W.J. Sparrow Simpson on Dom John Chapman's Apologetic for Honorius

In 1907, Catholic historian Dom John Chapman published his book, The Condemnation of Pope Honorius. In this volume, he argued that, while Honorius did teach that Christ had one, not two wills (which in Trinitarian theology is a heresy [monotheletism]), he was only a material heretic; he was not a formal heretic as he his letters to Sergius affirming monotheletism were not ex cathedra pronouncements, instead they were written by Honorius as a private theologian, and therefore, does not render null and void the definition and parameters of Papal Infallibility as explicated in 1870 by Pius IX at Vatican I.

Chapman’s apologetic has been followed by many Catholic apologists, such as Robert Sungenis in his October 2000 debate against James R. White and John Salza and Robert Sisco in their book, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors. Trent Horn in The Case for Catholicism offers such an apologetic as a possible answer to the Honorius issue.

Writing in 1910, Anglican William John Sparrow Simpson (1859-1952) wrote the following on this approach (which, IMO, is perhaps the best route a Catholic apologist can go down when discussing Honorius—if I were a Catholic apologist, I would use the Chapman approach as opposed to others that have been proposed):

One advantage of this theory was that at any rate it did no violence to historic documents. It encouraged no universal scepticism as to sources. Bellarmine himself suggested it as an alternative to those who could not be satisfied with discrediting wholesale on suspicion the long series of documents. But Bellarmine did not like the theory; for he held that although the opinion that a Pope can err as a private teacher is probable, yet the opposite opinion was more probable still. However, for those whom it might assist, there it was. All that the Council meant to say was that Honorius by his private letters promoted heresy.

Private letters” echoes Bossuet scornfully. When, then, is a decision given, ex cathedra, unless when the successor of St Peter, being consulted by the entire East, should suppress a deadly error and strengthen his brethren? Or did he prefer to be deceived, when, being so interrogated, he did not reply under these conditions in which he knew that he would not be deceived?

A recent Roman writer (Turmel, Hist. Théol. Positive, p. 76) assures us that the opinion that the letter of Honorius was compiled as a private theologian has never been enthusiastically received, never achieved a real success. Its partisans have been few in number and authority.

“To allow that a Pope had been solemnly charged with heresy even as a private doctor was too much for the infallibilists. On the other hand, the Gallicans could not forget Bossuet’s retort. ‘When can a Pope have cause to speak ex cathedra if not when consulted by the entire East?’” (Turmel, Hist. Théol. Positive, p. 317) (W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility [Milwaukee: The Young Churchman Press, 1910], 39-40; see pp. 31-47 for a fuller discussion of Honorius and his condemnation at the sixth ecumenical council and how Honorius poses a great problem to the dogma of Papal Infallibility)

"Designed Coincidences" in the Book of Esther

In the book of Esther, there is no explicit reference to God (though it should be noted that God does appear in the longer recension of Esther that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox accept). Notwithstanding, a case can be made that God is an important player in the book due to “designed coincidences” in the book, showing that the author believed in a very high view of divine providence. As Barry Webb, head of Old Testament at Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia, wrote:

The absence of any explicit reference to God

The absence is certainly one of the most striking features of the book. What clearly is present, however, is a whole series of remarkable coincidences which tip the balance of events in favour of the Jews at critical moments: the timely removal of Vashti, creating the opportunity for Esther to move into a position of power; Mordecai’s equally fortuitous overhearing of the conspiratorial conversation of the eunuchs (2:21-22); the king’s insomnia on the night before the proposed execution of Mordecai and his calling for the royal annals (6:1-2); the entry of Haman at the precise moment when the king is wondering how best to reward Mordecai (6:4); and the king’s re-entry when Haman is compromising himself for falling on Esther’s couch (7:8). All these incidents materially affect the outcome, but none if the result of any strategy on the part of the Jews. Either the Jews have extraordinarily good luck, or unseen powers are at work, giving events a particular shape and direction. The author never makes an explicit comment on this, one way or another. However, the way the characters in the story behave, and the speeches they make at crucial points, clearly indicate their belief that something more than chance or purely natural causation is at work.

The casting of the pûr (the lot) by Hama and his friends at court at the beginning of the main action (3:7) implies a belief on their part that times such as particular days and months are not neutral. They have a tendency or bias towards certain outcomes, and it is not wise to make plans without consulting whatever powers give the times this special character. The lot if apparently a device for doing this.

The three-day fast called by Mordecai at Esther’s request in 4:15-16 is best understood in terms of a related, but significantly different, belief on the part of the Jews. It is quite distinct in character from the ‘fasting, weeping and wailing’ which are mentioned at the beginning of the same chapter (4:1-3). That was a spontaneous response to bad news. This fast, in contrast, is ‘called’ by Esther and Mordecai, and therefore takes on the character of a ritual act. Furthermore, it is specifically ‘for’ Esther (4:15), who is about to take her lie in her hands by approaching the king unbidden; it has an intercessory aspect to it. The Jews apparently do not believe that particular events have a fixed character; but neither do they think the way they turn out it entirely due to natural causes. The fasting here implies belief in a higher power who may be induced to intervene in a favourable way. The fast in question appears to be a religious act which it is hoped will induce him to do so on this particular occasion. But the outcome is not guaranteed by the act. There is no mechanical connection between ritual and result. The power who is appealed to remains free and sovereign: ‘If I perish, I perish’ (4:16). Against this background the passive expression of 9:22 acquires a particular nuance: ‘sorry was turned for them (neḥpaḵ lāhem) into joy, and mourning into a day of celebration’ (my translation). In other words, their fasting met with a favourable response. (Barry G. Webb, Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on The Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther [New Studies in Biblical Theology 10; Nottingham: Apollos, 2000, 2013], 121-22)

Lawrence Poulson (1933-2019)

Lawrence ("Larry") Poulsen passed away last night. he was 85 years of age and has now been reunited with his wife.

Larry did a lot of great work on the topic of the geography of the Book of Mormon, including (compelling, IMO) evidence that the River Sidon in the Book of Mormon is the Grijalva River.  One can find his work on Book of Mormon Geography on his Website here.

The following is his 2008 FairLDS (now "FairMormon") presentation:

Book of Mormon Geography

Arch S. Reynolds on Faith and Works

In a short book interacting with, and critiquing, various aspects of Roman Catholic theology, Latter-day Saint author Arch S. Reynolds wrote the following about the relationship between faith and works:

Chapter XI

Faith and Works

The Protestant Churches, many of them, teach that God’s grace alone is sufficient to salvation; that the works we do it extraneous to the doctrine. Luther was the best example of this doctrine in modern times. The Catholics on the other hand, however, teach that works are necessary; but let us consider what they teach as works: “The good works recommended by the Bible are prayers, fasting, and almsgiving.” (No. 456) It is very likely that the Catholics got their ideas of Almsgiving from the Apocrypha Old Testament, Ecclesiasticus 3:30.

That works consist of something more than prayers, fasting, and almsgiving is shown in James 2:25 abut Rahab who received the messengers of Israel and sent them out another way. Also James 4:17, “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” The passage in James 5:13 has the concrete interpretation of prayer: “Is any among you be afflicted? Let him pray. Is any be merry? Let him sing psalms” James 5:16 says: “ . . . confess your faults one to another (not to the priests) that ye may be healed.” Some of the works necessary to salvation are revealed by Christ to the Apostles: “He that believeth on me, the works that I do (miracles, etc.,) shall he do also.” (John 14:12) Paul stated to Titus the things essential thus: “ . . . In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works.” (Titus 2:7) He said to the Phillipians: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil, 2:12) Romans: “God will render to everyone according to his deeds.” (Rom. 2:16) Again, “Be not weary in well doing.” (II Thes.3:13) These passages give good evidence that good works mean much more than mere prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. Paul says further: “Give cheerfully for God loves a cheerful giver.” Why should not a person give to the poor and for the upkeep of the Church, but that does not disparage the doctrine of good works in everyday life, doing all manner of good to your fellowmen.

As our Book of Mormon has it: “when ye are in the service of your fellow beings, ye are only in the service of your God.” (Mos. 2:17) Or as Benjamin Franklin says: “Serving God is doing good to man.”

Faith is the assent of the soul—it is spiritual insight by which we arrive at ultimate and demonstrable truths. It grows with the exercise of obedience and becomes a reciprocal means of cooperation. It is an unfailing energy, an invisible surmise. Its beginning is experiment, while its ending is experience. Action grows out of it. Prayer is also another aspect of faith, since it is performed by those who have a trust and a confidence in the efficacy of its exercise.

If we wish to help ourselves, we must tune-up and get ready to preach the Gospel. We often times get off key and make ourselves in disharmony with our fellowmen and God. The disharmonious notes of those who wish to falsify the truth often are instilled into the minds of the weak and vacillating. When we refuse to permit God’s word to enter our minds we lose the right pitch. Let us get back on the right key even if we must ask the services of some of our fellowmen and the God who loves us beyond comparison to give us a lift when needed. (Arch S. Reynolds, Catholic Doctrine versus Mormonism [2d ed.; Springville, Utah: Art City Publishing Company, 1951, 39-40, italics in original)

Open Theism and 2 Nephi 3:15

Recounting a prophecy by Joseph of Egypt, Lehi, speaking to his son Joseph, is recorded to have said:

And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me; for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation. (2 Nephi 3:15)

Some have argued that this passage necessitates belief in exhaustive, not contingent foreknowledge as, they argue, (1) this is an explicit prophecy of Joseph Smith and (2) no other person could have fulfilled such, therefore disproving Open Theism (within a Latter-day Saint framework). However, such is not necessary, and can be read consistently within an Open Theistic framework. How so?

In Open Theism, predictions are not always God telling people what may/will happen in the sense of God looking down the corridors of time, but instead, a promise of God demonstrating his powers and abilities in the future. One can read this passage as a promise that God will somehow intervene in salvation history and cause one person to be called "Joseph" and a son to be called "Joseph" who will be called as a prophet as a demonstration of his powers and abilities. Indeed, we see this in Scripture, such as the naming of Jesus and John the Baptist being divine commands as a result of divine intrusion, not God simply foreseeing the then-future free-will actions of people.

