Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 65: History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ireland

 

Episode 65: History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ireland

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Excerpts from Eugene H. Merrill, Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns (1975)

  

That some men are destined to destruction is seen in 1QH II, 23-24 where the Psalmist expressly declares that the judgment of the wicked is an occasion for glory to God. In even stronger terms XV, 17 reminds us that God "didst create the wicked into [the periods of] Thy wra[th] and from the womb Thou didst set them apart for the day of slaughter .... " But the next line, to which we shall have later occasion to return, hastens to point out that the reason for this is that the wicked have not walked in a way pleasing to God. Ringgren feels that this idea is inconsistent with the Qumran teaching as a whole,  though we feel it can be and is reconciled within the sectarian theology in general. (Eugene H. Merrill, Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns [Leiden: Brill, 1975], 42)

 

 

Salvation, like creation, was Divinely initiated and was strictly on the basis of God's gracious act of predestination. This did not obviate the need for repentance, atonement, and forgiveness, however, for all men were evil from the womb and have a certain responsibility to achieve a right posture before God. In other words, there is room for free will within the predestinarian framework. This is the real dilemma in Qumranian thought: how could God foreknow and foreordain the destinies of all men and yet allow then the privilege and responsibility of deciding for or against Him?

 

There are two aspects from which this question and its solution may be viewed. First, God had raised up the Teacher to continue His covenant relationship with His Chosen People, but now, in apocalyptic times, the chosen were not all of Israel. Only the Elect, the "remnant," were able to come to terms with God. Secondly, they came as they recognized the authority of the Teacher who imparted to them revelation concerning God's redemptive plan. When given an understanding of such knowledge men would voluntarily come to the Community of faith and covenant themselves to God's Kingdom. But that some men should be given such knowledge while others had it withheld from them was mystery locked up in the inscrutable plan of God.

 

After entering the Covenant family, the sectarian must maintain a life of constant fidelity to covenant principles. He must revere the Teacher, resist the evil spirit, and love and serve God. All of the ability to do this was a gift given him by a gracious Lord. If faithful, he had the prospect of an entrance into the world of eternal spirits where he would enjoy everlasting felicity. If he died before the New Age commenced he nevertheless would be resurrected to partake in it with all the other Elect of the ages. The wicked, though perhaps enjoying this present life to some degree, would ultimately be annihilated and would never again appear. (Ibid., 57-58)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Parallels between the Narrative Structure of Jephthah (Judges 11), David (1 Samuel 21-22), and Idrimi in the Inscription of Idrimi

The following comes from :

 

Edward L. Greenstein and David Marcus, “The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 8, no. 1 (1976): 76-77:

 

Oppenheim (JNES 14 [1955], 200) and Wiseman (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume [Nashville, 1976], 17) have recognized a general similarity in Idrimi to the stories of Genesis (presumably Jacob’s flight to Haran) and David. However, the resemblances run deeper. In fact, the narrative structure in Idrimi has clear parallels in the stories of Jephthah and David in the Hebrew Bible. ON the basis of these parallels it is possible to determine the meaning of this obscure passage in the inscription of Idrimi.

 

The narrative structure may be schematized as follows:

 

	IDRIMI	JEPTHTHAH (Judg. 11)	DAVID (1 Sam. 21-22)
The flight	In Aleppo, my ancestral home, a hostile [incident] occurred so that we had to flee . . . (3-4).	They expelled Jephthah telling him: “You shall not inherit our father’s estate” (v. 2).
	I set forth and went to Canaan (18-19).	Jephthah fled from his brothers and settled in the land of Tob	David set out and fled . . . and he came to Achish King of Fath (21:11); David went out from (Gath) and fled to the cave of Adullam (22:1).
Recognition by kinsmen
	When they realized that I was their lord’s son (24-25)	--	His kinsmen and his paternal household heard (22:1)
Joining the exiled hero
	They gathered to me (25-26).	There gathered to Jephtah social outcasts (lit., “empty men”) (v. 3)	They went down to him there. There assembled to him every man in trouble, every man who had a creditor, every bitter man (22:2)
Making the fugitive/exile leader
		They said to Jephthah: “Come to be our leader . . . for now we have returned to you . . . and so that you will be our leader . . .” Jephthah replied to the elders of Gilead . . . “I will be your leader” (vv. 6, 8, 9; cf. 10:18).	And he (David) became ruler over them (v. 2).

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Alexander Smarius on Justin Martyr and Jesus being a Second God

  

Now, instead of speculating about how a contemporary reader may or may not have understood John 1:1c, let us consider what may be viewed as actual evidence of early reader response to the Gospel of John. The second-century philosopher Justin Martyr had a Gentile background and became a Christian, as he tells us in Dial. 3–7. In 1 Apol. 63.15 he speaks in words reminiscent of John 1:1 and Col 1:15 about the Father and about the Son:

 

ὃς Λόγος καὶ πρωτότοκος ὢν τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ θεὸς ὑπάρχει.

 

who, being the Word and firstborn of the God, is also theos.

 

Within the participle construction the predicates Λόγος and πρωτότοκος are without a doubt definite: the Son is not “a Word” and “a firstborn” of “the God”. The only reason these predicate nouns miss their articles is that they precede the copular participle ὤν. In the clause itself the predicate θεός also precedes its own copular verb (ὑπάρχει = ἐστίν), which makes the use of the anarthrous θεός similar to the instance in John 1:1c. However, different from Λόγος and πρωτότοκος, the pre-verbal predicate θεός cannot be interpreted as definite (“the God”), as Justin has previously argued that those who say that the Son is the Father do not know the Father. So within this context θεός must be qualitative, but is it an abstract or material noun (“God-ness”, “Deity”) or is it a generic noun (“a god”, “a deity”)? We can infer the answer to this question from passages elsewhere. In Dial. 56.4 Justin argues:

 

ὅτι ἐστὶ καὶ λέγεται θεὸς καὶ κύριος ἕτερος ὑπὸ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων.

 

that there is and is said to be another god and lord under the maker of the universe.

 

Similarly, in Dial. 61.3 Justin refers to the Word:

 

αὐτὸς ὢν οὗτος ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων γεννηθείς.

 

this god himself being begotten of the Father of the universe.

 

It is evident that Justin treats θεός in both cases as a generic noun, so that we may conclude that his use of the anarthrous predicate θεός in reference to the Word in 1 Apol. 63.15 and other instances is no different from classical Greek. It must here too be translated as “a god”, as it is clear that Justin views the Word as another god. (Cf. Dial. 56.11; 75.4; 128.1)  However, this does not change the fact that Justin was a monotheist. “One must worship only God”, he writes in 1 Apol. 16.6 (τὸν θεὸν µόνον δεῖ προσκυνεῖν), and at the same time he does not regard “this god begotten of the Father” as competing in worship with God the Father. Rather, in 2 Apol. 13.4 he states:

 

τὸν γὰρ ἀπὸ ἀγεννήτου καὶ ἀρρήτου θεοῦ Λόγον µετὰ τὸν θεὸν προσκυνοῦµεν καὶ ἀγαπῶµεν.

 

for we worship and love the Word, sprung from the unborn and unspoken God, after the God.

 

Justin’s reception of John’s prologue can of course not be used to prove or disprove how John meant 1:1c to be read, but it is valid to say that in his reading of John’s prologue, or at least in his phrasing similar to John’s, the second-century Christian philosopher evidently understood θεός in reference to the Word as the generic noun it naturally is. So, if a monotheistic intellectual saw the Word as “a god” just decades after John’s Gospel was written, the question that deserves further consideration is whether the Gospel writer himself would find this interpretation an infringement of his own monotheism. (Alexander Smarius, “Another God in the Gospel of John? A Linguistic Analysis of John 1:1 and 1:18,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 44 [2022]: 155-56)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Mike Thomas Engages in the “Word-Concept” Fallacy with the Phrase "Standard Work"

In a recent article by Mike Thomas, “Mormon Restoration, Christian Reformation?” (November 25, 2024), we have a perfect example of the “word-concept” fallacy.

