Scriptural Mormonism

“Elias” as a “forerunner” in LDS Scripture

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Joseph Fielding McConkie on "Elias" in D&C 110

On April 3, 1836, a week after the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were visited by Moses, Abraham, and Elijah. Each of these ancient prophets laid their hands on the heads of these two men and gave them specific power and authority (priesthood keys) to act in the sacred office these ancient prophets held when they ministered on the earth. Moses restored “the keys of the gathering of Israel” and “the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north” (D&C 110:11). Abraham (or a messenger from the dispensation of Abraham) restored the special promise made to him and his posterity. (Joseph Fielding McConkie, “The Doctrine of Names in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ,” in Perspectives on Latter-day Saint Names and Naming: Names, Identity, and Belief, ed. Dallin D. Oaks, Paul Baltes, and Kent Minson [London: Routledge, 2023], 214)

Joseph Smith’s account of this event states that “Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham” (D&C 110:12). The name Elias is used in a number of revelations received by Joseph Smith as a name title rather than a proper name. The best of Mormon scholars have assumed that in this text it must be used in this way, having reference either to Abraham or Melchizedek. In my judgment, it refers to Abraham. (Ibid., 215-16 n. 22)

Further Reading:

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Eric A. Eliason on Church Leader Names

Church Leader Names

The General Authorities, or highest-level leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints present a special case for LDS naming ways. For many years now, men called to serve in this capacity who are not already in the habit (if they go by their middle name) have quickly learned to do so. For example, officially in Church publications and in over-the-pulpit announcements, “Russell Nelson” is “Russell M. Nelson” and “Russell Ballard” is “M. Russell Ballard.”

The Church does not officially explain this custom anywhere, but it may be influenced by at least two factors: (1) many General Authorities in the past have come from a limited set of inter-related families and (2) many parents in these families tended to name their sons after noteworthy previous family members. These two facts made it so men sharing a similar name have occasionally come to occupy Church leadership positions over the years. Using initials helps mitigate confusion in such circumstances. Sometimes the whole of an initialized name needs to be spelled out to avoid confusion. The most famous example of this is when Church founder Joseph Smith Jr.’s nephew, Joseph Smith, became a General Authority (and later Church president) and started going by Joseph F. (Fielding) Smith. When Joseph F. Smith’s son, Joseph F. Smith, became the General Authority (and later Church president), he spelled out his initialized name to be called Joseph Fielding Smith (Adding further to this confusion, Joseph Smith Jr.’s son, Joseph Smith III, was the first president of the separate Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). A similar naming situation happened with the grandson of apostle Ezra T. Benson, Ezra Taft Benson, who came an apostle and later Church president. This pattern of initialization also applies to prominent women such as Eliza R. Snow and the first three 20th century presidents of the Relief Society: Zina D. H. Young (1888-1901), Bathsheba W. Smith (1901-1010), and Emmeline B. Wells (1910-1921).

Another possible reason for initialization is that it has come to indicate a certain dignity of high office. Even in informal conversation, few, if any, Latter-day Saints would think of referring to the late President Hinckley as “Gordon Hinckley.” It was always “Gordon B. Hinckley,” if not “the prophet” or “President Hinckley.” The tradition of using initials for formal purposes was not unknown in 19th century America and still continues today among public figures and authors. While writing middle initials is somewhat common in formal settings outside Latter-day Saint circles, the oral use of them is almost unique to Church members. The desire for dignity may also influence many Latter-day Saint academic and writers to emulate General Authorities by using the initial(s) of their less-used given name(s) to adorn their books and articles. However, Church members generally do not include middle initials when referring orally to even the most well-known Latter-day Saint scholars and authors. This practice is most often reserved for General Authorities and is a subtle, informal marker of respect and recognition of their office. (Eric A. Eliason, “Nameways in Latter-day Saint History, Custom, and Folklore,” in Perspectives on Latter-day Saint Names and Naming: Names, Identity, and Belief, ed. Dallin D. Oaks, Paul Baltes, and Kent Minson [London: Routledge, 2023], 85-86)

To Support this Blog:

How to Respond When a Mormon Claims More than One God

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Catholic "Answers" on the Number of God

After a crushing defeat of Trent Horn by Jacob Hansen (see my review here), pop-level Catholic apologists again show that they have never truly studied informed Latter-day Saint apologetics and scholarship with the following from Tim Staples (author of Behold Your Mother, second only to Christadelphian apologists Duncan Heaster's The Real Devil as the most eisegesis-filled book I have read in my life):

Staples, notwithstanding his claim that he knows how LDS interact with the Bible (which I am sure is an absolute falsehood), throws out Deut 6:4 (the Shema) and various texts from Isaiah (e.g., Isa 44:24) without any exegesis. This only shows that pop Catholic apologetics is about "boundary maintenance" and not interacting in a meaningful manner with the best the other side (not just LDS) has to offer.

For an exegesis of the relevant texts, see, for e.g., Exegesis of texts quoted in Micah Beaumont, "A comparison between Joseph Smith's 'King Follett Sermon' and the Bible"

To Support this Blog:

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Monday, October 14, 2024

Matthias Scheeben (RC) on the main forms in which the Pope Issues Ex Cathedra Decisions

The main forms in which ex cathedra decisions are given, especially according to the newer style, are as follows:

{508} 1. The most solemn and most prominent form consists of the so-called Dogmatic Constitutions or Bulls, which lay down and promulgate judgments expressly in the form of general ecclesiastical laws [canons] that are sanctioned with strict punishments, e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem fidei against the Jansenists, and Ineffabilis Deus about the Immaculate Conception. With these, since the text is usually very clear by itself, it makes no difference whether they are addressed in the inscription to the whole Church (like the Bull Unigenitus) or not (like the Bulls Unam sanctam and Ineffabilis Deus).