Recounting the naming of Jesus, Joseph was told in a dream the following:

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matt 1:21).

The verb καλεω (to call/name) in this verse is καλέσεις, the second person future indicative active. The future and/or indicative is often used as an expression of what God commands (e.g., Matt 1:22; John 3:16; Phil 1:6; 2:9-11; 1 Thess 4:16; cf. Matt 4:14; Luke 11:50; John 4:14, 36; 12:40; 19:28; Acts 1:8, 11; Rom 3:18; 5:20; 7:13; 8:17).

With respect to John the Baptist, Gabriel commanded his father Zacharias to name him “John”:

But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. (Luke 1:13)

Such broke with naming conventions:

And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John. And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name. And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called. And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all. And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God. (Luke 1:59-64)

It would not be inconceivable that Lucy Mack and/or Joseph Smith senior would have received a prophetic dream commanding them to name their child “Joseph.” Indeed, if one reads Lucy Mack Smith’s memoirs (written in 1845 and published in 1853), both she and her husband were the recipients of many prophetic dreams and visions.

Furthermore, it could plausibly be argued that there were contingencies that if something happened to the Smith family or Joseph Smith himself, that God had a back-up plan. There was a family, the Joseph Knight family, who lived within the vicinity of the Smith family, the father was called “Joseph” as was one of the sons, and they lived very similar lives, and after their conversion to the gospel, were the “second family” of the restoration due to the important role they played in early Latter-day Saint history. While speculative, one could argue that, if something happened to the Smith family, the father-son duo from the Knight family could have “stood in,” if you will, to fulfil the role of the future prophet described in 2 Nephi 3, including the requirements in v. 15 quoted above. The idea that a calling/office is not fixed upon a specific person can be seen in the textual history of D&C 81:1. The current text contains a promise given to Frederick G. Williams calling him to be a high priest; however, in the earliest text, it was addressed to Jesse Gause. However, Gause left the LDS Church due to apostasy, and, as a result, the promise was transferred to Williams, as well as resulting in an editing of the pertinent text.

For a discussion of the Knight family and their important role in early Church history, see:

William G. Hartley, Stand By My Servant Joseph: The Story of the Joseph Knight Family and the Restoration

While 2 Nephi 3 is seen as perhaps the most difficult passage within uniquely Latter-day Saint scriptures for Open Theism, I do not believe it is as problematic as it may appear at first blush.

Interestingly, that Joseph Smith's prophetic mission could have failed and he could have been replaced at any time if he were to apostatise or something else were to happen to him can be seen in the following revelation from December 1830:

 

And I have sent forth the fulness of my gospel by the hand of my servant Joseph; and in weakness have I blessed him; And I have given unto him the keys of the mystery of those things which have been sealed, even things which were from the foundation of the world, and the things which shall come from this time until the time of my coming, if he abide in me, and if not, another will I plant in his stead. Wherefore, watch over him that his faith fail not, and it shall be given by the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, that knoweth all things. (D&C 35:17-19 [my thanks to my friend Braxton Bogard for pointing out the “Open Future” theology of this pericope)

 

Encyclopedia Judaica (22 vols) available online

All 22 volumes of the Encyclopedia Judaica is available online (note: it is one [270 MB] file):

Encyclopedia Judaica

(hat tip to my friend Stephen Smoot for making me aware of this)

The 1917 Code of Canon Law and the Veneration of Images

I have addressed the claim by some (not all) Catholic apologists that images/icons do not receive any veneration in Catholic theology, only their “heavenly prototypes” (i.e., the saints the images depict):

Answering a Catholic Apologist on the Veneration of Images

Robert Bellarmine Affirming the Veneration of Images, not the Heavenly Prototype Merely

God Commanding the Making of the Brass Serpent and Cherubim: Support for the Veneration of Images?

The Abbots of Constantinople and the Veneration of Images, not the Images' Heavenly Prototypes Merely

Joseph Pohle on Images/Icons/Statues being the (rightful) recipients of Veneration

See also:

Latter-day Saints and Religious Images

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

At the risk of being accused of engaging in “overkill,” I will present some more evidence, this time from the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The following comes from:

Edward N. Peters, Curator, The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law: In English Translation with Extensive Scholarly Apparatus (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001)

Canon 1255

§ 1. To the most Holy Trinity and to each of its Persons, [and] to Christ the Lord, even under the sacramental species, there is owed the worship of latria; to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the cult of hyperdulia [is owed]. The others reigning with Christ in heaven, the cult of dulia [is owed].

§ 2. Also to sacred relics and images there is a veneration and a cult owed to the respective persons to whom the images and relics refer. (p. 426)

Canon 1276

It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke the Servants of God reigning together with Christ and to venerate their relics and images; but before the others, all the faithful shall follow the Blessed Virgin Mary with filial devotion. (p. 432)

Canon 1281

§ 1. Important relics or precious images and likewise other relics or images that are honored in some church with a great veneration of the people cannot validly be alienated or perpetually transferred to another church without the permission of the Apostolic See.

