Decerebrate Rigidity and the Death of Shiz

And it came to pass that when Coriantumr had leaned upon his sword, that he rested a little, he smote off the head of Shiz. And it came to pass that after he had smitten off the head of Shiz, that Shiz raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died. (Ether 15:30-31)

While this event might seem very odd to readers of the Book of Mormon, it reflects a biological process called “decerebrate rigidity,” where the upper brain stem (mid-brain) becomes disconnected from the brain itself. Perhaps “the” article, from a non-LDS journal, on this process, is that of:

Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, “Decerebrate Rigidity, and Reflex Coordination of

Movements,” in The Journal of Physiology 22/4 (1898), pp. 319-332.

Sherrington discusses this process in many mammals, including various monkeys. Not the nicest of readings, to be sure, but such studies show that Ether’s record of Shiz, when read from an ancient perspective and using phenomenological language, is much more plausible than critics believe it to be.

One LDS scholar who has appealed to this phenomenon is Gary M. Hadfield, “Neuropathology and the Scriptures,” BYU Studies 33, no. 2 (Spring 1993). On p. 324, Hadfield wrote:

Through the combatants in this story were well acquainted with the wholesale carnage, Shiz’s unique death struggle was so astonishing that his throes were reported in grisly detail. Perhaps Ether and Coriantumr interpreted this astounding incident as a sign of Shiz’s indomitable fighting spirit or refusal to die. However, Shiz’s death struggle illustrates the classic reflex posture that occurs in both humans and animals when the upper brain stem (midbrain/mesencephalon) is disconnected from the brain. The extensor muscles of the arms and legs contract, and this reflex action could cause Shiz to raise up on his hands. Of course, Shiz would not have remained long in this position, and he would have bled to death rapidly through the severed arteries that go to the head.

The brain stem is located inside on the base of the skull and is relatively small. It connects the brain the brain proper or cerebrum, with the spinal cord in the neck. Coriantumr was obviously too exhausted to do a clean job. His stroke evidently strayed a little too high. He must have cut off Shiz’s dead through the base of the skull, at the level of the midbrain, instead of lower through the cervical spine in the curvature of the neck. It is worth noting that critics have questioned this story in the Book of Mormon. But this extraneous detail provides another solid indication that the Book of Mormon is an accurate record. Significantly, this nervous system phenomenon (decerebrate rigidity) was first reported in 1898, long after the Book of Mormon was published.

Dr. Hadfield’s article was summarised in “The Decapitation of Shiz,” Insights: An Ancient Window, 14, no. 11 (1994):2.

Bill McKeever (see Top 17 Reasons Bill McKeever Doesn't Understand the Latter-day Saint Faith) tried to respond to LDS scholars on this point in Headless people don’t do push-ups – The Story of Coriantumr and Shiz. He was soundly refuted by Brant Gardner in Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 6: Fourth Nephi through Moroni (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), pp. 326-27 n. 4, which I will now quote from:

. . . Bill McKeever has responded to the Insights article that summarized Dr.hadfield’s diagnosis:

Hadfield and Welch conclude that “fifty or sixty percent off would easily have been enough to get the job done, leaving Shiz to reflex and die.”

The writers attempt to explain the Book of Mormon phrase “smote off” by saying it doesn’t really mean to completely sever . ..

In order to embrace this theory offered by Hadfield and Welch, are we to now assume that perhaps Nephi didn’t really cut off Laban’s head or that Ammon didn’t really cut of the arms of his attacks? Are we to assume that perhaps Zerahemnah’s scalp was not cut completely off? To draw such a conclusion is to introduce an interpretation that ignores an accepted pattern for similar phrases in other portions of the Book of Mormon. In order to save Joseph Smith’s credibility, both Hadfield and Welch must inject a different interpretation for this one single verse. It is apparent that both Hadfield and Welch seem to be fully aware that a decapitated human has no ability to raise up nor gasp for breath. It is for this reason that they must offer what is certainly a strained excuse.

McKeever’s rebuttal is to the later article where someone (McKeever assumes Welch, but the text does not clearly indicate the writer) has summarized Dr. Hadfield’s earlier article. The article as cited cannot serve as a basis for McKeever’s rebuttal. It may be that McKeever is rebutting someone’s misreading of Hadfield. In any case, McKeever says nothing of the medical data. He appears to accept it. His unique argument is that we must read the text literally. “Off” must mean “completely off.” That argument is parallel to the assumption that all text in the Book of Mormon must be inerrant and read literally. I see no evidence that the translation of the Book of Mormon created such a text. The type of text that we have is one in which the modern historical sensibilities must be read backwards into a text created often for literary effect rather than literalness. In that context, McKeever’s rebuttal is quite beside the point. The text is certainly not written in such a way that the conditions of literalness that would support his argument are present.

George Reynolds, “Shiz—the Headless,” Improvement Era 3 no. 8 (June 1905), on GospelLink 2001, CD-ROM (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), describes several occasions where unusual continuations of body movement were witnessed after certain decapitations. I don’t consider these to be medically equivalent, though they are certainly similar.

Although the medical data does not really care if the head is completely severed or not, the above does show that McKeever is, as always, on an exegetical fishing trip without knowing how to fish in the first place (and he has forgotten to bring the fishing poles, too).

Before the Bible: Dr. Joshua Bowen

The NonSequitur Show just posted their interesting interview with Dr. Joshua Bowen, an Assyriologist:

Before the Bible: Dr. Joshua Bowen

Eta Linnemann on Truth and Subjectivity in Modern Biblical Scholarship

In a subheading entitled “Truth and Subjectivity,” Eta Linnemann, in her criticism of certain aspects of modern biblical scholarship, wrote the following which is all the more relevant today than when she originally penned the following:

Among the upcoming generation of scholars a resignation regarding the truth often prevails. This resignation shows itself in theories of subjectivity. Actually, the logical corollary of this ought to be the end of scientific work in theology, but this conclusion is not taken seriously. The question arises, though, whether science is serving merely as a means of self-realization. One should not overlook, however, the good conscience that theological faculties can maintain about their work in view of the relation between supply and demand which exists as long as churches generally make formal study in these faculties a binding requirement.

Increasingly the younger generation of theologians is being infiltrated by socialism. God’s saving purpose and eternal redemption in Jesus Christ are replaced by human goals of world improvement. These goals are veiled in arbitrarily selected words of the so-called “historical Jesus,” who is interpreted as a social reformer or as a revolutionary, depending on what the interpreter desires. Preferred texts include the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and the discourse on world judgement (Matt. 25:31-46), as well as Jesus’ words regarding the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28). In the last passage the term son of man in verse 28 is taken to mean simply man, which is linguistically possible. Jesus’ table fellowship with tax collectors are sinners (e.g. Mark 2:15-17) is taken as proof that he changed unjust social structures and that we should imitate him in this.

Characteristic of this approach is the theory of projection. The Old Testament is or the most set aside as irrelevant as to us because it is, entirely, or in part, merely an intellectual construction, a projection. It is the result of then-current patriarchal social structures and reflects ancient agrarian production conditions; the Old Testament had the function of justifying and lending stability to these structures and conditions. According to this theory, even the ten commandments are no longer normative for us. Jesus is said to have abolished them with the commandment to love. But what love means is not derived from God’s Word, but is rather determined by sensual means.

The prophets are ranked as social reformers. Amos serves as the alibi for this. (Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology of Ideology?—Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical [trans. Robert Yarbrough; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1990], 92, emphasis in bold added)

Does Ephesians 2:15 Pose a Problem to LDS Soteriology?

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace. (Eph 2:15)

Recently, a Reformed online critic of LDS theology has used this verse as evidence against Latter-day Saint soteriology. His “reasoning” is that, as Paul states that the Christ event resulted in the abolishment of “ordinances,” ipso facto, LDS theology is wrong for teaching the salvific efficacy of “ordinances.” There are many problems with such.

Firstly, the critic is guilty of a common logical fallacy—equivocation. The “ordinances” Paul speaks about refers to one of the three divisions of the Law of Moses. For a fuller discussion, see

Does Galatians 2:20 and Colossians 2:14 support Forensic Justification?

As one Protestant commentator noted about Eph 2:15:

15. The phrase (v. 15a) about the rendering ineffective of the Law again evinces AE’s love of a succession of similar words (Percy, 189). ὁ νόμος is not law in general but, as the context indicates, the Jewish Torah; AE only uses the word here but since he shows indebtedness to Paul’s teaching on justification (2:8–10) we can assume that he rejects any idea of salvation through the Law. ἐντολή is used again in 6:2 of one of the ten commandments, implying that these continue to have value for AE. In contrast to ὁ νόμος the plural refers to the individual prescriptions of the Law (cf Sellin). ἐν δόγμασιν, though omitted by 𝔓⁴⁶ vg^ms, fits AE’s style too well for it to be a gloss; it could easily have been dropped as apparently redundant.⁴⁴. Col 2:14, a passage not unrelated to ours, also uses the noun, and both there and here it probably means ‘legal decrees or regulations’ (possibly a usage of the Pauline school for it is not used by Paul) and its meaning is then similar to ἐντολή. As often in Ephesians it is impossible to differentiate fully between almost synonymous words coming in sequence. There is no reason to see a reference either to a new law given by Christ or to Christian doctrine (cf Chrysostom; Harless has a long discussion of all the possibilities) as rendering the Jewish Law ineffective. Nothing AE writes suggests that he would differ from Paul in seeing the Law as abrogated by anything other than the cross; the whole context of 2:14–18 has that death in view. The two nouns AE has put in the plural suggest that he envisages here the actual regulations of the Law which showed up the differences between Jews and Gentiles and created hostility. There is nothing in the context to suggest AE is thinking only of circumcision and regulations about purity and food (so many commentators). It can be argued that Col 2:14–22 relates to ritual laws (cf Faust, 117) but if so that limitation arises out of the context of Colossians and cannot determine the meaning here. The distinction between moral and ritual laws is by no means hard and fast and is not one which the Law itself drew; the law of retaliation is not ritual yet it is abrogated (Matt 5:38–42). It is therefore better to regard the whole law as at issue here.

As for καταργήσας the verb appears only here in Ephesians but is found regularly in the genuine Paulines, sometimes in relation to law (Rom 3:31; 7:2, 6). Presumably AE and his readers were aware of this usage. If in 6:2 AE quotes approvingly from the Decalogue and if he himself sets down moral rules in 4:1ff, it is unlikely that he would regard law as such as abolished or destroyed; yet it can no longer be a means of salvation (see 2:8–10) and used to enforce the separation of Jew and Gentile. AE thus expresses in his own way what Paul says about the ending of the Law through Christ (Rom 7:4; 10:4; Gal 3:13), but unlike Paul he makes no attempt to defend the Law or claim that it is good (cf Rom 3:31; 7:12, 14; 13:8–10). Has the Law then no continuing function? The Law as the duty of love remains and binds both Jews and Gentiles. Lastly in view of the horizontal—vertical ambivalence of the passage it may be that AE thinks at this point of the Law as separating Jew from Gentile and also both from God.

The three participial clauses are now succeeded by two final clauses (vv. 15b, 16) giving the purpose for the removal of the wall and the making of Law of no effect. To what are they to be attached? For their basis they require something more important than v. 15a which is itself either subordinate to v. 14bc or in apposition to it (Mussner notes the absence of any introductory particle). They cannot depend directly on v. 14b since v. 15b expresses the same basic thought as v. 14b. The intervention of v. 15a makes direct dependence on v. 14c improbable and in any case v. 14b and v. 14c are tied together. Probably then vv. 15b, 16 relate to the whole of vv. 14–15a since the same concepts, peace, enmity, two, one, making (creating), he (in his flesh, in himself), run through both sets of clauses; vv. 15b, 16 give them a new context. In scripture creation is normally the prerogative of God (so in 2:10) but here Christ creates, as also in Col 1:16; Jn 1:3. (Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998], 259-61)

Such is not how Latter-day Saints use the term “ordinance.” "Ordinances" in Latter-day Saint terminology are not the Jewish ceremonial laws and other elements of the Torah that were abrogated with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Instead, they are rites or ceremonies essential to salvation and exaltation (e.g., baptism; the sacrament/Eucharist; temple endowment).

Secondly, if our Reformed critic were consistent, he would have to conclude that Paul, whom Protestants love to wrench out of context, was under his own condemnation, for in Rom 6, among other key soteriological texts, Paul explicitly taught baptismal regeneration:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection. (Rom 6:1-5, NASB)

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

John Greer vs. the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration

Even Jesus would not avoid such an eisegetical reading of Eph 2:15, for he taught baptismal regeneration in John 3:3-5. While such is contested by Reformed Protestants, for an exegetical defense of this reading of the pericope, see:

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7

Lest our Reformed apologist is tempted to argue that Jesus’ words in John 19:30 (“It is finished” [τετελεσται]) supports his contention, one should read the following:

Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30

Indeed, even in Ephesians itself, Paul explicitly taught baptismal regeneration. Note the following from  J.C. Kirby, Ephesians Baptism and Pentecost: An Inquiry into the Structure and Purpose of the Epistle to the Ephesians (London: SPCK, 1968):

Eph 4:4-6

[T]he inclusion of baptism in this formula is an indication of its importance in the mind of our author, for in some ways it is the key word around which all the others are grouped. It is by one Spirit that we are baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12.13), it is at baptism that confession of faith in the Lord is made (Rom. 10.9), and it is the fact of our baptism which gives us the right to call God our Father. (Rom. 8.15: “we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” is probably a reference to liturgical prayer, which could not be shared by the unbaptized.) The connection between baptism and unity is found in Galatians 3.27-28 and 1 Corinthians 12.12-13. (p. 151)

Eph 5:25-27

It has been argued that the phrase “having cleansed her y the washing of water with the word”, refers to a ceremonial bath taken by a bride before her marriage, but the majority of commentators hold that it refers to baptism, and that “the word” is either a baptismal formula pronounced over the candidate or a confession of faith made by him. In all probability the latter is the right interpretation, for there is no evidence in any of the early liturgies of a sacred form said by the minister of the sacrament while the candidate is immersed in the water. In Hippolytus, for example, the candidate is given a threefold interrogation: “Do you believe in God the Father Almighty? And in Jesus Christ . . . ? And in the Holy Spirit in the Holy Church?” To each of the questions he answers, “I believe”, and he is immersed after each answer.

In attempting to bring out the full meaning of baptism the author is not consistent in his use of imagery. Christ as the bridegroom administers the sacramental washing of baptism to the Church and at the same time acts as the one who presents the bride to her husband. The analogy breaks down towards the end of the passage (v. 32), for here Christ and the Church together constitute the new Adam, the bride has become the body.

The experience of the individual candidate in baptism is, in this passage, transferred to the life of the Church as a whole. She passed through death with Christ when he died on the cross for her (cf. 2.16), and the individual member’s baptism is an acceptance of that fact. It is also an eschatological fact. (pp. 151-52)

The References to “the seal of the Spirit”

“In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory” (1.13-14). “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption (4.30). Though the word “baptism” does not occur here, both these passages must refer to baptism. The combination of “hearing”, “believing”, and “baptism” is a frequent one in Acts (8.12; 16.14-15; 18.8); in Ephesians, “sealing” takes the place of “baptism”, but that it means the same thing can be shown from the total context of the first passage; presumably therefore the second reference would carry the same meaning. The metaphor of sealing must have been a well-known one or more explanation of it would have been given.

The whole sentence from which the first passage comes is an expansion of one of the phrases found at the beginning of it: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing” (I.3). These “spiritual blessings” are election (v. 4), sonship (v. 5), redemption (v. 7), knowledge (v. 9), the Spirit (v. 13), and the inheritance (v. 14). These blessings were all given to those addressed when they heard, believed, and were sealed Since the last three verbs are all aorists, they must refer to events at a definite point of time in the past. Now Paul uses the word “seal” of circumcision in Romans 4.11, where he says of Abraham that “he received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith, while he was still uncircumcised”. Here he is using a Jewish metaphor, not coining one of his own. It is found in the berakah that was said at circumcision: “Blessed art though . . . who didst sanctify Isaac the well-beloved . . . and seal his offspring with the sign of the holy covenant.” From this Jewish usage the metaphor passed over into Christianity and was widely used as a synonym for baptism. Whether it was made to refer to the actual immersion itself or to an anointing which took place afterwards it is impossible to say, for the evidence can be read both ways. It could not have been a cross marked on the forehead with water, for the method of baptism would make this superfluous, but even if it were an anointing with oil, the metaphor is an inappropriate one, since no visible mark would be left. We do not know who was the first to use it, but it was probably Paul, for he refers to baptism as a kind of circumcision in Colossians 2.11; a simple extension of the metaphor would have led him to think of baptism as a sealing. The same metaphor is found in 2 Corinthians I.22, where it is used in an eschatological context and where the word “anointing” is also used. Since the word “anointing” is applied only to Christ in the rest of the New Testament, and in Acts 10.38 is definitely associated with his baptism, we may reasonably conclude that in the text of Corinthians Paul had baptism in mind. The association of the same ideas in Ephesians leads to the same conclusion. The second passage (4.30) is even more eschatological in tone. In the Spirit believers have been marked as God’s very own, so that they will be recognized as such on the day of the final deliverance. Again the aorist marks a definite point in the past, when the invisible presence of “the Holy Spirit of God”—we may note in passing the solemn liturgical phrasing—was given to the believer. (pp. 154-55)

Elsewhere in his letters, Paul commanded, based on oral tradition originating from Jesus himself(!), that believers are to partake of the Eucharist (“sacrament”) as often as they meet with one another:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. (1 Cor 11:23-30, NASB)

Such is another instance of where, as if often the case, a Reformed apologist’s “arguments” against the LDS Church, when examined carefully, not only are blown out of the water with logic and exegesis, but would be, if taken logically, an attack on the explicit teachings of the biblical authors (here, among others, the apostle Paul and Jesus himself!) Perhaps Jordan should have read John Calvin on this point, who (correctly) noted that this verse is speaking of works of the Mosaic Law:

Even the law of commandments contained in ordinances. What had been metaphorically understood by the word wall is now more plainly expressed. The ceremonies, by which the distinction was declared, have been abolished through Christ. What were circumcision, sacrifices, washings, and abstaining from certain kinds of food, but symbols of sanctification, reminding the Jews that their lot was different from that of other nations; just as the white and the red cross distinguish the French of the present day from the inhabitants of Burgundy. Paul declares not only that the Gentiles are equally with the Jews admitted to the fellowship of grace, so that they no longer differ from each other, but that the mark of difference has been taken away; for ceremonies have been abolished. If two contending nations were brought under the dominion of one prince, he would not only desire that they should live in harmony, but would remove the badges and marks of their former enmity. When an obligation is discharged, the handwriting is destroyed, —a metaphor which Paul employs on this very subject in another Epistle. (Col 2:14).

Jeff Lindsay, Joseph the Amusing Teller of Tall Tales: Lucy Mack Smith's Puzzling Statement in Perspective

On his Mormanity blog, Jeff Lindsay has soundly refuted a long-abused passage from Lucy Mack Smith's memoirs:

Joseph the Amusing Teller of Tall Tales: Lucy Mack Smith's Puzzling Statement in Perspective

Jonathan Neville makes a guest appearance in the comments section. To see that he cannot be taken seriously on anything, see, for e.g.

