Does Boyd Packer's "The Mediator" teach a Strict, Legalistic Model of Salvation?

One has encountered on occasion the claim that Boyd K. Packer’s talk from the April 1977 General Conference “The Mediator” being used against Latter-day Saints as if Packer was teaching a strict, legalistic understanding of soteriology. Furthermore, some Latter-day Saints approach the talk that Packer was teaching a very forensic model of the atonement. While the latter is partly true, the former is utterly false.

The text of the talk I will be using of the talk is that of (“The Mediator” in “That All May Be Edified: Talks, Sermons and Commentary (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1998), 316-22. There are online versions, including this one on LDS.org.

Firstly, Packer is not presenting a systematic theology, evidenced by the fact that he explicitly states that he is not doing such; instead, he is presenting a parable:

Let me tell you a story—a parable. (p. 317)

It is egregious for one to claim that one can use Packer’s “The Mediator” was a full-blown exposition of Latter-day Saint soteriology.

Continuing, we read:

Only then did he realize ha his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well. (p. 318)

In other words, the debtor would not only suffer the legal loss of his goods but would also suffer beyond any strict, legal obligation he owed—he would also be “cast into prison as well” (i.e., suffer the wrath of God; cf. D&C 76:104-107; 1 Cor 3:10-15). This is alien to historic Protestant models of atonement and soteriology.

There they were: One meeting our justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other . . . The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. (p. 319)

This only shows that Packer did not understand the atonement to be forensic, except incidentally at best, just as marriage is only incidentally legal. How so? Both mercy and love are not forensic in nature; instead, they are non-legal but personal and timeless virtues.

Speaking of our need for a mediator, we read:

He stepped between them, faced the creditor and made this offer . . . Unless there is a mediator, unless we have a friend . . . (pp. 319, 320)

Again, even the role of mediatorship is not forensic, as it is paralleled with the mediator being a “friend”—again, a personal, not legal, relationship. Furthermore, this role of being a mediator is after one has entered into a saving covenant, showing that such a function is not forensic. Even Reformed theology, which over-emphasises the legal nature of justification, admits that sanctification is not forensic and instead, is both synergistic, more personal than justification, and is progressive, not declarative/positional merely.

This, of course, is fatal to forensic models of the atonement. As one critic of Protestant theology put it:

If justification were a mere legal transaction between God and man (e.g., a modern will), we would not need continual intercession by Christ to complete our salvation . . . [Protestants] when pressed to follow their forensic model to its logical conclusion, cannot adequately explain why personal faith is required for justification, given that faith is a non-legal and timeless virtue. Moreover, most have no explanation why the New Testament, especially the book of Hebrews, repeatedly warns Christian not to fall away from the Faith, other than claiming that such a person was never legally justified. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2009], 62).

For more, see, for e.g.:

Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30 which includes an exegesis of 1 John 2:1-2 and Heb 2:17 which makes reference to Christ being a present propitiation (ιλασμος) for sin, and the Johannine text also makes reference to Jesus being an “advocate” (παράκλητος) for Christians (i.e., those who have entered a saving covenant previously).

Finally, we read that:

The extension of mercy will not be automatic. It will be through covenants with Him. It will be on His terms. His generous terms, which include as an absolute essential, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. (p. 320)

Again, this blows out the forensic model of the atonement and salvation out of the water, as the focus is on, not legal contracts, but personal covenants. Covenants are only incidentally legal and largely personal (again, compare with a marriage, which is a wonderful parallel to salvific covenants). Furthermore, one enters a covenant, not through a legal declaration, but a personal act wherein God uses an ordinance wherein one’s personal sins are remitted (i.e., baptism).

Critics who abuse Packer’s “The Mediator” are only revealing their ignorance when they claim it is teaching a strict legalism.

D&C 137 and God's knowledge of Counterfactuals

I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept; And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the Second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins. Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts. (D&C 137:5-9)

There is a debate among many within the broad Christian spectrum as to whether God possesses knowledge of counterfactuals. I am of the belief that he does, based on my understanding of God's foreknowledge (being an Open Theist myself) as well as uniquely Latter-day Saint scriptures, including D&C 137, quoted in part above.

Latter-day Saint philosopher Blake Ostler wrote in defence of this position, with a focus on D&C 137, the following:

This scripture clearly indicates that God saves people based upon what they would have done if they had been allowed to live beyond the time that they do live in mortality. Thus, God must have knowledge of counterfactuals of freedom such as:

(3) If a free agent A were allowed to live in the in the circumstances contained in the actual world beyond the time A would freely accept the gospel with all his/her heart.