§ 2. The important relics of Saints or Blesseds are the body, head, arm, forearm, heart, tongue, hand, leg, or other part of the body that suffered in a martyr, provided it is intact and is not little. (p. 434)

Holy Oils and the 1917 Code of Canon Law

Latter-day Saints are known to use consecrated oil in various ceremonies, including the blessing and anointing of the sick. Such is not, of course, unique to Latter-day Saints. Note the following from Edward N. Peters, Curator, The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law: In English Translation with Extensive Scholarly Apparatus (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001):

Canon 734

§ 1. The holy oils that are used in the administration of certain Sacraments must be blessed by the Bishop on the [Holy Thursday] immediately before; older [oils] shall not be used unless necessity urges.

§ 2. In case of an insufficient supply of blessed oil, the non-blessed oil of lives can be added, [and] even [added] again, though in an amount less than [was] the original. (p. 273)

Canon 945

The oil of olives, that is to be used in the sacrament of extreme unction, must be blessed for this purpose by the Bishop, or by a priest who has obtained from the Apostolic See the faculty of blessing it. (p. 329)

Canon 1271

In the presence of the tabernacle in which the most holy Sacrament is reserved, at least one lamp shall burn continually, day and night, fed by the oil of olives or beeswax; but if true oil of the olives cannot be had, the local Ordinary can prudently permit that other oils be used, insofar as possible, vegetable [oil]. (p. 431)

Abraham 2:22-25 and the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran

And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon; therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise: Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live. And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee. (Abraham 2:22-25)

Some have argued that this is an instance of “divine deception.” However, as we learn in Genesis 20:12, Abraham and Sarah were indeed siblings—they shared the same biological father.

Furthermore, while Genesis does not tell us that God was the ultimate source of this plan to save their lives, ancient texts discovered after the time of Joseph Smith, when recounting the Abrahamic narrative from Genesis, presents Abraham as the recipient of a prophetic dream instructing him to tell the Egyptians that Sarah was his sister, not wife.

The text discovered at Qumran, the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20), column 19, lines 17-20, reads thusly:

Then I awoke in the night from my sleep, and I said to my wife Sarai, "I dreamt a dream (and) on acco[unt] of this dream I am afraid." She said to me, "Tell me your dream, so that I may know (about it)." So I began to tell her this dream, and I said to [her], " . . . this dream . . .    . . . that they will seek to kill me, but to spare you. Therefore, this is the entire kind deed th[at you] must do for me: in all cities (?) that [we will ent]er s[a]y of me, 'He is my brother.' I will live under your protection, and my life will be spared because of you. (Daniel A. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13-17 [Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah vol. 79; Leiden: Brill, 2009], 71-72)

For those interested in the relationship between the Book of Abraham and Abrahamic traditions found in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic texts, one should try to track down a copy of John A. Tvedtnes et al., Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham (FARMS, 2001). Sadly, the book is out of print, but Jeff Lindsay has a very good summary of the book at:

Questions about the Book of Abraham, Part 3: Does It Agree with other Ancient Texts?

1 Corinthians 10:17 and the Eucharist as the Cause and Signification of Ecclesiastical Unity

For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. (1 Cor 10:17)

Commenting on the significance of “one bread” (εις αρτος) vis-à-vis the origin and meaning of ecclesiastical union in the celebration of the Eucharist, Eric Svendsen wrote:

what is the point that Paul makes about the bread? Paul goes beyond the mere fact that it is a participation in the body of Christ and in addition, shows its significance for unity. There is one (εις [heis]) loaf of bread in the Lord's Supper. This one loaf, according to Paul, somehow creates unity within the body: οτι εις αρτος, εν σωμα οι πολλοι εσμεν ("because there is one loaf of bread, we who are many are one body"). As if to prevent someone from downplaying the force of οτι (hoti), Paul adds: οι γαρ παντες εκ του ενος αρτου μετεχομεν ("for we all partake of the one loaf of bread"). There can be no mistaking Paul's meaning here, and it is doubtful that the grammar can be taken any other way. Paul believes there is theological significance in the singularity of the loaf of bread. It is important to Paul that there is an expression of unity in the body (not merely a static concept of unity); this is accomplished by all partaking of one loaf of bread. Harris' assertion that the single loaf and single cup "expressively symbolize the unity of believers" is true in itself, but does not go far enough. Paul does not say that we partake of one loaf of bread because we are one body; on the contrary, we are one body because we partake of one loaf of bread. As Wainwright notes, the bread "both signifies and causes churchly unity" (emphasis his). The force of οτι and γαρ together makes it clear that Paul sees the singularity of the loaf as a cause of this unity, not merely its symbol. (Eric D. Svendsen, The Table of the Lord: An Examination of the Setting of the Lords' Supper in the New Testament as an expression of Community [rev ed.; Atlanta: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 1996, 1997], 16)

Some Rumors Are True

("LDSApologian" is my twitter handle)

Alma 1:15 and Nehor's "Ignominious Death"

Alma 1:15, speaking of the execution of Nehor, reads thusly:

And it came to pass that they took him; and his name was Nehor; and they carried him upon the top of the hill Manti, and there he was caused, or rather did acknowledge, between the heavens and the earth, that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death. (Alma 1:15)

Commenting on this passage and how it supports their thesis that the Book of Mormon is, in part, based on the 19^th century world of upper New York state that he lived in, the Tanners wrote:

In 1827 a man by the name of Jesse Strang was hung for a murder which he had committed in Albany, N.Y. The people in New York were very upset over the murder, and a crowd estimated at “thirty thousand persons” witnessed and hanging. At least five articles were printed concerning this affair in the Wayne Sentinel. We know that the Smith family was familiar with this newspaper, for on August 11, 1826, Joseph Smith’s father was listed as a delinquent subscriber. Almost two years before Joseph Smith’s father had run an advertisement in this paper (see A New Witness For Christ in America, Vol. 1, page 16).

