I got an email updated from Academia.edu alerting me to Kevin Beshears, “Davidic References in the Book of Mormon as Evidence Against its Historicity,” (Master of Theology thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, May 2016). I have been aware of this thesis for a while now, but as a result, I am taking this opportunity to blog Jeff Lindsay's solid response to Beshears' joke dissertation:
A friend, Jedediah, invited me to participate in an LDS/Protestant dialogue on Zoom. It was hosted by Ed Havaich, a Protestant apologist who once debated with Robert Morey against two UPC ministers on baptismal regeneration.
The first presentation was not recorded (18 October) where baptismal regeneration and Sola Scriptura was discussed. However, the others were, and it reveals the absolute inability of Protestants to argue in favour of their own theology and be consistent in their arguments against "Mormonism:"
I originally decided not to upload the entire discussion, but Ed has shown himself to be disingenuous, not just in his Zoom discussions with Latter-day Saints, but has constantly refused to show any integrity even in email discussions. For that reason, (1) to expose him and (2) show how Protestantism cannot hold up to any scrutiny, I have published the entire discussion.
For those who want some of the highlights of the discussion we had, see the following:
Protestant apologists like Ed and their intellectual failure to defend their theology is the single greatest evidence that Protestantism is a false gospel.
"Guilt by association"
is a fallacy wherein "the argument attacks a person because of the
similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents
of the argument." An example would be:
John is a con artist. John has black hair.
Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists.
A theological example would be:
Islam, a false religion, believes in
post-biblical revelation
Latter-day Saints believe in post-biblical
revelation
Therefore, as Islam is a false religion,
Mormonism must be due to this parallel.
(*) many religions claim to be the One True Church
(*) many of these religions teach (in his view) false beliefs and a gospel under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9
(*) ergo, there is no One True Church as LDS and Catholics believe, but more akin to an ecclesiology one finds within Evangelical Protestantism.
Of course, this is a classical example of "guilt by association." To understand how this blows up in his false, consider the following.
Ed, as with myself, has had dealings with Christadelphians (he told me he lives near two Christadelphian ecclesias). Consider the following parallels between Ed's theology and a false religion like Christadelphia (alt. Christadelphianism) in contrast to Latter-day Saints:
(*) Ed and Christadelphians believe humans do not personally pre-exist
(*) Ed and Christadelphians do not believe in an ordained, ministerial New Covenant Priesthood but a "Priesthood of All Believers" merely.
(*) Ed and Christadelphians believe in Sola Scriptura
(*) Ed and Christadelphians reject special revelation continuing after the death of the last apostle
(*) Ed and Christadelphians believe that the original autographs of the Bible were inerrant
(*) Ed and Christadelphians believe in imputed righteousness
(*) Ed and Christadelphians believe there were always true believers in the gospel, even during an age of apostasy
(*) Ed and Christadelphians believe in creation ex nihilo
What about Roman Catholicism?
(*) Ed and Catholics believe in (absolute) divine simplicity
(*) Ed and Catholics believe in the (Latin) Trinity
(*) Ed and Catholics believe special revelation ceased at the death of the last apostle
(*) Ed and Catholics believe in creation ex nihilo
(*) Ed and Catholics hold to some theology of Predestination
Now, if Ed were consistent, he would have to conclude that the Protestantism he espouses is also false, just as Catholicism and Christadelphianism are.
Now, unlike Ed, I do not wish to engage in a fallacy myself (the fallacy fallacy), I will not end it just there. Let me address two questions:
(1) what the New Testament teaches about ecclesiology and
(2) what are the problems with Ed's theology?
The New Testament's Ecclesiology: There is only One True Church
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Tim 3:15)
Many Protestants have a very low ecclesiology (theology of the Church), so such a text is often unusual; typically, if one asks a Protestant what "the pillar and ground of the truth" is, more often than not, they will say "the Bible." However, there are many Protestants, especially within the Reformed camp, who would agree with 1 Tim 3:15 in that the Church has been given authority to uphold the truth of God (often, the "church" is limited to the local Church in this verse than the "universal Church"). However, even then, the higher view of ecclesiology held by such Protestants is still, from a biblical perspective, deficient.
For instance, within the Acts of the Apostles, we see that the Apostles did not operate with the belief that Scripture was formally sufficient. Instead, we see that it is the authorised leadership of the Church that makes a doctrinal decision, even if scant or even no meaningful biblical evidence is available to them (from the perspective of the historical-grammatical method of exegesis). For instance, in Acts 1:20, we read:
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick (επισκοπη [office]) let another take.
If one examines this verse, Peter is using two texts from the Psalter—Psa 69:25 and 109:8. However, nothing in these two verses says anything about Judas, apostolic succession, or the continuation of the need to have twelve apostles. If one reads these texts in their context, David is talking about people and events in his own day. Psa 69, David is addressing the sinful people of his time who had betrayed him and how he pleads for God to bring about judgement (v.25). Psa 109 is about the court of David where David says that, once an officer in his court has been removed, another will take his place.
Therefore, a text or series of texts that may be seen as “weak” at best, in light of further explicit revelation, be used by the Church to support a doctrine. Another potent example would be the case of the use of Amos 9:11 (LXX) in Acts 15 by James. The text is used as Old Testament support for the belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes. In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation helps settle the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)
This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו), was also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue). Furthermore, Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the cessation of circumcision, speaking only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was interpreted to mean that the influx of Gentile converts into the Church fulfilled the text (see Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical lens," if you will, that helped this was not Scripture, but Peter's experiences as recorded in vv.1-11. Acts 15 opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council being called Verse 7 tells us that there was much debate among them. Apparently, they could arrive at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a new Gentile convert had to be circumcised. This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.
Notwithstanding, Acts 15:7 records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders. Three times in this speech he invokes the name of God to back up his single authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole Church. In verse 7 he says that God chose him, singularly, to give the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 15:10 he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation - that men are saved by grace, not works of law and only after that, does James stand up, as bishop of Jerusalem, and cite Amos 9:11-12. There is nothing in Acts 15 to support the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Other texts that show that New Testament ecclesiology is higher than the various Reformed perspectives can be seen elsewhere.
In Matt 16:19, we read the following:
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
In Matt 18:18, a parallel text in many respects, we read the following:
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Let us now examine the meaning of “binding” and “loosing.”
Often, Protestants argue that the "keys" as well as the promise to be able to "bind" and "loose" in Matt 16 and 18 have nothing to do with authority, but merely a symbolic way of speaking of how the Gospel would be opened up to the Gentiles, not just the Jews. However, this ignores the meaning of “binding” and “loosing” when this took place and when Matthew wrote his gospel. In a scholarly commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, we read the following from two Protestants:
19. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Cf. Isa 22.22; 1.18 and 3.7 (Jesus has the keys of Death and Hades as well as the key of David); 3 Bar. 11.2 (the angel Michael is the ‘holder of the keys of the kingdom of Heaven’); 3 En. 18.18 (‘Anapi’el YHH the prince keeps the keys of the palaces of the heaven of Arabot); 48 C 3 (Metatron has the keys to the treasure chamber of heaven). Heaven was conceived of as having gates or doors . . . . and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. C. 18.18 and Jn 20.23. Peter is the authoritative teacher without peer. He has the power to declare what is permitted and what is not permitted. Cf. 23.13: ‘But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut people out of the kingdom. For you do not go in nor allow those who want to go in to do so’. Here, as the context proves, the scribes shut the door to the kingdom by issuing false doctrine. The image is closely related to 16.19, and the inference lies near to hand that just as the kingdom itself is taken from the Jewish leaders and given to the church (21.43), so are the keys of the kingdom taken from the scribes and Pharisees and given to Peter. Supportive of this is the broader context of Peter’s confession. In the immediately preceding 16.5-12 Jesus warns: ‘Beware of the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees.’ Matthew takes this to be about the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees. It would make good sense for the evangelist, in the very next paragraph, to tell a story in which Jesus replaces the Jewish academy with his own ‘chief rabbi’. (W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary [London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 270-71)
Oscar Cullmann, another Protestant, wrote the following about “binding” and “loosing”:
What do the expressions “bind” and “loose” signify? According to Rabbinical usage two explanations are equally possible: “prohibit” and “permit,” that is, “establish rules” or “put under the ban” and “acquit.” (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr [Westminster, 1953], 204-5)
Jesus is establishing a teaching authority that would authoritatively comment on doctrines in this passage. Such is consistent with LDS theology but not the ecclesiology within Protestantism, including the Reformed tradition.
