Monday, August 31, 2020

Stephen Smoot on B.H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon

 B.H. Roberts (1857-1933) is one of my favourite LDS theologians. His The Truth, The Way, The Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology is one of my favourite works on theology, and I try to recommend it to people whenever I get a chance. Book of Mormon Central's Archive has a PDF of the book one can download here.


My friend, Stephen Smoot, has two recent blog posts addressing B.H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon in response to the recent nonsense proliferated by Shannon C. Montez:


B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon: Exhumation and Reburial


and


B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon: An Addendum


If Montez has proven anything, it is not that Roberts lost his faith in the Book of Mormon; it is that she is a joke of a "scholar."

Kevin L. Barney, "Baptized for the Dead"

 The Interpreter Foundation has just posted, as part of their book chapter reprint series, the following article from Kevin L. Barney on baptism for the dead and 1 Cor 15:29:


Baptized for the Dead (PDF)


It originally appeared in the book, “To Seek the Law of the Lord”: Essays in Honor of John W. Welch (2017).

Figures 22 and 23 of the Hypocephalus

 




While he has gone far into left field these days, Kerry Shirts did produce a lot of interesting material on the Book of Abraham. One such article I recently re-read was the following which I am reproducing here as it presents an interesting discussion of figures 22 and 23 in the hypocephalus (pictured above):

 

Book of Abraham, Facsimile 2, Figs. 22, 23 Egyptian Correlations - The Apes Are Stars

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

Joseph Smith gave us a facsimile in the BofA, # 2, the hypocephalus with various interpretations of some of the figures. Joseph Smith never interpreted or translated the rim of the hypocephalus, hence the critics reasoning that Smith was deceiving us by putting some of the writing of the papyri he had in his possession in the rim of the incomplete hypocephalus just isn't relevant. No Mormon scholars among us have ever said differently. Why the restoration of the looks of the thing has to be deceptive is beyond me. What is wrong with the idea that perhaps Hedlock wanted the hypocephalus to look more complete? Now had Smith translated the rim and said what it translated out to be, and if it then was shown that his translation was wrong and based on part of the upside down text, now that would be deceptive. But Joseph Smith, again, I repeat, never translated the rim of the thing. How is this deception?

But there is one figure, among many, which I have been looking into a bit and find Joseph Smith was quite astonishing with his interpretation of, which is the two apes in the center panel, labelled as numbers 22, and 23. Here Joseph Smith's explanations of the apes are "stars." How on earth a monkey, babboon, ape, can be said to represent stars is incredible. Is there any writings or indications that Smith could have gotten this weird explanation from somewhere contemporaneously? Yet this idea fits very snugly and comfortably in the Egyptian state of affairs, to be sure.

Hans Bonnet in his "Reallexicon der Agyptischen Religionsgeschichte" notes some interesting things about these apes, from the Egyptian side of things. The apes can represent Thoth, the god of writing (Sie ist dem Thot sonderlich zu eigen wenn er in der Rolle eines Schutzgottes der Schreiber und des Schreibwesens erscheint, p. 7).

Bonnet explains something else interesting in light of what Joseph Smith said about the central panel, or Fig. 1 in the hypocephalus. Bonnet tells us that Horapollo explains that the apes, during the equinox (wahrend der Aquinoktien), urinates hourly, as a sort of measure of time (allstundlich zu urinieren, p. 7). Joseph Smith explains that the central panel in which the apes reside is directly involved with celestial time, and the measure of time (Fac. 2, fig. 1). This is very Egyptian to be sure.

Bonnet also explains that the apes have a strong relationship with the heavenly bodies (grossen Gestirnen), specifically, the Sun, as they raise their front paws to the rising sun in worship (die das Gestirn mit erhobenen Vorderpfoten betend begrussen - p. 7)

And what's more, Bonnet notes that along with the sun, the stars the apes are also associated with or through Thoth as the moon also (Note: the apes in Smith's hypocephalus have the moondiscs - "mondscheibe" - on their heads). "Tatsachlich ist der Affes erst durch Thot zum Mondtier gewroden. Auf diese Eigenschaft deutet die Mond- scheibe, die er vielfach als Kopfputz tragt." p. 8).

So we have the sun, moon, and stars, as also the measurement of time, exactly as with the heavenly bodies and measurement of time in Joseph Smith's explanations.

Alan Gardiner notes that Thoth is the god of writing and mathematics as well. ("Egyptin Grammar", p. 113). Note that in Smith's explanation we have the idea of "The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit." Note the application of mathematics and inter-reaction with time. Lewis Spence in his book "Egypt" says: "He [Thoth] is called the 'great god' and 'lord of heaven' [note that Bonnet says of him that he is the old Babboon-god, the "Hez-ur, the "Great White" - "Dagegen horen wir von einem alten Paviensgott der Hez-ur, der grosse Weisse, gennant wird." p. 7], and that in his role as a lunar god, Thoth was considered "the measurer", (Spence, p. 107). He is the "Great White" of Bonnet's description because the full moon is very large and very white in the sky (Spence, p. 107).

Thoth as "Tehuti" is the scribe of the gods (E.A.W. Budge, "Hieroglyphic Vocabulary to the Book of the Dead", p. 447, Cf. Karl-Theodor Zauzich - "Hieroglyphen Ohne Geheimnis", tr. Ann Macy Roth, p. 94). Thoth was the creator of hieroglyphs according to some accounts, who is also shown in scenes of 'Weighing of the heart' making a written record of the judgment of the deceased, as in the temple of Ramesses II at Abydos, where we read "For recitation by Thoth, Lord of Khmunu (Hermopolis), the scribe..." (Hilary Wilson, "Understanding Hieroglyphs," 1995, p. 96f, Cf. Margaret Bunson, "The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt," p. 264).

In Egypt, it is Thoth (Hermes to the Greeks, Mercury to the Romans) who is the Master of the City of Eight. Thoth gives man access to the mysteries of the manifested world, which is symbolized by eight. (Anthony West, "Serpent in the Sky", p. 51). While in the Joseph Smith hypocephalus there are only two babboons, in other hypocephali there are sometimes 2, sometimes, 4, sometimes 6, and sometimes 8. Eight babboons can also be seen on the Metternicht Stelae. Adolf Erman notes that the town of eight was named after the eight elementary beings of the world, whose chief god was Thoth, the god of wisdom (Erman, "Aegypten", tr. Helen Tirard, "Life In Ancient Egypt", p. 24).

That Joseph Smith was depicting an ancient Egyptian hypocephalus correctly with many of the figures is incredible, considering that Egyptian was not yet known in the 1830's when Joseph Smith received the Egyptian antiquities from the antiquities dealer. How on earth would anyone guess haphazardly that apes could represent stars, and other heavenly bodies, and dealt with astronomy, measurement of time, etc.? I believe it shows the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.

 

 



Friday, August 28, 2020

Brigham Young on Adam being Created in the Image of God two days before his first "Adam-God" Sermon

 

 

This reminds me of a little circumstance that transpired here a year ago last summer. You, no doubt, well recollect Elder Day, (a Baptist minister on his way to California,) who used to preach to us so nicely. I preached one day when he was present. In the course of my remarks, I brought up the subject of the Deity—at the point touching the character of our Father in heaven, upon which he desired the most to be instructed. I dropped the subject and turned to something else. He went to dinner with me, and while we sat at the dinner table, he said, "Brother Young, I was waiting with all my anxious heart, with mouth, eyes, and ears open to receive something great and glorious." "What about, brother Day?" "Why, as you were describing the Deity, and just came to the point I was the most anxious to have expounded, behold you waived it and turned to something else." I smiled and said, "After I had taught them how, I wanted the people to add the rest of the sermon themselves." He said, "I declare, brother Young, I would have given anything I possessed in the world, if you had continued your remarks until I had obtained the knowledge I desired." I inquired the nature of it. "To know the character of God." I smiled and said, "Are you a preacher of the Gospel?" "Yes." "How long have you been a preacher?" "Twenty-seven years I have been a preacher of the Gospel of Christ." "And you have been a minister so long, and have never learned anything about the character of the Being about whom you have been preaching! I am astonished! Now you want to find out the character of God. I can make you answer the question yourself in a few minutes." "Well, I do not know, brother Young: it is a very mysterious subject to mortal man." "Now, let me ask you a single question. Will you tell me what God our. Father in heaven appears like?" He sat a considerable time, while the colour on his cheeks ebbed and flowed alternately, till at last he replied, "Brother Young, I will not presume to describe the character of the Deity." I smiled, and he thought I was treating the subject lightly. "I am not making light of the subject, but I am smiling at your folly, that you—a teacher in Israel—a man who should stand between the living and the dead—yet know nothing about your Father and God. Were I in your place, I would never preach another sermon while I lived, until I learned more about God. Do you believe the Bible?" "I do." "What resemblance did our father Adam bear to his God, when he placed him in the Garden of Eden?" Before he had time to reply, I asked him what resemblance Jesus bore to man in his incarnation? and "Do you believe Moses, who said the Lord made Adam in his own image and after his own likeness? This may appear to you a curiosity; but do you not see, bona fide, that the Lord made Adam like himself; and the Saviour we read of was made to look so like him, that he was the express image of his person ?" He laughed at his folly himself. "Why," said he, "Brother Young, I never once thought of it before in all my life, and I have been a preacher twenty-seven years." He never had known anything about the character of the God he worshipped; but, like the Athenians, had raised an altar with the inscription, "To the unknown God." (JOD 6:317-18 | April 7, 1852 [note: this sermon was just 2 days before the first "Adam-God" sermon--cf. JOD 1:50-51])

 

 

Matthew Thiessen on Demons and Demon Possession in the Pre-Exilic Era

  

Demons in the Ancient Near East

 

As Milgrom notes, Israel’s neighbors had a robust demonology. One of the most important demonological works, the sixteen-tablet book known as Udug-hul (Evil Demons), shows how early and widespread was the belief that the demonic world could possess people. This work contains materials dating from the Old Akkadian (2300-2200 BCE) to the Seleucid period (300-200 BCE), thus demonstrating the long-standing fears that many people in the ancient Near East had of the demonic. For instance, one apotropaic text from the composite work states,