In the Book of Mormon we find a story concerning a wicked man named Nehor (see Alma 1:2-15). This story is very similar to the story of Jesse Strang. Below is a list of parallels:

1. Both Strang and Nehor committed a murder.

2. In both cases the victim was a righteous man.

3. Neither Strang nor Nehor held to orthodox religious beliefs nor seemed to fear eternal punishment.

4. Both appeared before a very religious judge.

5. Both Strang and Nehor were found guilty and were sentenced to death.

6. Both were taken to the place of execution and acknowledged their sin.

7. Both accounts use the expression “ignominious death.”

In the Wayne Sentinel we read:

 . . . he was about to suffer a painful and ignominious death. (Wayne Sentinel, August 31, 1827)

In the Book of Mormon we read:

. . . he suffered an ignominious death. (Alma 1:15)

Although the word “ignominy” is found in Proverbs 18:3, the word “ignominious” is not found in the King James version of the Bible. It is interesting to note that the only place it appears in the Book of Mormon is in connection with the execution of Nehor. Because of the similarity of the two accounts, we feel that the story of Nehor in the Book of Mormon. (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5^th ed.; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987 2008], 86, emphasis in original)

In his review of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? Matthew P. Roper wrote the following about Nehor and his "ignominious death" and the parallelomania they are engaging in (something which permeates much of their works):

The Tanners refer to a newspaper article which mentions the public hanging of a murderer named Strang, who is described as suffering an “ignominious” death (pp. 85-86). (Would not death by hanging be considered “ignominious” in any age?) They compare him with Nehor. However, this kind of grab-bag methodology clearly has its limitations. It might be fun for the Tanners, but it leaves them powerless to explain many of the more subtle complexities in the Book of Mormon. The case of the Gadianton Zemnarihah is an excellent example. After his capture, he is “hanged upon a tree, yea even on the top thereof until he was dead. And when they had hanged him until he was dead they did fell the tree to the earth” (3 Nephi 4:28). While hanging was certainly a common form of ignominious death in the nineteenth century, where in Jacksonian America do you find the practice of cutting down the “hanging tree”? Such practices seem odd to us today, but they would make good sense for an Israelite. Ancient tradition required that the tree upon which a criminal was hung be chopped down so that it would not serve as a reminder of the dead criminal. The tree was sometimes even buried with the body. In fact, the Talmud actually recommended that a dead and detached tree be used for hanging so that a live tree did not have to be felled. (Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 250-52.)

Commenting on Early Modern English and “ignominious death” as used in the Book of Mormon:

The Book of Mormon has a single use of the adjective ignominious:

Alma 1:15
and it came to pass that they took him
— and his name was Nehor—
and they carried him up to the top of the hill Manti . . .
and there he suffered an ignominious death

Some have declared that the Book of Mormon’s use of the phrase “ignominious death” dates from Joseph Smith’s time, but the Oxford English Dictionary from its very first citation under ignominious shows that this is wrong:

1526, William Bonde, The Pilgrimage of Perfection
the ignominious and shameful death of the cross

Of course, the phrase ranges from Early Modern English up into modern English, as in these examples, the first taken from Early English Books Online and the second from Google Books:

1560, John Knox, An Answer to a Great Number of Blasphemous Cavilations
Written by an Anabaptist
why he did not provide man’s redemption by some other means
than by the cruel and ignominious death of his own Son.

1824, The Cincinnati Literary Gazette
and in that nature living a laborious life and suffering an ignominious death (Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Part 3: The Nature of the Original Language [Provo, Utah: The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies/Brigham Young University Studies, 2018], 369)

On the legal background of Nehor’s trial, not execution merely, see:

John W. Welch, The Trial of Nehor

It should be clear that the parallelomania and superficial analysis of the Book of Mormon by the critics notwithstanding, the Book of Mormon is not a clumsy hoax but is a much more complex, sophisicated text than many give it credit for.

D. Charles Pyle on D&C 84 and the Temple in Independence, Missouri

On Quora, D. Charles Pyle, author of the well-researched and argued book I Have Said Ye are Gods, has an excellent response to the claim D&C 84 contains a false prophecy:

Is Joseph Smith's prophecy "Zion will be built with its temple at independence within a generation" a failed prophecy?