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant, wrote:
That authority is exercised in binding and losing, which were technical terms for the pronouncement of rabbis on what was and was not permitted (to bind was to forbid, to loose to permit). This verse therefore probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church. (IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament [Downers’ Grove, Illin.: Intervarsity Press, 1993], 90)
To quote another non-LDS scholar in a scholarly bible dictionary:
BINDING AND LOOSING The Hebrew phrase for “restricting” and “permitting,” with respect to interpretation of the Torah.
Historical Usage
By Jesus’ time, the language of binding and loosing was commonly used to signify restricting or permitting a given action according to the Torah. Ancient rabbinic texts speak of binding (forbidding) certain wedding practices or Greek lessons for a child (m. Sotah 9:14) and of loosing (allowing) someone to drink broth even if the person had made a vow to abstain from meat (m. Nedarim 6:5–7).
In explaining the close ties between Queen Alexandra and the Pharisees during the first century bc, Josephus writes that the Pharisees “bound and loosed [men] at their pleasure” with their virtual royal authority (Jewish War 1.5.2). While Josephus may mean that the Pharisees “bound and loosed [men]” from prison rather than from Torah observance, the Pharisees also manipulated the populace by binding and loosing commands (Bivin, New Light, 98–99).
Biblical Relevance
Jesus mentions binding and loosing twice in the book of Matthew—each time giving his disciples the authority to do these things.
In the first instance (Matt 16:13–19), Jesus asks His disciples about His identity. Simon Peter replies with his famous confession of faith, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus responds by blessing Peter and saying that whatever Peter binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven.
The second case occurs during a larger discourse on the kingdom of heaven, as Jesus gives the disciples instructions for confronting someone who has sinned against them. Jesus again indicates that whatever they bind or loose on earth will be treated likewise in heaven (Matt 18:15–19).
In both instances, Jesus gives His disciples authority to govern the church by restricting or permitting certain behaviors with divine support. In the first passage, Jesus seems to give Peter authority to set the church’s teaching and practice—which the disciples did in Acts 15:1–20 in establishing requirements for Gentile believers (see Acts 15:10). In the second passage, Jesus’ words appear to grant believers authority in matters of church discipline. These texts align with the known understanding of the terms binding and loosing, as the disciples had to work out which elements of the Torah were applicable (or not) in the newly revealed kingdom of God (Powell, “Binding,” 438–45).
Interpretive Issues
Bivin notes that the verbs describing what is done “in heaven” are in the perfect tense, indicating that they could be rendered “whatever you bind/loose on earth will have been bound/loosed in heaven.” This would suggest that the disciples should confidently make decisions, knowing that God would guide them (Bivin, New Light, 100). The implication—that some of Jesus’ contemporaries were not binding and loosing properly or with the authority of God—seemingly provides the rationale for Jesus to give special sanction to His disciples. In Jesus’ famous “seven woes” passage against the Pharisees, Jesus condemns His audience for binding heavy loads on the shoulders of others while not stopping to help carry the burden (Bivin, New Light, 99–100).
Granting authority to bind and loose is not the same as giving the disciples license to decree as they saw fit. Rather, Jesus trusted His disciples to accurately continue His teaching. As both passages in Matthew refer to the context of “the church,” the disciples have authority to bind and loose not as individuals, but as leaders of the church (Powell, “Binding,” 438, 445).
Hiers identifies several other senses in which Jesus could have used the phrases “binding” and “loosing.” One possibility is that is He is referring to casting someone out of the community. Although this idea is related to the concept of church discipline, it does not capture the full sense of Jesus’ use of these terms. Hiers dismisses the options of empowering His disciples to forgive (or not) or to bind in judgment for the future (Hiers, “Binding and Loosing,” 233–35). Instead, Hiers affirms “binding” and “loosing” as terms related to Torah interpretation, while also suggesting that they might indicate power over demonic forces (Hiers, “Binding and Loosing,” 235–39, 250)(Ridley, B. (2016). Binding and Loosing. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.)
Such fits well the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 where the Church leadership made the final, authoritative decision vis-à-vis circumcision and Gentile membership into the New Covenant. It also fits Matt 18:18 were the language of binding and loosing is used for the rest of the apostles and their disciplinary authority to condemn and absolve sins:
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (note: the "you" here is plural [ὑμῖν], unlike the "you" [σοι] of Matt 16:18-19)
The "binding" and "loosing" in Matt 16 and 18 cannot be reduced to Peter et al. preaching the gospel to open the gates of heaven to the Gentiles.
One final text we will examine will be John 20:23:
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
A similar concept is found in uniquely Latter-day Saint Scripture; mirroring Matt 16:19 and John 20:23, we read the following in D&C 132:46:
And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.