This scripture seems to indicate that God can judge persons on the basis of their “hearts” or dispositions established prior to their death. In this particular case, Joseph Smith was surprised to learn that his brother Alvin had been saved in the celestial kingdom even though Alvin had died before the gospel was restored. Joseph learned that God knows whether Alvin would have accepted the gospel is the actual would had been different and if Alvin had been allowed to live until after the gospel had been restored in 1830. In fact, Joseph learned that the following proposition is true.

(4) If Alvin Smith had been allowed to live until the gospel had been restored in 1830, then Alvin would have accepted the gospel with all his heart.

Thus, the Mormon scriptures seem to base God’s providence and judgment, at least in part, on God’s knowledge of counterfactuals of freedom. Mormon scriptures thus seems to be committed to the view that such counterfactuals of freedom have a truth value (i.e., at least one of each such proposition or its negation is true under the law of the conditional excluded middle) and that God can access that truth value. (Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 1: The Attributes of God [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2001], 170-71)

Colossians 1:23 vs. Eternal Security

In Col 1:23, we read:

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister.

The use of "if" is part of the underlying Greek text, using ει, which, according to BDAG is a "marker of a condition, existing in fact or hypothetical." That Paul is commanding true believers/Christians to continue in their faith, as they could fall away and lose their salvation, is reflected in many modern translations of the Bible, such as the NRSV ("perhaps") and even Protestant translations ("provided that" [NASB]). Indeed, BDAG actually references Col 1:23 thusly:

εἴ γε if indeed, inasmuch as (Kühner-G. II 177c) Eph 3:2; 4:21; Col 1:23. τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ; εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ have you experienced so many things in vain? If it really was in vain Gal 3:4. εἴ γε καὶ ἐκδυσάμενοι οὐ γυμνοὶ εὑρεθησόμεθα assuming, of course, that having put it off we shall not be found naked 2 Cor 5:3. [εἴ γ]ε οὕτως ὡς [ἔστιν καὶ παρελάβετε τὸν λόγον] AcPl BMM recto, 31f (restoration based on duplicate Ox 1602 verso, 37f and AcPl Ha 8, 24f, which has a slightly difft. text after εἴ γε [s. also the text of Ghent 62, 17 in HSanders, HTR 31, ’38, 79, n. 2]). S. γέ bα.

Let us see how Protestant commentaries approach this verse:

E.K. Simpson and F.F. Bruce

This, then, is the prospect which lies before them, provided that they remain firmly founded and established in their faith. If the Bible teaches the final perseverance of the saints, it also teaches that the saints are those who finally persevere—in Christ. Continuance is the test of reality. The apostle’s language may suggest that his readers’ first enthusiasm was being dimmed, that they were in danger of shifting from the fixed ground of the Christian hope. And indeed, to hold fast to hope is throughout the NT an indispensable condition of attaining the goal of full salvation to be revealed at the parousia of Christ. Hope forms an essential part of the gospel—that gospel which (as Paul has already emphasized) is spreading and bearing fruit in all the world, having been proclaimed (as he puts it here, perhaps indulging in a prophetic prolepsis) “in the whole creation under heaven.” The catholicity of the gospel is a token of its divine origin and power. And of this gospel—wonder of wonders!—“I Paul have become a minister.” He sees his personal ministry as closely bound up with God’s gracious plan for the world. (E.K. Simpson and F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes [NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1957], 213)

James D.G. Dunn

The confidence in the effectiveness of the divine provision made for those estranged from God by heir evil and for the blameworthy by Christ’s death is qualified by a matching emphasis on human responsibility. Such emphasis on the need for persistence in Christian belief and conduct is a regular feature in Paul (e.g., Rom. 8:13, 17; 11:22; 1 Cor. 9:27; 10:11-12; Gal. 5:4). And should not be ignored. Ει γε may denote confidence more than doubt (cf. its use in 2 Cor. 5:3; Eph. 3:2; 4:21), but final acceptance is nevertheless dependent on remaining in the faith. The parenetic and pastoral point is that however such persistence must be and is enabled by God through his Spirit (1:11), there must be such persistence (cf. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon 69) . . . Paul always insisted that the ongoing “walk” (1:10) of the Christian should be in direct continuity with and continuingly expressive of the faith by which the Christian first entered upon that walk (the main thrust of Galatians; so, e.g., Gal. 3:2-3; 5:4-6; Rom. 14:23). It is probably that faith by which the Colossians first received the gospel which is referred to here: without that same basic conviction and openness to the grace of God they would be unable to persistent (Aletti, Épitre aux Colossiens 126). On the other hand, the definite article could denote an early example of the objectification of faith (“the faith”; Houlden 175; O’Brien Colossians, Philemon 69) which begins to characterize post-Pauline usage (1 Tim. 3:9; 4:1, 6; 5:8; 6:10, 21; etc.), though it could equally denote “your faith.” Pokorny 93 thinks both meanings are involved here.