For more on Joseph Smith's prophecies, see:

Resources on Joseph Smtih's Prophecies (I have added Pyle's response to this list)

The meaning of "Standard Work(s)" in 19th century Latter-day Saint Parlance and the Journal of Discourses

Some critics of the Church, in an effort to impute a greater authority to the 26-volume Journal of Discourses than it has for Latter-day Saints, harp on the fact that the term "standard work" is used to describe it in the preface to the 8th volume:

The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of "the light that shines from Zion's hill." (JOD 8:iii [George Q. Cannon])

The term “standard work[s]” in the early Church was not exhausted by the category of “canonical book”; instead, it denoted any work of excellence. Indeed, such was even used of the hymnal by Joseph Smith on May 14, 1840:

In answer to your enquiries, respecting the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon, Hymn Book, History of the Church &c &c; I would say, that I entirely approve of the same; and give my consent, with the exception of the Hymn Book, as a new Edition, containing a greater variety of hymns, will be shortly published or printed in this place; which I think will be a standard work. As soon as it is printed, you shall have some sent to you, which you may get translated, and printed into any language you please— Should we not be able to send some to you, and there should be a great call for Hymn Books where you may be; then I should have no objection to your publishing the present one. Were you to publish the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants or Hymn book; I desire the copy rights of the same to be secured in my name. (source)

We can see how such was used by other 19^th century Latter-day Saints. In a sermon dated 7 April 1866, we read the following from John Taylor:

I had recourse to some of our dictionaries, to find out what popular lexicographers said about it. I referred to the standard works of several different nations, which I find to be as follows:—

Webster (American), "Religion includes a belief in the revelation of his (God's) will to man, and in man's obligation to obey his command."

Worcester (a prominent American). 1. An acknowledgement of our obligation to God as our creator. 2. A particular system of faith or worship. We speak of the Greek, Hindoo, Jewish, Christian, and Mahomedan religion.

Johnson (English), "Religion, a system of faith and worship."

Dictionary of the French Academy, "La croyance que l'on a de la divinite' et le culte qu'on lue rend en consequence."

Foi croyance.

The belief we have in God and his worship.

Faith—belief.

German Dictionary of Wurterbuch, by Dr. N. N. W. Meissner, a standard work in Germany.

"Religion, glaube, faith, persuasion."

Here, then we have the opinion of four of the great leading nations of the earth, as expressed by their acknowledged standard works, on what they consider to be the meaning of the word religion.

The German has it—faith, persuasion. The French—faith, belief; faith in God and his worship. The English—a system of faith and worship. These three are very similar.

Next we have Webster, American, which is our acknowledged standard, and he says, "Religion includes a belief in the revelations of God's will to man, and in man's obligation to obey his commands." (JOD 11:220)

Here, Taylor used "standard work(s)" to denote (secular) works of excellence.

More importantly, as we will see below, "standard work(s)" also had a broader meaning when used in a religious, not secular, context.

In a sermon dated 7 April 1867, George A. Smith is recorded as having said the following:

I travel about occasionally, and sometimes, when I want food or a night's lodging, I call at the house of a brother, who is probably of long standing in the Church, and who is raising a family of fine children. Now, a part of that man's mission is to educate those children, to form their tastes, to cultivate their talents, and make a kingdom of holy men and women of them—a kingdom of priests unto God. But what has he got there to do it with? If you ask for a Book of Mormon, he will probably hand you one that old age seems long since to have passed its final veto upon, and if you undertake to pick it up you would say, "it stinks so that I cannot." I do not know that there are many such Elders, but if there should happen to be one here, it would be well for him to reflect that right here at the Deseret News printing office br. Kelly has the standard works of the Church for sale, and I would like every Elder in Israel to place a full set of them in the hands of his children; but especially, and above all others, the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. I want to find them in every house. And when I go to a meeting house to preach I want the Bishop to have them on the stand, and the better they are bound and the nicer they look the more they please me. I do not wish to see these sacred books so dirty that you cannot read them, nor so shattered by time and bad usage that you cannot find a passage you wish to read because it is torn out. Where there are meeting houses without them I recommend, if necessary, that collections be taken up to procure them. When stopping at the houses of the brethren, instead of the works of the Church I will probably find "Cresswell's Eulogy on the Life of Henry Winter Davis." "How did this get here?" I inquire. "Oh, why, br. Hooper sent it, and it is a very nice work," is the reply. Have you the Juvenile Instructor?" "No." "Why, your children are big enough to read it, and it is one of the finest written things imaginable, and there is scarcely a syllable in it but what is useful. How do you manage to keep your children at home without something to interest them? Do you take the Deseret News?" "No, they stopped publishing the sermons, so I concluded that I would do without it." "Do you take the Daily Telegraph?" "I did take it, but I did not pay for it, and the editor got out of patience at having to furnish it for nothing, and he stopped it. I felt insulted, and would not take it any more." "Do you send to the States for books?" "No." So the children are learning nothing at all, and the only chance for them to have a little excitement is to get some corn and play at three men morris. 

Brethren, make your homes attractive. Procure the Deseret News and the Juvenile Instructor, and let your children read the sermons and articles printed there, and read them yourselves, you are none of you too old to learn. If you want light reading do not sent to the States for it, but support that which is got up here. (JOD 11:363-64)

Here we see that the term “standard work” was not exhausted by the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants (the Pearl of Great Price would not be canonized until 1880), but was a much broader term.