{509} 2. After the Constitutions come the Encyclical Letters addressed to the Universal Church, provided that they are of a dogmatic nature, i.e. in categorical terms make it the bishops’ duty to propose and assert or to suppress and uproot certain doctrines, and to command the faithful to hold or to reject those doctrines [as the case may be]. They resemble the Constitutions in their direct, general intention and differ from them as a rule only by their lack of punitive sanctions. They themselves in turn are subdivided into those which (with the exception of the punitive sanctions) otherwise, as far as the formulation of the doctrine in question and the emphasis on authority is concerned, are worded in strict juridical forms (like the Encyclical Quanta cura, which at first had also been prepared as a formal Constitution), and those which inculcate Catholic doctrines or reject anti-Catholic teachings in a freer, more rhetorical, yet peremptory form (like the well-known Encyclical of Gregory XVI Mirari vos from 1832, about which the same pope declared in the Encyclical Singulari Nos dated July 10, 1833: “We declared [denuntiavimus; in another passage: definivimus] in it the only sound doctrine to be followed concerning the main points in the fulfillment of the duties of Our office for the whole Catholic

flock”). In the latter case it can nevertheless easily happen that the ex cathedra pronouncement is discernible merely with moral certitude or that the act in question has only approximately the same force as one.

{510} 3. Other Apostolic Letters, which are not issued with the solemnity of the Constitutions but merely in a brief form or are not addressed directly to the entire Church, are to be regarded as ex cathedra pronouncements if they either a) resemble the Constitutions in that they impose general theological and punitive censures on the denial of particular doctrines, or b) like dogmatic Encyclicals, define or condemn a doctrine in strict juridical terms or else declare and inculcate in the equivalent freer expressions that it is a duty of every Catholic to hold a particular doctrine—however here, often even more than in the Encyclicals, the strictly dogmatic character of the Letter is obviously to be distinguished from its admonitory or disciplinary character. When in the edict itself the general and definitive intention is clear, the fact that the Letter may be addressed to a special group has no restrictive influence (just as Benedict XIV too, for example, declared in the Brief Ad eradicandum that some had rashly denied that the condemnation expressed in the Apostolic Letter Suprema, dated July 7, 1745, of the practice of inquiring about the accomplice in the confessional has the force and authority of a general definition and law). The somewhat less conspicuous lack of a general intention or of definitive forms is often counterbalanced, however, by the fact that such letters are also promulgated specially at the pope’s command or made into an Encyclical (as happened, e.g., with the Dogmatic Letter of Leo I to Flavianum and in very recent times with excerpts from the earlier manifold acts of Pius IX in the Syllabus, after the Encyclical that was issued simultaneously had said: “By several Encyclicals promulgated among the common people, Allocutions held in the Consistory, and other Apostolic Letters, We have condemned errors . . . and admonished all the children of the Catholic Church again and again”). The fact that here the Allocutions are mentioned between the Encyclicals and the Apostolic Letters, or rather are put on a par with the Encyclicals, indicates that they likewise can be employed as a means of instructing the whole Church and hence under certain circumstances can be used to promulgate or execute an ex cathedra pronouncement, because they are plainly not to be regarded as mere sermons or lectures for the cardinals, but rather as addresses to the whole Catholic world.

{511} 4. Finally the pope can speak ex cathedra through the confirmation of the judgments of other tribunals: a) especially of the judgments of General Councils, whereby the confirmation is naturally always and under all circumstances intended with its full efficacy; b) of the judgments of particular councils; here however the confirmation must be expressed as a positive, solemn, and full one (solemnis et plenissima); but in reality that is most often not so, since it is usually exercised only as an act of superintendence; c) of the judgments of the Roman Congregations; here however the confirmation must in any case be combined with the formal order to promulgate those judgments, so that the judgments are not merely approved by the pope in their intrinsic value but are also made his own and are presented as proceeding from him to the Church. (Matthias Scheeben, Handbook of Catholic Dogmatics, Book 1, Part 1 [trans. Michael J. Miler; Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2019], §32 nos. 508-11)

To Support this Blog:

Amazon Wishlist (US)

Amazon Wishlist (UK)

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

John A. Tvedtnes on the Kinderhook Plates (1997)

I recently came across a brief discussion of the Kinderhook Plates by the late John A. Tvedtnes; I am reproducing it for those who are fans of his work:

Kinderhook Plates a "Hoax"

This week I read J. G. Barton's article on the Kinderhook Plates that appeared in the latest issue of Ancient American. I don't know if the author is simply ignorant of more recent research on the topic or is aware of it but deceptive in omitting it from the article.

In 1980, the only plate known to still exist was submitted to various tests, using a scanning microprobe and X-ray fluorescence analysis. The tests demonstrated that, contrary to earlier opinions elicited in the article by my good friend, Welby Ricks (cited in the Barron article), the plate was produced by acid etching rather than by an engraving tool.

This matter was discussed at length by another of my acquaintances, Prof. Stanley B. Kimball, in his article, "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to be a Nineteenth Century Hoax," which was published in The Ensign (successor to The Improvement Era that carried the Ricks article), August 1981. Even more recent is Kimball's entry on the "Kinderhook Plates" in Macmillan's Encyclopedia of Mormonism, volume 2. It would be well for you to mention these facts, so your readers will not be misled.

John A. Tvedtness

F.A.R.M.S.

Provo, UT (John A. Tvedtnes, letter to the editor, Ancient American: Archaeology of the Americas before Columbus 3, no. 21 [November/December 1997]: 23)

To Support this Blog: