Francis J. Moloney on 1 Corinthians 7:32-35

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord. (1 Cor 7:32-35 NRSV)

Commenting on this passage and how it should not be absolutised, as some critics of LDS theology of marriage do, Francis Moloney (himself a Roman Catholic priest) wrote:

In this passage Paul gives his reasons why he believes that people must drop all attention to ordinary affairs:

in view of the present distress
the appointed time has grown very short
the form of this world is passing away.

What does Paul mean by these expressions? It is clear that the early Paul was convinced and urged on in his preaching because he believed that the final end time, the return of the Lord, was only just around the corner. It is evident from his very first letters, the letters to the Thessalonians (written in the late 40s), that he had preached this message of the imminent return of the Lord with such conviction that the Christians had decided that all they had to do was sit and wait. There was no longer any need to apply themselves to their day-to-day tasks, if the Day of the Lord was about to arrive (see 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11 and the whole of 2 Thessalonians). The first letter to the Corinthians was probably written shortly after, in A.D. 54. Paul is still finding the urgency of his message in the conviction that all is about to end very shortly. It is because of this conviction that he can so strongly advocate that his Corinthian community devote all their time and attention, not to wives, husbands, mourning, rejoicing, buying, selling and dealing with the world (see 1 Cor. 7:29-31) but so that they might secure their undivided attention and devotion to the Lord who was about to come (see 7:35).

But he did not come—and he still has not come. If Paul’s teaching on celibacy is so intimately linked to his presupposition that the end is at hand, does this teaching not become somewhat relative when the end time does not come? In fact, Paul’s own understanding of the end time develops. He was able to see, as the years passed by, that the Church was going to face a long history and thus several of the positions he takes in later letters vary from those found in the Thessalonian correspondence and 1 Corinthians. If the end time is near at hand, there is no need for a theology of marriage, but if the Church is going to work its way through history, then such a theology is urgently needed—and it was the Pauline point of view in Eph. 5:21-3, that was used in Gaudium et Spes 48.

Having said all this, however, a word of warning must be issued. We must not rule out the central point of Paul’s teaching. Notice that he states his purpose in 1 Cor. 7:32—‘I want you to be free from anxieties.’ Anything which stands between the Christian and his total adhesion to the Lord must be regarded as secondary. One of these things can be the problems which arise from the case and love of a spouse. Paul is not primarily concerned about celibacy or marriage; he is concerned that his Christians be one in joy, love and hope, freed from any anxieties which may destroy such central factors in the ‘life in Christ’. The only thing that matters for Paul is that his Christians are consumed by an ‘undivided devotion to the Lord’. (Francis J. Moloney, Free to Love: Poverty Chastity Obedience [London: Harton, Longman and Todd, 1981], 46-47)

Brigham Young on Why Not All Revelations Have Yet Been Inscripturated

In a sermon dated May 20, 1860, Brigham Young gave some reasons why not all revelations received by the leadership of the Church have yet been inscripturated:

You may ask whether this is reasonable. I can prove it to be so in a few sentences. There are men upon whom God has bestowed gifts and graces, and women who are endowed with strong mental ability, and yet they cannot receive the truth; and then the truth condemns them: it leaves them in darkness. When they cannot receive every truth, let it be ever so important or unimportant to them, their neglect to grasp in their faith the truth God reveals for their benefit weakens them, comparatively, from the crowns of their heads to the soles of their feet, and the enemy may have the advantage over them in an hour when they think not. To please our Father in heaven, and do his will in all things, to walk up faithfully in the discharge of every duty preparatory to being crowned in his kingdom, when a truth is presented to an intelligent person he ought to grasp it and receive it in his faith. There are revelations, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding yet to be proclaimed, and whether they will please the world, or not, is immaterial to me. I shall not pledge myself upon a single point. (JOD 8:58-59)

In other words, as an act of mercy, the Church has not yet put into the canon certain revelations as to ensure that members will not be condemned, less they “neglect to grasp in their faith the truth God reveals” as many are not yet spiritually ready to receive such things.

Another Example of a Reformed Apologist Speaking of Justification as Transformative

In Reformed theology, justification is an external act wherein God, acting as judge, declares (not makes) the sinner “justified/righteous” based on the forensic imputation of the righteousness of Christ. That justification is declarative merely and not transformational, and that any transformation of the person is within the sphere of sanctification merely are important tenets of historic Protestant theology.

Notwithstanding, Reformed apologists and theologians often slip up and speak of justification as being transformative. I discussed this in a post from 2017:

The Infusion of Righteousness at Justification and Reformed Theological Inconsistency

In a recent book by a Four-Point Calvinist, while affirming justification is declarative merely, makes similar statements that affirm transformational justification in the following commentary about Rom 5:19:

Humans sin in relationship to God’s character and they are justified in relation to His character. All men were placed in the class of sinners and all men will be placed in the class of righteous. There is nothing mankind has done to warrant either; and, there is also nothing mankind can do to prevent either from happening. Both actions, being made a sinner and being made righteous concerning original Adamic sin, are both imputed upon all men as passive recipients. Impute means to “credit to one’s account and treat them accordingly.” One imputation of God is by the one man’s disobedience and the other from the one man’s righteous obedience . . . will be made righteous…the verb “will be made” (κατασταθησονται [katastathēsontai]) is a future passive verb. Again, a passive verb is one in which the subjects (i.e. all men) are passive or being acted upon (i.e. by God). God’s grace will make all men positionally in right standing with God (i.e. acquitted, not guilty, etc.) concerning their original sin through Jesus Christ’s obedience. Because of Christ’s imputed righteousness, it is just as though each person will stand before God and be related as though they were actually obedient . . . righteous…Righteous (δικαιος [dikaios]) when used in the masculine or feminine adjectivally of persons, as it is here, refers to one as being just and right without any deficiency or failure. All men being made righteous within this context are being made righteous in regard to their imputed original sin of Adam . . . righteousness (δικαιοσυνης [dikaiosynēs]). Righteousness is associated with both a gift and power (Romans 5:17, 21), because it is intimately associated with the power (δυναμις [dunamis]) of Christ’s resurrection. Grace reigns through righteousness, and this righteousness is certainly not a righteousness produced by man, but a righteousness produced by Christ which is imputed by God’s grace upon man. Just like in v. 19, it is Christ’s obedience that makes one justified; so here, it is Christ’s righteousness that makes one righteous. Man is the passive recipient of God’s reigning grace through Christ’s righteousness. (R.J. Arthur, For Whom Did Christ Die? Reconciling Unlimited Atonement and Limited Atonement [2018], 47, 51, 52, 59, emphasis in bold added)

