Leviticus 13:59: The Declaration of Ritual Cleanliness/Uncleanniness Based on a Reality

While studying Leviticus today, I read the following:

This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of woollen or linen, either in the warp, or woof, or any thing of skins, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean. (Lev 13:59)

The 1985 JPS Tanakh renders the verse thusly:

Such is the procedure for eruptive affections of cloth, woolen or linen, in warp or in woof, or of any article of skin, for pronouncing it clean or unclean.

What is interesting is that the declaration of being “clean” or “unclean” is based on, not a mere imputation or “labelling” of being ritually clean or unclean: they are declared such as they are truly (ritually) clean or unclean.

This should caution us against the common abuse of texts such as Deut 25:1 and Lev 17:3-4 (see here), informed by the false (and blasphemous) doctrine of imputed righteousness (see my essay here in response to a recent attempt to defend this doctrine).

The Melchizedek Material in Alma 12-13, Purported Dependency upon Hebrews, and "The Sealed Book of Mormon"

Some critics of the Book of Mormon have argued that the Melchizedek material in Alma 12-13 is dependent upon the information about Melchizedek in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The most sophisticated discussion comes from David P. Wright's essay “In Plain Terms That We May Understand”: Joseph Smith’s Transformation of Hebrews in Alma 12-13 that appeared in Brent Metcalfe, ed. New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993).

John W. Welch responded to Wright on this issue in his Approaching New Approaches (cf. his earlier essay The Melchizedek Material in Alma 13:13-19; see also Book of Mormon Central’s essay Why Did Alma Talk about Melchizedek? And Jeff Lindsay’s discussion at Is Alma 13 derived from Paul's writings in Hebrews 7 and 8?).

In light of various traditions about Melchizedek (e.g., the Melchizedek Scroll from Qumran [11Q13]) and other considerations as noted by Welch et al., the material in the Book of Mormon is evidence for, not against, historicity.

For a genuine instance of being dependent (anachronistically) upon Hebrews and other texts, we have a prime example from chapter 9 of a recent of many texts purporting to be a translation of a portion of the “sealed plates” (others claim to be a restoration of the Book of Lehi, etc); those familiar with Hebrews and other texts will readily notice the textual dependency (e.g., verse 4 being dependent upon Heb 7:7 and the context thereof; see also verse 3's misunderstanding of the actions of Melchizedek in Gen 14:18-19 [the bread and wine being part of a priestly sacrifice] as being a "sacrament meeting" of sorts[!])

1 When [Abram] returned from the battle, he gave the tithe of all war spoils to Melchizedek, as well as all that he possessed, showing that even he, who would become the father of our faith, was not exempt from the law of tithing. Then Melchizedek, king of Salem, and high priest of the Most High God, took bread and wine; and laid it on the altar, and blessed the bread, and brake it, and gave Abram first to eat, whom he had appointed to the priesthood, by whose priestly power proceeding from the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, was active in him in the midst of the battle of Chedorlaomer.
2 And he also shared the bread and wine with the family of Abram, and with all his servants that were under the covenant. So Melchizedek proceeded, symbolically in relation with the promise made since the days of Adam, of the promised descendant who is King and Priest of the Most High forever in the manner of Melchizedek.
3 For how much, the other confederate kings who were in battle, were only permitted to watch this sacred ceremony with their ordinances. And after Melchizedek had distributed the sacrament, being the high priest of the Most High God, called Abraham and blessed him, saying: Blessed be Abram, thou art the man of the Most High God, possessor of the heavens and the earth, and blessed by the Most High God, who delivered his enemies into his hands.
4 And after washing his feet in a ceremony to show him that the greatness of the greater is to serve as a minor, he confirmed him to the office of the High Priest, saying: Blessed be Abram, a man of faith; receives, therefore, this consecration and called to direct the church that will henceforth be known by the name of the Most High through its descendants until it is put on the head of another by oath and covenant, from the beginning of the end of times.
5 And it came to pass before all the kings of the earth that Melchizedek raised his voice and blessed Abram, confirming him to the high priesthood of the holy order of the Only Begotten of the Father.—Being this Melchizedek recognized by all of them; for before he obtained the scepter of the king, he was a man of faith who did righteousness among his people; and when he was a boy, he covered the mouths of lions, and extinguished the fiery impetuous that consumed his village by the tyranny of the vassals of Nimrod.
6 And so, being approved of God, he was ordained a high priest according to the order of the covenant which Go made with Enoch, which was according to the order of the Son of God; whose existence does not come from the earthly man, nor from the will of man; neither by father nor mother; nor by the beginning of days nor by the end of years; but of God; whose Son proposed in Himself, before the foundation of the world, to gather together all things, both things in the heavens and on earth, which was being extended to the children of men by the appeal of His own voice, through His prophets according to His will, to all who believe and yet will believe in His name.
7 For God swore to Enoch and his descendants with an oath unto Himself; that all who are ordained according to his command and call, would have power by faith, to divide the seas, to dry the waters, to divert the course of the rivers, and to move the mountains from their place. In defying to many natural elements as the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break all ties of the enemy, and to stand in the presence of God; simply by doing all things according to His will, according to His commandments, and even to subdue against principalities and powers; if so the will of the Son of God that existed before the foundation of the world. Therefore, in the days of Enoch this Priesthood was called by his name, as being the priesthood of Enoch.
8 And the men who had this faith before the foundation of the world were ordained by this holy calling, in the order of God, in the likeness of Melchizedek, who was also high priest of the same order as Enoch before him, but as Melchizedek was greater than Enoch in the likeness of the Only Begotten of the Father; having been called and prepared from the foundation of the world, according to the will of God who called and ordained him, first by His foreknowledge and then according to his great faith, for the purpose of teaching the commandments of God to the children of men, was that the Priesthood of the Son of God in relation to the great high priest which was Melchizedek, and out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being and, so that men not abuse the gifts derived from the feelings that come from the name of God, came to be called according to the order of Melchizedek.
9 And when there is on earth a high priest appointed by the heavens in the manner of Melchizedek, for the purpose of regulating the gospel of the Lamb of God, which in some way has become distorted among the children of men; he must be caught up to receive the keys of the same high priesthood in his body, as a slave marked by his Lord, as if it were, by an incandescent iron, both physically and spiritually, and therefore Melchizedek was called the Prince of Peace, because he had the power to unify the people of God, just as he unified Abram under the covenant and conferred upon him the presidency of this high priesthood and blessed Abram with all gifts pertinent to the president of the church among the people of God in their days. But Melchizedek remained the greatest, though he was minor among them, for how much he lived.
10 For behold, Abram made all things by revelation received from heaven, and obtained from the Lord the promise that his righteous offspring would forever inherit this same priesthood from the holy order o the Son of God; and that God will raise a prophet the likeness of Melchizedek, from times to times, to bring light and knowledge to the children of men in the flesh, for the purpose of uniting the heavens and the earth, when in the final part of all times the city of Enoch will descend again to the church of the lamb. But the children of God shall be tested by fire.
11 And this Melchizedek, having established righteousness on earth, was called the king of the heavens by his people, or, in other words, the King of peace. Because he lifted up his voice, and blessed Abram, being the high priest and keeper of the Lord’s storehouse, the one that God appointed to receive tithes for the poor. So even Abram paid him the tithes of all that he had, which God gave him, which exceeded his needs.
12 And it came to pass that God blessed Abraham, and gave him riches and glory, and lands for an everlasting possession; according to the covenant he made, and according to the blessing which Melchizedek had blessed him. (Joseph Fredrik Smith, The Sealed Book of Mormon: Translated from the Plates of Mormon By the Gift and Power of God [Independence, Miss.: United Literary Order of the Last Days, LLC, 2019], 95-98)

Michael Gorman on Justification Being Transformative, Not Merely Declarative/Forensic

In his recent book on Pauline soteriology, Michael J. Gorman wrote against justification being declarative/forensic merely:

. . . Pauline soteriology (theology of salvation) is inherently participatory and transformative . .  In my view, some interpreters in justification in Paul commit one or more methodological errors: . . . Some interpreters fail to make other sorts of connections and stop short of certain kinds of exegetical and theological conclusions because of fear of sounding, or even becoming, Roman Catholic or Orthodox (or Jewish?). For instance, a predisposition toward a “juridical” (forensic, legal) view of justification can obscure the connection between justification and justice, or rule out the possibility of seeing justification as that which actually makes people just. Theological concerns about “works-righteousness” or “synergism” may prevent an interpreter from seeing what Paul actually says . . . A strong case can be made that Paul’s understanding of justification is much more participatory and transformative than is often thought, especially by many Protestant interpreters. (Michael J. Gorman, Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2019], xviii, 17-18, emphasis added)

In support of such, Gorman continues:

A careful study of two critical passages in Paul’s theology and spirituality Galatians 2:15-21 and Romans 6—reveals that Paul has a basic soteriology of dying and rising with Christ that he associates with both justification by faith/faithfulness (Gal. 2:15-21) and baptism (Rom. 6). In each passage, Paul speaks of co-crucifixion with the Messiah Jesus:

For I myself, through the law, died in relation to the law so that I could live in relation to God. I have been crucified with the Messiah. (Gal. 2:19 MJG)

We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body defined by Sin would be destroyed, and we would no longer be enslaved to Sin. (Rom. 6:6 MJG)

In fact, there are multiple parallels between Galatians 2 and Romans 6, suggesting that justification and baptism are two sides of the same coin—the coin of initial participation, or conversion. Of these additional similarities, two are most important. First, co-crucifixion with Christ is immediately followed (implicitly or explicitly) by co-resurrection with Christ: resurrection to new life in covenant relation to God. Second, these realities of justification and baptism entail being transferred into Christ. Paul say both that we “came to faith [that incorporates us] into [Gk. eis] the Messiah” (Gal. 2:16 MJG) and that we have been baptized “into” (eis) the Messiah (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27), into his “body” (1 Cor. 12:13).

Whether Paul is speaking of the internal confession of faith or the external confirmation of that faith in baptism, the reality is the same: co-crucifixion and co-resurrection with Christ that means transfer into Christ and thus new life in him, which means also in his body, the ekklēsia. One would be hard-pressed to think of ways to indicate participation more strongly, yet succinctly, than with the trio of prepositions “with,” “into,” and “in.”

This initial experience of dying and rising that entails transfer and entry continues for believers once they are in Christ. The life of cruciformity is the natural outflowing of the initial co-crucifixion. That is why Paul can say, “I have been crucified with the Messiah” (Gal. 2:19 MJG), using the perfect tense; it is a reality with an initial starting point that continues into the present. Those who are in Christ have “crucified” the deeds that characterized their former way of life, and yet they must constantly “Put them to death” (Rom. 6:6-14; 8:10-13; Gal. 5:24; Col. 3:5). The paradox . . .is that this life of constant co-crucifixion (cruciformity) is also suffused with the resurrection. (Ibid., 19-20, emphasis in original)

With respect to the problems of viewing justification as merely forensic, Gorman writes the following, with a focus on 1 Cor 6:9-11:

It may, however, be the case that justification as divine declaration and justification as divine transformative action are not distinct and mutually exclusive understandings of justification for Paul, or for us. If we think of a divine declaration as an effective word a performative utterance, then justification as divine declaration not only permits but also requires transformation. The neologism of Reformed theologian Peter Leithart is particularly helpful in articulating this truth; he understands justification as a “deliverdict,” a verdict that effects deliverance (Leithart, Baptized Body, 75-76; Leithart, Delivered from the Elements of the World, esp. 180-214, 333-54). Whether intentionally or not, with this term Leithart has brought together traditional Protestant approaches to Paul and apocalyptic approaches (which generally characterize justification as “deliverance” from apocalyptic powers), as well as other perspectives that stress justification’s transformative element. The theological states here are, in my view, quite high. The German Lutheran scholar Michael Wolter agrees; he breaks down the wall between “forensic justification” and “real participation,” claiming that “If God’s judgment about a person were not completely directly efficacious in reality and God’s pledge of salvation were not a salvific power that changes the person, God would not be God” (Wolter, Paul, 251).

A final example from Paul will help us see the close connection between the communal, the transformative, and (possibly) the declarative elements of justification according to the apostle. In 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 Paul attempts to persuade the Corinthian community that the practice of pursuing lawsuits against their siblings in the Messiah is a form of adikia (“injustice, unrighteousness”). Although this noun itself does not occur in the text (but see 1 Cor. 13:6), its cognate adjective adikos (“unjust, unrighteousness”), used as a noun, occurs in verses 1 and 9, and its cognate verb adikeō (“commit injustice, harm”) appears in verses 7 and 8. Paul’s arguments against this injustice culminate in his claim that the unjust (adikoi)—implicitly including the Corinthian litigants—will not inherit the kingdom of God (v. 9). The Corinthians, he says, used to practice injustice and other evils disqualifying people from the kingdom, but then he says, “You [the Corinthians] were washed . . . sanctified . . . justified [alla apelousasthe, alla hēgiasthēte, alla edikaiōthēte] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (v. 11 NRSV). That is, something happened of these Corinthians, including justification; the passive connotes an act from outside the self, an act of grace of God. Whether or not we see in this third passive verb a divine declaration, we cannot help but see a transformation. The unrighteous have become righteous; the unjust have been incorporated into the community of the just—the community of the Messiah and the Spirit were practices of justice have replaced practices of injustices. (Ibid., 144-46, emphasis in bold added, italics in original)

 Such should serve as a wake-up call to Protestants who hold to forensic justification.

For more, see, for e.g., my response to a Protestant apologist's attempt to defend the doctrine of imputed righteousness at:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

K. Shane Goodwin on Early (1834) Members Wishing to Distance themselves from the nickname "Mormon"

Commenting on the reason for changing the name of the Church from “Church of Christ” to “Church of the Latter Day Saints,” K. Shane Goodwin noted the reason for Saints being used in the name of the Church:

(3) distance the Church from terms such as Mormon and Mormonite. Sometimes it is challenging to decide whether a term is spoken out of contempt, since context, intent, and especially tone of voice have great weight. The terms Mormon and Mormonite most likely were viewed with different levels of comfort by various leaders and members of the Church, as is the case today. For example, Joseph used the terms Mormon and Mormonism occasionally, as evidenced by his reflections on July 9, 1843: “If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist or a good man of any other denomination.” Later in that day’s journal entry, he states, “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” [31]

On the other hand, some leaders were not as comfortable with the nickname, as can be inferred from Oliver Cowdery’s editorializing after the May 1834 name change, which stated that “the world, either out of contempt and ridicule, or to distinguish us from others, have been lav­ish in bestowing the title of ‘Mormonite.’ . . . But WE do not accept the above title. nor shall we wear it as OUR name.” [32] Lest one consider that Cowdery merely considered “Mormonite” as the only derisive name of the two, we read three months later in the same paper: “Whereas the church of Christ, recently styled the church of the Latter Day Saints, contumeliously called Mormons, or Mormonites, has suffered many privations, afflictions, persecutions and losses on account of the reli­gious belief and faith of its members.” [33]

Undoubtedly, a name change alone would not necessarily dissuade critics of the Church from using derisive terms to label its followers, but the new appellation “Latter Day Saints” would definitely rise to greater public prominence. From the Joseph Smith Papers, we read, “Despite the name change, some—both within and without the church— continued to refer to the organization as the Church of Christ and its members as Mormonites or Mormons, but after this conference, the use of the name Church of the Latter Day Saints became increasingly prevalent.” [34]

Notes for the Above

31. “History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844],” 1666, Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 18, 2019, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper -summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/36. Although both terms Mormon and Mormonism have quote marks around them in the josephsmith.net rendition of these comments from the Prophet, in the origi­nal document, published by the Joseph Smith Papers (handwriting of Robert L. Campbell), there are no such marks. This, of course, only amplifies the nuance.

32. Editor of the Star, “The Saints,” Evening and the Morning Star 2, no. 20 (May 1834): 317, accessed July 18, 2019, https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/ collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/28070, emphasis in original.

33. “An Appeal,” Evening and the Morning Star 2, no. 23 (August 1834): 361, accessed July 18, 2019, https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/ NCMP1820-1846/id/28093. See also History of the Church, 2:126; and “Style Guide—the Name of the Church.”

34. “Minutes, 3 May 1834,” 43.

Source: K. Shane Goodwin, “The History of the Name of the Savior's Church: A Collaborative and Revelatory Process,” BYU Studies 58/3 (2019): 4-41, here, pp. 17-19

We can see that, even as early as 1834, a desire among members of the Church to distance themselves from the name “Mormon” (and “Mormonite”). One was reminded of a blog post by my friend Stephen Smoot:

A "Mormon" By Any Other Name

Matthew Bates vs. the Claim that Romans 2:5-8 is Merely Hypothetical

But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteousness judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath an indignation. (Rom 2:5-8 NASB)

Against those who claim that Rom 2:5-8 is merely hypothetical and Paul is not teaching our works will, in some way, determine our eternal destination (not heavenly rewards merely), Matthew Bates writes:

Paul repeatedly says good works will determine final salvation on the day of judgment. We cannot ignore these texts . . . One attempt to avoid works as fundamentally saving is to suggest that Paul was just speaking hypothetically in Romans 2:5-8 in order to encourage the helpless sinner flee to Jesus. Paul says that God will repay each according to his or her own works. But if God were actually to do this, all would be condemned because all our deeds are imperfect. Therefore, Go will not do this. It’s hypothetical . . . On the surface this hypothetical solution sounds plausible. But accepting it is a dangerous theological gambit. The hypothetical solution takes Paul to be saying the opposite of what he actually says . . . 1. Immediate context. There is nothing in the immediate context of Romans 2 to suggest that Paul is speaking hypothetically. In fact there is evidence that he is not doing so in 2:25-29 (see below). It is true that the none-are-righteous overarching context of Romans 1:18-3:20 must be considered as interpreting 2:5-16, but it is not true that this uniquely favors the hypothetical solution, because other solutions are possible. The even-nearer context in Romans 2 must be prioritized, and it points at life in the Spirit, making this the more probable overall solution.

2. Not marked as hypothetical. Elsewhere in Romans, Paul marks his statements that are not to be taken at face value. For example, in Romans 3:5 he says, “I speak in a human way” (see also Rom. 6:19). But he does not do this in 2:5-8, nor should we pretend that he has. We must take seriously Paul’s statement that each will be judged for eternal life according to (and on the basis of) works (2:5-8) an will be justified on the basis of law-doing (v. 13)

3. Positive verdict. Paul speaks of the possibility of both a positive and a negative verdict in Romans 2:5-16. If Paul were speaking hypothetically only about the grim prospect of condemnation by works so as to motivate us to flee to Jesus, we would expect him to speak only of a guilty verdict against all humanity—because that is the only possibility. But Paul indicates that the judgment can go either way. Why would Paul announce a possible positive verdict—“God will render to each one according to his [or her] works: to those who by steadfastness in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruptibility, eternal life” (Rom. 2:6-7 AT)-in the judgment according to deeds if he is really trying to tell everyone that only a guilty negative verdict can result? The hypothetical solution cannot account for a possible positive verdict, but the life-in-the-Spirit solution can.

4. The Holy Spirit empowers good works. The Holy Spirit empowers holy living. Paul says in near context (Rom. 2:25-29) and later on in the letter (Rom. 8:1-4, 12-13) that the Holy Spirit enables us to perform good deeds and fulfill the law in the Christ. “A Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God” (2:29). Such a person is praised by God when judged because he “completes [telousa] the law” (2:27 AT). Note the connection to Romans 2:13: “It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” In both cases doing or completing the law results in righteousness or praise before God. Thus we are encouraged to see the Holy Spirit as the key in both. A better solution than the merely hypothetical lies ready at hand in Romans 2 itself. Good works are saving when they are part of faith because the Holy Spirit empowers us to perform them. (Matthew W. Bates, Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2019], 183, 185, 188-89, italics in original)

Matthew W. Bates on the Thief on the Cross

When Jesus is dying on the cross between two thieves, one reviles him, but to the other Jesus says, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Some have concluded that the thief (better translated as “criminal”) is instantly saved by faith in Jesus’s death on the cross apart from any acts of loyalty. Then they draw an implication: saving allegiance is invalid.

There are two problems with this conclusion. First, by starting solely at the cross, this conclusion is blind to the royal context. All around the criminal are people who fail to recognize Jesus’s kingship despite the irony of a crucified Messiah. The people and rulers scoff, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God” (Luke 23:35). The soldiers mock him, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” (v. 37). The inscription reads, “This is the King of the Jews” (v. 38). The first criminal mocks Jesus, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” (v. 39). All of this suggests that the criminal’s salvation depends on genuine rather than mocking confession of Jesus as the king.

Second, we have no indication that the criminal was specifically trusting in Jesus’s death for his sins. Given that the crucifixion is in view, the story line probably encourages us to believe that he was, but the biblical text says nothing of the sort explicitly. Rather, the criminal encourages others to have an appropriate fear of God as the one who fairly judges the guilty and the innocent. The criminal does not say, “Jesus, I am trusting only in your sacrifice for me.” Rather, he says, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (Luke 23:42).

In other words, the criminal publicly professes that this crucified Jesus is the true king and is about to receive his throne. He has heard the royal gospel (in summary form) and has responded with allegiance. Allegiance is in view because he thinks his personal confession (“remember me”) of Jesus as the king (“your kingdom”) has an enduring quality that will make him worthy of reward once Jesus begins his reign over him and all others in the coming age. Far from undermining the gospel-allegiance proposal, the salvation of the criminal at the cross supports it. (Matthew W. Bates, Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2019], 108-9)

Charles Penrose on "Adam-God" in 1900

A Piece of Impertinence

A gentleman in Ozark, Mo., addressed a letter to the editor of the Deseret News a short time ago, asking for information concerning the teachings of President Brigham Young in relation to Adam. A personal letter was written in reply, giving the desired explanation. The Lamoni, Iowa Herald, organ of the "Josephites," prints this private latter and endeavors to make it appear that the writer is taking up a controversy with the author of a work called "Utah Mormonism in Contrast." The Herald makes very free with the name of the editor of the "News," and also strains a point to show that he has undertaken to "apologize for the teachings of President Brigham young" on this subject.

We regard the action of the Herald in this affair as contrary to the ethics of respectable journalism and an unwarranted liberty to take with a private communication. We simply addressed a personal letter to a gentleman who made private inquiry on the subject mentioned. And as to the book to which the letter is made to refer, we know nothing. We have never seen the book, or any quotations from it, and never heard about it until the article in the Herald was received, headed "Penrose vs Pres. B. Young." If our correspondent sent the letter to the editor of the Herald, he was guilty of a breach of good manners, and if it was obtained surreptitiously the blame lies with the paper that published it.

To show that there was nothing in the letter of which we are ashamed, or that might not with propriety be given to the public if it was obtained in a proper manner and with the consent of the writer, we here append it in full, as published in the Herald:

"Salt Lake City, Utah,

Feb. 17, 1900,

"Mr. Quincy Anderson, Ogark, Mo.:

"Dear Sir--In reply to your letter of inquiry, I have to say that President Brigham Young, in the discourse of which you speak, did not say that the 'virgin Mary was not overshadowed by the Holy Ghost.' He did not say that it was 'Adam.' He did not say that 'Adam was our only God.' What he did not say, on this subject, was that Jesus was not 'begotten' by the Holy Ghost. He taught that Jesus was the 'first-begotten' of God in the spirit, and the 'only begotten' of God in the flesh. As to Adam, he taught that he was Go in the sense of being at the head of the human family. That he was Michael, the Ancient of Days and in the resurrection would be at the head. In that way the whole human family will be related to him as his children and in the Patriarchal order he will be the personage with whom they will have to do, and the only one in that capacity. President Young taught faith in that Eternal Being to whom Adam and all his race should bow in humble reverence, who is our Eternal Father and the Father of our elder brother, Jesus Christ, and is the Great Elohim. The Journal of Discourses is not now in print and I do not know of any volume now on sale; however, I have given you the substance of President Young's teaching as to Adam. Hoping that this will be satisfactory.

I am

"Yours truly,

"C. W. PENROSE,

"Editor 'News.'"

Anyone who has carefully read the discourse delivered by President Young on this subject, will perceive that our brief statement of its purport is correct, that there is nothing in one that is in conflict with the other; that we have neither "apologized for" nor disputed anything contained in that one sermon, which has been so much misunderstood and perverted by the enemies of our late venerable President. We are familiar with the doctrine he taught, and which he did not attempt fully to explain the discourse which has been published. And it should be understood that the views entertained by that great leader and inspired servant of the Lord, were not expressed as principles to be accepted by mankind as essential to salvation. Like the Prophet Joseph Smith, his mind was enlightened as to many things which were beyond common understanding, and the declaration of which would bring upon him the opposition of the ignorant.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints has fundamental principles to present to the world, the reception of which is essential to salvation. They are to be found in the written standards of the Church, and are simple and easy to comprehend and obey. There are men in the Church who entertain ideas of a more advanced nature, some of which, although they may be expressed in public, either upon the stand or in works that have been written, are not put forth as binding upon any person. This distinction ought to be clear to all who interest themselves in such matters.

That which President Young set forth in the discourse referred to, is not preached either to the Latter-day Saints or to the world as a part of the creed of the Church. In answering the letter of our correspondent we simply explained in private that which was asked in private, so that he might understand the tenor of President Young's views, and not with any intention of advocating or denying his doctrine, or of controverting anything that may have been said upon the subject by opponents of his utterances. We do not regard the course of the Lamoni Herald in this matter as commendable, or even ordinarily respectable. It is a piece of journalistic impertinence. (Charles W. Penrose in Deseret Evening News, 21 March 1900, p. 4 [available here], emphasis in bold added)

Further Reading

Matthew B. Brown, Brigham Young's Teachings on Adam

Jeff Roundy on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Some critics of Joseph Smith claim that he never made any prophecy that was fulfilled. Writing in 1961, former Latter-day Saint turned atheist G.T. Harrison wrote:

. . . Joseph Smith made many prophecies allegedly in the name of God or Jesus Chris and NOT ONE OF THEM CAME TRUE. (G.T. Harrison, Mormonism: Now and Then [Helper, Utah: 1961], 343, emphasis in original)

The truth is that Joseph Smith made many prophecies that have been fulfilled, evidencing the truthfulness of his claim to be a prophet of God. See the articles and books under “Resources on Fulfilled Prophecies of Joseph Smith” at Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies.

Most recently, Jeff Roundy, a Latter-day Saint youtuber, has produced two videos addressing Joseph Smith’s prophecies:

Joseph Smith’s Prophecies Fulfilled - Evidences

Joseph Smith's (NOT!) Failed Prophecies

Daniel Brown and The Study Quran on Surah 101 and the Qur'an's occasional lack of Perspicuity

Commenting on the occasional lack of perspicuity one finds in the Qur’an, Daniel Brown wrote:

Other features of the Qur’ān fit much less comfortably with the traditional account of its hasty compilation. Around the time of its canonization, for example, some words and passages in the Qur’ān were completely unintelligible to its readers. In a number of passages the Qur’ān itself seems to acknowledge that its readers might have a hard time understanding its language by conveniently offering explanatory glosses. In twelve separate instances a difficult word is accompanied by the phrase “And what shall teach you what is the . . . ,” which is then followed by an explanation. Sūra 101 provides a double example:

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. The Clatterer! What is the Clatterer? And what shall teach thee what is the Clatterer? The day that men shall be likely scattered moths and the mountains shall be like plucked wool tufts. Then he whose deeds weigh heavy in the Balance shall inherit a pleasing life, but he whose deeds weigh light in the Balance shall plunge in the womb of the Pit. And what shall teach thee what is the Pit? A blazing Fire!

Readers were simply not expected to know what the words translated here as “Clatterer” and “Pit” meant. Translators of the Qur’ān still do not know, and Arberry’s (1955) translation given here is no more than an over-confident guess. The very earliest Muslim Qur’ān commentators also had a guess. They had no idea what to do with these and many other words in the Qur’ān. Hence their guesses are often wildly different from one another and simply show that no one really knew these words, and that a good part of the language of the Qur’ān was foreign to them. If the Qur’ān was composed during Muḥammad’s lifetime and compiled within twenty years of his death, there is simply not enough time to allow for such widespread forgetfulness. The language of the Qur’ān should have been familiar to its compilers and early commentators. Clearly, it was not. (Daniel Brown, A New Introduction to Islam [Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004], 57)

With respect to surah 101, as discussed by Brown above, note the following from The Study Quran (note: they translate the term, not as “clatter” but “calamity”):

Calamity translates qār'iah, which comes from the verb qara'a meaning "to beat or strike something so that it makes a deafening sound." The repetition of the question in vv. 2-3 (which is similar to 69:2-3) is meant to emphasize the true nature of the calamity, which is thought to be the Day of Judgment, is difficult to comprehend. Thus the following verses do not define the calamity, but describe some of its marks. (The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary [New York: Harper One], Location 74421-47 of 90397 of Kindle edition)

Gabriel Moran on the Danger of downplaying the True Humanity of Jesus

Commenting on the downplaying of, and paying lip service to, Jesus being truly human, Catholic theologian Gabriel Moran wrote the following, which is just as applicable, sadly, in many LDS circles:

 . . .we (theologians and simple faithful) tend to put the humanity of Christ on God’s side, not man’s. As a result of this, the gospel record of the life of Christ is taken not as the story of a human life but as a piece of play-acting in which nothing really happens and in which the personal reactions are little more than pretension. “Such a piece of play-acting would be unworthy,” writes Daniélou, “Christ pretended nothing. He did not pretend to be a man; he really was a man” (Daniélou, Christ and Us, p. 123). In many theological considerations (for example, of grace, redemption, or sacraments) there has developed a better understanding of the place of Christ’s humanity. In the most basic area of revelation, however, there remains (despite appearances and assertions to the contrary) an almost complete void. (Gabriel Moran, Theology of Revelation [Studies in Religious Education; New York: Herder and Herder, 1966], 64)

Catholic Scholar Steven C. Smith on Adam as “High Priest”

The second chapter of Genesis presents clues that Adam is not merely a horticultural figure, but a priestly figure, chosen by God as the High Priest of Eden . . . Targum Neofiti is an early translation from Hebrew into Aramaic, and it is . . .instructive. The rending of Genesis 2:15 is typical of early Jewish concepts of Adam, depicted in priestly language. There, Targum Neofiti describes Adam as being placed in the Garden “to toil in the Law and to observe its commandments.” This expression is intended to evoke priestly rigor, and calls to mind similar descriptions of Levitical priests in the Book of Numbers. The translation of Targum Neofiti at Genesis 2:19 presents yet another example. At this point, the Targum explicitly states that in naming the animals, Adam used “the language of the Sanctuary.” . . . On the notion of Adam’s possible priestly role—that is, in preventing that which is unclean to trespass into the “gates” of the Garden sanctuary—another text from Genesis 2 requires some attention. The Hebrew term tardemah (“deep sleep”) in Genesis 2:21 with respect to Adam’s rest suggests the author’s intention to indicate the passing of time, such that Ada—who was created on the sixth day—awakens to discover Eve, given to him by God on the seventh day. In such a reading, the gift of Eve on the Sabbath would place Eve near the center Adam’s perfected, priestly world. Out of his side, and by his side, he would freely roam the garden, preserving and protecting the boundaries of the Garden: seeing to the continual state of holiness all that was within the sanctuary, and that all unclean things were kept outside the sanctuary.

While the timing of the creation of Eve remains unclear, the following is clear. Adam, the high priest of Eden, failed to fulfill his end of the covenant. When the most unclean Serpent (Hebrew, nahash) trespassed the boundaries of the Garden sanctuary, and failed to preserve and protect the holiness of the Temple, “Adam stepped aside and did not guard the garden sanctuary or his wife from the evil it represented.” One Catholic theologian opines that “Adam’s failure to engage this demonic serpent in battle was the result of his unwillingness to lay down his life in defense of the garden Sanctuary . . . he failed to offer his life as a priestly sacrifice to God” (Michael Barber, Singing in the Reign: The Psalms and the Liturgy of God’s Kingdom [Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road, 2001], 44).

In the New Testament, the Book of Hebrews suggests that something similar when it writes of “the fear of death” that overcomes men. An identification with Adam seems plausible, if not likely: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, [Jesus] himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage” (Heb 2:14) . . . other texts beyond Genesis are worthy of consideration. For example, in Exodus, Moses is commanded to fashion precious gems for the temple and for Aaron’s vestments, both of which reflected the glory (kāvôd) of God himself, as several texts from Exodus make clear: “And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother for glory (kāvôd) and for beauty” (Exod. 28:2); and “For Aaron’s sons you shall make coats and sashes and caps. You shall make them for glory (kāvôd) and beauty” (Exod. 28:40).

The term used here for “glory” (kāvôd) is standard terminology “for God’s glorious theophanic revelation of himself to Israel at Sinai, at the Tabernacle, and at the end of time” (Gregory Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 41-42). Genesis does not portray Adam dressed in the glorious robes of the high priest of the later Temple, yet Ezekiel does, and stops short of referring to him as an angelic being: “You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked” (Exod. 28:14).

Likewise, texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls depict the glory of Adam: “Adam, our father, you fashioned in the image of your glory . . . the breath of life you blew into his nostril, and intelligence and knowledge in the Garden of Eden, which you had planted. You made [him] govern . . . and so that he would walk in a glorious land . . . he kept. And you imposed on him not to turn away  . . he is flesh and to dust” (4Q504). And elsewhere, “Remember Adam, please, that all of us are your people . . . You are in our midst, in the column of fire and in the cloud your holy walks in front of us, and your glory is in our midst” (4Q504).

Similarly, the Aramaic Targums replace “garments of skin” in Genesis 3:21 (Gen. 3:21) with “garments of glory,” as in this text: “And the Lord God made garments of glory for Adam and for his wife from the skin which the serpent had cast off.” (Steven C. Smith, The House of the Lord: A Catholic Biblical Theology of God’s Temple Presence in the Old and New Testaments [Steubenville, Ohio: Franciscan University Press, 2017], 81, 82-83, 85-87)

19th-century Anti-Mormon Protestant Affirming the Propitiatory Nature of Christ's Intercession

In an anti-Mormon volume from 1855, T.W.P. Taylder, while attempting to critique the “Mormon” view of the priesthood wrote:

. . . the person of Christ alone, who has entered into the holy place, even itsel, “now to appear in the presence of God for us,” (Heb. ix. 24.) The intercession of Christ still continuing, so also his priesthood. (T.W.P. Taylder, The Mormons’ Own Book: Or, Mormonism Tried by its Own Standards Reason and Scripture [London: Partridge, Oakey, and Co., 1855], 97-98, emphasis added)

Note how the author ties in Christ’s on-going intercession to his being an eternal, heavenly priest. In a footnote for such, we learn about the function of Christ’s heavenly intercession in the theology of the author:

“The dignity and merit, power and authority, of the Messiah, in his exalted state, imply a continued presentation of his obedience and sacrifice, as ever valid and efficacious, for the pardon and acceptance, the perfected holiness, and the eternal happiness of all who are truly penitent, believing, and obedient.”—Dr. J. Pye Smith’s “Priesthood of Christ,” p. 127 (Ibid., 97, italics in original, emphasis in bold added)

So we see this anti-Mormon author (who is a Protestant) affirm that Christ’s continual intercession allows for the continued application of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, something one finds in texts such as Heb 2:17 and 1 John 2:1-2. See, for e.g.:

Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30

As for Taylder and his comments against the LDS priesthood in his book, one should check out my book-length treatment of the priesthood:

After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood

Tyler the Ex-Evangelical Quits Swimming

Lutheran Satire has posted (as always) a hilarious video:

Tyler the Ex-Evangelical Quits Swimming

One was reminded of how this Tyler character is similar to the vast majority of the "I was a faithful Latter-day Saint [but never read a book on the Church and never studied any of the relevant issues, so was super ignorant] but then I read the CES Letter . . ." exit narratives" and/or the majority of former members who appear on Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcast. Also, one could not help think of Dave Bartosiewicz, a former Catholic, former Latter-day Saint, former Evangelical who is now (as of writing) Eastern Orthodox (I wonder what religion he will join next?)

John Bergsma on John 6 Containing Eucharistic Texts and Theology

Often, as a knee-jerk reaction to the Catholic use of John 6 to support their theology of the Eucharist (i.e., Transubstantiation; Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice), some reject John 6 as containing any Eucharistic theology. This, however, is, absurd, and results in a lot of eisegesis of the text. I addressed this at:

Is there any Eucharistic Teaching in John 6? A Response to Leon Morris

Catholic scholar John Bergsma wrote the following showing that it is pretty clear, exegetically speaking, that John 6 contains much Eucharistic theology:

First of all, notice that John records Jesus performing this miracle on the Passover (Jn 6:4), the east on which the Last Supper would later take place (Mt 26:17). Secondly, note that the occasion for the miracle is Jesus sitting own on a mountain with his disciples (6:3), just as later, he will sit down with his disciples on Mt. Zion to celebrate the Last Supper (c. Lk 22:30). Thirdly, note that Jesus commands the people to “lie down” (Greek anapipto). The only other times this verb occurs in the Gospel of John are in reference to Jesus (13:12) and the apostle John (13:25, 21:20) reclining at the Last Supper. Fourthly, note that at the heart of the miracle account (v. 11), John describes Jesus multiplying the loaves by using five words that occur in the Last Supper/Institution narratives of the other Gospels: take (lambano), loaf/bread (arton), give thanks (eucharisteo), give/distribute (didomi) and recline (anakeimenos). Then, he escribes the bread that remains after everyone has eaten using the rare word klasmata, literally “breakings,” which echoes the Last Supper accounts that speak of Jesus “breaking” the bread.

Common Words in John 6 and the Institution Narratives
John 6:11-12	Matthew 26	Mark 14	Luke 22	Paul (1 Cor 11)
Take/lambano	v. 26	v. 22	v. 19	v. 23
Bread/arton	v. 26	v. 22	v. 19	v. 23
Give thanks/Eucharistein	v. 27	v. 23	v. 19	v. 24
Give/didomi	v. 26, 27	v. 22, 23	v. 19	-
Recline/anakeimenos	v. 20	v. 18	v. 27	-
Break/breaking klao/klasmata	v. 26	v. 22	v. 19	v. 24

In the discourse that follows (John 6:16-71), more themes from the Last Supper/Institution of the Eucharist crop up. Jesus discusses the idea of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and other places in the New Testament where eating Jesus’ boy and blood are mentioned are in the Last Supper accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. In particular, nothing in John 6 prepares the reader for the introduction of the idea of “drinking blood” in verse 53, and it adds nothing to the discourse except to reinforce the Eucharistic interpretation of his words. Jesus also discusses his desertion by his own disciples (vv. 60-66) and predicts the betrayal by Judas (vv. 70-71), both of which are major themes in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper.

Common Themes in John 6 and the Institution Narratives
John 6	Matthew 26	Mark 14	Luke 22	Paul (1 Cor 11)
Eating Jesus’ flesh (Greek phago sarx) (vv. 51-53, 56)	v. 26	v. 22	v. 19	v. 24
Drinking Jesus’ blood (Greek pino haima) (vv. 53-54, 56)	v. 27-28	v. 23-24	v. 20	v. 25
Desertion of the Disciples (vv. 60-66)	vv. 31-35	vv. 26-31	vv. 31-34	Cf. vv. 17-22
Betrayal by Judas (v. 70-71)	vv. 21-25	vv. 18-21	vv. 21-23	Cf. vv. 27-32!

One can’t reasonably argue that all the connections between John 6 and the accounts of the Last Supper and the Institution of the Eucharist are merely coincidental. Any trained Bible scholar will concede that, by the standards of modern exegesis, one must acknowledge a connection. (John Bergsma, Stunned by Scripture: How the Bible Made Me Catholic [Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 2018], 81-83)

 For responses to Roman Catholic theology of the Eucharist, see:

Responding to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)