Friday, January 15, 2021

Answering James White's "Mormonism's Prophets and Priests" Discussion

In his (as of writing) most recent episode of the Dividing Line, James White addresses the topic of "Mormonism":


Pope Francis' Inclusivism, Mormonism's Prophets and Priests




His discussion begins at about the 25:17 mark. As he raises a number of issues, I thought it would be a good idea to "plug" a number of resources on this blog that answer White on the various issues he raised.

White makes some comments about God in LDS theology being "Gendered." On this, see:


Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment (cf. Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" and Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought)


White continues to assume Sola Scriptura, and uses this against LDS theology and practices and even appeals to Luke 16:16 to negate LDS claims of authority. For a fuller discussion, see:


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


On the priesthood (which White says is "one of the weakest issues of Mormon theology"), including a discussion of the Aaronic Priesthood and Heb 7:24-25 and the use of απαραβατος, etc., see:


After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood (2018)


It should be noted that White, in his claim that the Aaronic Priesthood was only for the family Aaron is only true for the Old Testament period. In the above book, I have a discussion of many Old Testament passages prophesying Gentiles being ordained to the Levitical Priesthood. Note one: 

For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory. And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.

 Shalom Paul, commenting on v. 21, noted the following:


“And from them likewise I will take some to be Levitical priests”—said the Lord—According to the Masoretic vocalization לַכהנים לַלוים (the LXX and 1QIsaa add לי, “for Me”; note the similarity to Num 8:14, 16–18, which may have influenced this addition), the Lord shall appoint assistants to the Levitical priests from among the nations. According to Ehrlich (Miqra ki-Pheshuto, 3:162–63), however, the Masoretes had difficulty with the idea that the Lord would appoint uncircumcised heathens as priests and thus vocalized the lamed prefixes with a pataḥ (an elision of the definite particle), thereby implying that these new appointees would act in the service of the priests but not actually engage in cultic activities. This is a tendentious vocalization, however, and the first lamed should be vocalized with a shewa, and the second with a ḥiriq (without the elided definite article) (לְכהנים לִלוים), and be translated: “And from them [the foreigners] likewise I will take some to be Levitical priests.” Compare also Rashi and Kimchi, who allude to this correct interpretation. The ancient translations, as well as Rashi, Eliezer of Beaugency, Joseph Kara, and many Hebrew medieval manuscripts, add a waw here: לכהנים וללויםThis prophecy terminates the Levitical exclusivity in the Temple ritual, a hereditary responsibility never before brought into doubt. (Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40-66: Translation and Commentary [Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012], 629-30, emphasis in bold added)

White, in making criticisms of LDS ecclesiology, end up making Isaiah into a false prophet.

On the "editing of LDS Scripture," it should be noted that the biblical authors changed the words of their own revelations and even the revealtions of prior prophets. I do not believe White has ever addressed this issue, but for more, see:



On the meaning of "telestial" in D&C 76, many believe it to come from τελος (end/termination/cessation). What adds to this proposal is that 1 Cor 15:24, which uses τελος, is quoted in D&C 76:106-7:

 

Then cometh the end (τελος), when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. (1 Cor 15:24)

 

These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work; when he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God. (D&C 76:106-7 [on vv. 104-7, see 1 Corinthians 3:15: A very un-Protestant Biblical Verse])

 

White should already know this, as it was pointed out in a lengthy review of his Letters to a Mormon Elder which he plugged when he started his discussion of the topics. See Russell C. McGregor and Kerry A. Shirts, Review of Letters to a Mormon Elder: Eye-Opening Information for Mormons and the Christians Who Talke with Them (1993), by James R. White


Finally, in an attempt to refute the Great Apostasy, White quotes Eph 3:20-21:

 

Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. (NASB)

 

For two discussions of this text where White was being directly refuted on this “proof-text,” consider:

 

Evangelical anti-Mormon James White sees this passage as strong evidence against the apostasy:

 

It seems quite plain that Paul believed that the Father would be glorified "in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations."  If the Church failed in its mission, and ceased to exist for 1700 years, it is difficult to understand how the Father would be glorified in the church throughout all generations. (White James, "Hugh Nibley, The Universal Apostasy, And the Gates of Hades." In PROS APOLOGIAN, Spring 1993, p. 10)

 

Taking White's strictly literal interpretation of Paul's words to its logical conclusion, one would have to believe that the church has always existed, or else the Father, using White's reasoning, could not be glorified in it "throughout all generations." Surely White and his fellow evangelical critics would not accept such a suggestion.  Furthermore, to carry White's exegesis further, one would also have to believe that the church as Paul knew it was to continue into eternity, a proposition which is clearly rejected elsewhere in the New Testament.

 

White's interpretation assumes that verse 21 applies exclusively to the earthly church. But is this necessarily the case? It is just as plausible, if not more so, to suggest that Paul was referring to the members of the church, or to the church in the spirit world, and not to the earthly branch of the church. Viewed in this manner, the verse does not constitute a promise of the earthly church's survival. Moreover, this understanding of the verse does not contradict the abundant historical evidence that the New Testament church did not survive.

 

Additionally, there is some question as to the wording of verse 21. The NIV reading quoted above is viewed by most scholars as the "preferred variant reading." However, a number of New Testament manuscripts omit the "and" between "the church" and "Christ," suggesting the reading "in the church through Christ" (Barth, Markus.  EPHESIANS 1-3. The Anchor Bible.  Garden City, New      York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1974, 375). The Vulgate inserts a comma after "the church," which, says Markus Barth, "perhaps intends to indicate that temporal praise is given to God 'in the church,' while eternal praise is offered 'in Christ'" (375).

 

Finally, it is doubtful that Paul intended his words in verse 21 to be taken as a statement about the church's future on the earth.  He was closing the third chapter of Ephesians by offering praise to God; he was not providing a doctrinal statement about the future of the earthly church.  Elsewhere in his epistles Paul did specifically address the earthly church's fate, and he made it clear that it was not going to survive. (Michael T. Griffth, One Lord, One Faith: Ancient Christian Evidence of the Restoration)

 

Another passage, Ephesians 3:21, “Unto him [the person who glorifies God; see verses 19-20 for the context] be glory in the church by Jesus Christ throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.” What Paul appears to be saying here is that those followers who “do exceedingly abundantly above all we ask,” (verse 20) will have infinite glory, without time or spatial constraints (“throughout all ages, world without end”). Paul is explaining the wonderful state of this glory, not the survival of the Church. It is this glory that is the subject, and not the church. In dealing with anti-Mormons, one must be careful about such subtle changes of subject. (Alan Denison and D.L. Barksdale, Guess Who Wants to Have you for Lunch? A Missionary Guide to Anti-Mormon Tactics & Strategies and How to Deal with those Who Have Been Influenced by Them [Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, 2002], 30)

 

On Griffith's argument that Paul could be referencing the heavenly, not merely earthly church, is not as far-fetched as some might think. Such an understanding of "church" was seen in the writings of some early Christians, such as Origen:

 

“The hypothesis that prior to the creation of the material universe God, in his eternal activity as creator, had created a universe of rational beings who were in harmonious contemplation of the divine Being is foundational to all of Origen’s theological thought (Princ. 1.4.3–5; 2.1.1). This body of rational beings in contemplation of God constituted the pre-existent Church. . . .

“Origen was not the first to expound the doctrine of the pre-existent Church. Socrates states that Pamphilus and Eusebius proved in their joint defense of Origen that he was only the ‘expositor of the mystical tradition of the church’ in this doctrine.”

(Ronald E. Heine, Oxford Early Christian Studies 11:48-49,51 [my thanks to Errol Amey for this reference])