2017 Statistical Report for 2018 April Conference and Anti-Mormon Conspiracy Theorising

It was announced by the Church during the Saturday morning session of General Conference that the Statistical Report for 2017 would be posted on its Website at the close of the session (in previous years, it would be read out during Conference). Naturally, instead of waiting until the end of the session and checking the Church's Websites, some critics proved their conspiracy-theorist mindset like Bill Reel with the following public facebook post:

Lo and behold, here is the 2017 Statistical Report:

2017 Statistical Report for 2018 April Conference

CHURCH UNITS

Stakes.......................................................... 3,341

Missions.......................................................... 421

Districts........................................................... 553

Wards and Branches................................. 30,506

CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

Total membership............................... 16,118,169

New children of record during 2017......... 106,771

Converts baptized during 2017................ 233,729

MISSIONARIES

Full-time Missionaries ............................... 67,049

Church-service Missionaries...................... 36,172

TEMPLES

Temples dedicated during 2017.......................... 4

(Paris France, Tucson Arizona, Meridian Idaho, Cedar City Utah)

Temples rededicated during 2017....................... 1

(Idaho Falls Idaho)

Temples in operation...................................... 159

As a friend wrote on Reel's post:

Some conspiracy theories can survive for, say, a few years before they are refuted. Some, if they're really good, a few decades.

Bill Reel's conspiracies are so flimsy they don't even last a few hours.

Rachel Adelman on the exchange between David and Uriah

Commenting on the exchange in 2 Sam 11:6-11 between David who just recently impregnated Bathsheba, and her husband, Uriah the Hittite (whom David is urging to have sex with his wife to cover up his misdeed), one scholar noted the following:

David demands that Uriah cross the boundary from public front to the private domain, from soldier to husband, in conformity to military and domestic norms, just as the king had done inversely and illicitly in violating those norms when he lay with Bathsheba. The order is veiled with innuendo: ‘Go down to your house and bathe your feet’ (2 Sam 11.8). The king does not speak of going to his wife but his house [beitekha], not of lying [shkb] with his wife but of washing [rḥtz] his feet. The latter expression may be a euphemism for sexual relations, and resonates with the bathing beauty [‘ishah roḥetzet] that the king had spied from the rooftop (v. 2). When Uriah leaves the palace, the king’s provisions follow, the eating of which may lead to further comestibles. Dissimulation compels the king to prevaricate; he cannot be direct, lest he arouse suspicion. Only by hints and innuendo may suspicion be stymied, the winds of gossip waylaid. The return of Uriah to his house is all that matters.

But . . .

Uriah slept at the entrance of the royal palace [beit ha-melekh], along with the other officers of his lord, and did not go down to his house [beito]. When David was told that Uriah had not gone down to his house [beito], he said to Uriah, ‘You just came from a journey; why didn’t you go down to your house [beitekha]?’ Uriah answered David, ‘The Ark and Israel and Judah are dwelling in Sukkot 9or huts), and my lord Joab and my lord’s men are camped in the open; how can I go home and eat and drink and lie with my wife? As you live, by your very life [ḥayekha ḥay nafshekha], I will not do such a thing!’ (2 Sam. 11.9-11)

In his explanation for why he did not go down to his home to lie with her, Uriah swears on oath that he would not sleep with his wife but with the troops. The question is: Does Uriah know about the adultery and is he provoking the king by refusing to comply? Is he daring fate? Or, in his naïve fealty to the men, does he inadvertently become a foil to the king? Given the opaque nature of the biblical text, we cannot be certain what Uriah knows and what he intends. In not sleeping with his wife, he may be observing a tradition, lost to the contemporary reader, of maintaining ritual purity during ‘holy war’. As Rosenberg notes, Uriah plays the role of ‘orthodox Israelite, quietly observing the wartime soldier’s ban against conjugal relations (cf. 1 Sam. 21.4-7). The significance is double; it compounds the enormity of David’s crime (a violation of a marriage is bad enough; a violation of a marriage under sacred conjugal suspension is a particularly cruel and nasty offence)’. Further, Uriah’s statement may mean more than he intends as the second agent of dramatic irony in the narrative. When he identifies Joab as ‘my lord’, Uriah suggests that authority lies not with the king but elsewhere. Whether he intends the barb or not, the narrative sides with the solider, for ‘lordship’, as ascribed to David, is undermined the moment the king does not sally forth in battle with his troops. Lordship is further lost when David commits adultery with the wife of one of his most loyal soldiers and then has him slain in battle. The trait associated with the king as ‘lord’ is contingent upon military mastery of the battle at the front, as well as ethical mastery of the boundary between the public and private man in the palace and home. Through Bathsheba and Uriah, David violates both domains. (Rachel E. Adelman, The Female Ruse: Women’s Deception and Divine Sanction in the Hebrew Bible [Hebrew Bible Monographs 74; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2017], 174-76; italics in original; emphasis in bold added)

A biblical parallel to the wordplay in Helaman 9:6

In Helaman 9:6, we possibly have a wordplay on the Hebrew terms for “garment” and “treachery” (from בגד bgd). For a discussion, see Non-KJV Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. Such a wordplay on בגד also appears in the book of Genesis. As Rachel E. Adelman notes:

[I]n the story of Joseph’s escapade with the wife of Potiphar, clothing serves as false testimony. The young man’s garment is torn from him by Mrs Potiphar as he flees her lascivious grasp. She then uses the garment as her alibi, both with the servants and with her husband: ‘She kept her garment [bigdo] beside her, until his master came home. Then she told him the same story, saying, “The Hebrew slave whom you brought into our house came to me to play with me; but when I screamed at the top of my vice, he left his garment [bigdo] with me and fled outside”’ (Gen. 39.16-18). The Hebrew term referring to Joseph’s garment, beged, is generic for clothing, though a pun may well be intended, with the resonant biggud (betrayal). Clothing (beged) in the Joseph saga serves as betrayal (biggud), false testimony; the tunic and garment cover for heinous acts—the sale of Joseph into slavery and the married woman’s attempted seduction of the handsome Hebrew slave, whom she later frames with rape. (Rachel E. Adelman, The Female Ruse: Women’s Deception and Divine Sanction in the Hebrew Bible [Hebrew Bible Monographs 74; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2017], 76)

Evidences of the Book of Mormon: Complexity

Book of Mormon Central just posted a new video giving a brief overview of the Book of Mormon's textual complexity:

Evidences of the Book of Mormon: Complexity

To delve more into this topic, pursue the references to the video here.

The Samaritan background to Acts 7:48

In Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Translation and Notes (AB 31; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1965) there is an appendix, “Stephen’s Samaritan Background” (pp. 285-300) based on the work of Dr. Abram Spiro. He offers some evidence, based on Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 and how his recollection of Old Testament events conflicts with the Masoretic text, and based on this, that Stephen was a Samaritan, including:

(a) In the Masoretic text (Gen xi 32) Terah lived 205 years, surviving by sixty years Abraham’s departure from Harran (cf. Gen xi 26, xii 4). But Stephen’s report that Abraham left at his father’s death (vii 4) is in harmony with the Samaritan text in which Terah lived for only 145 years.

(b) God promised Abraham the land but “gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground” (vii 5); this is based on Deut ii 5b. But in the Masoretic text, the noun “inheritance” is found only in ii 5c; in the Samaritan text, however, it also appears in ii 5b.

(c) God told Moses, “I am the God of your fathers” (vii 32); this is based on Exod iii 6. The Masoretic text reads “father”; the Samaritan reading is, however, in the plural.

(d) Stephen’s history from Abraham through Moses depends on Genesis and Exodus. Hence vii 37, mentioning a future prophet like Moses, is not based on Deut xviii 15—which would be an intrusion—but on the Samaritan Book of Exodus which contains a pericope (after xx 17) composed of passages from Deuteronomy and called by the Samaritans the tenth commandment.

 . . .

(j) In Exod xxxii 32-34, Moses pleaded with the Lord to forgive Israel the sin of the golden calf or to bot out his name from the Lord’s book. The Lord replied that he would blot out only the sinners, and bade Moses lead the people to its destination, “nevertheless in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them.” Stephen asserts (vii 41-43) that Amos identifies the saints and the sinners (Amos v 27) by explaining that the divine visitation means the Babylonian exile, for since Judah was exiled into Babylon it follows that the sins of her ancestors had been visited upon her. It also follows that the Jews, descendants of the Judeans, are the progeny of sinners who had already rebelled against Moses when still in Egypt (vii 25-29, 35-40). Stephen or his Samarian precursors accomplished this revision of history by changing “Damascus” into “Babylon” in the text of Amos, thus making the prophet speak of the exile of Judah.

(k) In contrast to the sinners, the saints had a tabernacle of witness made on a heavenly pattern and brought it into Canaan under the leadership of Joshua (vii 44-45)—the Samaritan hero next in importance to Moses. Samaritan tradition maintained that Joshua established the cult of Gerizim, basing this assertion on Joshua xxiv by altering the “sanctuary” (vii 26) to a tabernacle—the standard Samaritan proper (vii 1, 25) to nearby Gerizim. Hence Joshua and the saints fulfilled Stephen’s version of God’s proclamation to Abraham (vii 7)

(l) “So it was until the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God and sought leave to find a habitation for the house of Jacob” (vii 45-46). This depends on Ps cxxxii 4, where David swears not to rest “until I find a place [māqȏm] for the Lord, a dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob.” David’s seeking a “place” for the Samaritans regarded as heresy, for the Lord himself had founded it (vii 7), so Stephen followed Samaritan tradition by only using the second half of the verse and changing it: instead of “the Mighty One (i.e. God) of Jacob,” he has “the house of Jacob.” Thus David did not seek to establish a “tabernacle” (skēnē; cf. vii 43-44) for God, but a “dwelling place,” skēnōma, for Israel. That is, David sought and found Jerusalem as the secular capital. Shechem remained the sacred one. The Samaritans related that David was anointed at the foot of Gerizim and sent his offerings to the “place.” His advisers had importuned him to build a temple in Jerusalem. But the Samaritan high priest dissuaded him.

(m) Solomon’s temple was not only in the wrong “place” but was of human construction (vii 48-50). Because of its heavenly pattern (vii 44) the Gerizim tabernacle was not considered so built. The Old Testament makes clear, however, that heaven was involved in the building of Solomon’s temple (II Sam xxiv 18; I Kings xviii 24, 38; I Chron xxi 18-26, xxviii 19; II Chron iii 1, vii 1; Ps lxxviii 68-69). But the sanctity of a temple is a relative matter, depending on whose temple it is and who the witnesses are. According to the Samaritans, the tabernacle of Gerizim was not made by human hands because the witnesses to its heavenly pattern were Samaritans, as they infer from the Samaritan Pentateuch, which alone they consider canonical. Solomon’s temple was a human construction because it was a Jewish temple and because the witnesses to its heavenly origin were Jewish, that is, the testimony is found in texts which only the Jews consider canonical. (pp. 285, 286-88)

Points J-M are of importance for Latter-day Saints as it sheds important light on Acts 7:48-50, often used by opponents of Latter-day Saint theology against our practice of temple worship and construction of physical temples (cf. Are LDS Temples Condemned by Acts 7:48; 17:24? for a previous discussion of this issue). Notwithstanding, Stephen, if he did have a Samaritan background, is basing his arguments based on (errant, as they contradict the Old Testament) assumptions about Gerizim being God’s chosen, sacred spot, and not Jerusalem, for the Temple.

Some may object as Stephen’s words are in Scripture, ipso facto they are binding and inspired. However, this would not be a good argument. Luke’s recording of Stephen’s speech is inspired, but that does not mean, ipso facto, that all of Stephen’s words are inspired and free from error, his Samaritan prejudices, errant presuppositions, etc. A parallel case is that of the record of Rabshakeh's (and Sennacherib's) words in 2 Kgs 18:28-36 are inspired but does not mean that they are correct in their content.

For those who wish to delve more into the differences between the MT and Samaritan version of the Torah, see:

The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version (Eerdmans, 2013)

Was Saint Patrick a “Proto-Protestant”?

One sometimes finds Protestants, especially those in the Republic of Ireland (where I live) and Northern Ireland, attempt to present St. Patrick (385-461) as a proto-Protestant. The problem is that, apart from being a calumny against him, is also, as with many Protestant appeals to history, utterly bogus. Patrick believed in baptismal regeneration, invocation of saints and angels, rejected eternal security, and the salvific necessity of partaking of the Eucharist. While not problematic for some Protestants, his not being a cessationist would also be problematic, especially for the Reformed camp as would his acceptance of consecrated virgins.

Note the following, taken from The Writings of Patrick the Apostle of Ireland (Christian Classics Series VI; trans. Charles H. H. Wright; London: Religious Tract Society, 1894)

Patrick did not believe in Eternal Security

Although I am in many respects imperfect, I wish my brethren and acquaintances to know my disposition, and that they may be able to comprehend the wish of my soul. I am not ignorant of the testimony of my Lord, who witnesses in the Psalm, ‘Thou shalt destroy those that speak a lie.’ And again, ‘The mouth that belieth killeth the soul.’ And the same Lord says in the Gospel, ‘The idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.’ Therefore, I ought earnestly with fear and trembling to dread this sentence in that day when no one shall be able to withdraw himself, or to hide but when we all together shall render account of even the smallest of our sins before the tribunal of the Lord Christ. (Confessions, I.3 [p. 38])

And I believe I was aided by Christ my Lord, and His Spirit was then crying out for me, and I hope likewise that it will be thus in the days of my oppression. (Confessions, II.9 [pp. 44-45])

If the Lord will, and if He will keep me from every evil way, that I may not sin before Him. But I hope (to do) that which I ought; but I trust not myself, so long as I am in ‘this body of death;’ for strong is he who daily tries to subvert me from the faith, and from the chastity of religion proposed (to myself), not feignedly (which I will observe), even to the end of my life, to Christ my Lord. But the flesh, which is in enmity, always leads to death, that is, to unlawful desires to be unlawfully gratified. And I know in part that I have not led a perfect life, as other believers. But I confess to my Lord, and I do not blush before Him, because I lie not: from the time that I knew him in my youth, the love of God and His fear have increased in me; and until now, by the favour of the Lord, ‘I have kept the faith.’ (Confessions, IV.19 [pp. 57-58])

In this hour of hours,
I place all those powers,
Between myself and every foe,
Who threatens my body and soul
With danger or dole;
To protect me against the evils that flow
From lying soothsayers’ incantations;
From the gloomy laws of the Gentile nations;
From heresy’s hateful innovations;
By these my defenders,
My guards against every ban--
And spells of smiths, and Druids, and women;
In fine, against every knowledge that renders
The light Heaven sends us, dim in
The Spirit and soul of man! (St. Patrick’s Hymn Before Tara, VI [pp. 97-98])

May Christ, I pray,
Protect me today,
Against poison and fire;
Against drowning and wounding;
That so in His grace abounding,
I may earn the preacher’s hire! (St. Patrick’s Hymn Before Tara, VII [p. 98])

Grant us, O Lord, Thy grace and salvation! (St. Patrick’s Hymn Before Tara, XI [p. 99])

The Salvific Efficacy of Baptism and the Eucharist

Perhaps they do not believe that we have partaken of one baptism . . . Thanks be to God, baptized believers, ye have passed from this world to Paradise! (Epistle to Coroticus, 9)

And Patrick said: ‘Do you believe that the sin of your father and mother is taken away by baptism?

They replied: ‘We do believe it.’

[Patrick] ‘Do you believe that there is repentance after sin?’

[Daughters] ‘We do believe it.’

. . .

And they begged to see the fact of Christ. And the saint said to them: ‘Unless you shall have tasted death, you cannot see the face of Christ, and unless you shall receive the sacrifice’ (instead of ‘the sacrifice,’ the Tripartite Lie has, ‘unless you receive Christ’s body and His blood.’) (The Story of Patrick and the Royal Daughters [pp. 87-88])

Patrick did not believe, at justification, one’s then-future sins were forgiven

But hence I ought to give thanks without ceasing to God, who often pardoned my ignorance (and) my negligence, even out of place, not in one instance only—so that He was not fiercely angry with me, as being one who was permitted to be His helper. (Confessions, V.20 [pp. 59-60])

Invocation of Angels

I bind myself today,

To the power of the ranks of cherubim. (Stanza 3 of “The Hymn, or ‘Breastplate’ [p. 32])

May the host of God attend me,

And ward me,

And Guard me,

Against the wiles of demons and devils;

Against temptations of vice and evils. (St. Patrick’s Hymn Before Tara, V [p. 97])

Clericalism

I did not know the true God; and I was taken to Ireland in captivity with so many thousand men, in accordance with our deserts, because we departed from God, and we kept not His precepts, and were not obedient to our priests, who admonished us for our salvation. (Confession, I.1 [p. 36])

Therefore it is very necessary to spread our nets, so that a copious multitude and crowd may be taken for God, and that everywhere they may be clergy, who shall baptize and exhort a people needy and anxious. (Confessions, IV.17 [p. 55])

Consecrated Virgins

Whence, then, has it come to pass that in Ireland they who never had any knowledge, and until now have only worshipped idols and unclean things, have lately become a people of the Lord, and are called the sons of God? Sons of the Scots and daughters of chieftains are seen to be monks and virgins of Christ. (Confessions, IV.18 [p. 56])

For though I am unskillful in names, yet I have endeavoured in some respects to serve even my Christian brethren, and the virgins of Christ, and religious women . . . (Confessions, V.21 [p. 61])

Patrick was not a cessationist

And there indeed one night, in my sleep, I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Thou fastest well [fasting so], thou shalt soon go to thy country.’ And again, after a very short time, I heard a response saying to me, ‘Behold, thy ship is ready.’ And it was not near, but perhaps two hundred miles away, and I never had been there, or was I acquainted with any of the men there. (Confessions II.6 [p. 42])

But hence I ought to give thanks without ceasing to God, who often pardoned my ignorance (and) my negligence, even out of place, not in one instance only—so that He was not fiercely angry with me, as being one who was permitted to be His helper. And yet I did not immediately yield to what was pointed out to me, and (to) what the Spirit suggested. (Confessions, V.20 [pp. 59-60])

Patrick was most definitely not a Protestant or "proto-Protestant"; granted, he was not a proto-Latter-day Saint, nor would I dare suggest such, but it is intellectual dishonesty for those Protestants who suggest Patrick was "Protestant" in his theology.

F.X. Durrwell on the Salvific Efficacy of Christ's Resurrection

The following comments on the salvific efficacy of the resurrection of Jesus are from an excellent work which I only recently encountered:

F.X. Durrwell, The Resurrection: A Biblical Study (2d ed.; trans. Rosemary Sheed; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1960)

On the soteriological importance of the resurrection being downplayed:

There is a widespread idea that the Resurrection is an epilogue; that the whole mystery took place on Calvary, and the drama was brought to its close at the ninth hour on Good Friday. Easer simply tells us of the fate of our hero after his great adventure. His work done, he must come back to life, for “it was impossible that he should be holden by it”. (Acts ii. 24) But Scripture sees the history of your redemption differently. (p. 1)

The Risen Jesus as the Dispenser of the Holy Spirit

The special mark of the risen Christ, which shows him to be the Messiah, is his power to dispose of the riches of the Holy Spirit ([Acts] ii. 33.) The pouring out of the Spirit is the sign that “the last times” are come (ii. 16ff.), and contains all the blessings of the promise; the Spirit is the substance of the promise. (i. 4-8; ii. 33.)

Christ’s use of his power is not in accord with the current messianic ideas. The era starting with the Resurrection is marked by a new relationship between God and his people. And from now on it is Christ who is to form the intersection of this relationship; so much so that all Israel’s communication lines with God, and their only road to salvation, must pass through him. “This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.” (iv. 11-12) (p 12)

On John 17 (the Great High Priestly Prayer):

In his sacerdotal prayer, our Lord asks the Father to complete the Son’s work of salvation by glorifying him: “Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him.” (xvii. 1-2.) His prayer looks beyond his own exaltation to the fulfilment of his mission. He offers to reasons for what he asks. First, his Father will be glorified by it. And then he represents to his Father that he must be glorified if he is to exercise his power of giving life to all things. (xvii. 2.) This second reason might be expressed thus: Glorify your son . . . for you have given to him the task and the power of giving life to men, and he can neither perform the task nor make use of the power unless he be glorified. “The full exercise of [Messianic] power is dependent upon Christ’s entering into the glory of heaven.” (J. Hyby, Le discours de Jésus après la Céne, Paris, 1932, p. 128)

From the next verse (3) onwards we are introduced to the theology of the Redemption on which the fourth gospel is based: The eternal life which Christ in his glory confers upon us is a light; it is the knowledge of the Father and of Christ whom he has sent. The life-light, which came into the world at the moment of the Incarnation, will be diffused in all its fullness over mankind once Christ has passed through his earthly phase and entered into the glory of the Father

This prayer could hardly express more strongly the salvific nature of the Resurrection. It also shows how the paschal theme in the fourth gospel fits in with its basic conception of salvation as coming through the Incarnation. (pp. 22-23)

On Rom 4:25 (cf. 2 Cor 5:14-15)

That the death of Christ also plays a leading part in Paul’s soteriology, no-one ever doubted. We find the importance of the two events balanced in a text which contrasts their two roles in the strictest parallelism: “It is not written only for him, that it was reputed to him unto justice, but also for us, to whom it shall be reputed, if we believe in him that raised up Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the dead, who was delivered up for [δια] our sins and rose again for [δια] our justification” (Rom. iv.23-5.)

The distinction for the Apostle makes between two aspects of the one salvation is curious. And many attempts have been made to dispose of the difficulties it creates and restore the monopoly of the Redemption to Christ’s death alone . . . For Christians, according to St. Paul, Christ’s resurrection is not merely a motive of credibility, a miracle that elicits faith; it is the object of their faith: “If thou . . . believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. x. 9.) And if this faith has power to save us, surely that power must come from its object.

Considering the effectiveness the parallel phrase attributes to Christ’s death, and since the context does not allow of a restrictive interpretation, we must admit a direct connection between the Resurrection and our justification. But since the death of Jesus is of itself sufficient to expiate sin, some exegetes have fixed upon the one relationship which in no way robs the death of its monopoly, the lowest form of causality—exemplar causality. The death of Christ, they say, is an image of our death to sin, the Resurrection if the exemplar of our justification. Some see only an exemplar causality in the opening words, “He was delivered up for our sins”; others destroy the balance of the sentence by letting our Lord’s death bear all the weight of our salvation, while allowing his resurrection no more than the value of an example. That Christ in his glory is an example is frequently stated by the Apostle. (Rom. vi. 4; I Cor. xv. 47-9). But it is a very arbitrary exegesis that sees no more than that here. Christ’s death makes expiation for sin, declares the text; it is not also fully serious in saying that the Resurrection effects our justification? If we are to be faithful to the parallelism of the statement, we must place our Lord’s resurrection beside his death as fully effective for our salvation . . . to this major text we may add another, not at first very striking but most significant: “The charity of Christ presseth us: judging this, not if one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all; that they also, who live, may not now live for themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.” (2 Cor. v. 14-15.) The death and resurrection of Jesus are both working towards our salvation. Each plays a different part in it. If Christ is dead, we who are united to Christ are also dead. This death signifies the end of our life according to the flesh (16ff.) We now have no right to live for ourselves, for this would be to live according to the flesh. Henceforward we shall live for him—and here the Apostle suddenly brings in a new element, Christ’s resurrection—who died and rose again.

This new lie must be linked with the resurrection of Christ, for the Apostle cannot mention one without the other. Our death stands alongside his death; therefore when our new life is spoken o, his resurrection must be, too. Paul leaves it to us to understand his train of thought: “And if one is raised up or all to a new life, we are all raised to that life.” Dead to ourselves in his death, brought to life by his resurrection, we live from now on for him who, for our salvation, died and rose again. (pp. 25, 26-28)

Salvation Given in the Raising Action of God

The phrase “in Christ” was used to indicate our risen Saviour as the principle of our justification. In another phrase, equally dear to him, he identifies the act whereby we are justified with the actual act by which Christ is glorified; we are divinely brought to life by the Father’s act in resurrecting Christ: “Even when we were dead in sins, he hath quickened us together in Christ . . . and hath raised us up with him.” (Eph. ii.5-6; Col. ii.; 12ff.; iii. 3.) The Father has given us life by raising up Christ, we are included in the one life-giving act which was performed for our Lord. (p. 31)

The Resurrection and Jesus’ Role of Mediator in Hebrews:

Our Mediator in Heaven

A priesthood is a mediation, the active presence of one man between God and other men. Christ was already bound intimately to God by his initial grace, but only in the divinizing Resurrection could his closeness to God be fully realized, for before that Christ’s humanity was separated from God by a journey of blood. The author makes the most felicitous use of Psalm [110], in which he finds all the three elements which are to him the basis for the transcendence of Christ’s priestly mediation: sonship, eternity according to the order of Melchisedech, and being seated by the Father. His being present with God in such intimate familiarity is what gives Christ’s mediation its special character, and it is only in his glorification that Christ comes thus to take his place by the Father with his whole being, and more particularly, with that part of his being in which our contact with God in Christ takes place.

This direct proximity to God raises his mediating action to supreme efficacy: “Being consummated, he became to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation, called by God a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech” ([Heb] v. 9-10.) Henceforth he exercises jurisdiction over “the good things to come” (ix. 11), those “marvels of the world to come” (vi. 5), of the world above. There is no reason why a mediation of grace should not have been exercised even during his life on earth, but it did not achieve its fullness of saving power and universality until Christ had drawn his body, which had been held back in the world of sin, into the glory of God. “In his perfection he became the cause of eternal salvation.” We find God and salvation in Christ who has attained consummation, for God’s grace is henceforth open to the world in this man who in all things belonged to our world.

Because of this closeness to God, a new way of intercession is possible to our Mediator. Christ “becomes . . . our paraclete, the advocate taking up our cause, rather as a man of importance might present his client’s case to a prince” (J. Bonsirven, Épitre aux Hébreux, p. 412). This intercession is not now the supplication he once made prostrate and weeping. (v. 7) Christ is seated (i. 3, 13; viii. 1; x 12; xii. 2) beside the Father, and he intercedes for us simply by being there “He is entered . . . into heaven itself, that he may appear now in the presence of God for us.” (ix. 24.) From Christ’s prayers on earth we did not learn that the mere showing of our human nature, that nature which still bore the marks of sin, was an intercession for us. Now this humanity which is ours, which is of our sinful race, has returned to God in the risen Christ, and its presence in the bosom of the Father, showing the seal imprinted upon it in five places, in witness of its death to sin and possession by God, exercises for us a coercion of love on God’s heart. It is as if Christ said: “Father, in thy Son, behold prodigal man returned.” He is now truly present before the face of God for our benefit. (pp. 141-42)

Hoyt Brewster on the Battle of Crooked River and the Death of David W. Patten

In Refuting James Walker on Joseph Smith's Prophecies, I discussed D&C 114 and David Patten who died at the Battle of Crooked River. Hoyt Brewster offered the following commentary on the fate of David W. Patten which fits nicely into my previous discussion:

The Battle of Crooked River

In addressing the Church members on Sunday, 14 October 1838, Joseph Smith cited these memorable words of the One who best knew their meaning: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). One wonders if the Prophet had a foreboding premonition regarding the tragic events that would take place within the next two weeks. And could he have reflected upon a conversation he had with David W. Patten some six months earlier? On that occasion, Elder Patten “made known to the Prophet that he had asked the Lord to let him die the death of a martyr.” The Prophet’s response was, “When a man of your faith asks the Lord for anything he generally gets it.” (A. Wilson Lycurgus, Life of David Patten, 58).

Such a request may seem out of order unless one considers the probability of Divine promptings. Could the Lord have revealed this possibility to David, along with the question, “Would you be willing to die for My sake?”

The great prophet Nephi, who lived at the time the Savior was born into this world, was once promised that “all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will” (Helaman 10:5). It is reasonable to believe that the same promise applied to a latter-day Apostle and man of faith, even David W. Patten.

In any event, Elder Patten’s wish was not long in being granted. On 24 October 1838, an armed mob threatened to give the Mormons in Far West “hell” before noon the next day. Three men were kidnapped by the ruffians, who threatened to kill them. A county judge authorized a company of militia to disperse the mob and retake the prisoners.

About midnight the trumpet sounded in the town square of Far West as volunteers were sought to go to the rescue of the captives. David Patten, a captain in the state militia, responded to the call and was given a command of a company of men. They then proceeded to a spot about fifteen miles south of Far West, where the mobbers were encamped with their prisoners in a bend of Crooked River.

The militia hoped to surprise the mobbers and avoid bloodshed. Early on the morning of 25 October, the group of rescuers arrived at their destination and proceeded to look for the encampment. The silhouettes of the Mormon militia were easily seen as the dawning light began to appear. A shot rang out and “young Patrick O’Bannion reeled out of the ranks and fell mortally wounded” With the watchword of “God and Liberty” impressed on their minds, the militia charged forward at Captain Patten’s command. After exchanging gunfire, close sword combat took place. The mob finally took flight, but one mobber “wheeled, and shot Captain Patten, who instantly fell, mortally wounded.”

David Patten lived long enough to bear his dying testimony to his wife. “Beloved,” he said, “whatever you do else, do not deny the faith.” He followed this appeal with a short prayer and then breathed out his last mortal breath.

On the day of Elder Patten’s funeral, the Prophet pointed at the lifeless body and said, “There lies a man that has done just as he said he would—he had laid down his life for his friends.” (HC 3:175.)

One need not wonder how the Lord felt about this noble servant. In a revelation given in January 1841, the Savior said, “David Patten I have taken unto myself” (D&C 124:130).

One other Latter-day Saint lost his life in addition to Patrick O’Bannion and David Patten. Gideon Carter was shot in the face, which so brutally shattered that none recognized him. His body was retrieved when it was discovered who he was. Seven others were wounded, including James Hendricks, who was shot in the neck and paralyzed from the neck down. Following a priesthood blessing he was able to recover sufficiently that he later went west with the Saints and became a bishop of a Salt Lake City congregation. (Hoyt W. Brewster, Jr., Martyrs of the Kingdom [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1990], 92-94)

Some comments on Succession in the First Presidency and Apostleship

In a sermon dated April 6, 1853, Brigham Young said:

Perhaps it may make some of you stumble, were I to ask you a question—Does a man's being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, no! A man may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the President of the Church. Suffice it to say, that Joseph was the President of the Church, as long as he lived: the people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station, by the voice of the people. Can you find any revelation appointing him the President of the Church? The keys of the Priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or in eternity; but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people; though he held the keys of the Priesthood, independent of their voice. (JOD 1:133)

Commenting on this, Hoyt W. Brewster wrote:

This distinction is made whenever the members of the Church sustain the General Authorities. For example, at the April 1991 general conference, the members sustained “Ezra Taft Benson as prophet, seer, and revelatory and President” of the Church, then shortly after, they sustained “the Counselors [in the First Presidency] and the twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.” (“The Sustaining of Church Officers, Ensign, May 1991, p. 6.) Though the office of prophet and President stand independent of one another, since the days of Joseph Smith, each man called to be President and sustained by the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has also been a prophet. IT is inconceivable that the Saints would reject as the administrative leader of the Church the man who holds the keys of priesthood authority. (Hoyt W. Brewster, Jr., Prophets, Priesthood Keys, and Succession [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991], 30)

Elsewhere (pp. 107-8), Brewster notes:

Inherent within one's ordination to the apostolic office is the right to function within any office in the Church. This includes the authority to serve as the presiding officer in the First Presidency—the President of the Church—if the one ordained becomes the senior apostle.

President Harold B. Lee observed:

The beginning of the call of one to be President of the Church actually begins when he is called, ordained, and set apart to become a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Such a call by prophecy, or in other words, by the inspiration of the Lord to the one holding the keys of presidency, and the subsequent ordination and setting apart by the laying on of hands by that same authority, places each apostle in a priesthood quorum of twelve men holding the apostleship.

Each apostle so ordained under the hands of the President of the Church, who holds the keys of the kingdom of God in concert with all other ordained apostles, has given to him the priesthood authority necessary to hold every position in the Church, even to a position of presidency over the Church if he were called by the presiding authority and sustained by a vote of a constituent assembly of the membership of the Church. ("The Day in Which We Live," p. 28.)

In this respect, note the comments of Elder George Q. Cannon regarding Brigham Young's selection of Elder George A. Smith to serve as a counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

President Young, when he chose brother George A. Smith to be his First Counselor, in the place of Heber C. Kimball, did not lay his hands upon his head to confer upon him any additional power or authority for the position, because brother George A. held the Apostleship in its fulness, and by virtue of that Priesthood he could act in that or in any other position in the Church. He chose other assistant Counselors; he did not set them apart, there was no necessity for it, as they already held the Apostleship. And if he had, he could only have blessed them; he could not bestow upon them any more than they already had, because they had all that he himself had, that is when he chose them from the same Quorum. (Journal of Discourses, 19:235.)

Elder Cannon went on to say that no man who has been ordained to the apostolic office needs to have hands laid on his head and be given any additional authority when called to serve in the presidency of the Church because such a man "already possesse[s] the power, authority and ordination." He noted that such settings apart would not be wrong or improper, but they must be seen as the conferring of a blessing rather than the bestowal of any authority. Such blessings "would not bestow upon him any additional authority or any more keys, presuming that he already had received the fulness of the Apostleship." (Journal of Discourses, 19:236.)

As we enter General Conference weekend and will sustain, as the new president of the Church, Russel M. Nelson, I think one should have these ideas and doctrines in mind.

Anthony Cekada on the Theological Problems of the Novus Ordo Missae

I have been doing some studies recently in the fine-points of Catholic ecclesiology as a side-project, studying the debate about Sedevacantism and related topics (e.g., papal infallibility; canon law; status of Vatican II, etc)

While watching some youtube videos, I encountered one of the more "sane" advocates of the Sedevacantist position (why mention his being "sane"? Dimond brothers . . . enough said . . . ), Anthony Cekada, who was ordained a priest while in the SSPX by Marcel Lefebvre in 1977. He is author of a book, Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI, a volume critiquing the theology of the Novus Ordo Missae. As I have written a number of articles critiquing Catholic theology on the Mass (see the listing of articles at Responding to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)), I found these videos to be rather interesting:

Chapter Overviews of Work of Human Hands

As an aside, the volume can be purchased here. If anyone wishes to purchase a copy of the volume for me, I will not object (if anyone wishes to such, drop me an email at IrishLDS87ATgmaildotcom to send me a copy/get my mailing address or make a donation via paypal to cover the book and shipping to Ireland [$50.00 or so])

Light being both a particle and wave: A Valid Analogy for the Trinity?

It is common for some Trinitarian apologists to appeal to light being both a wave and a particle as a valid analogy for Trinitarian theology (three persons in one being). This was ably answered by Jaco Van Zyl in the comments section of Another Trinity/Monotheism "Debate". Commenting on the use of this analogy by Robert Bowman (Evangelical) in his debate with Dave Burke (Christadelphian), Van Zyl wrote:

Something Dave did not reply to was Bowman’s familiar analogy to light’s dualistic nature (particle/wave).

I have a few qualms with this. Firstly, and I hope Bowman will not make this rather amateurish mistake, this analogy sounds like “proof by illustration.” If, indeed, he is not trying to prove the validity of different “natures” in one “being” by using this example, it still does not do much for Bowman’s argument, and it brings me to my next qualm: Why use an illustration in which different natures of light has been confirmed, to prove the plurality of another (God), when this is exactly what has to be determined? The analogy is also false in that, (and I hope Dave will point this out) God, Elohim, ho Theos, Yahweh, are all proper names. These nouns are never presented as abstract or qualitative attributes but as identities. How Bowman can see a correlation between inanimate light (noun) having different attributes or behaviors (particle/wave) and the personal Yahweh (proper name) subsisting of different persons is more an allusion to Modalism than trinitarianism. Syllogistically, Bowman’s reasoning goes like this:

Premise 1: The Bible presents Yahweh to be one
Premise 2: As with light, being one does not deny having plurality
Conclusion: The Bible presents Yahweh to be a plurality.

Not only does it smack in the face of logic (structural fallacy of affirmative conclusion from negative premise(s)) and exegesis (conceptual range of Yahweh, Elohim, ho Theos), but, to me, is rather demeaning. The quantum physicists he referenced would easily tell us what we could expect if light were a particle alone or a wave alone and they would be honoured for their openhearted honesty. We see, however, that Bowman evades the question of what to expect if the Bible presented Yahweh to be a Unitarian God, or God being one person and one being.