 

What is the “word-concept” fallacy? As one source puts it:

 

In a nutshell, the word-concept fallacy is the exegetical mistake of assuming that a concept is present in a text only when particular words are also present. Essentially this fallacy equates concepts with particular words, when in fact they are much broader.

 

Protestants are guilty of committing this fallacy with great frequency. One example is the appeal to some patristic authors who used the term “faith alone” as evidence of the Protestant understanding of Sola Fide. However, there are two major issues. Firstly, none of the patristics (or, in the case of Aquinas [!], medieval-era authors) used “faith alone” in the way that historical Protestantism uses the term. As Eastern Orthodox apologist Perry Robinson pointed out in a useful chart, the following are the core concepts of the Protestant understanding of “faith alone”; none of the cited authors (e.g., Ambrosiaster) used it in the same way:

Sola Fide "Checklist" (taken from Perry Robinson [EO])

Defining Sola Fide

Created Righteousness

Faith an empty/worthless virtue

Instrumental extrinsic cause

Conduit of Justification

Forensic/Taxonomic Reclassification (Nominalist)

Transfer of Created Merit

Separation of Activities

Zero Sum

Quantitative

No Merit simpliciter

The above comes from his lengthy (5 hours!) refutation of Anthony Rogers (Reformed):

AN ORTHODOX RESPONSE TO ANTHONY ROGERS: THE CHURCH FATHERS AND SOLA FIDE

Another death-blow to this apologetic is that sola fide is used approvingly by an important fourt/fifth-century figure. I know many Protestants are thinking "Augustine," but no, Augustine who believed in transformative justification, sacramentalism, baptismal regeneration, sacerdotal priesthood, and other doctrines antithetical to your theology was not a Proto-Protestant in this respect (no matter how many times James White et al., repeat B. B. Warfield's naive claim the Reformation was the victory of Augustine's doctrine of grace over his ecclesiology). Nope, it was none other than Pelagius. Consider the following examples. Note that English text used is Pelagius, Commentaries on the Thirteen Epistles of Paul with the Libellus Fidei (trans. Thomas P. Scheck; Ancient Christian Writers 76; New York: The Newman Press, 2022), hereafter “Scheck” while the Latin text consulted is Alexander Souter, Pelagius's Exposition of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, II: Text and Apparatus Criticus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926), hereafter “Souter”:

Rom 3:28

 

Some people misuse this passage for the abolition of works of justice. They assert that faith alone can be sufficient [for the baptized] (Abutuntur quidam hoc loco ad destructionem operum iustitiae, solam fidem [baptizato]) . . . He did not mean without the works of justice, about which blessed James says, “Faith without works is dead” [Jas 2:26]. But here he is speaking about the one who is coming to Christ and is saved by faith alone, as soon as he believes. But by adding works of the law, he shows that there is also a work of grace [which the baptized ought to undertake] (addendo autem 'operibus legis,' ostendit esse et[iam] gratiae opera[m] [quae debent facere baptizati]). (Scheck, 64; Souter, 34)

Rom 5:1

 

For Abraham was the first to be justified by faith alone (ex sola primum fide iustifactus est). (Scheck, 69; Souter, 41)

 

Wiles, Divine Apostle, 112n7, notes that Pelagius frequently uses the words “faith alone” without any qualification (cf. Rom 11:25; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 1:3, 12; 2:2, 14, 17, 20; 3:5, 6, 14, 22, 26; 5:11; 6:16; Eph 2:8, 16; 3:11; Phil 3:3, 9; 4:11). But it is clear from his more detailed statements that he regards it as a first step which is of no value apart from the subsequent works” (cf. Rom 3:28; 4:5; 1 Cor 9:21; Gal 3:10). (Scheck, 378-79 n. 44)

