Recently, one Evangelical Protestant appealed to conjoined triplets as a meaningful analogy of the Trinity (three persons in one being). To understand the utter stupidity of this analogy, listen to James White(!) break down a similar analogy (Cerebus, the three-headed dog from ancient mythology) that William Lane Craig has often appealed to:
To see the failures of analogies to explain the Trinity, the following video, St. Patrick's Bad Analogies, hits the nail on the head (albeit, in a humorous manner!):
The following is representative of the disingenuous nature of much of Evangelical Protestant polemic against LDS theology:
If a wife apostasizes, her husband has a perfect right according to the church, to divorce her and with the divorce withdraw all of her celestial rights—she will be left in the grave on the resurrection morning. Mormon women have a great fear of such a fate. (Gordon H. Fraser in the foreword to Thelma Geer, Mormonism, Mama, and Me (2d ed; Tuscon, Ariz.: Calvary Missionary Press, 1980], xi)
While a popular claim among the more “nutty” portions of anti-Mormonism (e.g., Ed Decker and Dave Hunt), such is false. There have been many fine refutations of this idiotic argument, including this FairMormon wiki page article, the pertinent section I will reproduce here:
Question: Do Mormons believe men have the right to resurrect their spouses by a specific ordinance?
The claim is false--all of humanity will be resurrected through the grace of Christ
The claim is false--all of humanity will be resurrected through the grace of Christ. While worthy Saints may participate in that process (as, for example, they participate in performing baptisms) they cannot withhold it from anyone, and Christ would not tolerate an unrighteous exercise of such authority anyway.
The critic who put forth this claim was referring to speculations or statements from past church leaders who said resurrection will be an ordinance of sorts (or at least requiring priesthood keys in order to occur). Bearing in mind that not all statements of General Authorities carry the weight of revelation or scripture,[1]Brigham Young tied "keys" to resurrection:
When the angel who holds the keys of the resurrection shall sound his trumpet, then the peculiar fundamental particles that organized our bodies here, if we do honor to them, though they be deposited in the depths of the sea, and though one particle is in the north, another in the south, another in the east, and another in the west, will be brought together again in the twinkling of an eye, and our spirits will take possession of them.[2]
In 1872 he stated his belief that there are some ordinances the Church does not currently practice, one being resurrection:
It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and exaltation, and that we are administering in these ordinances. This is not the case.
We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would ask what they are.
I will mention one. We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more."[3]
Additionally, Wilford Woodruff's journal contains the following:
Who will resurrect Joseph's Body? It will be Peter, James, John, Moroni, or someone who has or will receive the keys of the resurrection. It will probably be one of those who hold the keys of this dispensation and has delivered them to Joseph and you will see Jesus and he will eat peaches and apples with you.[4]But the world will not see it or know it for wickedness will increase. Joseph and Jesus will be there. They will walk and talk with them at times and no man mistrusts who they are. Joseph will lead the Armies of Israel whether He is seen or no, whether visible or invisible as seemeth him good.
Joseph has got to receive the keys of the resurrection for you and I. After he is resurrected he will go and resurrect Brother Brigham, Brother Heber, and Brother Carloss, and when that is done then He will say, "now go Brother Brigham and resurrect your wives and children and gather them together. While this is done, the wicked will know nothing of it, though they will be in our midst and they will be struck with fear. This is the way the resurrection will be. All will not be raised at once but will continue in this way until all the righteous are resurrected.