The point is reinforced by a sequence of strengthening images. “Established” (εθεμελιωμένοι) uses the image of a foundation” (θεμελιος). The verb occurs only here and in Eph. 3:17 in the Pauline corpus, but Paul liked to think of himself as a master builder laying a foundation of the gospel or of faith in Christ (Rom. 15:20; 1 Cor. 3:10-12). The image of Christ as the “foundation” on which Christians are established (1 Cor. 3:11) was presumably drawn from Isa. 28:16 (c. particularly Rom. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6). The passive here could imply that Paul or Epaphras as the builder; as elsewhere, the “provide that” takes its force from the gospel in which the Colossians first believed (1 Cor. 15:2; Gal. 5:4-5). Εδραιος (“firm, steadfast”; elsewhere in the New Testament only in 1 Cor. 7:37 and 15:58; but also in Ignatius, Ephesians 10:2; Polycarp 3:1) comes from εδρα or εδρη, meaning a “place where one sits”: the addresses are to remain as firmly seated on the gospel as a god in his temple or a skillful rider on a spirited horse. The third image is simply that of movement, shifting from one place to another (μεταχινουμαι; only here in the New Testament but echoing the imagery in 1 Cor. 15:58; cf. Deut. 19:14; not quite “drift away,” as in JB/NJB). His they must avoid, remaining firmly attached to “the hope of the gospel,” a neat phrase summarizing the earlier emphasis (1:4-5), with “hope” again prominent as characterizing the “gospel” (see on 1:5). (James D.G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996], 110, 111)

It should be obvious that Paul is warning true, not mere superficial, Christians that they must continue; if not, they can and will lose their salvation; previously in Romans ch. 4 he used the example of King David who lost his justification and had to regain such (see King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology).

That Paul is not teaching anything that can be considered historic, Reformed theology can be seen also in the very next verse, where, instead of teaching a penal substitutionary model of atonement, he instead teaches a participatory model:

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's take, which is the church.

The NASB offers the following translation:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.

Commenting on this verse, Larry Hurtado wrote the following:

Paul’s sufferings are pictured strikingly as allowing him to complete in his own flesh what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of the church. In the preceding verses (1:15-23), Christ’s preeminence over all creation, and the universal scope of this redemptive work, are celebrated; and this reconciliation is specifically described as accomplished through Christ’s own fleshy body in his death (v. 22). As commentators rightly note, behind the reference to completing what is “lacking” in Christ’s afflictions probably lies the idea of an eschatological quota of sufferings (messianic “woes”) that must be completed so that the final consummation of God’s redemptive plan might take place. That is, the idea here is not that Paul’s sufferings compensate for an insufficiency in Christ’s sufferings, or that Paul’s sufferings contribute to the redemption of the church. Instead, the things that Paul suffered are pictured here as affording him the chance, on behalf of the church, to make a special contribution to the eschatological measure/quota of eschatological sufferings. Yet it should be clear also that the traditional apocalyptic idea of eschatological sufferings has been reshaped here by the crucifixion of Jesus, so that Paul and other believers can undergo their sufferings as service to the crucified Jesus. We may also note Philippians 1:29, where Paul reminds his readers that it has been given them (by God) both to believe in Christ and also “to suffer for his sake,” and Philippians 3:10, where Paul expresses his deep and continuing aspiration “to know him [Christ] and the power of his resurrection and the participating/sharing of his sufferings [κοινωνίαν [παθημάτων αὐτοῦ], being conformed [συμμορφιζόμενος] to his death.” (Larry Hurtado, "Jesus' Death as Paradigmatic In the New Testament" in Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Early Christian Devotion: The Context and Character of Christological Faith [Waco, Tax.: Baylor University Press, 2017], 351-71, here, pp. 365-66)

Hurtado is correct in stating that Paul is not speaking of the (eschatological) salvation of the Church (esp. as the individual is in view in v. 23!), but Paul is clearly teaching a form of participatory atonement. Morna Hooker noted the following about this often puzzling passage:

Colossians 1:24 provides an interesting example of the way in which commentators have allowed their theological convictions to influence their interpretation of the text. The belief that Christ’s death is decisive and once-for-all has led some of them to shy away from the straight-forward meaning of the words. Another example of this can be seen in the refusal to allow that Paul ever speaks of imitating Christ. Colossians 1:24 reflects the conviction that we have found elsewhere in Paul’s writings, that it is necessary for the Christian to share in the sufferings of Christ and that this participation in suffering can be of benefit to other members of the Christian community. This necessity is not based on the idea that there is a set quota of messianic sufferings that need to be completed. Rather it arises from the representative character of Christ’s death. If Christ died for all, this means not only that all have died, but that they must continue to work out the meaning of dying with Christ. The acceptance of Jesus as Messiah means a willingness to share his experiences. In this sense, at least, the sufferings of Christ are no substitute for ours, but a pattern to which we need to be conformed.

The tendency to stress the belief that Christ’s death was a substitute for ours to the exclusion of the Pauline conviction that Christians must participate in the suffering of Christ is perhaps a very early one. The Corinthians, e.g., seem to have been unable to grasp the idea that there was any place for suffering and humiliation. In their calling: for them, resurrection with Christ was a past event, and this meant that they shared already in his glory, fullness, and riches (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:8). Christ had suffered—and they experienced the resulting glory. He had become for them the substitute for humiliation and death. They failed to see the necessity to share his sufferings. (Morna D. Hooker, “Interchange and Suffering,” in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament, eds. William Horbury and Brian McNeil [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981], pp. 70-83, here, p.82, emphasis added).

Col 1:23 (and v. 24) is another "un-Protestant" passage of the Bible, just as many others, such as 1 Cor 3:15, are.

Arthur Beem, James White and Theopneustos

All Scripture is inspired by God (θεοπνευστος) and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. (2 Tim 3:16 NASB)

I recently came across a very informative article on 2 Tim 3:16 and the meaning and function of θεοπνευστος in 2 Tim 3:16:

Arthur Beem, James White and Theopneustos

In my lengthy refutation of Sola Scriptura, I discuss 2 Tim 3:16 in some careful detail, including a discussion of θεοπνευστος:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

As an aside, it appears that at least one well-known anti-Mormon author has read my work critiquing sola scriptura (my “extremely long article that [I] later published as a book”). I do hope that God will use it as a means to bring him out of the false gospel of Calvinism that he currently holds to. On this, see:

 An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Monte Burr McLaws on Advertisements for Alcohol, Tobacco, Tea, and Coffee in 19th c. issues of the Deseret News

In his history of early Latter-day Saint journalism and the Deseret News, Monte Burr McLaws wrote the following about the Deseret News advertising tea, coffee, alcohol, and liquor (this, of course, being some time before the introduction of the modern, strict observation of the “Word of Wisdom” [D&C 89]):

Other examples of incompatibility between advertising and editorial policies concerned such items as liquor, tobacco, tea, and coffee. Although nineteenth-century Mormon policy did not completely prohibit the use of these items as it does now, the Deseret News frequently editorialized on their bad effects and warned against their use.

In an 1869 editorial headed “The Evils of Intoxication,” [George Q.] Cannon stressed the social and economic rather than physical harm of alcohol and declared that immoderate use of intoxicating drinks constituted one of the greatest evils in the civilized world. While the editor admitted that the older generation in the Church at times still imbibed, he urged people to adopt complete abstinence. The best rule was “touch not, taste not, handle not” (News, 27 April 1869). In a later article on the same topic, Cannon observed that the ability to control one’s appetites made a person a much more substantial human being in all his activities and warned that the habitual use of intoxicants was one of the worst habits one could adopt and that too often it grew until it completely enslaved its victim (Ibid., 23 April 1873).