Gregory L. Smith, “From the Sea East Even to the Sea West”: Thoughts on a Proposed Book of Mormon Chiasm Describing Geography in Alma 22:27

Matthew Roper, The Treason of the Geographers: Mythical “Mesoamerican” Conspiracy and the Book of Mormon

Idem, John Bernhisel’s Gift to a Prophet: Incidents of Travel in Central America and the Book of Mormon

Matthew Roper, Paul Fields, and Larry Bassist, Zarahemla Revisited: Neville’s Newest Novel

Some recent items from Robert Gagnon

Still battling my recent bout of illness, so sorry for not being as active on this blog as I would like to be. Here are two interesting items from Dr. Robert Gagnon, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (2001) (a must-read):

Don’t Be Silly: Paul’s Indictment of Homosexual Practice Is Not Limited to Idolatrous Contexts (a devastating critique of Keith Giles, Why Romans Doesn't Condemn Homosexuality)

Dr. Gagnon's recent interview about the draconian bill, AB 2943 on the issue of LGBT Counseling can be found here.

J.B. Lightfoot on Colossians 2:12

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (Col 2:12)

Commenting on Paul’s teaching of baptismal regeneration and the importance of Christ’s resurrection for our salvation in this verse, J.B. Lightfoot (1828-1889) wrote:

Baptism is the grave of the old man and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges, thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life. That it is, because it is not only the crowning act of his own faith but also the seal of Gods adoption and the earnest of God’s Spirit. Thus baptism is an image of his participation both in the death and in the resurrection of Christ . . . δια την πιστεως κ.τ.λ.] ‘through your faith in the operation,’ ενεργειας being the objective genitive. So St Chrysostom, πιστεως ολον εστιν’ επιστευσατε οτι δυναται ο θεος εγειραι, και ουτως ηγερθητε. Only by a belief in the resurrection are the benefits of the resurrection obtained, because only so are its moral effects produced. Hence St Paul prays that he may ‘know the power of Christ’s resurrection’ (Phil. iii. 10). Hence too he makes this the cardinal article in the Christian’s creed, ‘if thou . . . believest in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved’ (Rom. x.9). (J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon [6th ed.; London: Macmillian and Co., 1882], 184, 185)

Donald Guthrie on the Authenticity of 2 Thessalonians and James

Related to my earlier post today, I have had not much time to write in the past few days due to illness (for those who wish to help with my research and medical bills, one can make a donation at paypal or/or GoFundMe; prayers/positive thoughts for my recovery, not just from this illness, but just from the poor health I suffer from quite a bit, are always welcome, too!), but I wished to reproduce the following interesting excerpts defending the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians and James from Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1970)

The Eschatology of 2 Thessalonians and Pauline Authorship

Eschatology

A change of approach is alleged in the second Epistle as compared with the first in respect of the parousia. Here it is less imminent, for certain events must first take place. Some of the earlier critics attempted to heighten the problem by supposing that the ‘man of sin’ was intended to be identified with Nero Redivivus, which meant that the Epistle could not have been earlier than the last decade or two of the first century, i.e. too late for Pauline authorship. But there has been a change in the twentieth century towards the whole subject of eschatology. As Neil points out, time sequence does not arise in eschatological thought, and to attempt to date documents on such grounds must inevitably lead to a false trail. It must further be borne in mind that 1 Thessalonians v. 1-11 presupposes some knowledge of eschatological signs on the part of the readers, which suggests that Paul had given them some oral instruction in that matter. While the section about the ‘man of sin’ finds no parallel in 1 Thessalonians, there is no reason to deny that Paul could have written it. Earlier attempts to regard it as an independent apocalypse which was later attached to the Epistle are not now favoured. The work of Bousset on the antichrist legend has shown that the background of it must be largely found in Jewish apocalyptic thought and that the man of sin is therefore the Pseudo-Messiah and not some historical person such as Nero as formerly proposed. Had the Nero Redivivus myth been in mind in this passage it would at once date it as post-Pauline. Because of the close similarities between the passage and Mark xiii it is reasonable to suppose that Paul was acquainted with Jesus’ eschatological teaching. In that case no weighty objection can be lodged against the language here. A sufficient explanation of the different eschatological emphasis is the need to answer a misunderstanding which had not arisen then 1 Thessalonians was written. The change is not in eschatology but in viewpoint due to changing circumstances. (570-72)

Is the Greek of James a Refutation of the Traditional Authorship of the Epistle?

The style of Greek is generally good and cultured and this fact has been regarded as conclusive against the traditional view. Thus Dibelius makes the categorical statement, ‘The style is frequently cultured, the Greek vocabulary large, the entire diction not that of a man, whose real language was Aramaic.’ While admitting the good quality of the Greek, which has been pronounced by competent authorities to be among the best in the New Testament, some modifications are necessary. Oesterley has drawn attention to some indications of a Hebrew background to the language, while Ropes admitted that the language was Koiné with a biblical tine. Rendall went so far as to maintain with some cogency that the author’s hand ‘is not that of a skilled or practised writer, with easy command of his resources or his pen’.

With these modifications regarding the Greek style, the act still remains that it is paradoxical that one of the most Jewish letters in the New Testament should have been written by an author apparently so much at home in the Greek language, and some sympathy must be felt for the objection that a Galilaean could not have acquired such facility, since his native language was Aramaic. Yet this appears to be largely an a priori argument. It clearly can neither be proved nor disproved that James, a Galilaean, was incapable of writing this Epistle. It has been maintained that there was nothing to induce James to learn Greek since all his dealings appear to have been with Jewish Christians. But this opinion takes insufficient account of the known bilingual character of Gaililee. There were many Greek towns in that district, and because of this it must surely be assumed that it was in the power of any Galilaean to gain a knowledge of Greek. If a priori arguments are to be used, it would be more reasonable to assume that James was bilingual than the reverse.

Yet the problem still remains whether a peasant could have acquired sufficient education to write the type of Greek found in the Epistle, even supposing him to have been bilingual from early years. Rendall answered emphatically in the affirmative, maintaining that the Jewish people were the most literary of all the Mediterranean nations and citing the LXX as evidence of the Jewish adoption of Hellenism. Oesterley on the other hand admitted the possibility of such learning, but denied the probability. The question cannot be decided conclusively on a priori suppositions. But one consideration would appear to tip the balance in favour of James being bilingual, and that is his position as leader of the Jerusalem church. Constant travellers to and from Jerusalem would bring him in touch with people from various parts and the majority of them would undoubtedly be Greek speaking. It may even be argued with some cogency that the opportunities for public speaking and debate would develop in him some mastery of the rhetorical style such as vivid illustrations and rhetorical questions. Again there is a reasonable possibility that James may have employed a Greek amanuensis. On the whole, it would seem that not much importance should be attached to the objections based on language and it is significant that most weight is not placed on other considerations. (747-49)

R.K. Harrison on the mention of "Cyrus" in Isaiah and the Book of Isaiah as an "Anthology"

I have been ill on and off the past month, and in the past week, have been bedridden due to near constant migraines, head cold, etc. I have managed to read a few books, although have not managed to write much, so sorry for those who follow this blog for not having been as active in the past few days as I tend to be. Due to my illness, I have lost my voice, so my Webinar on Sola Scriptura, scheduled for this Saturday, has been postponed.

Notwithstanding, I thought I would share some excerpts from one volume I recently acquired:

R.K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press, 1969)

On the mention of “Cyrus” in Isa 44:28 and 45:1

Against the objection—made as a result of the critics’ minimizing of the purely predictive element in prophecy—that it would be without precedent for the name of Cyrus to be mentioned more than a century and a half in advance, it was pointed out that other prophetic utterances also applied to events far of in the future. Conservative scholars cited the prophecy which foretold the name of Josiah more than three centuries prior to his birth (1 Kgs. 13:1f.), the mention of Bethlehem by Micah (Mic. 5:2 = Matt. 2:6), the contemporary of Isaiah, as the birthplace of the Messiah, and the subjugation of Tyre by the Babylonians as promised by Ezekiel (26:2ff.) and Zechariah (9:1ff.). The first of these prophecies was particularly embarrassing to critical scholars, since there was no possibility of textual corruption in loco. However, on the basis of their insistence that there was no predictive element in prophecy, they tried to dismiss the problem, or more commonly, to avert the critical gaze from it. (775-76)

The Book of Isaiah as an “Anthology”

The Book as an anthology. The present writer holds to the view that Isaiah, like the majority of other extant prophetic writings, represents an anthology of utterances given at various times, and as such the work merits no different treatment from that accorded the other major Old Testament prophecies. In this connection it is important to note that arguments based upon differences of style or literary expression are immediately vitiated by this approach, since an anthology may be taken quite fairly as representing the total style of the author over the different periods of his creative activity. Justification for describing the work as an anthology in the best sense of that terms is furnished by the opening verse of the prophecy, which constitutes a heading for the work, and speaks specifically of the revelatory material that Isaiah the son of Amoz received in visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem in days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. As with all anthologies it is fairly evident that the book contained only a selection of the available prophetic oracles and sermons, and it is highly probably that Isaiah produced considerably more material than has survived in his book. The nature of the prophecy as an anthology is further indicated by the presence of superscriptions in Isaiah 2:1 and 13:1, which may have represented, or pointed to the presence of, earlier collections of prophetic utterances.

Although it constitutes a work of this special kind, the prophecy must not be regarded as a rather arbitrary selection of discourses put together in a disconnected form. That a particular device of literary mechanics familiar in antiquity was employed in the construction of the book will be made plain subsequently. For the present, however, it should be noted that there was a certain chronological arrangement apparent in the material as extant, for in the first thirty-nine chapters the prophecies in chapters 2-5 appear to have come from the earlier period of the ministry of Isaiah, while Isaiah 7:1-9:7 probably originated during the Syro-Ephraimite conflict, about 734 B.C. Chapters 18-20 may have been the product of activity between 715 and 711 B.C., though this fact cannot be established with any degree of certainty.

The historical section comprising chapters 36-39, which exhibits only minor variations from 2 Kings 18:13-20:19, has been held to be later than Isaiah, since it mentions the death of Sennacherib (681 B.C.) (Isa. 37:38), which would be later than the time of Isaiah, unless the prophet survived into the reign of Manasseh (687/86-642/41 B.C.), as Jewish tradition has maintained. It may be, of course, that this historical material was assembled by the disciples of Isaiah rather than by the prophet himself, although this is naturally unknown. What does seem more difficult to maintain, however, is the view that chapters 36-39, in which Isaiah played a prominent part, were actually extraneous and specifically non-Isaianic in origin. (780)

"After all we can do"-like terminology in works contemporary with the Book of Mormon

In a rather informative public note on facebook Daniel McClellan has provided many examples of "after" (as in "after all we can do" [2 Nephi 25;23]) to denote "despite all we can do" in works contemporary with the Book of Mormon, serving as another nail in the coffin that 2 Nephi 25:23 teaches a form of legalistic soteriology. Here are the examples he provides:

"She replied, 'Could not me help it. My heart, he would wicked for all. Could not me make him good, (meaning, she saw it was right she should go to hell, because her heart was wicked, and would be so after all she could do to mend it.)"

- Sereno Edwards Dwight, Memoirs of the Rev. David Brainerd, 1822, p. 261

_______________________________________________________________

"But your own wisdom and greatness must be laid in the grave—it is after all you can do, the free and unmerited gift of God."

- John Hersey, The Importance of Small Things, 1831, p. 20

_______________________________________________________________

". . . the Son of man, who came not to be ministered unto, but to minister: yet, after all we can do or bear for him, let our trust still be in the merits of his righteousness and blood who gave his life a ransom for many."

- Edward Greswell, A Harmony of the Four Gospels, 1833, pp. 278–79

_______________________________________________________________

"The reason is, they have no desire for that in which holiness consists; the fountain still remains corrupt. And after all they can do, without this Divine influence on the heart, they remain utterly unprepared for the kingdom of heaven."

- The Evangelical Magazine, vol. II, 1834, pp. 493–94

_______________________________________________________________

"True, you cannot merit heaven by this. Most true, that your salvation must be at last ‘by grace through faith;’ and that the only righteousness of your Lord and Saviour. But then though this be true,—though after all you can do, you will still find reason to mourn over the hardness of your heart and the coldness of your affections, and be forced to acknowledge yourselves unprofitable servants . . ."

- John H. Hopkins, The Importance of Providing Religious Education for the Poor, 1835, p. 29

_______________________________________________________________

"Here there is an evident misstatement; there is no merit in the performance of the conditions; after all we can do we are unprofitable servants, the performance of any condition can no more obtain for us eternal life than our own natural strength can move the universe; eternal life is the free gift of God."

- William Brudenell Barter, Observations on a Work by Mr. Bickersteth, 1836, p. 17

_______________________________________________________________

"This satisfaction is to be made by means of fasts, alms, penances, and other meritorious deeds, performed in obedience to priestly injunction. But after all that the poor papist can do, though he be ever so obedient and dutiful, there is a heavy balance against him; for this, however, holy church has not forgotten to provide."

- Joseph Frederick Berg, Lectures on Romanism, 1840, p. 207

Will Durant on the Development of the Veneration of Images

Speaking on the development of the veneration of images, which would later become dogmatically defined at the Second Council of Nicea (AD 787), Will Durant wrote:

The Old Testament (Deut. iv, 15) had explicitly forbidden any “graven image of any figure, male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth.” The early Church had frowned upon images as relics of paganism, and had looked with horror upon pagan sculptures purporting to represent the gods. But the triumph of Christianity under Constantine, and the influence of Greek surroundings, traditions, and statuary in Constantinople and the Hellenistic East, had softened this opposition. As the number of worshipped saints multiplied, a need arose for identifying and remembering them; pictures of them and of Mary were produced in great number; and in the case of Christ not only His imagined form but His cross became objects of reverence—even, for simple minds, magic talismans. A natural freedom of fancy among the people turned the holy relics, pictures, and statues into objects of adoration; people prostrated themselves before them, kissed them, burned candles and incense before them, crowned them with flowers, and sought miracles from their occult influence. In Greek Christianity especially, sacred images were everywhere—in churches, monasteries, houses and shops, even on furniture, trinkets, and clothes. Cities in danger from epidemic, famine, or war tended to rely upon the power of the relics they harbored, or on their patron saints, rather than on human enterprise. Fathers and councils of the Church repeatedly explained that the images were not deities, but only reminders thereof; the people did not care to make such distinctions . . . Constantine [the fifth] exacted from Leo IV (775-80) an oath to continue the Iconoclastic policy; Leo did what he could despite his weak constitution. Dying, he named his ten-year-old son Constantine VI as emperor (780-97), and nominated his widow, the Empress Irene, as regent during the youth’s minority. She ruled with ability and without scruple. Sympathizing with the religious feelings of the people and her sex, she quietly ended the enforcement of the Iconoclast edicts; permitted the monks to return to their monasteries and their pulpits, and convinced the prelates of Christendom in the Second Council of Nicea (787), where 350 bishops, under the lead of papal legates, restored the veneration—not the worship—of sacred images as a legitimate expression of Christian piety and faith. (Will Durant, the Story of Civilization, vol. 4: The Age of Faith: A History of Medieval Civilization—Christian, Islamic, and Judaic—from Constantine to Dante: A.D. 325-1300 [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950], 425-26, 427)

Further Reading

Latter-day Saints and Religious Images

The Synod of Elvira vs. Second Nicea on Veneration of Images

Answering a Catholic Apologist on the Veneration of Images

Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church From the Original Documents, vol. 5: A.D. 626 to the Close of the of the Second Council of Nicea, A.D. 787

A Philosophical Look at God - Blake T. Ostler

The LDS Perspectives podcast just posted the following from Blake Ostler:

A Philosophical Look at God - Blake T. Ostler

It discusses the Latter-day Saint understanding of God and discusses such philosophical/theological issues such as why Blake (correctly) rejects the theory God exists outside of time.

Blake and two of his sons, Corey and Jacob, have been producing podcasts based on Blake's three-volume Exploring Mormon Thought series here, which are also highly recommended.

D.A. Carson et al on the authorship of Matthew

Discussing the traditional attribution of authorship of the tax collector Levi/Matthew to the Gospel of Matthew, D.A. Carson et al. offered, among other points, the following about the traditional authorship:

3. The assumption that Matthew was a tax collector (essentially a minor customs official collecting tariff on goods in transit) and was the author of the gospel makes sense of a number of details. Not all the evidence cited is equally convincing. A number of peculiarly Matthean pericopes do depict financial transactions (17:24-27; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 26:15; 27:3-10; 28:11-15), but none of them betrays an insider’s knowledge of the customs system. Certainly a customs official in Matthew’s position would have had to be fluent in both Aramaic and Greek, and such fluency must have been important when the gospel was first crossing racial barriers: indeed, it squares with the notion of a gospel written in Greek that nevertheless could draw on Semitic sources. C.F.D. Moule suggests that 13:52 is a subtle self-reference by the author: the “scribe” (γραμματευς [grammateus], NIV “teacher of the law”) who becomes a disciple should not be understood as a reference to a rabbinic scribe but to a “scribe in the secular sense,” that is, a well-educated writer. Goodspeed goes further yet: after compiling impressive evidence that shorthand was widely practiced in the Roman world, he suggests that Matthew’s training and occupation would have equipped him to be a kind of notetaker or secretary for the group of disciples, even during Jesus’ ministry. The theory is plausible enough, but completely without hard evidence.

4. On the assumption of Markan priority, some think it is unlikely that an apostle would so freely use the work of a secondary witness such as Mark and believe that this tells against any theory of apostolic authorship. But plagiarism in the modern sense, and the shame associated with it, developed in the wake of the printing press and the financial gain that could be associated with the mass production of some writing. The wholesale takeover, without acknowledgment, of someone else’s literary work, without or without changes, was a common practice in the ancient world, and no opprobrium was connected with it. In that case it is hard to think of a reason why an apostle might not also find the practice congenial, the more so if he knew that behind Mark’s gospel was the witness of Peter. (D.A.Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992], 72-73)

Jonathan Edwards' Appeal to Ecclesiastical Tradition For His Assurance of, and Knowledge of, the New Testament Canon

Speaking of his knowledge of, and assurance of, the reliability of the New Testament canon, Jonathan Edwards wrote the following which privileges extra-biblical sources in a way to contradict many Reformed formulations of Sola Scriptura:

Several of the first writers of Christianity, have left us, in their works, catalogues of the sacred books of the New Testament, which, though made in countries at a vast distance from each other, do very little differ. Great were the pains and care of those early Christians, to be well assured what were the genuine writings of the apostles, and to distinguish them from all pretended revelations of designing men, and the forgeries they published under sacred titles. Thus, when a presbyter of Asia had published a spurious piece, under the name of Paul, he was immediately convicted, and notice of the forgery was soon conveyed to Carthage and the churches of Africa.

Hence it follows, that the primitive Christians are proper judges to determine what book is canonical, and what not. For nothing can be more absurd than to suppose, in those early ages, an agreement so universal, without good and solid foundation: or, in other words, it is next to impossible, either that so great a number of men should agree in a cheat, or be imposed upon by a cheat. But there are some particular circumstances that make the inference more clear as to the Christian books, than others; such as the prodigious esteem the books at first were received with; the constant use that was made of them in their religious assemblies; the translations made of them very early into other languages, &c.

The omission of a book in some one or two particular catalogues, cannot, with any reason, be urged against its canonical authority, if it be found in all, or most of the others, and any good reason can be assigned for the omission, where it occurs. Thus, for instance, the Revelation is omitted, either perhaps because it was not known to the author, or its credit was not sufficiently established in the country where he lived; or perhaps, which may be as probable as the other, because it being so full of mysteries, few or none were judged proper or able to read it to any purpose. This was certainly the case in England: this book being, for this reason, omitted in the public calendar for reading the Scriptures, though it be received into the canon. If, therefore, these, or any such good reasons, can be assigned or the omission of a book in a particular catalogue, it will be very unfair to infer that such book is apocryphal, especially when it is to be found, in many or most other catalogues.