After Joseph comes to us in his resurrected body, He will more fully instruct us concerning the baptism for the dead and the sealing ordinances. He will say, be baptized for this man and that man and that man be sealed to that such a man to such a man, and connect the Priesthood together. I tell you their will not be much of this done until Joseph comes.... Our hearts are already turned to him and his to us.[5]
Perhaps there is some speculation in connection with a portion of the temple ceremony before a husband and wife are sealed.[6]Hugh Nibley has made connections between ordinances and resurrection in Egyptian ritual, for example.[7]The closest contemporary reference I could find dealt not with the resurrection as an ordinance, but with the priesthood keys playing a part in the final judgment as stated in Matthew 19:27-28 (see footnote 3 below). The Encyclopedia of Mormonism makes no mention of it in the Resurrection article but makes an oblique reference to priesthood power directing raising of the dead, which is considered temporal (such as in the raising of Lazarus) contrasted with the eternal resurrection.[8]
Notes for the Above
1.See FairMormon Answers, "Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders" The drift of this doctrinal stance has been mentioned by LDS leaders from Joseph Smith ("a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such" [History of the Church 5:265]) to the present. Also consider the recent statement from LDS Public Affairs: "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church...Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines" (Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom, May 4, 2007).
2.Jump up↑Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 372. Perhaps these keys involve the concept of judgment found in the New Testament, wherein Christ told the apostles "ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27-28; see alsoLuke 22:28-30). Brigham and other early leaders taught this principle extended to whomever held the keys over a particular dispensation in which people live. For more, see "Priesthood: the chain that reaches from heaven to earth."
4.Jump up↑See "Priesthood: the chain that reaches from heaven to earth." It appears the concept of priesthood stewardship was part of Woodruff's reasoning as well.
5.Jump up↑Susan Staker, ed., Waiting for the World's End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, pp.168-169. For a review, see Matt W., "Initial Thoughts on “Waiting for Worlds End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff," New Cool Thang, Nov. 10, 2008.
6.Jump up↑W. John Walsh's statements on Jeff Lindsay's Light Planet website appear to hint toward that interpretation, but asserts resurrection is the right of Christ: "Now, Latter-day Saints do believe that in some instances, a woman's husband will be given the privilege of performing the resurrection ordinance for and in behalf of the Savior. In cases where a woman does not have a worthy husband, the Savior may allow her father to do so. Likewise, a man's father will be given the privilege of resurrecting him. In such cases, the person performing the resurrection ordinance is simply performing the ordinance for and in behalf of the Savior."(Walsh, "Do Husbands Resurrect Their Wives?" All About Mormons.)
7.Jump up↑Hugh Nibley,Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, 2nd ed. For an overview see Bryce Hammond's "The Egyptian Ankh, 'Life! Health! Strength!'" on his Temple Study blog.
8.Jump up↑Douglas L. Callister, "Resurrection," pp.1222-1223, and Dennis D. Flake, "Raising the Dead," p. 1192, in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed.,Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson made a similar argument in their dreadful book, Mormonism 101. In his review of chapter 15 (on the topic of the Temple), Ben McGuire wrote the following:
A little later in the same section, we read: "Historically, Mormon leaders have taught that the husband has the ability to call his wife from the grave by her new name on resurrection day."10
This is also not the case. A husband has nothing to do with the resurrection of his wife. Let me try to clarify this point a little bit and explain some of the fundamental doctrinal principles involved as taught by the LDS Church. Historically, Mormon leaders have taught that the resurrection is available to all people, regardless of their spiritual condition, their marital status, or any other consideration. As Apostle James E. Talmage wrote: "The eventual resurrection of every soul who has lived and died on earth is a scriptural certainty."11 Applying this to the statements made by McKeever and Johnson, this means that a husband has no say, or part in the resurrection of his wife. A second principle is that LDS do not believe in a 'resurrection day,' per se. The resurrection is not a single event, where all are raised at once. Talmage continues: "No spirit shall remain disembodied longer than he deserves, or than is requisite to accomplish the just and merciful purposes of God. The resurrection of the just began with Christ, it has been in process and shall continue till the Lord comes in glory, and thence onward through the Millenium."12
I find it somewhat suspect that the two citations provided in Mormonism 101 which are supposed to defend McKeever and Johnson's proposition never once mention the resurrection. And, you would be hard pressed to come up with any other statements by early LDS leaders that would support such a statement. Comparatively, the first source McKeever and Johnson cite, Charles W. Penrose, prefaced his remarks with the following statement: "No man or woman, separate and single, can attain to the fullness of celestial glory."13 More recently, Elder Bruce C. Hafen reiterated this doctrinal position when he wrote: "Further, no individual, woman or man, has access to the highest degree of celestial life alone: 'Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.' (1 Corinthians 11:11.) To obtain exaltation, we must receive the priesthood ordinance of eternal marriage."14 In LDS doctrine, the man and the woman are equal before the Lord, and the eternal blessings of one are not dependent unequally upon the other.
While there are some members of the LDS faith who entertain a romantic notion that a husband will resurrect his wife so that they can enter into the Celestial Kingdom together, this has never been a doctrinal teaching of the Church. And often, those members who believe this have misconstrued statements by leaders of the Church in the same fashion as McKeever and Johnson.
Notes for the above:
10 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 209.
11 James E. Talmage, The Vitality of Mormonism (Boston: Gorham Press, 1919), 292.
12 Ibid., 294.
13 Charles W. Penrose, "Leaves from the Tree of Life: The Eleventh Leaf," The Contributor, Vol. 2 (October 1880-September 1881): 339. Cited by McKeever and Johnson as coming from the later derivative work "Mormon Doctrine Plain and Simple", Juvenile Instructor (1888): 51.
It should be crystal clear that this argument is bogus and those who raise it are showing themselves to be intellectually disingenuous.
To show how deceptive Bowman's response is, he imputes to me the following interpretation of Irenaeus of Lyons that I never did:
This is the other passage in Against Heresies that Mr. Amey and Mr. Boylan quote (in part) to counter one of my quotations from the same book. However, there is nothing here that supports either Mr. Amey’s position (the Bible cannot be understood on its own because it is unclear but must be interpreted according to whatever the ante-Nicene fathers as a whole taught) or Mr. Boylan’s Mormon position (the Bible cannot be understood on its own because it is incomplete or altered but must be interpreted through latter-day scriptures and the voice of the modern prophets).
I never claimed that Irenaeus held to the same theology as Latter-day Saints do vis-á-vis final authority, so Bowman is being his usual disingenuous self yet again. All his talk about me knocking down a straw man of my own creation earlier in his article is nothing short of projection on his behalf.
Errol, who is a friend of mine (perhaps the only thing Bowman got correct in his article) forwarded the following brief response to me:
"Mr. Amey’s position (the Bible cannot be
understood on its own because it is unclear but must be interpreted according
to whatever the ante-Nicene fathers as a whole taught)"
Here we see Bowman attacking a straw-man. My position
is that the Scriptures can be understood without the assistance of ecumenical
pre-Nicene teachings, except that persons who are indoctrinated with
misinterpretations will not be inclined to see the clear teachings of the
Scriptures. Case in point: If Rob Bowman, as a Calvinist, were to attempt to
explain to Irenaeus the Scriptural basis for his belief in the TULIP, then
Irenaeus would necessarily accuse Bowman of doing violence to the Scriptures
just as the Gnostics did, and not seeing the clear Scriptural teachings of
libertarian free-will, synergistic soteriology, conditional security, and
baptismal regeneration, all of which Irenaeus has repeatedly espoused
elsewhere.
Errol also cogently noted that:
The crucial portion of Irenaeus that Bowman glossed over:
"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?"
This clearly demonstrates that Irenaeus' position is vastly closer to prima scriptura than to sola scriptura. What is the need for conferring with the most ancient churches who were in intimate communion with the Apostles unless the oral tradition of the Apostles was not viewed as at least a secondary authority and supplemental to the Scriptures? This is why we see Irenaeus complain that the Gnostics claim, "that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters,"
Another translation of Bowman's key portion of Irenaeus, and commentary from the scholar who translated it:
"Indeed, when they are exposed by means of the Scriptures, they turn round and make accusations against the Scriptures themselves, as if these were not correct or were not authentic and stated things variously"
(Irenaeus, ca. 180, 'Against the Heresies' 3:2:1, in 'Ancient Christian Writers' 64:31)
This is noted as having reference, "to ambiguous interpretations not in themselves but in relation to other texts that they contradict, with the result that they do not give a harmonious explanation of all the Scriptures. According to such groups, the Scriptures state things 'variously'; that is, they give a variety of opinions. Irenaeus regularly denounces his opponents for giving an interpretation to one passage which contradicts others, and he consistently argues for the harmony of revelation in all the Scriptures."
(Dominic J. Unger, 'Ancient Christian Writers' 64:124)
This understanding of Irenaeus undermines Bowman's attempt to link my own perspectives to those of the Gnostics as the Gnostics were not arguing that the Scriptures are sometimes hard to understand (which the Scriptures say regarding themselves, cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16), but rather that the Scriptures contradict themselves as opposed to being harmonious.
Finally, Errol noted the following:
And now for the crowning obliteration of Bowman's abuse of Irenaeus, from the most current patristic scholarship at my disposal:
"For Irenaeus of Lyons the canon of the writings of the NT, which had recently been formed in response to Marcion, became the chief weapon in his battle against gnosticism. But he was aware that this weapon, by itself, was not enough. He had to provide proof, moreover, that this canon of the church contained the complete and authentic apostolic tradition and also that this tradition was correctly interpreted in the church. The first proof was supplied, in Irenaeus's eyes, by the uninterrupted succession of the bishops in the apostolic churches (see 'Adv. haer.' III, praef.; 1,1; 2,1-4,1); the second proof is given by the fact that there is a perfect concordance between the 'rule of faith' of the apostolic churches and their interpretation of Scripture."
(W. Rordorf, 'Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity' 3:821-822)
It should also be noted that Irenaeus held to doctrines that Bowman would reject as false if not downright heretical, such as baptismal regeneration (Against Heresies 3.17.1-2), as noted above. Further, and rather ironically, Bowman describes himself and other Protestants like Mathison, Webster, and other proponents of sola scriptura perfectly in his summary:
Like the Bible, different religious groups today appeal piecemeal to isolated statements from the church fathers to advance their modern agendas, interpreting them in different ways and sometimes distorting and abusing the patristic writings.
As you know (or should know!) this weekend is General Conference weekend, which means I will be "live tweeting" most of the sessions (except for the Priesthood due to time difference [I live in Ireland]) with serious and not so serious comments. My twitter feed can be found here.
Often Evangelicals will appeal to Matt 27:51//Mark 15:38//Luke 23:45 in the Synoptic Gospels as "proof" that true believers would never have any use of the temple in their religious ceremonies in the New Covenant. Often this is coupled with the traditional Protestant interpretation of “it is finished” (τετέλεσται) in John 19:30. To see why such arguments are, exegetically-speaking, dead-wrong, see, for instance:
The Acts of the Apostles, recording events after the tearing of the temple veil, further refutes such a naïve reading of Matt 27:51 and its parallels. For instance, not only did Paul worship there (Acts 21:26-30; 22:17; 24:6-18; 25:8; 26:21), Paul is explicitly said to have performed purification rituals there:
Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. (Acts 21:26)
Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult. (Acts 24:18)
Additionally, Paul prayed there:
And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance(Acts 22:17)
Paul denied that he had offended the temple, implying he accepted the sanctity thereof, even after the rending of the temple veil and the ascension of Christ:
While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all. (Acts 25:8)
Furthermore, Paul offered sacrifice (προσφορα) in the temple:
Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them (προσηνέχθη ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν ἡ προσφορά). (Acts 21:26; cf. Num 6:14-18)
Finally, Paul had a vision of Christ (the “Just One” [τὸν δίκαιον]) in the temple, paralleling Old Testament "temple theophanies" which strongly imply a special sanctity in the temple where God still appears to men even after Christ's ascension:
And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One (τὸν δίκαιον), and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. (Acts 22:14-21)
Such is rather obvious that the temple itself did not become obsolete with the death of Jesus and/or the rending of the temple veil.