For a thorough refutation of imputation, including a discussion of Rom 5:19, see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

John Fisher's Use of Hebrews 5:4 to Support an Ordained Ministerial New Covenant Priesthood Against Martin Luther

And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. (Heb 5:4)

While reading John Fisher’s response to Martin Luther on the Priesthood, I found it interesting that he appealed to Heb 5:4 in a way similar to how Latter-day Saints do. In defence of his sixth axiom, “No one rightly exercise the pastoral office unless he be called, and duly receive from the prelates of the Church both ordination and mission,” Fisher wrote:

As to vocation, St. Paul speaks of its necessity in the Epistle to the Hebrews: ‘No man taketh the honour to himself but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So also Christ did not glorify Himself to be made a high priest, but He that said to Him: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. As He saith also in another place: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech” (Hebrews 5:4-6). So that if Christ, the first pastor, did not arrogate the honour nor glorify Himself that He might become a priest, much less is it lawful to others. No one, then, may claim the honour of pastor unless he be duly called by God. We have the example of the first pastors who were called, one by one, by Christ, whereas the Scribe who offered himself uncalled was repulsed by Him” (Matthew 8:19, 20). God, as we see from St. Luke’s Gospel, does not bestow His gifts except upon those whom He calls. ‘Calling’, He says, ‘his ten servants, he delivered to them ten pounds’ (Luke 19:13). Note how the pounds were given to those who were called. St. Paul, too, claimed to be an apostle because of the call of Christ (Cf. The first verse of each of his first five Epistles as arranged in our Bible and especially the Epistle to the Galatians). St. Matthias, again, did not put himself forward, but was chosen after the apostles had prayed and cast lots, and thus he was made of their number (Acts 1:26). The apostles had not yet received the Holy Ghost nor had been instructed by Him what rite they should adopt for ordinations.

But St. Paul, though he had been personally called by Christ, yet at the bidding of the Holy Spirit was afterwards ordained, together with Barnabas. For, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, there were prophets and doctors at Antioch, offering sacrifice to God and fasting, when they were commanded by the Spirit to separate Barnabas and Saul, then present amongst them. ‘Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have taken them.’ The prophets and doctors, then, who had received this command ‘fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon Barnabas and Saul, sent them away.’ And note how these two, thus sent away by them, were said to have been sent by the Holy Ghost. ‘So they, being sent by the Holy Ghost, went away’ (Acts 13:1-3). Now the work to which they were summoned was not only the conversion of the people to Christ, but also the appointment and ordination of priests for the churches. Thus in the fourteenth chapter of the Acts we find the word χειροτονησαντες, which means, ‘when by the imposition of hands they had ordained for the people priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they  commended them to the Lord’ (Acts 14:22). And then we read that they returned to Antioch ‘from whence they had been delivered to the grace of God unto the work which they accomplished.

Weight all this, dear reader, carefully and if I am not mistaken you will see how far Luther has departed from the truth. I will not speak now of the liturgy or what the Fathers call sacrificing (The first word of Acts 13:2, which our version [Douay] gives as ‘And as they were ministering’, is in the original λειτουρουντων or ‘performing the liturgy,’ cf. infra, p. 105). Note, however, that these two saintly men, Barnabas and Saul, though they were chosen by the Holy Ghost, were yet made priests, by the prophets and doctors, by fasting, prayer and the imposition of hands. Note secondly that the work to which they were ordained was not simply the ministry of the word but the ordaining of other priests in turn for every church. Note thirdly that the ceremonies they used for ordaining priests were the same, viz. the laying-on of hands, prayer and fasting. Note lastly that until they had done this the ministry entrusted to them was not completed. For it was only when they had performed all these things fully that St. Luke relates their return to Antioch ‘from whence they had been delivered to the grace of God unto the work’ (he says) ‘which they accomplished’ (Acts 14:25).

It is clear then that as Barnabas and Saul themselves called, ordained and sent, so in turn, they called, ordained and sent many others. But why need I labour the point? Christ Himself called, appointed and sent the first apostles. St. Mark relates it briefly: ‘Jesus going up into a mountain called unto Him whom He would Himself.’ Here is the call. ‘And He made that twelve should be with Him.’ Here is the appointment:

‘And that He might sent them to preach’ (Mark 3:13, 14). Here is the sending: If anyone is not thus called ordained and sent, he ‘entereth not by the door into the sheepfold,’ nor does the porter open to him, ‘but he is ‘a thief and a robber’ (John 10:1-3). For he comes not with Christ’s but with his own authority, and all such are undoubtedly thieves and robbers. ‘All,’ He says, ‘who have come before Me,’ i.e. on their own authority and before the call of Christ ‘have broken into the fold and are thieves and robbers’ (John 10:8. The words ‘before me’ [προ εμου] used by Fisher are not in the Vulgate, though they have good authority in the Greek text).