 

Gal 2:20

 

In faith alone, since I owe nothing to the law (In sola fide, quia nihil debeo legi). (Scheck, 232; Souter, 317)

 

Gal 5:24

 

“But they that are Christ’s have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires.” If all vices have been simultaneously crucified, and the flesh does not lust, as if it were hanging on the tree, what is the law to us, which he was given to hold the vices in check? At the same time the following should be noted, that he said that they are Christ’s who have crucified the flesh with the vices and lusts. This contradicts those who think that faith alone suffices for salvation (hoc cotra illos qui solam fidem sufficere arbitrantur). (Scheck, 243; Souter, 338)

 

At the beginning of the fifth century, there existed in the Western church a number of errors that presented salvation as more or less independent of good works. Pelagius does not specifically identify the source of these errors, but we learn from Augustine as well as that they affected the Christian faithful. Thus, in spite of Pelagius’s remarkable and sustained insistence that justification is by faith alone, he nevertheless balances this view with the repeated affirmation that salvation is not by faith alone! (Scheck, 399 n. 46, emphasis added)

 

Eph 2:8-10

 

2:8 “for by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves.” Not by the merits of one’s former life, but by faith alone (sed sola fide), yet not without faith. “But it is the gift of God, 2:9 not of works, [that] no one would boast.” [Boast] that he had received anything in baptism by his own merits (Se suis meritis aliquit in baptismo accepisse). 2:10 “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ [Jesus] in good works, which God prepared that we should walk in them.” For we were recently reborn in Christ [cf. John 3:3, 5], in order that we should walk in good works, which have been shown in the gospel [cf. Matt 5:16] (Qu[i]a nuper sumus in Christo renati, ut in bonis operibus ambulemus, quae in euangelio sunt ostensa). (Scheck, 252; Souter, 353)

 

So, with the definition of the "word-concept" fallacy and a demonstration from pop-level Protestant apologetics now taken care of, let us address how Mike Thomas is guilty of the word-concept fallacy in his article.

Commenting on the status of the 26-volume Journal of Discourses and its status in the Church, Thomas wrote:

 

The Journal of Discourses is a good example of what happens as a cult claiming exclusive authority to speak for God grows and comes under closer scrutiny. The Journal was endorsed by a ‘prophet,’ Brigham Young, who claimed all his sermons were as good as Scripture. The preface to the eighth volume reads, in part:

 

‘The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.’(George Q. Cannon, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles)

 

With this endorsement in mind, the publishers can, in the eighth volume, confidently claim for the work the status of Standard Works. Standard Works is code in the Mormon Church for Scripture. Clearly, in the early church, the Journal was considered an example of an open canon, containing what we might reasonably expect it to contain, the words of the prophets.

 

Again, this only shows that Mike Thomas lacks intellectual honesty and integrity (cf. Listing of articles refuting Mike Thomas of Reachout Trust). How so? It would not have taken too long to see how the phrase "Standard Work(s)" was used by 19th-century Latter-day Saints. While "Standard Work" today is generally one-to-one equivalent to the Scriptures for Latter-day Saints, it had a much wider definition in the 19th-century.

The term “standard work[s]” in the early Church was not exhausted by the category of “canonical book”; instead, it denoted any work of excellence. Indeed, such was even used of the hymnal by Joseph Smith on May 14, 1840:

In answer to your enquiries, respecting the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon, Hymn Book, History of the Church &c &c; I would say, that I entirely approve of the same; and give my consent, with the exception of the Hymn Book, as a new Edition, containing a greater variety of hymns, will be shortly published or printed in this place; which I think will be a standard work. As soon as it is printed, you shall have some sent to you, which you may get translated, and printed into any language you please— Should we not be able to send some to you, and there should be a great call for Hymn Books where you may be; then I should have no objection to your publishing the present one. Were you to publish the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants or Hymn book; I desire the copy rights of the same to be secured in my name. (source)

We can see how such was used by other 19^th century Latter-day Saints. In a sermon dated April 7, 1866, we read the following from John Taylor:

I had recourse to some of our dictionaries, to find out what popular lexicographers said about it. I referred to the standard works of several different nations, which I find to be as follows:—

Webster (American), "Religion includes a belief in the revelation of his (God's) will to man, and in man's obligation to obey his command."

