourns an earthly head;
Her Prophet and her Patriarch are dead!
The blackest deed that men and devils know
Since Calv’ry’s scene, has laid the brothers low!
Once while in life, and one in death, thy prov’d
How strong their friendship—how true they loved;
True to their mission until death they stood,
Then seal’d their testimony with their blood.

All hearts with sorrow bleed, and every eye
Is bath’s in tears, each bosom heaves a sigh,
Heart-broken widows’ agonizing groans
Are mingled with the helpless orphans’ moans!
Ye Saints! be still, and know that God is just
With steadfast purpose in His promise trust;

Girded with sackcloth, own His mighty hand,
And wait His Judgments on this guilty land!
The noble Martyrs now have gone to move
The cause of Zion in the Courts above. (taken from N.B. Lundwall, The Fate of the Persecutors of the Prophet Joseph Smith [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft Publishers, 1952], 224-25)

The Gospel According to Paul in Acts 17:28-29

For in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.' "Being then the children of God, we ought to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man." (Acts 17:28-29, NASB)

Latter-day Saints are fond of appealing to Acts 17:28-29 in support of our belief that God and humanity are the same “species.” For a discussion, see my article:

Latter-day Saint Theology and Acts 17:28-29

Needless to say, there has been a lot of eisegesis and fallacious reasoning employed by critics of our theology. One prime example is a recent article on the Beggar’s Bread (or, as it should be known as, the Bugger All Exegesis blog) wherein the author pretends to interact with, not just Latter-day Saint theology, but also apologetics:

The Gospel According to St. Cleanthes and St. Epimenides

Fred, of course, has been refuted by myself and others, including my friend Christopher Davis, on such issues before, including his own abuse of sources, such as Brent A. Moody, Function and Meaning of Pagan Quotations in Acts 17:28. For more, see:

Defending the LDS Reading of Acts 17:28-29

Also check out:

Is it problematic to cite Joseph Fitzmyer?

We do find this doozy:

To use a modern equivalent it was like when Billy Graham cited the secular song lyrics “What the world needs now is love, sweet love” (from a Dione Warwick song) and “The answer is blowing in the wind” (from a Bob Dylan song) to make his point in sermons during his 1969 Anaheim, California Crusades.2 In both cases, the intention wasn’t to endorse the sources, simply to establish a rhetorical connection with the listening audience from their cultural vantage point. To suggest anything more than that is exegetically unsustainable.

This is nothing short of question-begging and, interestingly, falsified in many other parallel instances. For example, Jude 9 has the author reference and even quote the Assumption of Moses and affirms the underlying theology thereof vis-a-vis Satanology. For a full discussion, see Thomas Farrar, The Devil in the General Epistles, Part 4: Jude

Divine Investiture in Deuteronomy 29

A good example of “divine investiture” is the following passage from Deuteronomy where Moses speaks as if he was YHWH:

Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: You have seen all that the Lord did before your very eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his courtiers and to his whole country: the wondrous feats that you saw with your own eyes, those prodigious signs and marvels . . . you had no bread to eat and no wine or other intoxicant to drink--that you might know that I the Lord am your God. When you reached this place, King Sihon of Heshbon and King Og of Bashan came out to engage us in battle, but we defeated him. (Deut 29:1-2, 5-6 | JPS 1985 Tanakh)

λατρεύω being given to mortals in Deuteronomy 28:48 (LXX)

In some rare instances, λατρεύω is used for non-deities/mortals, such as Sibylline Oracles 8:442-45 where God commands the angels to give λατρεύω to Adam. In the LXX, one example of mortals (the human enemies of the Israelites) and not divinities (whether real or imaginary) are said to be the recipients of λατρεύω is that of Deut 28:48:

And you shall serve (λατρεύω) your enemies whom the Lord will send against you, with famine and with thirst and with nakedness and with lack of everything. And he will put an iron collar on your neck until he utterly destroys you. (NETS)

Examples of Russell M. Nelson Appealing to the Original Languages of the Scriptures

I have recently read the following (it was one of the books I got for myself for my recent birthday):

Teachings of Russell M. Nelson (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018)

While pursuing it, one was impressed by how Nelson would often appeal to the original language texts of Scripture, largely the Greek of the New Testament, including the following three examples:

On Angels:

The word angel is very meaningful. It comes to us from the Greek language. The Greek word ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ means “messenger.” This same noun is centered in the Greek word for gospel, which is ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ. Its literal meaning is “good message” or “good news,” with an implication of a heavenly or angelic source. ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ is the very first word in the Greek New Testament (“Gospel according to Matthew”) . . . . The King James translators used five words [in Luke 2:10-11], “I bring you good tidings,” to express in English the meaning of a single word in the Greek text. That one Greek word is ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΖΟ, which literally means, “I announce good news.” That good news is the gospel. That good news is Jesus Christ” He has come into the world. Notice in the center of the word ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΖΟ is the root, ΑΓΓΕΛ, from the word ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ, for heavenly messenger, or angel. (“Heavenly Messengers,” Wasatch and Utah County Conference Broadcast to 153 Stakes, September 14, 2014) (pp. 14, 15)

The Hebrew background of the Book of Mormon

Because the Book of Mormon is a translation of a modified Hebrew language, it contains many Hebraisms. We might list a few examples because they are so unlike the language that would have been familiar to a young man in rural New York at that time:

·       Nouns followed by descriptive phrases—such as “altar of stones,” “plates of brass,” “mist of darkness.”

·       Prepositional phrases used instead of adverbs—such as “with harshness,” “with oy,” “with gladness,” “in diligence.”

·       Cognate accusative constructions—“dreamed a dream,” “cursed with sore cursing,” “work all manner of fine work.”

·       Hebrew words with double meaning—such as Nahum, meaning “mourning,” and Jershon, meaning “inheritance.” Events involving those specific actions took place at locations bearing those meaningful terms.

·       Chiasms. This term is derived from the Greek letter Chi (for the English x), which describes text written in an inverted parallel structure. Many chiasms exist in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Bible, I am told that emphasis in these ancient languages was not provided by punctuation. Therefore, other devices, such as chiasm, were used occasionally to stress important thoughts. (“A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, July 1993) (pp. 39-40)

On “Perfect” in Matthew 5:48

Recently I studied the English and Greek editions of the New Testament, concentrating on each use of the term perfect and its derivatives. Studying both languages together provided some interesting insights, since Greek was the original language of the New Testament.

In Matthew 5:48, the term perfect was translated from the Greek teleios, which means “complete.” Teleios is an adjective derived from the noun telos, which means “end.” The infinitive form of the verb is teleiono, which means “to reach a distant end, to be fully developed, to consummate, or to finish.” Please note that the word does not imply “freedom from error”; it implies “achieving a distant objective.” In fact, when writers of the Greek New Testament wished to describe perfection of behaviour—precision or excellence of human effort—they did not employ a form of teleios; instead, they chose different words.

Teleios is not a total stranger to us. From it comes the prefix tele—that we use every day. Telephone literally means “distant talk.” Television means “to see distantly.” Telephoto means “distant light,” and so on.

With that background in mind, let us consider another highly significant statement made by the Lord. Just prior to His Crucifixion, He said that on “the third day I shall be perfected” (Luke 13:32; emphasis added). Think of that! The sinless, errorless Lord—already perfect by our mortal standards—proclaimed His own state of perfection yet to be in the future. His eternal perfection would follow His Resurrection and receipt of “all power . . . . in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). (“Perfection Pending,” Ensign, November 1995) (pp. 250-51)

Russell M. Nelson on the Salvific Efficacy of the Lord's Supper

While commenting on the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, Russell M. Nelson made the following connection between the reception of eternal life and the sacrament, including an appeal to John 6:

The sacrament, like baptism, is such a sacred ordinance that it deserves greater comprehension. Scripture teaches us that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11; emphasis added). Shortly after man was cast out of the Garden of Eden, sacrifice was instituted wherein life was terminated by the shedding of blood. In our day, we observe that heart attack, stroke, and gangrene all follow in the wake as life leaves any part of the body deprived of its blood supply.