It is, then, the clear teaching of the Bible that no one can lawfully exercise the pastoral office unless he be duly called, ordained and sent by the prelates of the Church. Neither can Luther in honour disagree, for he has himself subscribed to it. Thus in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, he writes: ‘All this is said that you may appreciate the care Christ showed in establishing and protecting His Church, that no one should rashly presume to teach unless he be sent by Christ Himself or by those sent by Christ.’ Luther, then, fully subscribes to our axiom and we need reason no further about it. (John Fisher, Defence of the Catholic Priesthood Against Martin Luther [trans. Philip E. Hallet; Post Falls, Idaho: Mediatrix Press, 2016], 61-64)

For more on the biblical basis for an ordained, ministerial New Covenant priesthood, see my book:

After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood (2018)

Brigham Young Affirming Baptismal Regeneration

In a sermon dated June 5, 1859, Brigham Young was recorded as having said the following wherein he affirms baptismal regeneration (i.e., water baptism being the instrumental meaning of one's initial remission of sins):

I will now answer another question propounded by brother Clements, when he said he could not answer all questions, stating that baptism was instituted, but he could not tell why. You remember reading, in the last book of the New Testament, that in the beginning God cursed the earth; but did he curse all things pertaining to it? No, he did not curse the water, but he blessed it. Pure water is cleansing—it serves to purify; and you are aware that the ancient Saints were very tenacious with regard to their purification by water. From the beginning the Lord instituted water for that purpose among others. I do not mean from the beginning of this earth alone; and although we have no immediate concern in inquiring into the organization of other earths that do not come within reach of our investigation, yet I will say that water has been the means of purification in every world that has been organized out of the immensity of matter.

The Lord has instituted laws and ordinances, and all have their peculiar design and meaning. And though we may not know the origin of the necessity of being baptized for the remission of sins, it answers that portion of the law we are now under to teach the people in their ignorance that water is designed for purification, and to instruct them to be baptized therein for the remission of their sins. If the people could fully understand this matter, they would perceive that it is perfectly reasonable and has been the law to all worlds. And this world, so benighted at present, and so lightly esteemed by infidels, as observed by brother Clements, when it becomes celestialized, it will be like the sun, and be prepared for the habitation of the Saints, and be brought back into the presence of the Father and the Son. It will not then be an opaque body as it now is, but it will be like the stars of the firmament, full of light and glory: it will be a body of light. John compared it, in its celestialized state, to a sea of glass. (JOD 7:162-63)

Bruce Metzger on Early Christians and Romans 9:5

Commenting on the weak patristic evidence that interpreted the Father was the referent of θεος in Rom 9:5 and not Jesus, Bruce Metzger noted:

Relatively few patristic writers took the words ο ων κ.τ.λ. as referring to God the Father. Among the orthodox Greek Fathers one can mention only Diodore of Tarsus (In Cranmer’s Catenae in Sancti Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos [Oxford, 1844], p. 162, lines 25-27) and Photius (Contra Manichaeos iii, 14 [Migne, P.G. cii, 157 B]).

In assessing the wright o the patristic evidence one must put it within its proper perspective. On the one hand, certainly the Greek Fathers must be supposed to have possessed a unique sensitivity to understand the nuances of a passage written in their own language.

On the other hand, however, in the present case the possibility must be allowed that dogmatic interests may have swayed (and in many instances undoubtedly did sway) their interpretation. It is therefore prudent to refrain from assigning much weight to the overwhelming consensus of patristic interpretation of the meaning of the passage in question. (Bruce M. Metzger, New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic [New Testament Tools and Studies Volume X; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980], 65)

John Calvin on Predestination and Why People Reject His Formulation Thereof

In response to Sebastian Catellio, John Calvin wrote the following which really plays into the common claim that Calvinism is Gnostic in the sense that knowledge of truth doctrines is reserved for only an elect few, and total depravity blinds all outsiders thereto:

. . . I define predestination . . . as the free counsel of God by which he governs the human race and every single part of the universe according to his immense wisdom and incomprehensible justice . . . you are prevented from seeing anything in perfect light by your depravity of mind, your appetite for being quarrelsome, and the diabolical pride that has blinded you. (John Calvin, The Secret Providence of God, ed. Paul Helm [trans. Paul Helm; Wheaton: Crossway, 2010], 62)

On Calvinism, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Insights from T. Edgar Lyon, Introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price (1948)

In a book published by the LDS Department of Education, Introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: LDS Department of Education and Deseret News Press, 1948), T. Edgar Lyon discussed (and refuted) some popular misconceptions about the Doctrine and Covenants, such as the revelations being dictated by God to Joseph Smith. Here are some interesting portions of the book:

The Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenant’s not being reflective of “Divine Dictation”

Many people have assumed that all of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were dictated by the Lord and are therefore in divine language. That this is a mistaken interpretation is shown by some of the statements contained in the revelations themselves.

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understand. (Doc. And Cov. 1:24)

And now, I the Lord give unto you a testimony of the truth of these commandments which are lying before you.
Your eyes have been upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and his language you have known, and his imperfections you have known; and you have sought in your hearts knowledge that you might express beyond his language; this you also know. (Ibid., 67:4, 5) (pp. 23-24)

Revelations and Prophecies Being Conditional

The fact that the Lord inspires a prophet to make a pronouncement does not necessarily mean that what the Prophet says must happen. Prophecy is not necessarily irrevocable, but may be conditional. Conditions or circumstances may alter the situation to the extent that the revealed word of the Lord is not applicable. For instance, through repentance, a person or group could avoid the consequences that the Lord had said would follow. This matter of the conditional nature of revelation is illustrated by the following quotation:

Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that the people in Ohio call upon me in much faith, thinking I will stay my hand in judgment upon the nations, but I cannot deny my word.
Wherefore lay to with your might and call faithful laborers into my vineyard, that it may be pruned for the last time.
And inasmuch as they do repent and receive the fulness of my gospel, and become sanctified, I will stay mine hand in judgment.
Wherefore, go forth, crying with a loud voice, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand; crying: Hosanna! blessed be the name of the Most High God.
Go forth baptizing with water, preparing the way before my face for the time of my coming;
For the time is at hand; the day or the hour no man knoweth; but it surely shall come. (Ibid., 39:16-21) (p. 26)

Prophets, Prophecy, and Prediction

Too often people suppose that the only function of a prophet of God is to predict future events. As a matter of fact, a search of the scriptures will indicate that most prophets have done relatively little predicting. Their primary purpose was to speak forth the word and will of the Lord to the contemporary world. Sometimes their utterances were designed to clarify past events. Most of their work was directed toward the improvement of day by day living. And as the Lord willed, they projected their teachings into the future. The following very significant declarations, some of which have been fulfilled in the century since they were given, are among the most prominent predictions of Joseph Smith that can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants. (p. 115; what follows on pp. 115-8 is a discussion of D&C 87 and other prophecies fulfilled after the time of Joseph Smith. On the topic of Joseph Smith’s prophecies, see Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies)

F.W. Puller (Anglican) on St. Jerome on the Nature of Peter's Primacy and Jurisdiction

There is a passage in S. Jerome’s treatise against Jovinian (lib. i. § 26, Opp. ed. Vallars., ii. 279) which has been curiously misunderstood, as if it favoured the Romanist view of S. Peter’s relation to the other apostles, whereas in truth the passage, taken as a whole, is in thorough agreement with the ordinary Catholic teaching on that subject. S. Jerome is proving to Jovinian that S. John the Evangelist was a virgin disciple; and he says, “if he was not a virgin, let Jovinian explain why he was more beloved than the other apostles. But you reply that the Church is founded on Peter, though that same thing was done in another place upon all the apostles, and all of them receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon them all; still among the twelve one is therefore chosen, that by the appointment of a head an occasion of dissension may be taken away (schismatic tollatur occasion). But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder, lest one, who was still a young man and almost a boy, should be given precedence before men of mature age (progressae aetatis hominibus praeferretur); and lest the good Master, who felt bound to remove from His disciples on occasion of strife (qui occasionem jurhii debuerat auferre discipulis), and who had said to them, ‘My peace I give unto you; peace I leave with you,’ and who had also said, ‘Whosoever would be great among you, let him be the least of all’—[lest He, I say,] should seem to furnish a cause of grudge against the young man whom He loved . . .Peter was an apostle, and John was an apostle, the first married, the second a virgin. But Peter was nothing else than an apostle (sed Petrus apostolus tantum); John was both an apostle, and an evangelist, and a prophet.” The Romanists are accustomed to quote a few words out of this passage in order to show that in it S. Jerome taught the doctrine that S. Peter was (and by implication the reigning pope is) the divinely appointed centre and root of unity in the Church. They say that S. Jerome teaches that S. Peter was appointed a head, that “the occasion of schism might be removed.” But, if S. Jerome had thought that S. Peter was invested with such a headship as that, his whole argument would have crumbled to pieces. He wants to show the complete equality of the apostles in their relation to the Church. But if one of them had been appointed by our Lord the necessary centre of unity, that equality would have existed no longer. The solidity of the Church would not in that case be “equally established upon them all.” S. Jerome, as a matter of fact, attributes to S. Peter a very different kind of headship. It is like the headship of the foreman in a jury, or like the headship of the Duke of Norfolk among our English peers. Such a headship, which is in fact a mere primary of order, would not affect the equality of the apostles in their relation to the Church. The Romanist mistake has arisen from not noticing that S. Jerome, when he says that our Lord took away an occasion of dissension, is referring to the disputes which used to take place among the disciples as to which of them should be greatest. S. Jerome thinks that our Lord gave a primacy of order to one of the twelve that “an occasion of dissension might be taken away” (schismatic tollatur occasion); just as he also thinks that “the good Master” chose S. Peter, the elder, rather than S. John, the younger, to be the head, in order that He might remove another “occasion of strife” (occasionem jurgii). It was no doubt the word “schisma” which caused the mistake. That word is sometimes used in the technical sense of schism. But it is also used both in Latin and Greek in the untechnical sense of dissension. For example, S. John uses the word σχισμα in three passages in his Gospel (S. John vii. 43; ix. 16; x. 19); and always in the sense of a dissension or dispute, or angry division of opinion. In the Vulgate, S. Jerome has rendered the word σχισμα by “dissension” in S. John vii. 43 and in S. John x. 19; but in S. John ix. 16, where the sense is precisely the same, he has used the word “schisma.” No one would suggest schism as the right English translation of S. Jerome’s “schisma” in S. John ix. 16; it there plainly means dissension; and the whole argument requires that a similar meaning should be attributed to it in the treatise against Jovinian. In a letter to Evangelus (Ep. cxivi., Opp. ed. Vallars., i. 1076) S. Jerome speaks of one among a body of presbyters being made a bishop “as a preventive against schism” (in schismatic remedium). Here the word “schismatis” has undoubtedly its technical meaning, schism. The sense of the word varies according to the context. It is worth noticing that S. Jerome wrote his treatise against Jovinian in the year 393, twelve years after the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, and right years after his departure from Rome in considerable wrath with the Roman clergy. The admirable teaching on the equality of the apostles, which is contained in this treatise, illustrates Mr. Gore’s view that S. Jerome changed his tone about the position and privileges of the Roman bishop after the death of Damasus at the end of the year 384 (see Gore’s Church and Ministry, 1st ed., p. 172). Closer acquaintance with the local Roman Church seems to have led S. Jerome to reconsider some of the views which he had expressed in his letters to Damasus, and thus a remedy was provided for the somewhat papalizing tone which he had imbibed in Rome during his catechumenate. S. Jerome’s faith was in fact purified, and brought up to the normal level of the faith of the saints. (F.W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and The See of Rome [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1893], 392-95)

Orson Pratt Warning Against Errant Appeals to Ancient Scripture to Support Doctrines Based on Modern Revelation

Many errant LDS think that they can proof-text the Bible and/or the Book of Mormon to support all the doctrines the Church teaches. This is problematic for many reasons, not the least is that it flies in the face of D&C 128:18.

In a sermon dated August 25, 1878, Orson Pratt said the following wherein he argues that the developed LDS doctrine of the hereafter is not to be found in the pages of the Bible and the Book of Mormon; instead, it comes from modern revelation:

Then again, what could we learn from either the Bible or Book of Mormon in regard to three glories—the celestial, the terrestrial and the telestial glories? What did we know concerning those that should inhabit these various worlds of glory? Nothing at all. It was merely referred to in Paul's writings, that there were three glories, "one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead." But Paul left us here; he did not tell us anything about the celestial, or anything about terrestrial, or telestial glories; he told us nothing about the inhabitants of these worlds, nor anything about the laws by which these different glorified worlds were governed. but merely referred to them in a few words and then dropped it. (JOD 20:70)

Orson Pratt on the Location of the Garden of Eden

In a sermon dated December 27, 1868, Orson Pratt was recorded as saying the following. Note how he was not dogmatic about the location of the Garden of Eden:

The very first man who had dominion on the face el the earth, under the direction of the Heavens, once dwelt on this Continent. His name was Adam. Whether his first residence was on this land, whether the garden that was planted for his occupation was on this Continent, or some other, is not revealed in any written or printed revelation. But he certainly did, in the course of his lifetime, either from this being his native land, or by emigration, actually come in possession of this part of the globe; and a large settlement was formed, and the righteous who lived before the flood inherited it, and no doubt, left their blessing on the land.  (JOD 12:338)

F.W. Puller on the Libellus of Hormisdas

In AD 519, Pope Hormisdas issued a libellus and required the signatures of the eastern bishops. Part of the libellus stated:

The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith, and not to deviate in any way from the tradition of the Fathers. And because the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be overlooked, which says: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church,' these things that have been said have been proven by the events, because in this Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved inviolate.

Such has been appealed to in support of evidence for the infallibility of the Roman See and Bishop thereof in the sixth century. Commenting on this, F.W. Puller wrote:

This was a dangerous argument to use. It may be doubted whether Hormisdas would have inserted this clause if he could have foreseen that one of his successors, S. Leo II, would in the year 683 write to the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus concerning Pope Honorius as follows, “We anathematize Honorius, who, instead of labouring to keep the apostolic Church pure by the teaching of apostolic tradition, suffered it, the immaculate, to be polluted through is profane betrayal,” or, as the last words run in the Latin form of the epistle, “attempted to subvert the immaculate faith by a profane betrayal” (Coleti, vii. 1156). The same Pope S. Leo II., having included his predecessor Honorius in a list of heretics, says, “All these, preaching one will and one operation in the Godhead and Manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, imprudently attempted to defend heretical doctrine” (Ep., Leonis Papae II., ad Ervigium regem Hispaniae, ap. Coleti, vii. 1462). It is important to remember that, according to the teaching of the popes, they themselves are liable “to defend heretical doctrine in an impudent manner.” This teaching was faithfully handed down in the Roman see; so we find that Pope Adrian VI. in his Quaestiones de Sacramntis in quartum Sententiarum librum (fol. xxvi. coll. iii., iv.), when treating of the minister of Confirmation, discusses the question, “Utrum papa possit errare in his quae tangent fidem”? He replies, “Dico primo quod si per ecclesiam Romanam intelligat caput ejus, fidem, haeresim per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo. Plures enim fuerunt potifices Romani haeretici.” I quote from the edition published by Pope Adrian in 1522 during his pontificate, under his own eye at Rome. It must be remembered that Acacius had never explicitly “defended heretical doctrine,” as Honorius did, nor asserted heresy in a decretal, as other popes did. (F.W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and The See of Rome [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1893], 307-8 n. 1)

Matthew Barrett on Sensus Plenior and the Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15

Commenting on sensus plenior and Matt 2:15’s use of Hos 11:1, Matthew Barrett wrote:

Although a text is situated at a particular point in history, nevertheless it reaches beyond that historical parameter due to the progressive nature of revelation. As the canon builds and God’s redemptive story unfolds, what was before dim now shines bright. The fuller meaning blossoms into maturity with the long-anticipated arrival of Israel’s Messiah. That which was foreshadowed through the human author’s words is amplified as it progresses and reaches its fulfilment in Christ, just as the divine author envisioned. The meaning of a prophetic passage, especially if typological in nature, can be enlarged and expanded, escalating beyond the human author’s immediate understanding due to the divine author’s knowledge, understanding and eschatological intent.

To clarify, sensus plenior is not to advocate (as some fear) for a secret knowledge or some mystical extra meaning that is uprooted from the text itself or from history. As God breathes out his words in and through the human author(s), his divine authorial intent is not circumscribed to what the human author understands in his immediate context. God, as the divine author, can convey a fuller meaning that will become clearer as his progressive revelation builds and is in his timing fulfilled in redemptive history . . . Matthew’s use of Hosea assumes the validity of sensus plenior . . . The Divine authorial intent in Hosea 11:1 goes beyond what Hosea understood at the time: a fuller meaning is present, though Hosea is unaware of it. It is doubtful Hosea had the Messiah in view, but it is certain the divine author did, as Hosea spoke of God’s ‘son’. Yet, as mentioned before, this is not an appeal to some mystical, secret knowledge, nor does sensus plenior mean later writers interpret earlier texts in a roughshod, proof-text manner . . . sensus plenior is not to be divorced from the progressive nature of revelation and history . . . [In Hos 11:1] is a father-son relationship that is bound in love. Yahweh loves his son, Israel, the ‘apple of his eye’ (Deut. 32:10). Yet born to Mary and Joseph is a son who is the true Israel, the one on whom all the promises of the prophets find their hope and culmination. He is the Son on whom the Father’s love rests.

The correspondence between these two sons in Matthew 2 is anything but accidental: Israel was oppressed by Pharaoh in Egypt until Yahweh called his son out of Egypt. Now the new exodus has arrived. Herod may be the new pharaoh, forcing God’s Son into hiding, but out of Egypt Yahweh calls his son yet again. Yet Jesus is not only the antitype to Israel but to Moses as well. For the same son who is called out of Egypt to be a new Israel is also a new Moses, one who ushers in a new exodus for the people of God. Jesus’ ministry is still to come but already the exodus he inaugurates is at hand as he lies in his mother’s arms. (Matthew Barrett, Canon, Covenant and Christology: Rethinking Jesus and the Scriptures in Israel [New Studies in Biblical Theology 51; London: Apollos, 2020], 26-27, 110, 211; italics in original, emphasis in bold added, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

Trevor Gervase Jalland vs. Von Harnack on "and on this rock I will build my church" (Matt 16:18) being an Interpolation

In response to Von Harnack’s theory that “and upon this rock I will build my church” is a later interpolation to Matt 16:18, Anglican Trevor Jalland wrote:

Harnack’s theory regarding the ‘Tu es Petrus’.

The most serious attack which has hitherto been made on the integrity of this massage, Matt. XVI, 18 f., was published by Harnack in 1918. Starting with the contention that πυλαι αδου rightly means ‘death’, and not, as is generally held, ‘the power of evil’, he went on to argue that the expression ‘death shall not prevail’ cannot strictly apply to an abstraction and must properly apply only to a person. Hence it must originally have applied to Peter, and from this he concludes that the words καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν are in fact an editorial interpolation.

In support of this conclusion, Harnack quotes in the first place the evidence of the works of Ephraem Syrus, in which he comments on the text of the Diatessaron of Tatian. In the Latin version of his Hymni et Sermones, on Isaiah LIV, 17, we find ‘Vectes inferni non praevalebunt adversus te’. Similarly, in the Latin version of his Evangelii concordantis exposition, he quotes, “Beatus es Simon . . . et portae inferi te non vincent’ and later ‘Tu es Petra’. This, in Harnack’s view, shows that the text of the Diatessaron knew nothing of the interpolated clause. As an example of other patristic authors who reveal some knowledge of a purer textual tradition of this passage, he cites Marcarius Magnes, Unigenitus, 3, 22, in which the author is probably reproducing an opinion of Porphyry. Yet we gather from the same work that Porphyry himself was familiar with a text which included επι ταυτη τη πετρα, we must suppose that he referred αυτης not to εκκλησιαν but to πετρα. It is highly probably that Porphyry derived this interpretation from Origen, in whose works we meet it again and again (De princip. 3, 2, 4. ‘Petrus adversus quem portae inferi non praevalebunt’. Cf. C. Cels. 2, 77; Hom. 1, 10 in Ps. xxviii; Hom. 7, 1 in Esai.; Comm. in Matt. XVI, 18).

Later authors who retain the memory of this earlier view are Ambrose (Expos. In Lucam, 7, 5), and Epiphanius (Panar. 30, 24; 80, 11). It last makes its appearance in Jerome (Comm. in Matt. XVI, 18), only to be finally rejected. As to our existing text, Harnack points out that our earliest witness in its favour is Tertullian (De Praescr. haer. 22; De Monog. 8; De Pudicitia, 21). The evidence of Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 6, 15, 132; 7, 17, 166) is inconclusive, since in quoting the passage as a whole he omits XVI, 18. Harnack infers from Justin Martyr (Dial. C. Tryph. 100) that nothing was known of the supposed ‘interpolation’ in his time.

When he comes to examine this apparently impressive case, we find that it depends on two main assumptions: first, that πυλαι αδου can only mean ‘death’, and second, that if the whole text had occurred in Tatian’s Diatessaron, Ephraem must have quoted it. The fact that he quoted only certain phrases appears to Harnack a sufficient proof that only those phrases were present in the original.

As to the first of these assumptions we must refer to our brief discussion of the point elsewhere. Sufficient has been said to show that the argument in favour of so exclusive an interpretation is not strong enough to bear the weight of Harnack’s case. As to the second we may reasonably ask what evidence there is for the original text of the Diatessaron. The Codex Fuldensis must of course be discounted, since it is known that the translator made use of the Vulgate in rendering scriptural quotations. But we are fortunately in possession of two ancient versions, one in Arabic and the other in Old Dutch. Whatever the relation of these two versions to the original, it is at least remarkable in this connexion that both versions contain the whole passage under discussion. Moreover, if we examine Ephraem’s commentary, we find in the immediate context of the passage to which Harnack has called attention the following:

‘Dominus quum ecclesiam suam aedificaret, aedificavit turrim cuius fundamenta omnia, quae errant superaedificanda, portare possent’

A natural inference from these words is that the text of the Diatessaron which Ephraem had in front of him also included the supposed ‘interpolation’.

Yet to make good his case Harnack has to postulate such an interpolation. He has produced abundant evidence from the works of Origen, showing that in the view of Alexandrine the Dominical promise referred not to the Church but to Peter, a view which appears to have been followed by Porphyry and others. What he has failed to establish is that the words preceding it formed no part of the original text of St. Matthew’s gospel. (Trevor Gervase Jalland, The Church and the Papacy: An Historical Study [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1944], 94-96)

With respect to the meaning of “gates of hades/hell,” Jalland wrote:

The meaning of πυλαι αδου has been disputed. Against the more general view that it is a symbolic expression for ‘evil’, it has been argued . . . this conclusion cannot be regarded as decisively established, and some allowance must be made for passages which ‘definitely connect Sheol-hades both with sin and with destruction, so that it could be argued that Sheol-hades represents the power of evil. De. Charles, on Enoch lxiii, 10, has shown how the meaning of Sheol changed in the period between the Old and new Testament.’ In any case, the fact that πυλαι αδουis used without the article shows that it is a stereotyped expression. Bernard J.H., in Expositor, June 1916, pp. 401-9, interpreting the phrase with reference to Matt. VII, 24-27, makes the interesting suggestion that πυλαι αδου is a mistranslation of an Aramaic expression, cf. Daniel VIII, 2, ‘ubhal renfered in LXX προς τη πυλη Αιλαμ. If what our Lord actually said was ‘the floods of Hades’ (cf. Gen. VII, 11), it would be easier to account for the use of κατισχύσουσιν. (Ibid., 55-56 n. 5)

Janne Sjodahl and George Reynolds on Revelation 10 as a Prophecy of the Book of Mormon

In Janne M. Sjodahl and George Reynolds, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 4, we find the following purported prophecy of the Book of Mormon from chapter 10 of the book of Revelation. I have not encountered any LDS before appealing to this text. Note: I do not believe this is a legitimate interpretation of the text; In reproducing it here as it is an example of LDS appeals to the book of Revelation in their apologetic works (so more out of interest):

A Little Book Open

Turning, now, to the great prophetic book of the New Testament, the Revelation by John, we pause at the tenth chapter.