Worcester (a prominent American). 1. An acknowledgement of our obligation to God as our creator. 2. A particular system of faith or worship. We speak of the Greek, Hindoo, Jewish, Christian, and Mahomedan religion.

Johnson (English), "Religion, a system of faith and worship."

Dictionary of the French Academy, "La croyance que l'on a de la divinite' et le culte qu'on lue rend en consequence."

Foi croyance.

The belief we have in God and his worship.

Faith—belief.

German Dictionary of Wurterbuch, by Dr. N. N. W. Meissner, a standard work in Germany.

"Religion, glaube, faith, persuasion."

Here, then we have the opinion of four of the great leading nations of the earth, as expressed by their acknowledged standard works, on what they consider to be the meaning of the word religion.

The German has it—faith, persuasion. The French—faith, belief; faith in God and his worship. The English—a system of faith and worship. These three are very similar.

Next we have Webster, American, which is our acknowledged standard, and he says, "Religion includes a belief in the revelations of God's will to man, and in man's obligation to obey his commands." (JOD 11:220)

Here, Taylor used "standard work(s)" to denote (secular) works of excellence.

More importantly, as we will see below, "standard work(s)" also had a broader meaning when used in a religious, not secular, context.

In a sermon dated April 7, 1867, George A. Smith is recorded as having said the following:

I travel about occasionally, and sometimes, when I want food or a night's lodging, I call at the house of a brother, who is probably of long standing in the Church, and who is raising a family of fine children. Now, a part of that man's mission is to educate those children, to form their tastes, to cultivate their talents, and make a kingdom of holy men and women of them—a kingdom of priests unto God. But what has he got there to do it with? If you ask for a Book of Mormon, he will probably hand you one that old age seems long since to have passed its final veto upon, and if you undertake to pick it up you would say, "it stinks so that I cannot." I do not know that there are many such Elders, but if there should happen to be one here, it would be well for him to reflect that right here at the Deseret News printing office br. Kelly has the standard works of the Church for sale, and I would like every Elder in Israel to place a full set of them in the hands of his children; but especially, and above all others, the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. I want to find them in every house. And when I go to a meeting house to preach I want the Bishop to have them on the stand, and the better they are bound and the nicer they look the more they please me. I do not wish to see these sacred books so dirty that you cannot read them, nor so shattered by time and bad usage that you cannot find a passage you wish to read because it is torn out. Where there are meeting houses without them I recommend, if necessary, that collections be taken up to procure them. When stopping at the houses of the brethren, instead of the works of the Church I will probably find "Cresswell's Eulogy on the Life of Henry Winter Davis." "How did this get here?" I inquire. "Oh, why, br. Hooper sent it, and it is a very nice work," is the reply. Have you the Juvenile Instructor?" "No." "Why, your children are big enough to read it, and it is one of the finest written things imaginable, and there is scarcely a syllable in it but what is useful. How do you manage to keep your children at home without something to interest them? Do you take the Deseret News?" "No, they stopped publishing the sermons, so I concluded that I would do without it." "Do you take the Daily Telegraph?" "I did take it, but I did not pay for it, and the editor got out of patience at having to furnish it for nothing, and he stopped it. I felt insulted, and would not take it any more." "Do you send to the States for books?" "No." So the children are learning nothing at all, and the only chance for them to have a little excitement is to get some corn and play at three men morris. 