 

Do [not say, “let me] stand [at the side].”
[Go] out, [evil Udug-demon,] to [a distant place],
[go] away, [evil Ala-demon], to [the desert]. (Udug-hul 8.73-75)

 

Here we see, like in Leviticus 16, the association between the demonic and the wilderness, as well as a spell to exorcise the demonic presence. Another text portrays the possession of a man and the rite needed to remove the demon from the man’s body:

 

Go, my son, Asalluhi,
Pour water in an anzam-cup,
And put in it tamarisk and the innuš-plant.
(He cited the Eridu [incantation]). Calm the patient, and bring out the censer
and torch for him,
so that the Namtar demon existing in a man’s body may depart from it. (Udug-hul 7.669-74)

 

Yet another illuminating text describes the nature of the demonic in the following terms:

 

Neither males are they, nor females,
They are winds ever sweeping along,
They have not wives, engender not children,
Know not how to show mercy,
Hear not prayer and supplication. (Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 16, plates 15, v. 37-46) (Matthew Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death: The Gospels’ Portrayal of Ritual Impurity within First-Century Judaism [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2020], 127)

 

 

 

Brigham Young on the Importance of Having One's Own Testimony and not to Rely upon Church Leaders

 

 

Some may cry out, "Your saying that this is the kingdom of God does that make it so?" No, not by any means. "Your testimony," Mr. Young, "is, that this is the kingdom of God on the earth—that which was shown to Daniel the Prophet centuries ago." Yes, that is my testimony. "Does this make it so?" No it does not; but let me tell you that it is true;. consequently, I bear my testimony of its truth, though my testimony does not alter that truth in the least, one way or the other; neither does any other man's. That is my testimony, and has been all the time.

 

Why I testify of these things is because they are revealed to me, and not to another for me. They were not revealed to Joseph Smith for me. He had the keys to get visions and revelations, dreams and manifestations, and the Holy Ghost for the people. Those keys were committed to him; and through that administration, blessed be the name of God, I have received the spirit of Christ Jesus which is the spirit of prophecy. Our testimony does not make this true and the testimony of our enemies that it is not the kingdom of God does not make that true or false. The fact stands upon its own basis, and will continue so to stand, without any of the efforts of the children of men. (JOD 5:75-76 | July 26, 1857)

 

 

Thursday, August 27, 2020

Dan Jones' use of "Elias" to Denote a Forerunner, not just OT Elijah

 

In the December 1846 issue of the Welsh LDS periodical Prophet of the Jubilee, Dan Jones, a personal friend of Joseph Smith's, wrote the following about "Elias" (OT Elijah), showing that he understood NT Elias could be used, as it was by Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants, to denote a forerunner while being cognizant of OT Elijah being the same person as NT Elias

 

ELIAS

 

There is scarcely any person who is mentioned in the scriptures, as well known as this one. After all the interpretation and talk of him, we too are often asked, Who is that Elias! As we have not been satisfied with any answer we have seen yet, we shall venture to offer the following as an answer to the question; and if we can only show clearly the difference that exists between the person and the office or the character that belongs to him, that will provide a key to the mystery of understanding that strange office the Elias was to sustain, according to the prophecy of Malachi, in chap. iv, 5, 6:—“Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”

 

The great point at issue is, Is John the Baptist meant by this Elias? We admit that there is some difficulty in understanding the scriptures that refer to these persons, that they seem to be contradictory, and that they are, like some other places, used by atheists as sweet morsels to disprove the divinity of the prophecies, when, in fact, the facts are completely the opposite, as we shall endeavor to explain. The angel Gabriel said to Zacharias, Luke i, 13–17:—“Fear not Zacharias; for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name John, and thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth, for he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” It was thought that this angel showed, beyond any doubt, that it is to this John that Malachi refers above. But, says the arguer, If so, why does John deny that so fearlessly to the priests and the Levites, in John i, 21?—“And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? and he [John] answered, No.” Which of the two do I believe? I reply that I believe both completely, and I believe Jesus Christ too, when he says in Matt. xi, 13,14,—“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this [John] is Elias, which was for to come.” Well, says the reader, you are making the subject more complex now than before, through some strange co-mixture of prophecies and assertions at complete variance with each other; and, to judge by the number of witnesses, John must be lying about the truthfulness of Gabriel and the Son of God, for they say yes, and he denies it, and says “No.” What will you do? Explain his meaning differently from what he says? No, never. Will you admit that John is lying, or blame the translation? Oh no, that is not necessary either; and if we cannot reconcile the scriptures without that, we shall freely admit our ignorance, and say as Paul once did—”Let God be true and every man a liar.” We do not here admit the infallibility of lawyers either. And before we evade this dilemma, we shall venture an assertion about it, however anomalous it may appear, and we give the freedom and the encouragement to anyone who wishes to improve it; i.e., That John was the Elias. We say also, That John was not the Elias! Bear with us, reader, for by making counter-claims like this, we are only repeating the previous scriptures. And now to the task of proving this to be reasonable, scriptural, and, of course, divine truths.

 

The scriptures speak of the Elias, that is the spirit, power, or office of the Elias, frequently, rather than of a person by this name. They refer to the success of that great work to which the first person by that name received the keys, namely restoration, which Christ proves in Mark ix, 12, when he says—“Elias verily cometh and restoreth all things,” &c. So John the Baptist must have been the Elias Christ refers to in what follows, ver. 13, “But I say unto you that Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.”

 

But although one can see more clearly the distinction made between the various persons, and the connection seen between the same offices in the complete and wondrous restoration which the wise God planned in the early council, to be fulfilled by degrees, from age to age, until it is completed, stand back to take a look at the magnificent and skillful picture that was planned before it was needed, to bring forth the restoration of all things, yes, before the deterioration of one thing. When this earth was chaos, formless and empty, covered with water, and the elements not regulated in their proportionate correspondence, to work together for the glory of its Architect, and for the benefit and enjoyment of its descendants; and before God said “Let there be light;” yes, before the morning stars sang, or the sons of God leapt for joy, the piteous fate, and complete corruption of all the elements which made up this little football, and all its inhabitants, were foreseen. And not only was all this foreseen, but a perfect plan was arranged to bring not only men, but everything that was corrupted, back to perfection. Yes, the plan was arranged, or the machinery if you wish, that is the manner in which all this would be done, in that marvellous council which the Gods held on the morning of the day they began the work of setting their garden in order, and creating servants to keep it so. The main spring of this machine, or the self-motivating axis on which turned all of its wheels is that Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The plan of Jehovah was as perfect, and the outlines and axes of the picture appeared to them as clearly as they do now; and the interstices are being filled up, from age to age, with the skill of a master craftsman; and he will go on until this world and its fulness is a facsimile of the picture drawn of it that strange morning. Nothing in it can be different from the pattern, without the patternmaker being disappointed. The restoration cannot be an improvement on the pattern, without proving the imperfection of the pattern, and consequently, without proving the imperfection of him who made it. But it will soon be seen that everything is going on according to the rule, and that nothing is an accident to the omniscient God. He sets a bridle in the mouth of the usurper, and sets a limit to the chain of the prince of this world. The same finger guides this globe in its orbits, and overrules the scepters of its emperors, as started it on its icy poles in the beginning; yes, one day in the future the only imperial scepter will be seen in the hand where it belongs; and it will turn into a rod of iron to one part, and a golden scepter to the other part, when it is held out above our world, and comes to possess the world, to bind the devilish traitor, to restore the earth and its fulness, and to make the kingdoms of the world the property of our Lord and his Christ.

 

This complete restoration of the earth and its fulness will be brought about through the power of God, through the agency of that divine staff given by God to all his servants, namely the priesthood which is according to the strength of everlasting life, which binds in heaven that which is done by its possessors on earth. And since the days of the first transgressors, through the ages, those men who have been clothed with the authority of the priesthood, and with the spirit of prophecy, to the extent that the curtain was torn, and the doors of the eternal world opened before their eyes, have been rejoicing in the hope for, and showing in their turn this strange and glorious restoration. The pious muse struck sweet songs of praise to this day. This was the favorite subject of the prophets. The pencil of the portaitist hastened to capture it, the tongue of the learned took pleasure in its praise, and the writer’s pen kept to this godly loadstone almost without wavering. The Spirit of God did not fill the souls of the prophets and the godly saints with more joy when dealing with hardly any subject than when he showed them the glorious restoration,—when the mountains should drop down sweet wine, and the wilderness should blossom as the rose; when the lion cub and the lamb should lie down together; when there should be nothing to do damage or harm in all the mountain of his holiness, that is the earth; when the earth should be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea; when Zion should be established in glory, and all nations flock to her standard; when the temple of God should be reared, and rivers of the waters of life flow from it; when the inhabitants of Zion should dwell in peace; when none should say, I am sick, but each should sit under his own fig tree, and Jerusalem be the throne of the Lord forever.

 

In the hope of fulfilling this restoration, the prophets and saints of God agreed and endeavored, through their faith and their acts, to fulfill the office and task of Elias, namely restoring. Enoch did what he could in his day to restore the earth. He walked with God for three hundred years. He had great faith. He established an excellent church, and taught his people the principles of righteousness; but nevertheless, the earth was too corrupt, unbelieving, and disobedient, for him to be able to restore it; therefore, God took him and his church to himself; hence the saying, “Zion is fled.” Once the salt was removed, there was not enough goodness left to save the earth; but its face was overthrown by God with the flood.