The closest the Bible comes to affirming individual predestining election is Acts 13:48. The verse states that the gentiles rejoiced upon hearing Paul’s message, “and as many as were appointed [ēsan tetagmenoi] to eternal life gave pistis [episteusan].” But God’s foreordinaed or prior choosing (e.g., before time) is in all likelihood not emphasized here (to suggest otherwise is weak exegesis as it overloads the perfect passive participle tetagmenoi with inappropriate temporal and theological weight); rather it merely emphasized that God is sovereign over appointment to eternal life even at the individual level. The timing of this appointment is not specified other than that it is prior to or simultaneous with the individuals giving pistis. (Matthew B. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2017], 171 n. 11)
Commenting on facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham, one Protestant New Testament scholar wrote the following:
As to the alleged near-sacrifice of Abraham, it is actually a representation of “the resurrection of the Osiris Hor on the customary lion-headed funerary couch.” (Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2017], 16)
This is a typical charge by critics of the Book of Abraham. However, recent scholarship has shown that there were some blending of identities concerning Osiris. Roy B. Ward noted that with respect to Luke 16:19-31 where Lazarus is taken to the bosom of Abraham:
The story is probably, as Gressman proposed, dependent on an Egyptian tale, whose closest descendant is the Demotic tale of Satme. The role of Osiris in the Egyptian tradition has been replaced in the Lukan story by Abraham.
Additionally, ancient mummification rites associated with Osiris had the goal of "bestowing the fate of Osiris on the dead man."[2]
Therefore, from the ancient Egyptian perspective, identities were not exclusive; a single figure could represent Osiris and other individuals, too, Abraham included, as we see in the Book of Abraham.
Notes
[1] Roy B. Ward, "Abrahamic Traditions in Early Christianity," in Studies on the Testament of Abraham, ed. George W.E. Nickelsburg, Jr., Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press (1976): 177
[2] R.B. Finnestad, "The Pharaoh and the 'Democratization' of Post-Mortem Life," in The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians: Cognitive Structures and Popular Expressions, ed. G. Englund, Uppsala, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiskell (1989): 91
Hugh Nibley was born 107 years ago. With respect to his scholarship, the words of the author of Hebrews is rather á propos, "he being dead yet speaketh" (Heb 11:4). Here is a very good documentary produced by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (now the Neal A. Maxwell Institute) from 1985 celebrating his life, "Faith of an Observer"
Happy Birthday, Hugh! We are all glad you did not let a silly, trivial thing like being dead come in the way of a busy publishing schedule for One Eternal Round ;-)
In a recent discussion on facebook, Robert Bowman used the following quotation from Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.2.1 in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:415)
As Errol Amey, a non-Mormon who is well informed about the patristic literature, called Bowman up on his abuse of Irenaeus as in the very next section of Against Heresies(!) we read the following:
But, again, when we refer them [the Gnostics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. (Against Heresies 3.2.2 [square brackets added])
To further drive the point home, Errol quoted the header from the translation that Bowman had quoted from, which was penned by a Protestant patristic scholar, no less: "The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition."
Another text from Irenaeus in the very same book of Against Heresies further refutes Bowman and other Protestant apologists who abuse Irenaeus of Lyons as being a proponent of sola scriptura:
On thisaccount we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold ofthe tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise adispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse tothe most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,]to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (3.4.1)
So it is obvious that, when read in context, Irenaeus of Lyons did not hold to Sola Scriptura. Unfortunately, such abuse of the patristic literature is part-and-parcel of Protestant apologetics when it comes to Sola Scriptura and other doctrines, such as C. Michael Patton, Keith Mathison, William Webster, et al., see, for example:
Sometimes one will hear the claim that the reforms of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah support the formal sufficiency of Scripture (á la the doctrine of Sola Scriptura). However, in reality, both these kings relied on non-inscripturated revelation as a key source for many of their teachings. Consider the following texts:
And he [King Hezekiah] set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets. (2 Chron 29:25)
And prepare yourselves by the houses of your fathers, after your courses, according to the writing of David king of Israel, and according to the writing of Solomon his son. (2 Chron 35:4)
With respect to the first text, we learn the following: (1) firstly, David, Gad, and Nathan were dead for about 250 years at this point; however, (2) they passed on a "command . . . from the Lord" which was prescribed by God's prophets on how worship to be conducted in the temple (hardly a minor issue; the worship of God is a central issue in theology) and (3) such a prescription and commandment is nowhere found in the entirety of the Bible.
So instead of viewing scripture as being formally sufficient, Hezekiah and Josiah relied upon other sources than only inscripturated revelation in their reforms. Indeed, in no case did the believing community rebuke Hezekiah or Josiah for violating sola scriptura. On the contrary, they accepted the fact that divine instruction, through the mouths of God's prophets, had been preserved for the community's use for hundreds of years apart from inscripturated revelation. Indeed, Josiah relied upon the words of the prophetess Huldah, not just the Scriptures, including the text of Deuteronomy that was rediscovered (cf. 2 Kgs 22-24). As we read in 2 Chron 34:22-28:
And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college:) and they spake to her to that effect. And she answered them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Tell ye the man that sent you to me, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah: Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched. And as for the king of Judah, who sent you to enquire of the Lord, so shall ye say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel concerning the words which thou hast heard; Because thine heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God, when thou heardest his words against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, and humbledst thyself before me, and didst rend thy clothes, and weep before me; I have even heard thee also, saith the Lord. Behold, I will gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace, neither shall thine eyes see all the evil that I will bring upon this place, and upon the inhabitants of the same. So they brought the king word again.
It is rather obvious that the reforms one reads about in the Old Testament were not based on any concept of Sola Scriptura, the claims of some Protestant apologists notwithstanding.
The following is a meme that Matt Slick of CARM has produced that is
making some rounds online:
Of course, Slick has been thoroughly refuted on an exegetical and
theological basis by Latter-day Saints, including James Stutz in the following
article:
As tomorrow is the 187th anniversary of the publication of the Book of Mormon, I am posting two great documentaries on the Book of Mormon produced by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute a couple of years ago on the Old and New World backgrounds to the Book of Mormon which feature many of the "heavy hitters" of Book of Mormon scholarship (e.g., Brant Gardner; Bill Hamblin;Mark Wright; Daniel Peterson; John Sorenson):
Tit 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 in the KJV read as follows:
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ. (Tit 2:13)
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (2 Pet 1:1)
In these two texts, the KJV translators understood the underlying Greek to refer to two persons (God [the Father] and Jesus); however, after the KJV was translated, a grammatical rule was rediscovered by Granville Sharp which demonstrates that the KJV reading is in error, and based on the grammar (definite article + noun + the coordinating conjunction και + anarthrous noun) refers to the same person, not two. To put it a bit differently:
When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person. (Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, p.3 as cited by Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996], 271)
For instance, the Greek phrase from Tit 2:13 τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ("our mighty God and our Saviour"), per this rule, predicates both θεος and σωτηρ of one person (Jesus), not two (this rule also applies to 2 Pet 1:1). Compare the KJV with the rendition of Tit 2:13 in the NRSV, for instance (emphasis added):
While we wait for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
This rule is much more nuanced than what I have presented (e.g., it does not apply when [1] both nouns are impersonal; [2] neither is plural; [3] neither is a proper name) so for a fuller discussion, see:
Daniel B. Wallace, Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance (Peter Lang, 2008).