Apparently advocating mandatory prohibition, the News in 1871 printed the text of a discourse by Apostle Joseph F. Smith on the subject of alcohol. Smith expressed the hope that he could soon see the day when no one in Utah, Mormon or Gentile, would be permitted to touch intoxicating drink:

It would not be oppression to me, for the proper authorities to say—“you shall not take intoxicating liquors; you shall neither manufacture nor drink them, for they are injurious to your body and mind,” nor would it be to any Saint—(Ibid., 16 September 1871)

As with patent medicine advertisements, those for liquor and tobacco were accepted simply for commercial reasons, with no implied Church endorsement. Unfortunately, some modern writers have tended to perpetuate a misinterpretation of early Utah history by leaving the impression that such material was never accepted. Treatment of tobacco and liquor advertisements in the official centennial biography of the Deseret News, for example, is conspicuously absent (Wendell J. Ashton, Voice in the West: Biography of a Pioneer Newspaper [New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1950]). A Newsweek article stated that because of Mormon principles tobacco and liquor advertisements have never appeared in the Deseret News (“Daily Crusader of Mormonism: The Deseret News of Salt Lake,” Newsweek 17 [31 March 1941]:65). Contrary to such assertions, and unlike such papers as the Kansas City Star and the Christian Science Monitor, the News in its early years regularly admitted to its columns advertisements for all kinds of liquors from local as well as outside merchants, despite its frequent and uniform attacks on drinking (For some further editorials on this subject, see News, 23 and 24 November 1895, 8 January 1874, and 2 April 1887).

Such advertisements found their way into the earliest issues of the Church paper. On 31 August 1850, a notice by News employee Thomas Bullock offered a good price for hops delivered at his house. It was not long before News advertisements included the Queen City Hotel’s notice of “all kinds of choice Liquors” (News, 18 September 1852). The initial issue of the daily had two such advertisements, one announcing that W. Howard had opened a “Liquor Store” opposite the Salt Lake Hotel, while the other claimed that Sewell and Company’s Oasis Saloon had the finest and best wines, liquors, and beer in Salt Lake City.

Representative of this kind of local advertisement, which regularly appeared in the columns of the News throughout the nineteenth-century is the following notice from William Godbe, an ex-Mormon merchant.

Pure Wines & Liquors, Fine old Whiskies, Pure Imported Brandies, The Celebrated Red Jacket Bitters, Old Tom Gin, etc. Also Alcohol and Coloque Spirits, to be had at Godbe’s Exchange Building (Ibid., 12 December 1868).

Even ZCMI, owned and operated by the Church, advertised “Liquors, Draught and Case,” “Twelve-year-old French Brandy, Lafayette Whiskey and Genuine Imported Old French Port,” as well as the Southern-Utah brewed “Pure Dixie Port Wine” (Ibid., 1 December 1869, 1 September 1870, and 10 July 1875).

Liquor advertising came from local liquor stores, from Omaha’s Brewer and Bemis Brewing Company, and from Adams McNeill and Company, wholesale grocers of Sacraments (Ibid., 1 September 1870 and 26 August 1869. It is interesting to note that in 1880malt liquors constituted the second largest capitalization in Salt Lake City; William Mulder “Salt Lake City in 1880: A Census Profile,” Utah Historical Quarterly 24 [July 1956]:236).

As with alcohol, the News very early began editorial attacks on the use of tobacco. They were aimed directly at the young people and, unlike Church admonitions today, appealed more to the pride of superior man than to the question of health:

Some people are slaves to tobacco. Only think of it—slaves to that stinking weed! What noble creatures to submit to such vile degradation! . . . They are perfectly helpless in its presence. They almost go crazy in its absence . . . They are happy only with a pipe or cigar in their mouths, or a loathsome cud of tobacco between their teeth. What a thing to contemplate—a man, with his vast and exalted powers and capabilities, voluntarily submitting himself to be the slave of a half inch cube of filthy, nauseous, molassesized tobacco! (News, 8 June 1876; see also 16 March 1853 and 26 December 1874)

Tobacco advertisements appeared simultaneously with such editorials.

It was easy to detect the coming of the semi-annual Churchwide conferences. Advertisements in most newspapers increase in number around Christmas, but those of the Deseret News increased in October and April. Such front-page advertisements as “Special Announcement!” “To Continue During Conference,” and “Grand Spring Opening” greeted visiting Church members. In many cases these special notices featured various brands of teas, coffees, and tobacco (Ibid., 10 April 1871). A full month before and April Conference, ZCMI began running a long advertisement which included among a long list of items: “Fine cuts, smoking and chewing Tobaccos, Natural leaf, Black and Bright Navy Plugs, in all sizes, including our own and other Brands which we control” (Ibid., 2 March 1874).