With that background, think of this passage from the gospel of John, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink is blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:53-54; emphasis added).

In one ordinance, the emblems of His atoning sacrifice and His promise of resurrection to eternal life are symbolically recalled. Every week, we commemorate those events as we partake of the sacrament while renewing our covenants with the Lord. (“Twenty Questions,” Church Educational Systems, September 13, 1985, as quoted in Teachings of Russell M. Nelson [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018], 340)

Thomas B.H. Stenhouse on Alma 46:19

One late-19^th century critic of the Book of Mormon levelled the following charge against Alma 46:19 in the Book of Mormon:

The simplicity of many portions of the Book of Mormon is very touching; witness the following:

“And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people waving the rent of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had wrote upon the rent!!!”*--[page 334.]

. . .

* That a “rent” can be visible—sometimes too visible—is an undoubted fact, but how a man could write upon a rent is not so easy of demonstration. Possible corroborative evidence of the practicability of this performance might have been given by the Irishman who gave as a recipe for making a cannon: “Take a round hole and pour melted iron around it.” (Thomas B.H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints [1873], 544, emphasis in original)

Stenhouse was not the only critic of the Book of Mormon to level this charge against the Book of Mormon. Catholic William Whalen wrote the following about this passage in 1967, almost a century after Stenhouse’s volume:

[T]he strangest malapropism appears in Alma 46:19. “And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent [part] of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had wrote [written] upon the rent [part] . . . “ The words in brackets have been added or altered in recent editions but the original edition seemed to give the impression that a “rent” is something on which a man can write! (William J. Whalen, The Latter-day Saints in the Modern World [rev ed.; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967], 48)

This is actually evidence of a Hebrew background to the Book of Mormon. Hebrew does not have to add the word part to a verbal substantive like rent as English requires. Thus, broken in Hebrew can refer to a broken thing or a broken part, while new can refer to a new thing. As John Tvedtnes explained:

[I]n the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, we read that "when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent of his garment in the air" (p. 351). When the word "rent" is used as a noun in English, it may refer to a hole caused by rending, but not, to my knowledge, to a portion of a rent cloth; the unlikely usage of "rent" in English as a noun no doubt contributed to the fact that, in subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon, it was changed to read "rent part" (Alma 46:19). But the Hebrew would, in this instance, use but one word, qera’, "rent (part)," coming from qāra', "he rent, tore," for nouns, in Hebrew, are derived from roots--as are Hebrew verbs--by addition of certain vowel patterns that distinguish them from other parts of speech. (John A. Tvedtnes, Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon: A Preliminary Survey)

There are many instances in the Hebrew Bible of this. The word piece (קְרָעִים) in the KJV text could be literally translated as rent:

And Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces (1 Kgs 11:30; alt. “twelve rents”)

And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee. (1 Kgs 11:31; alt. “ten rents”)

And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces (2 Kgs 2:12; alt. "two rents")

Instead of being a problematic verse for the Book of Mormon, Alma 46:19 is another piece of evidence for the authenticity of the text.

Josef Schubert on the Relationship between Deuteronomy and ANE Treaties and Covenants

Josef Schubert, in an interesting book arguing for a very early dating of the book of Deuteronomy, write the following about the purportedly late dating for Deuteronomy due to parallels between other ANE covenants and treaties:

The Deuteronomy Description of the Covenant Displays the Style of Hittite Treaties

The language of Assyrian vassal treaties shows many striking similarities with the language of Deuteronomy. For example, in the loyalty oaths of Esarhaddon, quoted by Römer, we find:

You shall love Assurbanipal . . . king of Assyria, your lord, as yourself.

You shall hearken not to whatever he says and do whatever he commands, and you shall not seek any other king or other lord against him. This treaty . . .  you shall speak to your sons and grandsons, your seed and your seed’s seed which shall be born in the future.

The parallels with Deuteronomy 6:4-7 are obvious. Similarly,

If you hear any evil, improper, ugly word which is not seemly or good to Assurbanipal . . . from the mouth of your brothers, your sons, your daughters, or from the mouth of a prophet, an ecstatic, an inquirer of oracles, or from the mouth of any human being at all, you shall not conceal it, but come and report it to Assurbanipal . . . If you are able to seize them and put them to death, then you shall destroy their name and their seed from the land.

The same language is used in Deuteronomy 13. Finally, the curses of Deuteronomy 28:24, 26-28 are found in the vassal treaty of Esarhaddon.

On the basis of such similarities, scholars have concluded that Deuteronomy was composed in the seventh century BCE, either during the time of Hezekiah (eight century, minority opinion) or during the time of Josiah (the prevalent assumption). The authors of Deuteronomy had access to copies of Assyrian treaties (for example, a copy of the treaty between Syria and Judah under Manasseh). The report of the finding of the Torah of Moses was a “pious lie,” based on similar stories from other countries: “The Neo-Assyrian period (more specifically the seventh century BCE) should be regarded as the starting point for the Deuteronomistic literary production.” Kitchen demonstrated that the form of the Pentateuch covenants (Exodus/Leviticus as well as Deuteronomy) follows the style of Hittite vassal treaties (1400-1200 BCE) in the Near East. The elements of these treaties are as follows: the treaty starts with the title (generally the name of the suzerain king), followed by a historical introduction. Then follow the main stipulations of the treat (including the injunction against serving another overlord). Then comes the report of the deposition of the treaty (generally in the temple), of public reading, of the naming of witnesses, and finally a list of blessings and curses. This framework is also found in the Pentateuch descriptions of the covenant. It opens with a title, which is followed by a historical prologue: “Then God spoke all these words: I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exod 20:1-2); “These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel . . . to expound this law as follows” (Deut 1:1, 5). Then follow the basic stipulations of the covenant—e.g., the Decalogue (Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21, as well as the law codices). This is followed by a report on depositing the document in the Ark, by the official reading (calling out aloud) of the treaty’s provision, and by the naming of witnesses, blessings, and curses.

Assyrian treaties, on the other hand, only include the title, witnesses, stipulations, and curses. There is no historical prologue, no public reading of the treaty stipulations, and there are no blessings. This poses no problem for Römer:

Since treaties occur already under the Hittite emperors (second half of the second millennium BCE), some scholars have used this analogy to claim a second-millennium date for Deuteronomy. This apologetic view is impossible: there is no social location during the second part of the second millennium BCE for editing such a document in Judah or Israel (which do not even exist at the time).

Römer is clearly aware of the Hittite treaties. His basic, unproven assumption is that Judah or Israel did not even exist at this time. This premise permits him to ignore the evidence. Römer does not cite the work of Kitchen, who is a noted Egyptologist and documents his statements by citing his sources (Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 562 n. 104).

The Deuteronomy list of curses is comprehensive. No other Middle Eastern treaty lists all of them. Let us assume that the Deuteronomy treaty was composed during the reign of Josiah. How was this done? It must have been composed by an extraordinarily gifted author (or authors) who knew Assyrian treaties (presumably a copy of the treaty between Esarhaddon and Manasseh). They copied the seven curses from that treaty, assuming that these curses were standard formulas; then added eighteen more curses which appear in Hittite documents. It would be an extraordinary coincidence if all these old curses were independently invented by those presumed authors. Do we claim that there existed copies of treaties of defunct Hittite civilizations in the royal archives in Jerusalem? This would enable the scribes to copy the fashionable style of the middle and late twelfth century BCE, write historical introductions, describe the ritual of deposing the book in the ark, and also invent some blessings. Such a scenario is, of course, absurd. It is more plausible to assume that the Deuteronomy covenant was established during the sojourn of the desert and that it stresses the solemnity of the occasion by citing all the curses known at that time. The very fact that the covenant versions of the Pentateuch adopt the style of the Hittite treaties and do not use the style of Assyrian treaties proves that they were not written in the seventh century BCE, but during the late second millennium BCE. Of course, this does not imply that the Assyrians copied their treaties from Deuteronomy. Both used a generally known style. (Josef Schubert, Dating Deuteronomy: The Wellhausen Fallacy [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2018], 35-37)

Josef Schubert on the Decalogue and the Ontological Existence of Plural Gods

In a recent volume arguing for an earlier dating for the book of Deuteronomy than usually believed by many OT scholars, Josef Schubert wrote that, in the theology of the Decalogue, the ontological existence of other gods was assumed, not denied:

The first law of the covenant is this: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:3). Monotheism does not deny the existence of divine beings. The Pentateuch acknowledges the existence of other gods, but forbids Israel to worship them. The biblical person does not meditate on the nature of God or other supernatural beings. The Decalogue does not deny their existence. I assume that the people of the biblical world believed in the existence of a supernatural universe which is not subject to the laws of physical nature and interacts with the happenings of the natural world, occasionally benevolently, often maliciously. They believed in the existence of divine beings (elohim, referred to in the plural), the whole host of heaven, who will hinder or promote happiness. They also believed that this supernatural world is strictly ruled by universe laws. They believed in the power of amulets. The magician knows these laws and can apply them. Pagan gods too are subject to these laws. YHWH, however, is always described as supreme, other elohim being subordinated to him. The Decalogue does not state: “believe in the existence of YHWH,” or “don’t believe in the existence of spiritual beings—ELOHIM.” Such statements would be absurd. (Josef Schubert, Dating Deuteronomy: The Wellhausen Fallacy [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2018], 96)

Tad R. Callister on the Testimony of the Holy Spirit Not Being Subjective "Emotionalism"

The following discussion about the testimony of the Holy Spirit is from Tad Callister’s new book, A Case for the Book of Mormon. I reproduce the following as it disproves the thesis that the “Mormon testimony” is “nothing more than subjective feelings” (a charge that comes from rather hypocritical anti-Mormons like Mike and Ann Thomas):

Enlightened Understanding

Another divine witness comes in the form of increased enlightenment and understanding. The Lord reminded Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith, “As often as thou hast inquired thou hast received instruction of my Spirit” (D&C 6:14). Lest there be any misunderstanding as to the source of this instruction and knowledge, the Lord showed the connection between the effect (increased knowledge) and the cause (the Spirit”) as follows:  “Thou knowest that thou hast inquired of me and I did enlighten thy mind; and now I tell thee these things that thou mayest know that thou hast been enlightened by the Spirit of truth” (D&C 6:15; emphasis added).

The Lord further confirmed this cause-and-effect relationship between the Spirit and enlightenment in these words: “I will impart unto you of my Spirit, which shall enlighten your mind” (D&C 11:13). Alma described the workings of the Spirit in similar terms: “It beginneth to enlighten my understanding” (Alma 32:28), and “Your mind doth begin to expand” (Alma 32:34). President Henry B. Eyring expressed his personal feelings on this subject: “The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Truth. Almost always I have felt a sensation of light. Any feeling I may have had of darkness is dispelled” (Eyring, “Gifts of the Spirit for Hard Times”). Similar feelings came to King Lamoni, of whom it was recorded: “the dark veil of unbelief was being cast away from his mind” and it was replaced by “the light of everlasting life [which] was lit up in his soul” (Alma 19:6).

This enlightenment literally causes a transformation of our minds. It elevates us to a loftier plane so we have a higher intellectual and spiritual IQ, so to speak—a more refined capacity to think and reason as God does. Paul invited us to “be ye transformed by the renewing [or enlightening] of your mind” (Romans 12:2). Joseph Smith added, “A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas” (Teachings: Joseph Smith, 132). I think we have all felt such enlightenment when we have diligently sought God’s help in solving a problem or facing a trial, or when we have received ideas for a talk or lesson or a personal answer to a difficult challenge (sometimes this enlightenment will continue to linger, as it did with Joseph Smith when he said, “I now resume the subject of the baptism for the dead, as that subject seems to occupy my mind, and press itself upon my feelings the strongest [D&C 128:1]) . . .

. . .

The Voice of the Lord in Our Mind

When Enos prayed mightily for the welfare of his brethren, he recorded that “the voice of the Lord came into my mind again, saying: I will visit thy brethren according to their diligence in keeping my commandments” (Enos 1:10). Evidently, this was not an audible voice that came into his ears, rather a silent but discernible voice that came into his mind.

One time I was assigned with another leader of the Church to reorganize a stake. Our main responsibility was to interview members of the stake and call one of them to be the new stake president. I knew none of the twenty-five or so people we were interviewing. At one point, an interviewee walked into the room where the two of us sat. I was somewhat surprised when a voice came to my mind: “That is the stake president.” I had previously participated in a number of stake reorganizations, and eventually the Spirit always revealed to us whom the stake president should be, but usually some struggle was required to receive the revelation. Never had I received such an immediate and powerful witness as this.

The interview then commenced. One of the interviewee’s responses caused me to seriously doubt whether he should be the stake president. I was torn in my feelings. Logically, I could not recommend him, but spiritually a confirmation had come.

When all the interviews were completed, the other church leader turned to me and said, “Who do you think the stake president should be? I responded that if I were relying on the interview alone, I would not recommend the brother for whom I had concerns, but when he walked into the room, I received the distinct impression that this man was the Lord’s chosen servant.

The other leader responded, “I had the same impression.” The man was called.

Perhaps in this case the Lord gave me such a clear and powerful impression because He knew that otherwise I might be tempted to follow the logic of my mind rather than the impression of the Spirit—that I might be influenced more by my impressions of the outer man than the inner man.

That inaudible but discernible voice to our mind is another witness of the Spirit, another confirmation that may come to us of the truth of the Book of Mormon. (Tad R. Callister, A Case for the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019], 219-20, 222-23)

Tad R. Callister vs. the “Inspired Fiction”/”Pious Fraud” Theories of the Book of Mormon

[S]ome propose that the Book of Mormon is neither a fraud nor a divine work. I fail, however, to follow this line of reasoning. If there were no golden plates or angel Moroni or Nephite civilization, then every name and place in the Book of Mormon is an untruth, and every written word is a deception, because it is all presented as though it were the actual history of an ancient civilization and the actual words of prophets of God. Such would be a fraud, and frauds do not lend themselves to godly works. On the other hand, if there were golden plates, an angel Moroni, an ancient civilization, prophets of God, and a visit of Christ, all as described in the Book of Mormon, then, subject to any minor imperfections of men, it is the divine Work of God . . . Some use phrases such as “pious fraud” to describe the book. This is an oxymoron and makes no sense. The Book of Mormon cannot be both pious (meaning “holy”) and a fraud (meaning “deceitful”) at the same time. (Tad R. Callister, A Case for the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019], 5-6, 10 n. 5)

Further Reading

Stephen O. Smoot, Et Incarnatus Est: The Imperative for Book of Mormon Historicity

Duncan Heaster on Old Testament Typology Supporting the Salvific Efficacy of Water Baptism

Commenting on the evidence from Old Testament types for the salvific efficacy of water baptism, Christadelphian apologist and preacher Duncan Heaster wrote the following:

New Creations

“If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature . . . all things become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). As a new born baby sees a chair, a table, a brother or sister, for the very first time, so do we after baptism. It is so hard for us to appreciate the newness of everything to a baby or small child. “All things are become new” in our attitude of mind after baptism. Yet we live in newness of life (Rom. 6:4), as if this process of birth is ongoing throughout our spiritual lives. After baptism, therefore, we set out on a life in which we should be gazing, in wide eyed wonder, at new spiritual concepts and realities. How patient we should be with others who are in this position. “Old things are passed away” at baptism, just as the old world order will “pass away” at the Lord’s return (Rev. 21:5). The dramatic change that will come upon this planet in the Kingdom should therefore be paralleled in our new spiritual vistas after baptism, and throughout the process of being re-born. Nothing exists in the same light as it did before baptism. Yet we would all admit that this is not totally true of how we see or saw things after baptism. Yet we would all admit that this is not totally true of how we see or saw things after baptism. The reason is because at baptism, the life of newness just began; we were born, but we must grow not to maturity. The challenge goes out to us all our mortal lives to live more zealously and fundamentally allow God’s word to make us new.

Israel’s passing through the Red Sea was an undoubted type of baptism (1 Cor. 10:1). God bought them out of Egypt, through the Red Sea baptism, “and brought you unto myself” (Ex. 19:4). It was as if God was waiting for them there, in the wilderness: as He waits to receive every man or woman who passes through the waters of baptism. Time and again they were bidden look back to their exodus/Red Sea experience. In times of dire spiritual failure or sluggish indifference to their God, as well as their pinnacles of faith, the Spirit in the prophets directed their minds back to these things—either by explicit statement, or by indirect allusion. We too, as the baptized new Israel, ought to likewise look back to our baptism with an ever-increasing appreciation.

Old Testament Types

The New Testament principles outlined above are founded in several Old Testament types.

Israel crossing the Red Sea is one of the most well-known types of baptism (1 Cor. 10:1). They were being chased by the Egyptians, and were trapped against the sea. The only way of escape was for that water to open and allow them to go through it. If any Israelite had refused to go through, there would have been no salvation. Going further, it is evident that the people of Israel as a body were going through the death and resurrection experience of the Lord Jesus, through the process of the Passover and Exodus through the Red Sea:

Israel	Abib	Jesus
Ate Passover (Ex. 12:6)	14th	Died on the cross as Passover lambs slain
Left Egypt the next day (Num. 33:3)	15th
Journeyed three days (Ex. 8:27)	15th-17th	Jesus three days in the tomb
Came through the Red Sea	17th	Resurrected

As we come out in the baptismal water, we really are united with the resurrected Lord. His newness of life, His deliverance and successful exodus from the world—all this becomes ours. Israel were slaves in Egypt, and then after the Red Sea baptism became slaves of God. Ps. 68:18 pictures them as a train of captives being led out of Egypt, merging into the image of a train of a captivity led into a different captivity. Romans 6 powerfully brings home the point: we were slaves of sin, but now are become slaves of righteousness.

Noah entering the ark (representing Christ; 1 Pet. 3:21) is equally powerful; it was no use standing near the ark when the rain came. The only way of escape was through being inside the ark.

Col. 2:11 speaks of circumcision as another type of baptism. In that only the circumcised were in covenant with God. “The uncircumcised . . . that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Gen. 17:14). We either “cut off” the flesh, or God will cut us off.

Tit. 3:5-7 implies that the priests washing the laver also typified baptism: “They shall wash with water, that they die not” (Ex. 30:20). All God’s people are priests, in a sense (1 Pet. 2:5, 9); the washing of baptism is an absolute necessity before we can be God’s priestly people. (Duncan Heaster, Beyond Bible Basics: A Manual for Spiritual Growth [Surrey, UK: The Christadelphian Advancement Trust, 2000], 7-8)