In his book on the Christology of the Pastoral Epistles, Andrew Y. Lau offers the following reasons why θεος in Tit 2:13 is used, not of the Father, but Jesus:
(1) The expression “θεος και σωτηρ” was a stereotyped formula common in first-century religious terminology and was used by both Diaspora and Palestinian Jews in reference to Yahweh, thus denoting one deity. (2) The most satisfactory explanation of the anathrous σωτηρος is that two coordinate nouns referring to the same person are customarily linked by a single article; σωτηρ ημων is generally articular in the PE (7x), anathrous only in 1T1.1 (where one person is clearly in view) and here in Tit. 2.13. The complex grammatical point suggests that “if Paul wished to speak unambiguously of two persons, he could have written either του μεγαλου θεου και Ιησου Χριστου σωτηρος ημων, or του μεγαλου θεου ημων και του σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου . . . it must remain improbable that Paul would have acquiesced in a form of words that would naturally be depicting Jesus as ο μεγας θεος και σωτηρ ημων if in fact he believed that Jesus was in no sense θεος.” (3) The exceptional use of μεγας with θεος is better explained if θεος refers to Christ than if it signifies the Father. (4) The significant parallelism of 2.13 underlines that “the great God” is “the Saviour,” for the “blessed hope” is the “appearance of the glory”:
τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης
τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
(Andrew Y. Lau, Manifest in the Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996], 244)
The following is the debate between Bart D. Ehrman and Robert M. Price n the question of the historicity of Jesus. Ehrman affirms that Jesus was a historical person while Price, who, with Richard Carrier, is perhaps the best defender of the Christ Myth theory, holds to the view that Jesus was a mythological figure and never existed at all:
Personally, I think Ehrman creamed Price. Price, while he is a very intelligent, well-read individual, attempted to defend a nonsensical, impossible position.
Introductory-level reading on the Historicity of Jesus debate:
Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence
Robert M. Price, The Christ-Myth Theory and its Problems
In their recent video, If We Only Knew, We Would Have Never Joined Mormonism Episode 4: Living Prophets?, Dave and Janet Bartosiewicz attempt to critique the LDS concept of modern prophets and apostles:
There is one topic I wish to discuss is a comment made at the very beginning of this video which demonstrates the lack of intellectual integrity one has come to expect from Dave and Janet. Janet shows she is just as deceptive as her husband by stating that Latter-day Saints believe that "when the prophet says it, that settles it!" (0:47 mark). The truth of the matter, however, is completely different. As I wrote in response to a similar argument in Latter-day Saints and the Bible in response to another Evangelical, Mike Thomas:
In an attempt to support the straw-man that “when LDS Church leaders speak, the thinking has been done for Latter-day Saints,” Mike Thomas writes:
For Mormons it is a great deal more difficult yet straight forward in a strange sort of way. The first question a Mormon asks is not, ‘Which Bible translations are reliable?’ but,’What does the church have to say?’ And this is not a simple seeking after counsel, ‘Pastor, which translation would you recommend?’ We all do that from time to time. What is important to a Mormon is, ‘what is the ‘official’ stance of the church?’ It is this that is ‘right’ in the eyes of your typical LDS believer.
This speaks volumes about the degree of trust Mormons put in their leaders. Its fallen out of fashion now, as has so much old fashioned Mormonism, but it used to be proudly said:
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan — it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the Kingdom of God.”(Improvement Era, June 1945)
The (unofficial) Mormon apologetics site FAIR has attempted to refute the idea that this is ‘official’ Mormon thinking, even dragging out from Mormon archives a letter from the Mormon leader George Albert Smith appearing to say as much.You can read it here.But it doesn’t wash because anyone who has dealt with Mormonism, more, anyone who has been a Mormon will tell you this is the attitude of the average True Believing Latter-day Saint to this day.
As one who “has been a Mormon” and is a “true believing Latter-day Saint,” let me say that the above is simply false.