National tobacco companies also advertised in the News. Among others were Liggett and Dausman, manufacturers and dealers and Loker Tobacco Company, both of St. Louis and the J.B. Pace Tobacco Company of Richmond, Virginia (Ibid., 1 September 1870, 14 April 1873, and 1 June 1892). (Monte Burr McLaws, Spokesman for the Kingdom: Early Mormon Journalism and the Deseret News, 1830-1896 [Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], 113-16, comments in square brackets added for clarification)

Elsewhere, McLaws noted that:

It was years after the surge in advertising of the late 1860s before the Deseret News brought its tobacco and alcohol advertisement policy into closer harmony with its editorials. The last tobacco advertisement appeared on 5 April 1898 and the last liquor advertisement on October 26 of the same year. Later, the News even went so far as to retouch comic strips to take cigarette and pipe smoking out of the pictures. (Ibid., 116)

In a footnote for this, we read:

Exactly when this policy started is not yet determined, but it gradually faded out of the existence during the mid-1950s. William B. Smart, executive editor, Deseret News, Salt Lake City, 23 September 1972, letter to the author. The Christian Science Monitor has had a similar policy of editing whiskey drinking and tobacco smoking out of pictures: Erwin D. Canham, Commitment to Freedom: The Story of the Christian Science Monitor (Boston: Houghton Miffin Company, 1958), p. 122. (Ibid., 121 n. 116)

Of course, as mentioned earlier, this was all before 1921, when Heber J. Grant made strict observance of the WOW a pre-requisite for a Temple Recommend. Commenting on WOW observance during the time of Brigham Young, we read that:

[S]cholarship on early practices indicates that Mormons’ observance of the Word of Wisdom in the nineteenth century was far less of a focal point than it later became, despite the Word of Wisdom later being declared a firm commandment by President Lorenzo Snow on May 5, 1898, following the precedent set by “a statement from Brigham Young that the Word of Wisdom was a commandment of God.” Early Mormons eschewed drunkenness, for example, but did not entirely abstain from alcohol. Wine was served at Mormon weddings in the 1830s, at religious gatherings in which the Saints practiced speaking in tongues, and as part of the sacrament in church meetings. Historian Lauren Thatcher Ulrich has chronicled the fact that “a jug seems to have been essential equipment” at Winter Quarters in the 1840s. When he was president of the Church, Brigham Young himself did not always adhere to the Word of Wisdom’s counsel. He maintained his habit of chewing tobacco until 1848, when he decided to quit the habit, and abstained successfully until 1857, when a painful toothache drove him to seek pain relief in chewing once again. He finally kicked the habit for good in 1860. In a sermon in March of that year, though, Young did not demand total abstinence from other brethren: he advised any men with a tobacco habit merely to “be modest about it,” not spitting in public or taking out “a whole plug of tobacco in meeting before the eyes of the congregation.” Rather, they were to go outside and avoid sullying the parlors of Zion. “If you must use tobacco, put a small portion in your mouth when no person sees you,” he advised. (John E. Ferguson III, Benjamin R. Knoll, and Jana Riess, “The Word of Wisdom in Contemporary American Mormonism: Perceptions and Practice” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 51/1 [Spring 2018]: 39-77, here, pp. 41-42)

 Further Reading

Mike Ash, Up In Smoke: A Response to the Tanners’ Criticism of the Word of Wisdom

Steven C. Harper, The Word of Wisdom (Setting the Record Straight)

Examples of Boyd K. Packer Affirming Baptismal Regeneration

I have discussed the salvific efficacy of water baptism many times on this blog. One can search for these articles, which include, among many others, the following:

 Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

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

John Greer vs. the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration

While pursuing a work that is a compilation of sundry talks and sermons by Boyd K Packer (1924-2015), one finds, even in passing, references to such a doctrine, including:

You Can become Clean

I am sure that within the sound of my voice there is more than one young person who already has fallen into transgression. Some of you young people, I am sure, almost innocent of any intent but persuaded by the enticements and the temptations, already have misused this power.

Know then, my young friends, that there is a great cleansing power. And know that you can be clean.

If you are outside the Church the covenant of baptism itself represents, among other things, a washing and a cleansing. (Boyd K. Packer, “Why Stay Morally Clean” in “That All May be Edified”: Talks, Sermons and commentary by Boyd K. Packer [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1998], 183)

Elsewhere, in a talk entitled “Someone Up There Loves You,” Packer again affirms baptismal regeneration:

Belief in the Resurrection

You believe in the Resurrection. You must know that baptism for someone who is dead is quite as essential as baptism for someone who is living. There is no difference in the importance of it. One by one it must happen. They must do it here, or it must be done for them here.