Some may object to any appeal to John 20:23 as evidence of commissioned apostles of Christ having a role to play in granting forgiveness of sins. Some critics have argued that, as the Greek of John 20:23 uses the perfect tense, some have argued that the apostles were not being commissioned by Christ to be agents in forgiving sins, but merely declaring that their sins have been forgiven.
There are a number of problems with this type of reasoning.
Firstly, it makes the action of Christ nonsensical. If the person being told their sins were forgiven by the apostles already had their sins forgiven, such a declaration would not be required, as sins can only be forgiven once, and no man can usurp or trump God, making the declaration a moot point.
Secondly, one should note that the perfect tense in Koine Greek is used for a variety of purposes and cannot be translated adequately in all instances, nor can English properly express the idea of existing result which the Greek perfect conveys.
Thirdly, with respect to ἀφέωνται ("have been forgiven"), let us examine all other instances of this form (indicative perfect passive of αφιημι) in the Greek New Testament:
And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven (ἀφέωνται) thee. (Luke 5:20)
Whether it is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven (ἀφέωνται) thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? (Luke 5:23)
Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven (ἀφέωνται), for she loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. (ἀφέωνται) (Luke 7:47-48)
I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake. (1 John 2:12)
In Luke 5:20 and 23, ἀφέωνται is used as a present tense, since the man’s sins were not forgiven prior to meeting with Jesus. The same applies for the adulterous woman in Luke 7:47-48--her sins, also, were not forgiven by Christ prior to her encounter with Jesus. This is confirmed by the fact that the present tense "is forgiven" (ἀφίεται) is used in v. 47 alongside ἀφέωνται with respect to people's recongition of a then-present forgiveness of sins.
In light of this, John 20:23 supports the apostles being commissioned agents of Jesus to act in his stead (just as Christ acts, as supreme agent, in the stead of the Father) with respect to forgiving sins, as it would be contradictory for the apostles to be told to forgive sins if the sins have already been forgiven by God. The use of the perfect tense, far from diminishing the apostles' abilities to forgive sins, only heighten the reality thereof.
A parallel in modern English would be how a person, if in receipt of a command to do an action, would state something akin to "consider it done" before it has been done; the use of the perfect tense would be to show that one is determined to do the task, not necessarily that the task has already been completed.
Ed rejects baptismal regeneration and affirms sola scriptura, forensic justification, and eternal security. To see why these are actually anti-biblical, see:
No, 1 Clement does not teach Sola Fide - 1 Clement (written in the 90s) is a witness against sola fide and in favour of baptismal regeneration, among many other doctrines
Further, as my friend Christopher Davis once
noted:
It is my argument
that John was translated like the three Nephites, Enoch, Elijah, etc. because
these people have work to do for the living.
John in verse 6 is described “as flaming fire and a ministering
angel”. This is not language of a person
disguising himself as a human and living on earth for thousands of years. It’s my position that while translated
persons can appear to us as normal people, it is not their regular state. They move to and from our level to that of a
higher estate. Recall that in Mormon 1,
the people became wicked and God removed the three Nephites from them. Also if John is in the same category of the
three Nephites which I strongly argue he is, look at the wording of 3 Nephi
28:40
“And in this state
they were to remain until the judgement day of Christ; and at that day they
were to receive a greater change, and to be received into the kingdom of the
Father TO GO NO MORE OUT, but to dwell with God eternally in the heavens.”
That small phrase “go
no more out” implies that these persons to move to and from the higher estates
to act as messengers and ministers to men.
I believe that this is sufficient textual evidence to debunk the accusation
that we believe John and the 3 Nephites are wandering the earth all this time.
And it has been shown
also…that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in
Hades… For it was suitable to the divine administration, that those possessed
of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, on
repenting of their transgressions, though found in another place, yet being
confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each
one according to his individual knowledge.
I am not a fan of Patrick Mason. His book Planted is weak, but if that was it, I would not really bother with this post. However, Mason is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Firstly, he is more than willing to pride himself on supporting ideologies that advocate murdering unborn children in the womb and mutilating young children to appease the transgender lobby:
He has also engaged in spiritual footsie with enemies of the Gospel, including John Dehlin:
Mason is a "neo-Apologist"--one who likes "Mormonism" but, functionally, does not take it seriously, such as Book of Mormon historicity and acting as if Joseph Smith told the truth. While there are still "good eggs" at NAMI, Mason is representative of the spiritual cancer it has largely become and has been spewing in the past few years. But hey, anything to play footsie with the (largely secular, leftist) academia, right? Mason is more than happy to have thrown away his inheritance (fidelity to the gospel; eternal rewards in the hereafter) for a bowl of pottage (bowing down to the [secular] academia; eternal judgment in the age to come).