The catalogues drawn up by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 315,)—by Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, (A.D. 370,)—by Jerome, of Dalmatia, (A.D. 390,)—by Augustine, bishop of Hippo (A.D. 394,)—by forty-four bishops assembled in the 3d council of Carthage, (A.D. 416,) were perfectly the same with ours now received. (On the Scriptures, chapter VI, §§ 8-11 in The Works of Jonathan Edwards [2 vols.; Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974], 2:475, emphasis added)

One also finds it interesting that Edwards would cite Augustine and the council of Carthage. While they agreed with Edwards on the 27 books of the New Testament, they accepted a larger Old Testament than his Old Testament canon.

Jonathan Edwards Affirming Divine Deception in Old Testament times about the Doctrine of Perseverance

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. (Ezek 18:24)

While commenting on this text, Jonathan Edwards wrote the following:

With respect to those texts in Ezekiel—that speak of a righteous man’s falling away from his righteousness-the doctrine of perseverance was not so fully revealed to make them wary . . . (Of the Perseverance of Saints, chapter VII § 20 in The Works of Jonathan Edwards [2 vols.; Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974], 2:601, emphasis added)

In other words, God engaged in divine deception during the Old Testament by allowing for believers, including the inspired authors of the Old Testament itself, to believe it was possible for a truly regenerated person to lose their salvation! Such is another example of how Reformed theology forces people to argue for a God who engages in divine deception.

Romans 9 and the Calvinist Doctrine of Reprobation

Leighton Flowers has reproduced a very important article by Dr. Eric Hankins refuting the Reformed reading of Romans 9:

Romans 9 and the Calvinist Doctrine of Reprobation

Flowers and Hankins discussed this article on Flowers' Soteriology 101 youtube page:

Does Romans 9 teach Calvinistic Reprobation? Guest Dr. Eric Hankins

Some excerpts from General Conference Talks of J. Golden Kimball

This evening I decided to read some of the General Conference sermons by J. Golden Kimball (1853-1938), sometimes known as the “Swearing Apostle.” Here are some excerpts (some are doctrinal, while a few are just plain funny!):

I am fearful that some of the Latter-day Saints simply come to the leaders and listen to the servants of God, and they never study it out in their minds; they never go to the written word, and compare it with the servants of God in their doctrines and teachings, and consequently they are unable to judge righteously, and they are losing confidence. Their confidence is being shaken, and they are unable to judge, because they have not first studied it out in their minds, because, as a people, we are mentally lazy. I will say that, because I do not expect to preach here again for a long time. If any of us have got a bad taste in our mouth for anything that has transpired, why, let us repent, let us study it out in our minds, and then go to our Father, in humility, and ask Him if it is right, and if it is right He will cause a burning within our bosoms, and we shall know that it is right; but if it be not right, we shall have no such feelings, but we shall have a stupor of thought. And how greatly blessed are we in that direction! We are all blessed, more or less, with a stupor of thought. (Conference Report, October 1897, p. 51)

But I pray the Lord to bless this people. Why, you are a wonderful people. The Lord has blessed you as He has blessed no other people. He has given you the Holy Ghost. Remember how particular He was with His Apostles, with His servants that He sent out to preach the Gospel. He promised them the Holy Ghost, "whom the world cannot receive," and we are in a different situation to what the world is. As Paul says: "What! know ye not that ye are the temples of the Holy Ghost, and that ye are not your own; and if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy, for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." Now I want to say to you people, in soberness, and with consideration I don't want to be an alarmist, I don't want to be a revivalist; but I want to say to you, the great sin that is creeping in among this people, together with other worldly sins, is the sin of adultery. This is creeping in amongst us, and in some instances our daughters are running the streets as common harlots, and we, seemingly, cannot help ourselves. But I want to say to you, there needs be an awakening. I want to tell you there needs to be a fear planted in the hearts of the young people. Take the Book of Mormon. Go to the 316th page, and read what Alma said to his son Corianton, who had left the ministry, and had followed after the harlot Isabel. He told him what a terrible crime adultery was, that it was next to the shedding of innocent blood. O, I am fearful that our young people do not comprehend that great sin that is creeping in amongst us; and, as the Prophet Joseph said, a man that commits adultery cannot enter into the celestial kingdom of God. If he enters any kingdom, it will not be the celestial kingdom of God. I pray that our people may be moved upon to be a virtuous, to be an honest, to be a faithful people; this is the prayer of my heart, in the name of Jesus. Amen. (Ibid., pp. 51-52)

I feel a good deal, or at least I imagine I do, like a man does when held up by a burglar and he is looking into the muzzle of a six-shooter. I would quietly and willingly hold my hands up, but during the time would think very profoundly of what I would do if given my liberty. We are in a similar position today, but all the men in the United States cannot prevent a man from thinking. There are not Apostles enough in the Church to prevent us from thinking, and they are not disposed to do so; but some people fancy because we have the Presidency and Apostles of the Church they will do the thinking for us. There are men and women so mentally lazy that they hardly think for themselves. To think calls for effort, which makes some men tired and wearies their souls. Now, brethren and sisters, we are surrounded with, such conditions that it requires not only thought, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Latter-day Saints, you must think for yourselves. No man or woman can remain in this Church on borrowed light. I am a strong believer in the following statement made by my father in the House of the Lord in 1856 "We think we are secure in the chambers of the everlasting hills, but the time will come when we will be so mixed up that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God. Then, brethren, look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall; for I say unto you there is a test, a test, a TEST coming, and who will be able to stand?" (Conference Report, April 1904, p. 29)

We must have a knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, or we can not stand. Latter-day Saints who have failed are those who have not obtained a knowledge that Jesus is the Christ; all such are liable to apostatize. I am afraid there will be a lot of apostates, and that worries me.You can't live on borrowed light any longer. This Church has passed through many close places, and, as my father said, it will pass through many other close places before victory and triumph is given to you or given to the Church. (Conference Report, October 1904, p. 57)

Arising to speak to you at this time puts me in mind of a story I read not long ago. It was during the late war, when some soldiers were around a camp fire, trying to keep themselves from freezing to death, a preacher came along to hold services. He looked around among the soldiers, and said, "I will take for my text Chilblains." So he instructed the soldiers what to do, which was to put soft Soap in their shoes, place them on their feet and wait till their feet were healed, and then he would talk to them about the Lord the next time he came You can't talk to people when they are uneasy, not if you are like I am. You can't preach to people when they want to go home. Now if any of you want to go, please go, and the rest of us will stay till we get through. (Conference Report, October 1905, p. 81)

 I am not going to announce any blood and thunder doctrine to you today. I have not been radical for four long months, not since I had appendicitis. I came very nearly being operated upon. I thought I was going to die for a few hours. People said to me, "Why, brother Kimball, you needn't be afraid, you'll get Justice." "Well," I said, "that is what I am afraid of." (Ibid.)