Brethren, make your homes attractive. Procure the Deseret News and the Juvenile Instructor, and let your children read the sermons and articles printed there, and read them yourselves, you are none of you too old to learn. If you want light reading do not sent to the States for it, but support that which is got up here. (JOD 11:363-64)

Here we see that the term “standard work” was not exhausted by the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants (the Pearl of Great Price would not be canonized until 1880), but was a much broader term.

In another sermon from George A. Smith (October 11, 1874), we read the following:

We are anxious to publish the standard works of the Church to a greater extent than hitherto. Some of them have been republished, and others are in progress, and we wish to have the co-operation of the Saints, generally, throughout the Territory, in helping on this work. Our publications should be in every family of the Saints, and we wish to exercise that kind of influence in the midst of our people that will lead them to make themselves acquainted with the contents of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and such other Works as are or have been published illustrative of the principles of life and salvation made known in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that they may be more generally understood by those professing to the Latter-day Saints. (JOD 17:161)

Again, “standard works” encompass more works than the canonical works of the church merely.

Even more interesting is how “standard works" is used in a sermon from Brigham Young from April 8, 1867:

As the subject of education is open, and has been from time to time during this Conference, I will now urge it upon the people—the young men and the middle-aged—to get up schools and study. If they are disposed to study physic or surgery, all right; they will know then what to do if a person is sickly, or has his elbow, wrist, or shoulder put out of joint, or his arm or any other bone broken. It is just as easy to learn such things as it is to learn to plant potatoes. I would like to urge these matters upon our young men, and I am convinced this meets the feelings of all the brethren. I do hope, and pray you, my brethren and sisters, to be careful to observe what br. Wells has said in regard to introducing into our schools the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Standard works of the Church, and all the works pertaining to our faith, that our children may become acquainted with its principles, and that our young men, when they go out to preach, may not be so ignorant as they have been hitherto. I would like very much to urge upon our young people, the sisters as well as the brethren, to pay more attention to arithmetic and other things that are useful, instead of acquiring a little French and German and other fanciful studies that are not of so much practical importance. I do not know how long it will be before we call upon the brethren and sisters to enter upon business in an entirely different way from what they have done. I have been an advocate for our printing to be done by females, and as for men being in stores, you might as well set them to knitting stockings as to sell tape. Such business ought to be done by the sisters. It would enable them to sustain themselves, and would be far better than for them to spend their time in the parlor or in walking the streets. Hardy men have no business behind the counter; they who are not able to hoe potatoes, go to the kanyon, cut down the trees, saw the lumber, &c., can attend to that business. Our young men in the stores ought to be tuned out and the sisters take their place; and they should steady arithmetic and bookkeeping necessary to qualify them for such positions. I would also like our school teachers to introduce phonography into every school; it is an excellent thing to learn. By its means we can commit our thoughts and reflections to paper with ease and rapidity, and thus preserve that which will be of benefit to ourselves and others, and which would otherwise be for ever lost. This is a delightful study! In these and all other branches of science and education we should know as much as any people in the world. We have them within our reach, for we have as good teachers as can be found on the face of the earth, if our Bishops would only employ and pay them, but they will not. Let a miserable little, smooth-faced, beardless, good-for-nothing Gentile come along, without regard for either truth or honesty, and they will pay him when they will not pay a Latter-day Saint. Think of these things. Introduce every kind of useful studies into our schools. I have been urging upon our young men for years to get up classes for the study of law. The laws of this Territory, of the United States, of the different States, of England, and foreign lands. Do this instead of riding over the prairies hunting and wasting your time, which is property that belongs to the Lord our God, and if we do not make good use of it we shall be held accountable. (JOD 12:31-32)

In the above text, the canonical works of the Church (Bible; Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants) is distinguished from the category of “standard works”(!)