In another sermon from George A. Smith (11 October 1874), we read the following:

We are anxious to publish the standard works of the Church to a greater extent than hitherto. Some of them have been republished, and others are in progress, and we wish to have the co-operation of the Saints, generally, throughout the Territory, in helping on this work. Our publications should be in every family of the Saints, and we wish to exercise that kind of influence in the midst of our people that will lead them to make themselves acquainted with the contents of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and such other Works as are or have been published illustrative of the principles of life and salvation made known in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that they may be more generally understood by those professing to the Latter-day Saints. (JOD 17:161)

Again, “standard works” encompass more works than the canonical works of the church merely.

Even more interesting is how “standard works" is used in a sermon from Brigham Young from 8 April 1867:

As the subject of education is open, and has been from time to time during this Conference, I will now urge it upon the people—the young men and the middle-aged—to get up schools and study. If they are disposed to study physic or surgery, all right; they will know then what to do if a person is sickly, or has his elbow, wrist, or shoulder put out of joint, or his arm or any other bone broken. It is just as easy to learn such things as it is to learn to plant potatoes. I would like to urge these matters upon our young men, and I am convinced this meets the feelings of all the brethren. I do hope, and pray you, my brethren and sisters, to be careful to observe what br. Wells has said in regard to introducing into our schools the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Standard works of the Church, and all the works pertaining to our faith, that our children may become acquainted with its principles, and that our young men, when they go out to preach, may not be so ignorant as they have been hitherto. I would like very much to urge upon our young people, the sisters as well as the brethren, to pay more attention to arithmetic and other things that are useful, instead of acquiring a little French and German and other fanciful studies that are not of so much practical importance. I do not know how long it will be before we call upon the brethren and sisters to enter upon business in an entirely different way from what they have done. I have been an advocate for our printing to be done by females, and as for men being in stores, you might as well set them to knitting stockings as to sell tape. Such business ought to be done by the sisters. It would enable them to sustain themselves, and would be far better than for them to spend their time in the parlor or in walking the streets. Hardy men have no business behind the counter; they who are not able to hoe potatoes, go to the kanyon, cut down the trees, saw the lumber, &c., can attend to that business. Our young men in the stores ought to be tuned out and the sisters take their place; and they should steady arithmetic and bookkeeping necessary to qualify them for such positions. I would also like our school teachers to introduce phonography into every school; it is an excellent thing to learn. By its means we can commit our thoughts and reflections to paper with ease and rapidity, and thus preserve that which will be of benefit to ourselves and others, and which would otherwise be for ever lost. This is a delightful study! In these and all other branches of science and education we should know as much as any people in the world. We have them within our reach, for we have as good teachers as can be found on the face of the earth, if our Bishops would only employ and pay them, but they will not. Let a miserable little, smooth-faced, beardless, good-for-nothing Gentile come along, without regard for either truth or honesty, and they will pay him when they will not pay a Latter-day Saint. Think of these things. Introduce every kind of useful studies into our schools. I have been urging upon our young men for years to get up classes for the study of law. The laws of this Territory, of the United States, of the different States, of England, and foreign lands. Do this instead of riding over the prairies hunting and wasting your time, which is property that belongs to the Lord our God, and if we do not make good use of it we shall be held accountable. (JOD 12:31-32)

In the above text, the canonical works of the Church (Bible; Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants) is distinguished from the category of “standard works”(!)

Brigham also used the term in the same way in a sermon from 24 July 1877:

Study the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, read the sermons that are published in the Deseret News, as well as all the standard works of the Church. Such reading will afford you instruction and improvement; but novels allure the mind and are without profit. (JOD 19:64)

Note also that Brigham also differentiates the sermons published in the Deseret News (whence the Journal of Discourses) from the “standard works of the Church.”

Such a distinction appears also in a sermon from George A. Smith dated 11 October 1874 which, as we have seen above, earlier used “standard works” to denote the canonical works and other works of excellence pertaining to Latter-day Saint theology, showing the elasticity of the term in 19^th century Latter-day Saint discourse:

After the close of this Conference meetings in this building will be discontinued during the winter and will be held, under the direction of the Bishops, in the ward assembly rooms every Sunday afternoon and evening. The forenoons will be devoted to Sunday Schools, and I exhort the brethren and sisters to have their children ready, so that they can be at school in time. And I invite the young men and especially the young sisters, to attend Sunday schools; I want to stir up the young men to go there and form Bible classes. And I exhort the Elders to be present as teachers, that there may be no lack of teachers. I want to express my admiration of brother Goddard and a number of other school superintendents and teachers, with whom I am acquainted, because of their efforts to spread among the young throughout the Territory a knowledge of the principles of the Gospel, as taught in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and in the standard works of the Church. And I say to the young men, that if they will attend the Bible classes and study the catechism in use in our schools, and make themselves familiar with it, they will become so thoroughly informed in the principles of the Gospel and the evidences of it, that when called upon to go abroad to defend the doctrines of Zion they will be well prepared to do so. I invite the Elders to see that these classes are formed in all the settlements. 