In the preceding chapter John saw the countries where the church of our Lord was first established swept as with a besom of destruction, because of the general apostasy. The children of men were destroyed by the terrible weapons of the invading hordes, but the rest of the men, which were not killed, "yet repented not," but continued to worship "idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood." Naturally, the question arose in the mind of the seer, What about the church? Is this the end of it? Was the glorious structure that was filled with the Spirit of God on the day of Pentecost to be destroyed in a flood of apostasy and carnage? In answer to such questions, John received the wonderful vision recorded in chapter ten.

In this vision, John saw a mighty angel, or messenger, come from heaven. This messenger was clothed with a cloud. A cloud was, in the Mosaic dispensation, the visible sign of the presence of God, as on Mount Sinai. John, therefore, by this symbol, was given to understand that the messenger he saw was surrounded by the divine influence, as was Moses on the Mount. There was a rainbow upon or over his head. That was the visible symbol of the covenant of God with Noah. His face was, as it were, the sun. Christ is the "sun of righteousness," and his glory was reflected in the countenance of the messenger, as was the glory of Jehovah in the face of Moses, when he came from the divine presence. His feet were as "pillars of fire." This is, most probably, an allusion to the temple service. Outside the temple of Solomon there were two pillars, called Boaz and Jachin, from each of which chains, in all probability, extended into the interior of the temple, if that is what Paul alludes to ( Heb. 6:19), when he speaks of our hope as an "anchor," or chain, which "entereth into that within the veil." This messenger, therefore, comes with the power and authority of all the dispensations of former ages—that of Noah, the Mosaic, and that of the meridian of time, and, in addition, the last dispensation with its temple service.

Furthermore, this messenger had in his hand a "little book open." Fortunately, the explanation of this prophetic language is given in the Doctrine and Covenants. We read:

"What are we to understand by the little book which was eaten by John, as mentioned in the tenth chapter of Revelation? We are to understand that it was a mission and an ordinance for him to gather the tribes of Israel; behold, this is Elias, who, as it is written, must come and restore all things." ( D&C 77:14)

According to this, the messenger John saw, was, or represented, the Elias who was to come and restore all things, and Parley P. Pratt, in his Key to Theology, p. 70, tells us that the Prophet Joseph was the Elias, the Restorer, the Presiding Messenger, holding the keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times * * * to prepare the way of the Lord. If, then, the Prophet Joseph was the messenger described in the vision of John, and the little book was his "mission and ordinance" to gather the tribes of Israel, which mission was committed to him by Moses in the Kirtland Temple (D&C 110-11), the great latter-day work of which the coming forth of the Book of Mormon was the beginning, is foretold in this chapter with all the clearness that prophetic language can convey. There is no clearer prophecy in all the Bible.

In a communication to a Rochester paper, dated Jan. 4, 1833, the Prophet Joseph, speaking of the Book of Mormon, says in part:

"By it we learn that our Western Indians are descendants of that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them, and unto it all the tribes of Israel will come, with as many of the Gentiles as shall comply with the requirements of the new covenants. But the tribes of Judah will return to old Jerusalem. The city of Zion, spoken of by David in the 102nd Psalm, will be built upon the land of America, 'and the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with songs of everlasting joy upon their heads' ( Isa. 35:10), and then they will be delivered from the overflowing scourge that shall pass through the land. But Judah shall obtain deliverance at Jerusalem. See Joel 2:32 ; Isa. 26:20-1 ; Jer. 31:12 ; Ps. 1:5 ; Ezek. 34:11-13 ." (Hist. of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 315)

From which it is clear that the Book of Mormon is very much a book of gathering of the children of Israel.

The messenger with his little book "set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth." Remember that in the days of John the geography of the world was not what it is today. At that time it was thought that all beyond the western coast of the Old World was water. That the messenger was standing upon the sea and the earth means, in modern language, that he was standing on both hemispheres, the eastern and the western; that is, in other words, he was delivering a message in which all the world was concerned. That his right foot was on the sea and his left on the earth may indicate that he came from the western hemisphere, or that his message was first heard there.

John heard the message this angel had to deliver. It was that there should be no more "time" now; that is, no more delay, but that, as soon as the seventh angel begins to sound, "the mystery of God shall be finished, as he hath declared to his servants, the prophets." (vv. 5-7) That is, his message was that the time has now come for the completion of the plan of salvation—God's mystery (1 Cor. 2:7 ;1 Cor. 15:51; Eph. 5:32 ; Col. 1:26 ; 1 Tim. 3:16)—by the establishment of the kingdom of God, as promised through the holy prophets.

At the time this messenger appeared, seven thunders were heard (v. 14) John was not permitted to write what they uttered, but that they were messages concerning wars and other calamities is more than likely. These thunders, in all probability, began rolling with our own Civil War. Such calamities we certainly are led to expect as signs or indications that the second advent is near at hand.

John was told (v. 9) to "eat," that is to say, to read, or, as we should say, to "digest" the contents of, the little book. He did so, and found it sweet in his mouth. But the sweetness was mixed with bitterness (v. 10), which expression may indicate that the seer was given to understand that the acceptance of the Message of the angel would be accompanied by bitter struggles, and even martyrdom, among the faithful Saints.

The chapter closes with the assurance that the coming of that mighty messenger begins a new prophetic era in the history of the world; for that is the evident purport of the words of the angel: "Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings."

Every detail in this prophetic pen-picture is easily recognized in the life-work of the Prophet Joseph and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. It is as plain as if the name itself had been written across the sacred page.

Human Sacrifice and the Mesoamerican Background to Alma 14:8; 24:9-11 and Alma 34:10-11

Alma 14:8

Of related interest is the mode of execution. Certainly the Ammonihahites did not choose fire to fulfill Abinadi’s prophecy. Why did the deaths of Abinadi, Noah, and these believers all take that form? The Book of Mormon text provides no firm evidence about this concept. However, a combination of possibilities seem reasonable, given Mesoamerican characteristics. Part of its religious culture involved human sacrifice. It is not an obvious influence at this stage of Book of Mormon history, but even this early text contains hints that would be compatible with a nearby culture that included human sacrifice. For instance, in a later sermon, Alma preached: “For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice” (Alma 34:10; emphasis mine). Alma may be making a simple contrast, but I argue that he feels the need to explain the difference between the Atoning Messiah’s sacrifice and the more common human sacrifices of the Lamanites. Both the Aztec and Maya sacrificed human victims to fire (David Carrasco, City of Sacrifice: The Aztec Empire and the Role of Violence in Civilization [Boson: Beacon Press, 1999], 97. For the Maya, see Linda Schele and Mary Ellen Miller, The Blood of ings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art [New York: George Braziller, 1986], 228). Although there is no direct textual evidence, there are intriguing connection between the local practice of human sacrifice by fire and these particular instances. The dominance of the order of the Nehors in Ammonihah suggests in and of itself that Mesoamerican ideologies had already been accepted, to some degree, by Nephites who would Nehorism appealing. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Volume 4: Alma [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 234-35)

Alma 24:9-11 (cf. Alma 34:11)

For the Maya, blood was the conduit for ch’ulel, or the “inner soul or spirit” (David Freidel, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker, Maya Cosmos: here Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path [New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993], 201-2). Sacrificial bloodletting became both nourishment/worship for the gods and the substitute sacrifice that renews creation (Roberta H. Markman and Peter Markman, The Flayed God: The Mesoamerican Mythological Tradition, Sacred Texts and Images from Pre-Colombian Mexico and Central America [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992], 179). According to anthropologist Dennis Tedlock, this principle of creation through sacrifice appears to have great antiquity in the Mesoamerican region: “Puz, all the way from its Mixe-Zoque (and possibly Olmec) sources down to modern Quiche, refers literally to the cutting of flesh with a knife, and it is the primary term for sacrifice. If it is read as a synecdoche in the present passage [of the Popol Vuh], it means that the creation was accomplished (in part) through sacrifice” (Dennis Tedlock, “Creation in the Popol Vuh: A Hermeneutical Approach,” in Symbol and Meaning beyond the Closed Community, edited by Gary Gossen [Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York at Albany, 1986], 79). The sacrificial blood could and did come from the king and his queen but was augmented by the blood of captives taken in war. Classic Maya inscriptions glorify the personal conquests of the kings and the humiliation and sacrifice of the captives. The Bonampak mural commonly known as “the arraignment” is a graphic depiction of the torturous bloodletting inflicted upon captives (Linda Schele and Mary Ellen Miller, The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art [New York: George Braziller, 1986], 217) (Ibid., 354-55)

Alma 34:10

Amulek begins at the point of commonality: a shared understanding about the relationship between sacrifice and atonement—not the Messiah’s atonement but communal atonement. This principle was certainly part of the Mosaic law, where animal sacrifices were not only part of worship but would effect the communal atonement (Ex. 29:36, Lev. 23:27, Num. 6:10-11). Mesoamerican cultural also offered parallel examples of animal sacrifices as part of their worship and even human sacrifice (Human sacrifice is the most spectacular of the Mesoamerican sacrifices, but other animals might be offered as well. It is particularly noted of Quetzalcoatl that “you shall offer him, you shall sacrifice before him only serpents, only butterflies.” Bernardino de Sahagún, General History of the Things of New Spain: Florentine Codex, translated by Arthur J.O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble, 13 vols. in 12 [Salt Lake City: School of American Research and the University of Utah, 1975], 10:160).

Amulek explicitly states that the Messiah’s great atonement “shall not be a human sacrifice.” Human sacrifice was known and accepted in the general culture. In Aztec worship, some of their human sacrifices posed as gods when they were sacrificed. These humans-as-gods enacted primal myths where the sacrifices of the gods established the known world. Anthropologist David Carrasco describes the impersonator of the Aztec god Tezcatlipoca:

The captive who best approximated this negative description of perfection was chosen and carefully trained in several Aztec arts, including music, smoking, and flower holding. But he was not just a stationary, imprisoned paragon of beauty and culture for “very great care was taken that he talk graciously, that he greet people agreeably on the road if he met anyone . . . There was an assigning of lordship; he was importuned; he was sighed for; there was bowing before him.” At an appointed time during his year-long public displays and contact with the populace, Tezcatlipoca was taken before the tlatoani (overlord or king) Moctezuma, who ceremonially “repeatedly adorned him; he gave him gifts; he arrayed him; he arrayed him with great pomp. He had all costly things placed on him, for verily he took him to be his beloved god.” (David Carrasco, City of Sacrifice: The Aztec Empire and the Role of Violence and Civilization [Boston: Beacon Press, 1999], 119-20)

Amulek is teaching that the earthly Messiah was not a deity impersonator, a human who died for a god. Jesus was “God himself . . . come down among the children of men” (Mosiah 15:1). The atonement was not effected through a human sacrifice, but a divine sacrifice. (Ibid., 477)