The whole New Testament centers on the resurrection of the Lord. The Message is that all are resurrected. Every scripture and every motivation that applies to missionary work has its application to ordinance work for the dead. (Ibid., 300, italics in original)

The earliest known public declaration of a Mother in Heaven

In hymn he composed for the dedication of the Seventies Hall in Nauvoo in Dec 1844, W.W. Phelps made the first known public declaration of the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother:

A VOICE FROM THE PROPHET. "COME TO ME." BY W. W. PHELPS, ESQ. --TUNE -- "Indian Hunter." --

Come to me, will ye come to the saints that have died,

To the next better world, where the.

Come to me where the truth and the virtues prevail;

Where the union is one, and the years never fail;

Where a heart can't conceive, nor a nat'ral eye see,

What the Lord has prepar'd for the just: Come to me.

Come to me where there is no destruction or war;

Neither tyrants, or mobbers, or nations ajar;

Where the system is perfect, and happiness free,

And the life is eternal with God: Come to me.

Come to me, will ye come to the mansions above,

Where the bliss and the knowledge, the light, and the love,

Death, the wages of sin, is not here: Come to me.

Come to me, here are Adam and Eve at the head

Of a multitude, quicken'd and rais'd from the dead:

Here's the knowledge that was, or that is, or will be

In the gen'ral assembly of worlds: Come to me.

Come to me; here's the myst'ry that man hath not seen:

Here's our Father in heaven, and Mother, the Queen,

Here are worlds that have been, and the worlds yet to be:

Here's eternity, -- endless; amen: Come to me.

Come to me all ye faithful and blest of Nauvoo:

Come ye Twelve, and ye High Priests, and Seventies, too;

Come ye Elders, and all of the great company;

When you've finish'd your work on the earth: Come to me.

Come to me; here's the future, the present and past:

Here is Alpha, Omega, the first and the last;

Here's the fountain, the "river of life," and the Tree:

Here's your Prophet & Seer, JOSEPH SMITH: Come to me. (Times and Seasons 6 [January 15, 1845]:783, emphasis added)

For some useful resources on this doctrine, see:

The Church’s Gospel Topics Essay Mother in Heaven

Kevin L. Barney, How to worship Our Mother in Heaven (Without Getting Excommunicated) (cf. his shorter study, published by FairMormon, Do We Have a Mother in Heaven?)

Stephen Smoot, I've a Mother There

W.W. Phelps vs. the claim early LDS Christology was that of Modalism

In a letter addressed to Oliver Cowdery, W.W. Phelps wrote:

What a glorious prospect appeared after the angel delivered his message! The heavens had been opened; the gospel again committed to men, and a period as great as when the Lord said unto Abram, "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee. And I will make thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed," welcomed the beginning of better days in the midst of this crooked and money seeking generation. For, as the angel informed our brother Joseph, that the Lord was about to proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, that Israel might be gathered and saved, so also was that glorious day shown when the Lord should come the second time to dwell on earth; yea, even come in the clouds of heaven, with all his holy angels with him, to execute judgment upon all, that the earth may rest; that righteousness may abound; that all flesh that is justified, may glorify God and enjoy his presence a thousand years.

Though, at the time the heavenly messenger came down to open the understanding of a few, and prepare the way for the true church to arise, and come forth as it were from the wilderness; yea, though at this time, the fathers had fallen asleep, and all things, seemingly but the gospel, remained as they were in other ages, and men that pretended to worship, did it as a mere matter of form, without authority or power, yet the "strange news" was believed by some, and hailed as the harbinger to prepare to gather the Lord's elect; and in fact it was the day break of a day of glory.

I was not a professor at the time, nor a believer in sectarian religion, but a believer in God, and the Son of God, as two distinct characters, and a believer in sacred scripture. I had long been searching for the "old paths," that I might find the right way and walk in it, and after a suitable time to investigate the work, and prove its truth by corresponding evidence from the old bible, and by the internal witness of the spirit, according to the rules of holiness, I embraced it for the truth's sake, and all honest men who seek a better world, will "go and do likewise." ("W.W. Phelps, Letter No. 7," The Latter-day Saint's Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 8 [May 1835], p. 115, emphasis added)

What is important here is that Phelps, before converting to the Church (he was baptised June 1831), he held firmly to the Father and Son being “distinct characters”; in other words, he opposed Modalism, and he found such a teaching among the Latter-day Saints.

I highlight this as it is a common claim by some (e.g., Dan Vogel) that the Christology of the Book of Mormon and other early LDS publications is that of Modalism, wherein the Father and Son are one and the same person (or “character” to use Phelps’ terminology), notwithstanding that this shows the opposite to be the case.

Update: I have noticed some misinformed individuals arguing that Luke 10:23 (JST) and other like-texts, as well as the 1832 First Vision account refute this post. All it proves is that many critics have a poor grasp of exegesis as well as being ignorant of LDS scholarship and apologetics. For a refutation of JST Luke 10:23 as a "proof-text" for Modalism, see Does JST Luke 10:23 teach Modalism? On the 1832 First Vision account, see The 1832 First Vision Account versus Modalism and Psalm 110:1 and the two Lords in the 1832 First Vision Account

William Wines Phelps vs. God existing in an "eternal now"

Commenting on W.W. Phelps’ love for the esoteric doctrines contained in the Book of Abraham, Bruce Van Orden, in his excellent biography of Phelps, wrote:

Phelps forever kept close to his heart the doctrines he learned and cherished while he wrote down new truths Joseph Smith received from the Book of Abraham. No doubt Smith, Cowdery, and Phelps often reflected in conversation about these concepts. Perhaps they knew of additional insights that came through revelation but did not appear in published versions of the Book of Abraham. On the other hand, in his enthusiasm for new doctrine, Phelps may have come up with speculative doctrine on his own—ideas that may have been related to Joseph Smith’s revelations but did not actually originate with him. An example may be Phelps’s somewhat garbled statement in the Times and Seasons several months after the Prophet’s assassination: “Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from old, from eternity: and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, (not this world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years . . . It almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like Enoch to be translated and see and how as we are seen and known! (“The Anwer,” T&S 5, no 1 [January 1, 1845]: 758) The 2,555,000,000 years that Phelps seems to be alluding to can be arrived at by multiplying 1,000 (referring to the number of years for Kolob to rotate on its axis) by 7 (referring to seven separate time periods for the earth’s creation) by 365 (the number of days in an earth year). The Creation and Kolob are concepts strongly discussed in present-day Abraham chapters 3-5. Kolob is the planet nearest to the throne of God. The number of years mentioned in this article appears to be Phelpsian doctrine, based on Phelps’s own musings, and not learned from Joseph Smith. (Bruce A. Van Orden, We’ll Sing and Shout: The Life and Times of W.W. Phelps [Provo and Salt Lake City, Utah: Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University and Deseret Book. 2018], 198-99)

Elsewhere Van Orden (Ibid., 477) presented Phelps’ translation of Dan 4:22 that appeared in “Nebuchadnezzar Still in Pasture” and published in the Deseret Almanac (1861), pp. 23-24:

They will drive thee from men, and thou must dwell with the beasts of the field: and thou shalt graze grass as an ox; and the rain of heaven shall fall upon thee, till two thousand, five hundred and twenty years shall have passed over thee, until thou hast learned that the Most High rules among the kingdoms of men, which are set up to be true.

Van Orden, in a footnote attached to “two thousand, five hundred and twenty years” wrote:

Phelps noted at the end of his translation, “Joseph Smith, the Prophet, said that the day of an angel was one year, a week, seven years, a month thirty years: a time, three hundred and sixty years . . . A day with the Lord God in Kolob is one thousand years.” (Ibid., 489 n. 57)

I present this information here, not to defend Phelps’ understanding of the age of the universe or use of the Book of Abraham to understand God’s time and its exact relationship to our measuring of time, etc, but to show that Phelps, a close friend and associate of Joseph Smith, did not believe that God existed in an “eternal now” or was “timeless”—instead, he existed in what I sometimes call “super time”—that is, God has a moment by moment existence and experience with time, but his experience and relationship to time is different than ours.

I like how one Roman Catholic apologist put it:

[Just] as Christ does, the Father and the Holy Spirit exist moment by moment, and in that sense there is no differentiation in the time-existence within the persons of the Godhead. There is no significance to postulating that God is an “Eternal Now,” or that there is “no time in eternity.” All that we can conclude is that in eternity time is not calibrated in the same way it is on earth. In the existence of each eternal being, none of them can go back to the previous moment or ahead to the next moment while in the present moment. Whether we say God sees all things in their immediacy, or that all things are known to Him simultaneously, does not negate that the Father, Son or Holy Spirit cannot exist in and/or go back to the past or ahead to the future, even though They thoroughly know the past and the future. They, as we, exist moment by moment, and thus God relates to us on earth and in heaven, moment by moment. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 372)