From Joseph Glanvill, Saducismus Triumphatus; Or, Full and Plain Evidence Concerning Witches and Apparitions, 2 vols. (London: J. Collins, 1681), vol. 1, frontispiece.
Vocal Artifice: An Enlightenment
Theory of the Origins of Religion
From late antiquity through
the early decades of the eighteenth century ventriloquism was deeply embedded
in Christian discourses about demon possession, necromancy, and pagan idolatry.
The term itself, in its Latin derivation, meant literally “one who speaks from
the belly,” and it long held a place among many other specialized markers for
different types of divination, prophecy, and conjuring. As Reginald Scot
explained in The Discoverie of Witchcraft (1584), “Pythonists” or
“Ventriloqui” speak in a “hallowe” voice, much different from their
usual one, and are “such as take upon them to give oracles” or “to tell where
things lost are become.” In demonological discussions, such nomenclature was
used to refer to those who were overcome by “a familiar spirit,” who spoke
during trances or fits in an apparently diabolical voice, or who claimed
soothsaying powers.
Much of the formative
discussion of ventriloquy in the Christian tradition focused on the story of
the Witch of Endor recounted in 1 Samuel 28, in which King Saul disguises
himself and visits a sorceress in hopes of summoning up the ghost of Samuel and
discerning the future of his battle against the Philistines. With the help of
the necromancer, Saul hears the prophet Samuel speak from beyond the grave—an apparent
success for the soothsayer that made for considerable anxious commentary in the
patristic literature and long afterward: Why would God allow necromancy, a
practice repeatedly abominated, to be use for divine purposes? Was this whole scene
not accomplished through the power of the devil? Was this apparitional voice of
Samuel real and prophetic, or only a diabolical illusion created by the enchantress
to trick a weakened Saul? The story bundled many crucial theological issues
together, but among the most intriguing to centuries of interpreters was the
question about the source of the ventriloquized voice—namely, who was speaking
and by what means or powers.
In the early modern versions
of this debate about Samuel’s ghost, interlocutors swung, as in the larger
controversies over witchcraft, between those who saw the power of the demonic
and the supernatural on display and those who supported increasingly
materialistic or skeptical explanations. Reginald Scot’s work, a leading
harbinger of dissent from long-standing demonic readings, shifted the blame,
comparing the woman’s powers to that constant Protestant bugbear of Catholic “magic”:
“Let us confesse that Samuell was not raised . . . and see whether this
illusion may not be contrived by the art and cunning of the woman, without anie
of these supernaturall devices: for I could cite a hundred papisticall and
counsening practises, as difficult as this, and as cleanlie handled.” Amid his
detailed explanations, Scot speculated that the diviner was a cunning
ventriloquist who “abused Saule” and her “counterfeit hollow voice.” In
the opposite camp, Joseph Glanvill, who, as a member of the Royal Society, was
committed to establishing an empirical base for the defense of Christian
supernaturalism, argued that it was “a real Apparition” and thought that
the ventriloquial explanation was nonsense: “It cannot certainly in any reason
be thought, that the Woman could by a natural knack, speak such as Discourse as
is related from Samuel, much less that she could from her Belly imitate
his Voice, so as to deceive one that knew him as Saul did.” For Glanvill—as
with the Mathers, Henry More, and George Sinclair—the contention that
necromancers, witches, and demoniacs were mostly frauds and mere sophistry. Diabolical
as well as prophetic utterances were part of a biblical world of spirits,
apparitions, and wonders that Glanvill and his various allies stood ready to
defend against the incipient challenges of skeptical critics.