Brigham also used the term in the same way in a sermon from July 24, 1877:

Study the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, read the sermons that are published in the Deseret News, as well as all the standard works of the Church. Such reading will afford you instruction and improvement; but novels allure the mind and are without profit. (JOD 19:64)

Note also that Brigham also differentiates the sermons published in the Deseret News (whence the Journal of Discourses) from the “standard works of the Church.”

Such a distinction appears also in a sermon from George A. Smith dated October 11, 1874, which, as we have seen above, earlier used “standard works” to denote the canonical works and other works of excellence pertaining to Latter-day Saint theology, showing the elasticity of the term in 19^th century Latter-day Saint discourse:

After the close of this Conference meetings in this building will be discontinued during the winter and will be held, under the direction of the Bishops, in the ward assembly rooms every Sunday afternoon and evening. The forenoons will be devoted to Sunday Schools, and I exhort the brethren and sisters to have their children ready, so that they can be at school in time. And I invite the young men and especially the young sisters, to attend Sunday schools; I want to stir up the young men to go there and form Bible classes. And I exhort the Elders to be present as teachers, that there may be no lack of teachers. I want to express my admiration of brother Goddard and a number of other school superintendents and teachers, with whom I am acquainted, because of their efforts to spread among the young throughout the Territory a knowledge of the principles of the Gospel, as taught in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and in the standard works of the Church. And I say to the young men, that if they will attend the Bible classes and study the catechism in use in our schools, and make themselves familiar with it, they will become so thoroughly informed in the principles of the Gospel and the evidences of it, that when called upon to go abroad to defend the doctrines of Zion they will be well prepared to do so. I invite the Elders to see that these classes are formed in all the settlements. 

I will again repeat the idea that has already been presented, to sustain our own literary institutions and publications,—the Juvenile Instructor, the Woman's Exponent, the Deseret News, which contains discourses by the First Presidency and Twelve, and also the publications in the several counties. They are conducted by men who take pains to disseminate the truth, . . . (JOD 17:257)

Critics who attempt to elevate the authority of the Journal of Discourses are simply ignorant and/or disingenuous when they appeal to the preface to volume 8 by George Q. Cannon and the term “standard work.” And do note that I appealed, with one exception, to nothing but the Journal of Discourses to prove my case! This only shows that Thomas is engaging in boundary-maintenance. It would not have taken too long to find a listing of "standard work(s)" in Latter-day Saint literature (all the above was taken from a blog post I wrote in January 2019, for e.g.; there are also searchable versions of the Journal of Discourses and other 19th-century Latter-day Saint literature online, too).

I contacted Tony Brown in 2023 to see if he would debate me on Sola Scriptura and baptismal regeneration, but he refused. If Brown and/or Thomas are interested, I will happily have a 2 vs. 1 debate on sola scriptura (as long as I get 50% of the time). As Thomas focuses a lot of on authority, let us see if Protestantism can back up the claim that the formal sufficiency of the Bible is consistent with historical-grammatical exegesis. We can also discuss ecclesiology and other relevant topics.

I will suggest people who want to see the debate contact Mike Thomas (reachouttrust1@gmail.com) and/or Tony Brown (tony@reachouttrust.org).

Here is the proposed structure of the debate:

Thesis: "Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of Protestantism, which teaches that the 66 books of the Protestant canon of the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith to which all other standards of faith are to be subordinated, is taught by the Bible."

Break-down of debate:

20 mins opening statements each

10 mins rebuttals each

15 mins cross ex each

7 mins concluding statements

Further Reading:

Listing of articles refuting Mike Thomas of Reachout Trust

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

 

Note on "Place" (מקום) in Alma 14:9

  

And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire. (Alma 14:9)

 

Here in the Book of Mormon,” place” is coupled with “martyrdom.” Interestingly, if one studies the Hebrew for “place” (מקום) it has both cultic/temple undertones as well as those of death itself. This indicates there is a potential wordplay here. Consider the following entries from TDOT:

 

Poetic and prayer-texts frequently use similar constructions from other roots either instead of or in addition to māqôm: on the one hand māqôm with qdš (Ezr. 9:8; Ps. 24:3; Isa. 60:13; Jer. 17:12), and on the other māʿôn with qdš (Dt. 26:15; 2 Ch. 30:27; Ps. 68:6[5]; Jer. 25:30; Zec. 2:17[13]), māḵōn with qdš (Dnl. 8:11); next to māqôm with yšb (1 K. 8:30; 2 Ch. 6:21) we find māḵôn with yšb (1 K. 8:13, 39, 43, 49 par. 2 Ch. 6:2, 30, 33, 39; Ps. 33:14); on the one hand m^eqôm kisʾî (Ezk. 43:7), on the other m^eḵôn kisʾeḵā (Ps. 89:15[14]), kisʾô (Ps. 97:2); as an utterance of God: ʾel-m^eqômî (Hos. 5:15), though also bimḵônî (Isa. 18:4); the location of the temple is called māqôm (Jer. 17:12) and māḵôn (Ezr. 2:68); cf. Ps. 26:8: YHWH ʾāhaḇtî m^eʿôn bêṯeḵā ûm^eqôm miškan k^eḇôḏeḵā. One and the same psalm, in speaking of the creation (ysd) of the cosmos, uses māqôm and māḵôn (Ps. 104:8, 5). Such alternation is a stylistic device occurring with particular animation in connection with the sanctuary in Jerusalem (see below). In Isa. 45:19 the construct state bim^eqôm is hardly saying anything different or more than the nomen rectum ʾereṣ ḥōšeḵ alone (Job 10:21), and at most is emphasizing the element of unworthiness: “in a dark corner of the world.”(J. Gamberoni and Helmer Ringgren, “מָקוֹם,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 17 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997], 8:535)

 

The Grave. In Eccl. 8:10 the expression m^eqôm (māqôm?) qāḏōš refers perhaps to a burial place. Given the context, a reference to an extensive burial place in Ezk. 39:11 (11–16) (m^eqôm šēm instead of m^eqôm šām?) is no less probable than other attempts at explanation. According to Jer. 7:32; 19:11, people will be buried in the abhorrent (Jer. 19:6, 12, 13; also 2 K. 23:10) Topheth because the appropriate burial place is not large enough (cf. Ex. 14:11).(Ibid., 536-37)

 

Consider also HALOT:

 

—6. מָ׳ sacred site )Arb. maqām(: said of God: מְקוֹמִי Hos 5₁₅ Jr 7₁₂, מְקוֹמוֹ Is 26₂₁ Mi 1₃, הַמָקוֹם הַזֶּה = Jerusalem 1K 8₃₀ 2K 22₁₆ Jr 7₃ 19₃; שְׁכֶם מְ׳ Gn 12₆; הַמָּקוֹם the )sacred( place Gn 22_3f 28₁₁.₁₉, pl. 1S 7₁₆, )pagan( Dt 12₂; יהוה שֵׁם מְ׳ Is 18₇; הַמָּ׳, which Yahweh chooses Dt 12₅ 14₂₃.₂₅ 1K 8₂₉; מִקְדָּשִׁי מְ׳ Is 60₁₃, קָדְשׁוֹ מְ׳ Ps 24₃ Ezr 9₈, מָ׳ קָדֹשׁ; Ex 29₃₁ Lv 6₉._19f; הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְ׳ 14₁₃;  כָּסִפְיָה הַמָּ׳ Ezr 8₁₇ )Rudolph 83(; קָדוֹשׁ מְ׳ Qoh 8₁₀ )rd. (מָ׳ the temple )Hertzberg 173f( or necropolis )as in Egypt, Galling HAT 18:81 :: 18²:111( or burial site )Dahood Biblica 43:360(; אַחֵר מִמָּ׳ Est 4₁₄ = from God )MHeb. הַמָּ׳ = God, Bousset-G. 519³ :: Bardtke 332f(;

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com