I will again repeat the idea that has already been presented, to sustain our own literary institutions and publications,—the Juvenile Instructor, the Woman's Exponent, the Deseret News, which contains discourses by the First Presidency and Twelve, and also the publications in the several counties. They are conducted by men who take pains to disseminate the truth, . . . (JOD 17:257)

Critics who attempt to elevate the authority of the Journal of Discourses are simply ignorant and/or disingenuous when they appeal to the preface to volume 8 by George Q. Cannon and the term “standard work.” And do note that I appealed, with one exception, to nothing but the Journal of Discourses to prove my case! :-)

On the scope and limits of Latter-day Saint doctrine, see:

On the Scope and Formation of Latter-day Saint Doctrine

Truth and Method: Reflections on Dan Vogel's Approach to the Book of Mormon

As John Dehlin has released his 8-part interview with Dan Vogel, I think it is apropos to plug this great article by Kevin Christensen which shows jus some of the many problems with Vogel's interpretive (really just eisegesis) skills of the Book of Mormon and how the case for Book of Mormon historicity is much greater than what Vogel lets on:

Truth and Method: Reflections on Dan Vogel's Approach to the Book of Mormon (PDF)

Where I agree 100% with John Dehlin

In part 1 of his series of interviews with Dan Vogel, John Dehlin said the following:

Everybody who is a member of a religion or an organisation should have information about it to be able to make an informed decision. (beginning at the 11:00 mark)

I cannot believe this, but I agree 100% with John Dehlin. Those who are members of and/or supporters of Dehlin’s Mormon Stories podcast should have information about it to be able to make an informed decision, so I present to you the following from Greg Smith:

Dubious “Mormon” Stories: A Twenty-First Century Construction of Exit Narratives

And

Return of the Unread Review: A Mormon Story

Richard Carrier on Hebrews Pre-Dating AD 70 and "High Christology" Not Being a Later Development

The Epistle to the Hebrews undeniably has a very high Christology, ascribing personal pre-existence to Jesus and his being the agent of the Genesis creation (1:2-3, 10-12), as well as being one of the handful of instances where θεος is applied to Jesus (1:8-9). For a discussion, see the slides to my presentation The “Mormon” Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. What is also important is that the majority of scholars, including liberals, date Hebrews before the destruction of the temple in AD 70, showing that a “high Christology” is not a later development in Christianity, but part-and-parcel of “primitive” Christianity (also: the "High Christology" of the Book of Mormon not being anachronistic as if often believed):

Richard Carrier, who is on the extreme end of liberal scholarship (he even rejects the historicity of Jesus) is forced to date Hebrews pre-70 based on the overwhelming evidence of an early date. As he writes in his book, On the Historicity of Jesus (2014):

The author of this text is not named, and though some claimed it was Paul, that’s unlikely (stylistically, for sure), although it may have been composed by a contemporary or successor of Paul (as I suspect is the case for 1 Clement; see Chapter 8, § 5; where I also mention evidence that 1 Clement might even have used Hebrews as a source). In Heb. 13.13 the author claims to be a companion of Timothy, which could be the same Timothy Paul traveled with; the author also implies at least some of his readers were evangelized by the original apostles, and long enough ago that they should be teachers themselves by now (2.3; 5.12); and in 10.32-34 the author appears to refer to their initial persecution in the time of Paul years before (which Paul himself references in Gal. 1.13)—if these remarks are not fabrications, they would place this letter as early as the late 40s or as late as the early 60s.

Many scholars instead want to date Hebrews after the canonical Gospels, but that faces two serious objections: Hebrews shows no knowledge of these Gospels (it never references any of their unique content and never quotes from them, and what it does argue often seems to be in ignorance of what they say); and Hebrews assumes without explanation that the Jewish temple cult is still operating—that the temple hasn’t been destroyed by the Romans and the rites were outlawed. Both facts should date Hebrews before 70 CE and therefore before all the canonical Gospels. That would make it in a sense the earliest Christian ‘Gospel’, since it is mostly an elaborate treatise on the gospel and why it should be believed (it just isn’t a narrative of Jesus or a collection of his sayings, so it’s not analogous to other Gospels only in structure and genre).

The first fact is strong enough (if written later, Hebrews should reflect knowledge of the Gospels), but the second fact is the most telling. The overall argument of this letter is that Jewish Christians should backslide now, because Judaism can no longer guarantee their salvation (this letter does not advocate Torah-observant Christianity: e.g. Heb. 13.9). That the temple cult no longer existed (and God did nothing to save the Jews from destruction, not even as a nation, but neither to save his temple and the cult being paid to him there) would have been so extremely effective and important an argument in this context that for the author never once to use it is all but impossible—unless Hebrews was written before the year 70, before even the year 66 (when the Jewish War started, since the fact alone could hardly escape mention). For example (and this is just one example among many), in Heb. 10.1-4 it is clearly assumed the temple sacrifices are still being performed: because the author makes an argument against their effectiveness, yet the obvious argument—that they aren’t even being performed ay more and therefore can’t be effective even if they were—doesn’t occur to him. He even asks as a rhetorical question if the effects of these sacrifices lasted longer than a year, ‘would they not have ceased to be offered [by now]?’ (10.2). It’s undeniably clear the author has no idea here that they had ceased. We must conclude, then, they had not. I find this so decisive a point that maintaining a later date for Hebrews is simply not tenable. I know of no logically valid argument for that. I therefore side with those scholars who accept it as early. (Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014], 538-40, emphasis in bold added)