The scriptural debate
over the Witch of Endor and the sources of Samuel’s voice had its lived
counterpart in the “sacred theatre” of possession that haunted seventeenth-century
Protestants and Catholics alike . . . Skeptics were inevitably contemptuous of
all such trickeries of the voice, all the supposed fraud of demoniacs and
soothsayers. In A perfect Discovery of Witches (1661), Thomas Ady
described ventriloquism as a commonplace scam used by impostors to make people “beleeve
that they are possessed by the Devil, speaking within them, and tormenting
them, and so do by that pretence move the people to charity.” In Leviathan (1651),
Thomas Hobbes, arguing for the prevalence of religious impostures, was
predictably scathing about vocal artifice, describing ventriloquism as a means
by which enchanters were “able to make very many men believe” that their own
voice “is a voice from Heaven.” If the construct still required further
sharpening, already it was being whetted for use against pious fraud. As
another British exposer of demonic displays explained in 1718 [Francis
Hutchinson, An Historical Essay Concerning Withcraft], “Some
Counterfeits can speak out of their Bellies with a little or no Motion of their
Lips. They can change their Voices, that they shall not be like their own. They
can make, that what they shall say be heard, as if it was from a different Part
of the Room, or as if it came from their own Fundament.” “Such persons are call’d,”
he said, “Engastriloques, or Ventriloquists.” (Leigh Eric
Schmidt, Hearing Things: Religion, Illusion, and the American Enlightenment [Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000], 138, 140-41)
While I believe much of what he writes vis-à-vis
exegesis of scripture to be a stretch, Gerald Lund, author of The Coming of
the Lord (1970) and the updated The Second Coming of the Lord (2020),
and other popular volumes and General Authority from 2002-2008; from October
2008 to the present, member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, appears to reject
the mistaken belief that God exists in an “eternal now.” Consider the
following:
EARTH TIME, KOLOB
TIME, AND GOD’S TIME
In his second general
epistle to the early members of the Church, Peter wrote: “Be not ignorant of
this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). The world has puzzled over that
statement ever since.
Fortunately, as if often
the case, we are given clarifying information in modern scripture. Through the
Urim and Thummim, Abraham was taught that Kolob is a celestial body that God said
was “near unto me” (Abraham 3:3). Abraham was also taught that one revolution of
Kolob (its orbit, we presume) was “a day unto the Lord, after his manner or
reckoning,” but was “one thousand years” in our time reckoning (Abraham 3:4).
This not only confirms what Peter said but enlightens us further on its
meaning.
So why does this
matter to us in this discussion on how soon the coming of the Son of Man will
be? Because it gives us another perspective—God’s perspective—on time. We now know
that it is not only our perception of time that influences how we experience
it, but also where we are in space—another thing Einstein postulated. More
importantly, we now have a precise comparison of our time and God’s time. So
with that, let’s do some mathematical conversions from the “Lord’s time” to “our
time.”
·If one of the Lord’s “days” is 1,000 of our years, then one of his “weeks”
would be 7,000 of our years. (This idea of the earth existing for only a “week”
is found in the book of Revelation . . . )
·On that same scale, our coming Millennium would last for only one of
the Lord’s days. This gives more meaning to a phrase from one of our hymns: “Beautiful,
bright Millennial day” (Hymns, no. 52). It also helps us better
understand why the Millennium is sometimes called the “Day of the Lord” (see,
for example, 2 Nephi 12:2; D&C 2:1; 43;20) and why the Lord could say that
He is coming “tomorrow” (D&C 64:24).
·On that same scale, one “hour” of the Lord’s time would be 41.7 years of
our time on earth.
·One “minute” of the Lord’s time would be 254 of our “days,” or about
two-thirds of a year.
With these
comparisons, let us now make some extrapolations between our time and God’s
time. Hopefully, this will change how we think of words such as “soon,” “quickly,”
“night,” and so on. As noted above, most of these phrases are found in
revelations that were given almost 200 years ago, which is several complete “lifetimes”
for us. But consider this:
·The current lifespan of a person in the United States is about seventy-nine
years. In the Lord’s time, that’s not quite two hours.
·If we use Kolob time, 200 of our years—the time since these revelations
were given—is only 2.9% of the total time of the earth’s 7,000 years of
existence.
·If a family had a daughter serving an eighteen-month mission, and had
only 2.9% of her time left, she would be home in fifteen days. We would not
think it odd if the mother said that her daughter would be home “very soon.”
·If a person were serving a twenty-year term of service in the military
and would be released in seven more months (2.9% of the total time), it would
not surprise us if he or she referred to the required time of enlistment as
being “near over.”
(Gerald N. Lund, The
Second Coming of the Lord [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2020], 65-66)
Lund is not the only Latter-day Saint to appeal to the Book of Abraham to discuss God's experience of time. W.W. Phelps did, too, showing that early Latter-day Saints did not believe God existed in an "eternal now." On its, see