 

Moses also strove greatly to accomplish some part of this revolution. He drew nigh unto God by faith, and obtained great promises from God on behalf of his people, such as—”Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation,” &c. Through this he shows that they could be a peculiar treasure, or instruments, as a nation, in establishing the government of peace in general, and that knowledge of God, and the principles of peace, would flow through these channels from the source, bringing about restoration; but all this, like every other promise, depended on their obeying the conditions, namely, “If they keep my laws.” Instead of that, they broke his laws, and continued as a troubled and obstinate nation; then he took the greatest honor, the most powerful scepter, for bringing this about, namely the Melchizedek priesthood, away from them; and instead of being a kingdom of priests together as a nation, they had only one high priest who could go into the holy of holies into the presence of God, and that only once a year, instead of the whole nation being able to withstand the presence of the one who is a searing fire, and eternal flames to the imperfect. Then, because of their imperfection, they could not bear such blazing glory, and that because of disobeying the law which was given in order to perfect them. And so they were justly deprived of the promised blessing, namely that of being a kingdom of priests. Thus Moses failed to achieve his aim in the restoration, and God took him away too, to wait until someone else accomplished what he had failed to do, and then he too would have his part according to what he did. That perverse nation was placed under a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ.

 

That Elijah of whom John was a shadow, was a great and wonderful prophet. The Spirit of Heaven rested upon him in a most marvellous manner. But what did he bring about, poor thing? What could he do with such a perverse and rebellious nation? God did not send his servants to force men to keep his laws, but to persuade them; and if they did not obey willingly out of principle, they left them in the hand of a just God, warning them that they were clean of everyone’s blood. Thus godly Elijah, having failed to bring it about, because of the disobedience of the age to his message, we hear him wailing from the depths of his hiding-place in the rock—“They have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone and they seek my life.” He knew no different, but he was quite unlikely to accomplish that complete restoration at that time, was he not? God knew that well enough. But that attempt would be testimony against them; and he sent the chariot of Israel and his riders to fetch the godly old prophet from their midst, because they did not know his worth, and kept him until the time he would be sent with a loan of some of his keys to another to fill his circle as he did, and to bear witness to incriminate some future generation.

 

John the Baptist also came in his day as an Elias, or a restorer. The angel Gabriel said he would come in the “spirit and power of Elias;” and if the people had submitted to his teaching, and to what Jesus commanded them, the prohecies about him would have been fulfilled then, and their children would have been gathered together as the hen gathers her chicks under her wing; but, says the Savior, you were not willing; thus did he see their refusal of the Elias, or this restorer, namely John, too. “If ye will receive it, this is the Elias which was for to come,” says Christ. Yes, if they would receive it; but at the same time he clearly tells them that they would not receive it, and that he would not fill this character, or succeed in fulfilling the office of Elias, by restoring them. He compares this generation to children sitting in the marketplace—neither his speech and teaching nor those of John were to their taste, and they did not wish them as teachers. “John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.” Thus they rejected John the Baptist completely, “and did with him what they listed,” namely cutting off his head. And although he was indeed the Elias, yet, because of their rejection of him, he could not be so to them; and this is why, when they asked him, “Art thou the Elias?” he answered, “I am not.” But if their conduct towards him had been as it should have been, they would have received a completely different reply to their question. This is the mystery which appears contradictory, namely that he was referring to the fact of his office, and they to the man. John knew they were forfeiting their right to the restoration, and refusing to become “a kingdom of priests, and a nation or peculiar treasure unto the Lord,” this time again as before, by scorning his message, together with him who sent him, and the kingdom of God was taken away from them, as Jesus Christ foretold.

 

We do not hereby attach blame to the old prophets, as they did the best they could; even so they failed to bring about this complete restoration, because of the unbelief and the rebelliousness of their contemporaries, although each had made some contribution towards bringing it about in its own time. And as the time appointed by Jehovah had not come, they could not be made perfect without us also, or us without them as well. And as has been noted previously, the eternal priesthood, in heaven and on earth, must work together to achieve this restoration. And insofar as the Latter-day Saints have had the great honor of receiving the fulness of the gospel at the “dispensation of the fulness of times” which Paul talks about, when “he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.” Inasmuch as they have been presented with all the previous provisions of the restorers of former times, with the faith and deeds of those and these latter servants, as well as the keys to this restored dispensation, we can say to this nation as they said to their contemporaries, “If they wish to receive them, and submit to their message, that the Latter-day Saints are the Elias which was to come before the coming of the Lord’s great and dreadful day.” Yes, they, if the teaching they preach is obeyed, are the Elias of this age, and they will “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to the fathers.” If they do not receive them, then they cannot be an Elias or a restorer for them; but the Lord will come, and will strike the whole earth with judgment, because they refused to be restored. But although different from the previous dispensations in this, yet, if only the Saints are faithful, and make proper use of their valuable talents, by warning their contemporaries, they will be found innocent of the blood of all; they shall enjoy their portion and their inheritance which they won among all the restorers of the past, when they will be rewarded according to the deeds they performed in the flesh; they shall inherit the resting-place which still remains for God’s people, to be restored to them; for we too are seeking, as Paul once did, an eternal city, whose architect and builder is God. Blessed are those who seek a better country than this, where they can all unite in singing the song of Moses, and the song of the Lamb, when everyone therein will be an Elias, filled with the spirit and power of the God of Elijah. The times of the restoration of all things are a fine time, are they not? Who will not say, Hail to it, let it hasten to its completion!