Those who read the email exchanges (linked above) Thomas had with Mike Parker et al., will see that intellectual integrity and honesty are things he clearly lacks and this is more proof thereof. The statement from the Improvement Era was refuted by none other than George Albert Smith, as noted by Mike, and he even links to an article hosted by FairMormon (PKA "FAIR") that reproduces the letter from George Albert Smith refuting such. However, this alone refutes his straw-man presentation—George Albert Smith was president (not just a leader) of the Church when he wrote this letter in response to this errant article (his presidency running from May 1945 to April 1951). If Mike Thomas is correct, and LDS jettison Pres. George Albert Smith’s comments, then this ipso factorefutes his claim that LDS blindly follow their leaders as it would represent just the opposite! In reality, however, it has always been the case that LDS leaders have urged Church members not to accept their words at face-value and/or have openly admitted to their own fallibility. Consider the following representative examples:
Were the former and Latter-day Saints, with their Apostles, Prophets Seers, and Revelators collected together to discuss this matter [the nature of Deity], I am led to think there would be found a great variety in their views and feelings upon this subject, without direct revelation from the Lord. It is as much my right to differ from other men, as it is theirs to differ from me, in points of doctrine and principle, when our minds cannot at once arrive at the same conclusion. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 2:123)
I do not believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church; that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, as far as they go, but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities. (Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses, 2:314).
I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied . . . Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders fo the people, saying, 'if the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' that is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord. (Brigham Young; JOD 3:45)
As you have been told hundreds of times, how easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction unless you actually know the mind and will of the Spirit yourselves. (Brigham Young; JOD 4:368)
February 8, 1843, Joseph Smith wrote, "[I] visited with a brother and sister from Michigan who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet;' but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such" (History of the Church 5.265).
Joseph Smith occasionally used wording such as "this is my counsel" (History of the Church 1.455) or "I therefore warn" (Nauvoo Neighbor, June 19, 1844) “We have heard men that hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything that they were told to do by those who preside over them (even) if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent human beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong.themselves.”
—[unsigned editorial [perhaps Samuel W. Richards]., Millennial Star, Vol. 14, Num.38, pp.594 Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an apostle or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support will be gone; but if we lean on God, He will NEVER fail us. When men and women depend upon GOD ALONE and trust in HIM ALONE, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside." (George Q. Canon, Deseret Weekly News 43:322 [March 7, 1891])
President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works." (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)
President Harold B. Lee declared, "If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth" (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69).
The Latter-day Saints do not do things because they happen to be printed in a book. They do not do things because God told the Jews to do them; nor do they do or leave undone anything because of the instructions that Christ gave to the Nephites. Whatever is done by this Church is because God, speaking from heaven in our day, has commanded this Church to do it. No book presides over this Church, and no book lies at its foundation. You cannot pile up books enough to take the place of God's priesthood, inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost. That is the constitution of the Church of Christ. … Divine revelation adapts itself to the circumstances and conditions of men, and change upon change ensues as God's progressive work goes on to its destiny. There is no book big enough or good enough to preside over this Church. (Elder Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, October 1916, p. 55. Quoted by Loren C. Dunn, in General Conference, Ensign May 1976, p.65-66)
"We who have been called to lead the Church are ordinary men and women with ordinary capacities.” (Boyd K. Packer, "Revelation in a Changing World," Ensign [November 1989]: 16.
"We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators." (James E. Faust, "Continuous Revelation," Ensign [November 1989]: 11)
"I am not a perfect man, and infallibility does not come with the call [of Apostlehood]." (Robert D Hales, Ensign, May [1994]:78)
"the President is not infallible. He makes no claims to infallibility. But when in his official capacity he teaches and advises the members of the Church relative to their duties, let no man who wants to please the Lord say aught against the counsels of the President." (Alma P. Burton, Ensign, Ensign, [October 1972]:6)
Though general authorities are authorities in the sense of having power to administer Church affairs, they may or may not be authorities in the sense of doctrinal knowledge, the intricacies of church procedures, or the receipt of the promptings of the Spirit. A call to an administrative position itself adds little knowledge or power of discernment to an individual. (Elder McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. "General Authority")
With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their problems without inspiration in many instances. (Elder McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. "Prophets")
In addition, I would urge one to read the article on George Smith's response (which includes the reproduction of his letter) in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19:1 (Spring 1986), pp. 35-39 (.pdf of entire issue).