During the time I occupy this position, I desire to be safeguarded by the Holy Spirit of God. I have no desire whatever to say or do anything that can be construed to hurt the Church. I am perfectly willing to bear my individual responsibilities, but I believe a responsibility rests upon every man and woman in the Church of Christ to protect the Church, although I am confident that the Lord is amply able to take care of the Church of Latter-day Saints, whether we succeed or fail: I have that faith. I am a Strong advocate of individuality and agency. I value it above everything that I can conceive of, except salvation. I am very doubtful if a man can be saved in the kingdom of God who has no individuality, and does not assert his agency, because salvation is an individual work. This is the Church of Jesus Christ, and is no man's Church. It does not belong to President Joseph F. Smith, and he does not pretend to say that it does; nor to his counselors, nor to the Twelve Apostles; it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I am sure that the Lord will take care of it, no matter what we do, whether we do right or wrong. (Conference Report, April 1907, p. 79)

Now, as I said, I waived certain rights when I became a member of this Church; I waived the right of sin. I had my agency and individuality; but as long as I am a member of this Church, I waive the right to sin, to transgress. When you joined the Church, became members of it, you also waived the right to do a great many things. You have no right to break the ten commandments, have you? You have no right to be dishonest. You have no right to commit adultery, or to be immoral. You have waived all these rights. You have waived the right to break the Word of Wisdom. And in many other things we have waived our rights, and sometimes I feel muzzled when I wrestle with my nature and human weaknesses. You know there is no other man just like me in all Israel, and probably you are glad of it. I am having a pretty hard time wrestling with myself. I don't feel self-righteous; I feel more like that poor fellow who stood on the street corner and bowed his head and said, "O God, forgive me, a poor sinner." I feel confident, when I think about the matter carefully, that some people become self-righteous in their own estimation, because they keep one or two or more commandments they then commence to exercise "unrighteous dominion" when they find a transgressor in the Church. Now, Latter-day Saints, you have all "sinned and come short of the glory of God," and you stand condemned before the Lord unless there is such a thing as repentance and forgiveness of sins. It is a question, How               long will it take for me to secure salvation? The Lord only knows; I don't: I am not competent to tell whether I will be saved or not. I am making an effort for salvation, and, as I said, I waived a great many rights in order to become a member of the Church. I have trampled ambition under my feet, for I have an ambition, and it takes me all the time to keep my feet on it. I am sometimes afraid of my friends, because if one don't qualify every statement he makes, he may be like one man said of me in the north country: "Well, he didn't say it but he intended to, and if he will say to me that he did not intend to say it, then I will take back everything I said against him." (Ibid., p. 80)

You never saw men violate a commandment of God and feel jubilant over it, but if they have the Spirit of the Lord they feel miserable. I say to you Latter-day Saints, and I say it to myself: I have preached this Gospel for fifteen years, and I now understand the doctrine of repentance. A man can't repent simply because an Apostle tells him to repent; he can't do it until he gets the spirit of repentance, which is a gift from God; and some of us don't get it very quickly. Some of us don't get the spirit of repentance and see things right until our hair is gray. Brethren, let us be tolerant; let us be kind and considerate. It is the proper thing to despise sin and wickedness; but I think it is wrong to despise the man that has a weakness, and make him feel that he is good for nothing, and that there is not much chance for him. I think I can safely say to you Latter-day Saints: You will all be saved, every one of you; the only difference will be this, some will be saved sooner than others. Every man that has transgressed and done wrong must pay the penalty of his transgression, for salvation costs something, and you have to pay the price or you don't get it. (Conference Report, April 1908, p. 117)

I have read about the Prophet Joseph Smith. I have the story of the Prophet, and it is a wonderful story for a boy to tell. About those two personages that came to him, also John the Baptist, Peter, James and John. To me it is very wonderful. Do you believe it? If that is not true, Joseph Smith was the biggest fraud that ever came to a people on earth. There has never been a more sacrilegious thing uttered by man, if it is not true. Now, I say, do you believe it? Do t believe it? I believe everything that has been revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. If any principle that has been revealed to the Prophet is not true, then it is all wrong, as far as I am concerned. There is no use of mincing over it. Every Latter-day Saint in the Church should receive every truth, or else none of it. I believe it all. I believe every word of it. I "believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and I believe the Lord will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God." I believe all that God has revealed, as fast as I can understand and comprehend it: and I believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things. I am not sure if we will be prepared to receive all or not. Joseph Smith said the Lord had revealed things to him which if he had repeated to the people they would have taken his life. It is a good thing he didn't: we have more truths and doctrine than we now live up to. (Conference Report, April 1909, p. 37)

What can God do for a liar who refuses to repent? Can the Lord save him? He can't claim salvation. Baptising him in water will not settle the trouble, unless you keep him under. (Ibid.)

We need revelation for the calling of officers in the Church. Men should not be called merely through impression. I have felt censured for some work that I have done in the Church. I set apart Seventies as presidents of quorums, and after having set apart some of these presidents, I have been doubtful whether God had much to do with it, other than they had been chosen and set apart by one who had authority. It has not been demonstrated by the actions of some men that they were chosen of God; they were chosen by mere impression, and time was not taken to consider what God wanted. My conviction is that men ought not to be appointed by mere impression. The word of God teaches me that no man has a claim upon appointment in this Church, unless he is called of God as was Aaron. It doesn't matter whose son he is: although I fancy sometimes that I got my position as one of the First Council, out of respect to my father, so that his name might be represented among the authorities of the Church. (Conference Report, April 1910, p. 55)

Now, whether the Lord is going to give a revelation or not I don't know. I have read revelations that are not in the D&C, and they were given to men for their comfort, for their consolation, to tell them that certain things were true. But the Prophet never received them; they were not given for the Church, for if they had been given for the Church they would have been received by the man appointed, and they would have been binding on the Church. I might reveal something to you that you do not know. My father received revelation, that is why I honor him so. I know his weaknesses; my father was not a perfect man, but he was just as good a man as ever lived; yet he had his weaknesses. But God communicated with him. God never communicated with Heber C. Kimball, the first counselor to Brigham Young, to direct the Church of Jesus Christ. I have revelations written over the signature of Heber C. Kimball, and I have witnessed their fulfillment, and I know that God revealed His mind and will to him. But there is not a word in one of those revelations to direct the Church of Jesus Christ. Father was a Prophet. Brigham Young says: "Here is my prophet, and I love to hear him prophesy." But Heber C. Kimball never sought to run the Church. If he had tried it he would have lost his place. But he did not lose his place. (Ibid., p. 58)