 

 

J. Reuben Clark (then-apostle) Claiming to Engage in Speculation on Theological Issues

 

In an address given at the summer religious course for Seminary and Institute Teachers at BYU, June 21, 1954, J. Reuben Clark (1871-1961), at the time, an apostle of the Church, spoke on the topic “Man—God’s Greatest Miracle.” In the opening words, he stated that he was offering speculation and that the only person who can declare Church doctrine is the president of the Church (this refutes the naïve “LDS must believe when their leaders address a topic, especially a doctrinal issue, they must accept it, no ifs, ands, or buts about it” [cf. On the Scope and Formation of Latter-day Saint Doctrine]):

 

 

REFLECTIVE SPECULATION

 

This, I feel sure, will be the strangest religious talk you have ever heard. If you decide you never want to hear another like it, I will understand.

 

I am not declaring scripture, though I think I am not unscriptural. I am not declaring Church doctrine, though I think what I shall suggest is not contrary to Church doctrine. I have no right or authority to declare either scripture or Church doctrine. I will ask you to pay particular attention to these disclaimers. Please keep them always in mind in connection with what I shall say this morning.

 

I have in mind what the Prophet Joseph said about how good itself not to be trammeled in thinking (Parry, pp. 39, 157), and also what he said about what the Lord has declared, that only the prophet, seer, and revelator of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, the President of the Church, has the right to receive revelations for the Church or to declare the doctrines of the Church. No other member of the Church has any such right or authority. IT is well that we all remember this. It is particularly important that you teachers instructing our youth should keep this constantly in mind. In matters of gospel doctrine there is no such thing as academic freedom in your teaching of youth. You declare the Word of God as written in the scriptures, and as interpreted by his prophet, seer, and revelator.

 

Otherwise there is chaos and apostasy, and we shall follow the route of the primitive, post-apostolic Church. Remember, I am not today declaring scripture nor advancing Church doctrine. I am reflectively speculating—a matter to which little importance attaches. (Man—God’s Greatest Miracle [Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1960], 5-6)

 

 

Walter W. Smith (RLDS), "Book of Mormon and Zion's Religio-Literary Society" (1911) vs. the Heartland Model

 

In a work published by the Religio-Sunday School Normal Department of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the author proposes a form of the Hemispheric model of Book of Mormon geography, though with much of the events in the book being focused in Central and South America (I hold to a Mesoamerican model, similar to the one proposed by Sorenson, Gardner, et al.). Be that as it may be, it is clearly not a “Heartland” model for Book of Mormon geography. For instance, notice the following about the “promised land” in the Book of Mormon and how only part of the USA is contained therein:

 

LESSON 14.

 

THE LAND NORTHWARD.

 

1. The land northward, otherwise the land of Mulek, (a) extended northward from the Isthmus of Panama about thirty-five hundred miles, and varied in width from fifty to more than two thousand miles, (b) including what is now Central America, Mexico, and part of the United States of America. (c) It was occupied in turn by the Jaredite and Nephite nations.

 

2. The land was known by different names at different times. We notice the following: The “promised land” (a.e., Ether 3:10, 13; s.e., Ether 3:3) . . . .  (Walter W. Smith, Book of Mormon and Zion’s Religio-Literary Society [2d ed.; Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Publishing House, 1911], 47, emphasis in bold added)

 

I am sure some triggered Heartlanders will cite this as a reason why the then-RLDS Church has basically gone to hell in a handbasket, embracing liberalism, homosexuality, etc—in other words, their apostasy in recent years has been the result of rejecting the Heartland model of the Book of Mormon(!) If you think that is far fetched and no one would make such a claim as that shows no critical thinking, look up “Hannah Stoddard” and/or “Jonathan Neville.”

Recent interviews on Philosophy and Genesis 1

Two excellent interviews have been posted today. The first is an interview between my friends Tarik LaCour and Hanna Seariac:


FAIR Voice Podcast #12: Interview with Tarik D. LaCour (addresses philosophy, etc)


The second features Ben Spackman:


Cwic Show- Genesis 1, Ben Spackman







Matt1618 vs. Buchanan on Imputed Righteousness

 

The Matt1618 Website has two great articles responding to James Buchanan's 1867 book, The Doctrine of Justification, on the topic of imputation:

 

Justification: Imputation or Making Righteous: A Response to James Buchanan Claims on Imputation Introduction, Response to Propositions XVI-XVII

 

Justification: Imputation or Making Righteous: A Response to James Buchanan Claims on Imputation, Part 2 Response to Propositions XVIII-XX, Conclusion

 

This is a topic I have addressed on many occasions, including:



λογιζομαι in texts contemporary with the New Testament:












 

 

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

On the Perspicuity of the Bible, Baptismal Regeneration in 1 Peter 3:19-21, and a Discussion of Different "Causes"

Our Protestant friends will often tell us that they hold to the perspicuity of the Bible. While there is, no doubt, many passages of the Bible which are “clear,” one will find that our Protestant (esp. Reformed) friends will reject very clear readings, not because they are actually difficult texts, but because they conflict with their theology, even when a prima facie reading of the text is obvious (or "perspicuous,” to borrow their terminology).

 

Take 1 Pet 3:19-21, a text that clearly teaches baptismal regeneration:

 

By which [Christ] went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

In this pericope, the apostle Peter teaches that, just as the flood waters in Noah’s time was the instrumental means by which evil was destroyed, water baptism, being the antitype thereof, is the instrumental means by which our personal evils (our sins) are destroyed by God.

 

Now, before I continue, let me make a note about different “causes,” as many will retort, ignorantly, that defenders of baptismal regeneration believe water baptism have an efficacy in and of itself.

 

           Final cause: the purpose or aim of an action or the end (telos) toward which a thing naturally develops.

           Efficient cause: an agent that brings a thing into being or initiates a change

           Formal cause: the pattern which determines the form taken by something

           Meritorious cause: the foundation/source of the “power” behind the action

           Instrumental cause: the physical means/instrument through which the action is brought about; it exercises its influence chiefly according to the form and intention of the principal efficient cause

 

Such differentiation of "causes" is known in the Reformed tradition. In paragraph 2 of Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, there is a differentiation between the "meritorious" and "instrumental" causes of justification:

 

Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification . . .

 

In other words, Reformed theology itself teaches that, while the meritorious cause of justification is solely the atoning sacrifice of Christ, it must still be applied, and the instrumental means of its application is by (saving) faith. Just as it would be fallacious to claim, therefore, that they believe "saving faith" has an energy/power independent of the atonement and that it downplays or depreciates the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, so, too, is it fallacious to claim that baptismal regeneration does the same (therefore, appeals to texts such as 1 John 1:7 are not problematic to the doctrine).

 

So, let us tie this to water baptism:

 

           Meritorious cause: the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ

           Efficient cause: God the Father applying the merits of Christ and the Spirit operating through the physical water

           Instrumental cause: water baptism (N.B.: this is important as this means baptism, in and of itself, has no “energy” or “power” to save—it is dependent upon the meritorious cause [Christ’s redemptive sacrifice] for its efficacy)

           Formal cause: the baptised person being regenerated and receiving a remission of their sins (past and then-present)

           Final cause: the glorification of God in the salvation of souls

 

As the instrumental cause of regeneration, baptism is dependent upon (not independent of) the atoning sacrifice of Christ (the sole meritorious cause of salvation) for its efficacy. Belief in baptismal regeneration is not “adding” to the work of Christ—it is the instrumental means of its initial application. This refutes the claim that “baptismal regeneration . . .teaches that the meritorious work of water baptism . . .achieves regeneration” (Edward L. Dalcour, A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology, p. 39) and similar arguments by critics of baptismal regeneration.

 

Now, back to 1 Pet 3:19-21.

 

In verse 20, we read of how the “water” from the flood “saved” (σωζω) Noah and his family, and how baptism, said to be the fulfilment of this Old Testament type (antitype [αντιτυπος]) “now save us” (νῦν σῴζει [“now saves you”]). Antitypes are always greater than their Old Testament types. Consider the brazen serpent in Num 21:8-9—those who looked at the serpent were healed, but only temporarily, and only members of the nation of Israel. Christ is likened to this serpent, but one brings about salvation, and not to Israel only, but all the nations (John 3:14-17).

 

This fits with the definition of αντιτυπος provided by Lexicons such as Johannes E. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon: Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed.:

 

ἀντίτυπος, ον: pertaining to that which corresponds in form and structure to something else, either as an anticipation of a later reality or as a fulfillment of a prior type - 'correspondence, antitype, representation, fulfillment.' ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα 'which corresponds to baptism which now saves you' 1 Pe 3.21 . . .

 

Therefore, just as Noah et al. were (temporarily) saved “by water” (δι᾽ ὕδατος), we are saved by means of baptism, with baptism saving us in a greater manner, that is, salvifically (thus it being an antitype).

 

Some try to explain this away, arguing that it was the ark, not the water from the flood, that saved Noah. However, this ignores the fact that Peter is offering a typological interpretation of the flood water. Furthermore, Peter is rather explicit in linking baptism to the instrumental means of being saved.

 

This still begs the question as to why one would link the flood water with the water of baptism? The answer is that, just as the water from the flood destroyed all evil, the water of baptism brings about a forgiveness of our personal evils (sins), fitting this typological approach to the flood narrative in Genesis.