Finally, I’d like to see explicit proof, presented within the cognitive range of ancient Judaism, that the faithful Jews clearly distinguished between the concepts of “being” and “person.” Hebrew words confirming these meanings and concepts would be much appreciated. Sola Scriptura, remember?

Answering a Catholic Apologist on the Veneration of Images

There is a recent Catholic convert from Protestantism, Lizzie Reezay, who has been posting videos defending her decision to embrace Roman Catholicism. While I am glad she has seen the errors of Protestantism (e.g., sola scriptura), she has been playing fast and loose (probably out of ignorance at times) to defend Catholicism. I documented one such example here:

Adolf Von Harnack vs. the Monarchial Episcopacy in Rome

In a recent video, Why People Don't Become Protestant, among her many claims, she states the following about the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) practice of venerating images which she states is an incorrect perception:

If you have a picture of someone kneeling before Mary, kneeling before Mary, it's like, wow, they're worshipping a statue, idolatry . . . they're like worshipping pictures and statues! That's idolatry! (1:09 mark)

And elsewhere, she tries to relegate icons to mere:

Reminders of our Christian family members and it’s the idea that people don’t die; they are in heaven with God right now (2:49 mark)

However, as the Second Council of Nicea states:

[DS 600] (I. Definition) … We, continuing in the regal path, and following the divinely inspired teaching of our Holy Fathers, and the tradition of the Catholic Church, for we know that this is of the Holy Spirit who certainly dwells in it, define in all certitude and diligence that as the figure of the honored and life-giving Cross, so the venerable and holy images, the ones from tinted materials and from marble as those from other material, must be suitably placed in the holy churches of God, both on sacred vessels and vestments, and on the walls and on the altars, at home and on the streets, namely such images of our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Savior, and of our undefiled lady, or holy Mother of God, and of the honorable angels, and, at the same time, of all the saints and of holy men. [DS 601] For, how much more frequently through the imaginal formation they are seen, so much more quickly are those who contemplate these, raised to the memory and desire of the originals of these, to kiss and to render honorable adoration to them, not however, to grant true latria according to our faith, which is proper to divine nature alone; but just as to the figure of the revered and life-giving Cross and to the holy gospels, and to the other sacred monuments, let an oblation of incense and lights be made to give honor to these as was the pious custom with the ancients. “For the honor of the image passes to the original”; and he who shows reverence to the image, shows reverence to the substance of Him depicted in it.

As the twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent states:

[DS 1823] Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be placed and retained especially in the churches, and that due honor and veneration be extended to them, not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them, for which they are to be venerated, or that anything is to be petitioned from them, or that trust is to be placed in images, as at one time was done by the gentiles, who placed their hope in idols [cf. Ps. 134:15 f.], but because the honor which is shown them, is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by means of the images, which we kiss and before which we bare the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ, and venerate the saints, whose likeness they bear. This is what was sanctioned by the decrees of the councils, especially that of the second council of NICEA, against the opponents of Images [see n. 302 ff.].

And elsewhere:

Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished, finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a wantonness of beauty; nor shall men also pervert the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics, into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness. Finally, let so great care and diligence be used by bishops touching these matters, as that there appear nothing disorderly, or unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing profane, nothing indecorous; since holiness becometh the house of God.

In his defense of the Council of Trent, Alphonsus Liguori wrote that images do receive some form of veneration, not only the heavenly prototype of the image:

Some think that we should pray to sacred images the same veneration with which we honour the original: thus, they say that to the images of God is due the worship of latria, to the image of the Blessed Virgin, the worship called hyperdulia, and to the images of the saints, that of dulia. But it is better to say with Bellarmine, that although images should be venerated differently, according to the prototype which they represent, still we should (as was observed in the seventh synod,) pay them not strictly, but in an improper sense, the veneration due to the originals; just as the ambassador of a king receives the same honour which is shown to the sovereign, but only in an improper sense. But as St. Thomas solves this difficulty better than any other author. (2.2, q. 8, a. 3, ad 3.) He says, as the advocates of the first opinion hold, that the worship of latria or dulia, shown to God or the saints, may also be paid to their images; but with this difference, that the worship of the prototypes is absolute, and the veneration of the images relative: thus every difficulty is removed. (Alphonsus M. Liguori, An Exposition and Defence of the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent; Along with a Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers and of the Objections of Fra Paolo Sarpi [Dublin: James Duffy, 1846], 423-24)

§ 2131 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads:

Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.

Reezay is simply ignorant of Catholicism’s teachings on images/icons on this point. For more on this issue, see:

Latter-day Saints and Religious Images

She also further tries to downplay the “Hail Mary” by focusing on the fact that the Greek term translated as “hail” (χαιρε) simply means “hello” (3:38 mark). I will let readers see if such an apologetic works for another prayer, the Hail, Holy Queen (Salve Regina), a very popular prayer (I had to memorise it when I was 7 years of age):

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve: to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O merciful, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary! Amen.

Such is not a mere “hello” directed to Mary—it is a prayer that views Mary as the mediator with Jesus Christ (cf. § 967-970 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church), with Jesus getting a superficial passing reference in this prayer. What Rome teaches about Mary is the single greatest disproof of her claim to be the one true Church. For a fuller discussion on this issue, see my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (2017).