 

Let us quote some scholarly sources affirming that this text clearly teaches baptismal regeneration:

 

21* This verse is joined to its predecessor by the relative pronoun ὅ, which, together with ἀντίτυπον (“antitype”) and βάπτισμα (“baptism”) serve as a compound subject of the verb σῴζει. It is the interrelationship of the pronoun and the two nouns that constitutes the syntactic problem of the first phrase of the verse. If, as seems likely, the relative pronoun is the subject of the verb, then the two remaining nouns stand in apposition to it There have been attempts to resolve the phrase differently: to take ἀντίτυπον as adjectival (“antitypical baptism saves you”); to take it as appositional to ὑμᾶς; to understand βάπτισμα as a proleptic antecedent to the ὅ; to include the first phrase with the end of the preceding verse, that is, “ … saved through water which even in reference to you (is) a pattern. Baptism now saves, not …”; to substitute the dative (ᾧ) for the nominative relative pronoun, accepting the reading of a few minor texts. The complexity of the sentence is, however, in all likelihood the result of the complex attempt to relate Noah and the flood as a means of deliverance to Christian baptism as a means of salvation, and ought thus to be allowed to stand. (Achtemeier, P. J., & Epp, E. J. (1996). 1 Peter : a commentary on First Peter (p. 266). Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press; emphasis added)

 

I would construe the pronoun ὃ, referring to water, with “antitype,” understood as a noun, and refer both to baptism. To give a more literal rendering than the above, “[W]ater, which antitype [the antitype of which], is baptism, now saves also you,” or “[W]ater, which in its antitype, baptism, now saves also you.” The former makes clearer that baptism saves, the latter puts more emphasis on the water in baptism as saving, but both renderings convey the idea that grammatically baptism, not the water of the flood, “saves you.” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the first five centuries [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009], 190-91)

 

A new means of salvation marks the new era: “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (3:18). A reference to “the days of Noah” and the eight persons who “were saved through water” turns the thoughts of our author to baptism. “And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him” (3:20-22). Baptism in the name of Christ means participation in the atoning work of Christ, and hence the enjoyment of eternal salvation. (Donald A. Hagner, How New is the New Testament? First-Century Judaism and the Emergence of Christianity [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2018], 153, emphasis added)

 

The flood is, therefore, a cleansing destruction, purging the earth of that which is corrupt. This helps to explain why Peter sees it as an antitype of that which baptism symbolizes, particularly if we accept that his understanding of baptism may actually agree with that of Paul: the flood, as a purging judgement, prefigures the death of ‘flesh’ in Jesus and the establishment of a new order by the Spirit. It is worth mentioning that other literature of the time, notably The Book of Watchers, understands the flood as a cleansing and restorative event, prefiguring the eschatological judgment (particularly 1 Enoch 10, where the same theme of purging is encountered).

 

This requires, though, that Jesus’s identification as the sin-bearer is not simply representative but is also participatory, putting to death the old order of sins in which we used to participate and establishing a new order of righteousness in which we now participate. (Grant Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament [New York: Oxford University Press, 2018], 277-78, emphasis in bold added, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

 

1 Pet 3:19-21 teaching baptismal regeneration also ties nicely into Peter’s words in Acts 2:38, which also teaches the same. For more on this, see:

 

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

 

Notwithstanding how clear the grammar is, many will reject the clear meaning of this pericope, not because it is obscure--the "difficult" nature of the pericope is due to it refuting many formulations of Sola Fide and errant understandings of the relationship baptism has to salvation. Such only shows us that the Protestant understanding of the perspicuity of the Bible is a shell-game. Furthermore, it is ironic that, for those who claim they hold to the perspicuity of the Bible, they hold to dogmas which are not taught therein, such as the teaching that special revelation ceased with the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament (and no, Jude 3 and Rev 22:18-19 do not teach such!)


Indeed, the Protestant Reformers had to make distinctions about the nature of perspicuity that went beyond the subjective “difficult” and “clear” distinction, including external vs. internal perspicuity of the Bible itself. As Robert Fastiggi noted:

 

Luther concedes that there are certain passages of Scripture which “are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance” (Bondage of the Will; Dillenberger, p. 172). However, he maintains that, since revelation of Christ, “the entire content of the Scriptures has now been brought to light, even though some passages which contain many unknown words remain obscure” (Ibid.) If people find the contents of Scripture obscure, Luther contends that this is due “not to any lack of clarity in Scripture, but to their own blindness and dullness, in that they make no effort to see truth which, in itself, could not be Plainer” (Ibid., p. 173)

 

Luther goes on to make a distinction between the external perspicuity or clarity of Scripture and the internal perspicuity. As he sees it, the external clarity of Scripture must be affirmed. He maintains that “nothing whatsoever is left obscure or ambiguous, but that all that is in the Scripture is through the Word brought forth in the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole world” (Ibid., p. 175). However, the external clarity of the Bible is only perceived by those who have been given the gift of internal perspicuity by the Holy Spirit. As Luther writes: “the truth is that nobody who has not the Spirit of God sees a jot of what is in the Scriptures” (Ibid., p. 174). Those without the Spirit “can discuss and quote all that is in Scripture,” but “they do not understand or really know any of it” (Ibid.) This is because “the Spirit is needed for the understanding of all Scripture and every part of Scripture” (Ibid., pp. 174-175). (Robert Fastiggi, "What did the Protestant Reformers Teach about Sola Scriptura?" in Robert Sungenis, ed. Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2013], 295-334, here, p. 301)

 

For more on the broader topic of Sola Scriptura and the formal sufficiency of the Bible itself, see:

 

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

Blog Archive