As many know, I am an Open Theist and have written much in defence of this perspective of the nature of God’s foreknowledge and relationship to time and other topics (e.g., Does Isaiah 46:9-10 Disprove Open Theism?).
While reading the 1920 book 40 Years in the Mormon Church: Why I Left It! by former RLDS apostle R.C. Evans (1861-1921) raised a number of criticisms of uniquely RLDS (now Community of Christ) sections of the Doctrine and Covenants which can be answered within an Open Theist framework (thus the reason I could not use such arguments against the RLDS/COC claims to authority [for a copy of the RLDS edition of the D&C, click here]). I am reproducing his comments as it shows a basis for Open Theism within a broader “Mormon Restorationist” context:
STRANGE STATEMENT MADE IN THE REVELATIONS OF THE REORGANIZED CHURCH PROPHETS
I confess that for years, before leaving Mormonism, I had grave doubts with regard to the revelations that were given by Joseph the second, there was nothing definite about them, too much guess work, too much “if” and “perhaps.” They seemed to be a guess of a human being rather than a revelation from the divine, but we submit a brief examination of a few points for the consideration of the honest searcher for truth:
“Inasmuch as there has been much discussion in the past concerning the Sabbath of the Lord, the church is admonished that until further revelation is received, or the quorums of the church are assembled to decide concerning the law in the church articles and covenants, the saints are to observe the first day of the week commonly called the Lord’s Day, as a day of rest, as a day of worship, as given in the covenant, and commandments.” Doctrine and Covenants. 119, 7.
It just seems to be that if the Lord had spoken he could have told them which were the right day. He would have settled the matter once and for all and not told them to wait for another revelation to settle it.
“The epistle is to be left without approval or disapproval by the conference, as the judgment of the quorum of twelve, until further experience shall have rested the matters therein stated.” Doctrine and Covenants, 120, 1.
It just looks to me that if the Lord had condescended to speak on the position taken by the apostles that he would have confirmed their opinion or denounced it. Are we to believe that the Lord had not arrived as a proper conclusion regarding the matter, or will we say the man who presented the paper to the church was not settled in his mind? Or, if he was, there was strong men on each side of the controversy and he did not care to run up against them?
“The voice of the spirit is that E.C. Briggs be sustained for the present. J.W. Briggs and Z.H. Gurley are in your hands to approve, or disapprove or wisdom may direct.” This E.C. Briggs was sustained for years. “For the present,” sounds very indefinite, when we are asked to believe that the Lord said it. The other two men, one of the most brilliant apostles of his time, the other the president of that august body, had denounced the body and soon after left the church and both believed to their death that Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, received the infamous revelations on polygamy and had many wives. Yet it looks like as if someone was afraid to say “put them out,” or “keep them in,” and so threw the burden upon the poor weak man to decide the fate of these two stalwarts. But this milk and water policy did not keep these two brave men from giving to the world what they believe concerning the conduct of Joseph Smith.
“The one whom I had called to preside over the church (Joseph Smith) (R.C.) had not yet approved himself unto the scattered flock, and I gave this commandment (regarding money matters) (R.C.) unto the quorum next in authority in spiritual things, that the scattered ones, and those who had been made to suffer might have assurance that I would not suffer that he whom I had called should betray the confidence of the faithful, not squander the moneys of the treasury for the purpose of self.” Doctrine and Covenants 122:5.
Does this look as if God was not sure that young Joseph would go in the path of another had walked in, and so the faithful would again be robbed by his squandering their money? So he ordered the Twelve to watch the money chest till the young prophet would prove himself. This seems like a good thing in one way, and it would not be a real bad move if the Lord, or the church, or someone would take a hand right now, so that the moneys of the faithful be not squandered. When we think of the hundreds of thousands that have been squandered of late years, and if the auditors report correctly and the Bishops spoke truthfully this year, while at general conference, I think it about time for the Lord to kindly give further instruction of this matter.
“My servant Thomas W. Smith is in my hand, and his bishopric shall be continued for a season. If he fully recover he will enter again into the work. If I take him unto myself another will be appointed in his stead when the quorum is filled.” Doctrine and Covenants 122:15.
The plot thickens. We are asked to believe that the Lord of heaven gave this revelation to his people. He advised that Apostle Smith be continued in office for a season. Fact is, the God who gave that revelation did not seem to know whether this very sick apostle would get better or not, but he wanted the people to permit him to hold office for a season till he had decided whether he would die or not. Was this the guess of a God or a man? “If he fully recover he will enter into the work.”
Did God not know that he would remain a helpless creature for a long time and never do any more apostolic work in this world? It appears not. But He gave the assurance that “if I take him to myself another shall be appointed in his stead, when the quorum is filled.”
“The quorum of twelve, my servants may choose and appoint one of their number to take the place of my servant Alexander H. Smith, and if they shall choose William H. Kelley from among them for this place it will be pleasing unto me. Nevertheless if directed by the spirit of revelation and wisdom they may choose another.” Doctrine and Covenants 124:3.
Here we are asked to believe that the Lord will be pleased in the selection of one man, but he warns them what steps to take if the spirit of revelation directs them to select another. We had always thought that it was the Lord that bestowed the spirit of revelation. Surely this revelation should put to shame the poor, deluded sectarian world who know not God, and have not received of the spirit of revelation.
“The seer of the church has a vision in which he sees Frederick M. Smith and R.C. Evans sitting with the presidency (himself. When he beheld these men in that exalted station, he says: “I asked what was meant by the choosing of members of the presidency so young in years. I was informed that it was for the purpose that before the presidency should be invaded by death these younger men should be prepared by association to be of assistance to whomsoever should be chosen as the president upon the emergency which should occur.” Doctrine and Covenants 126:6, 8.
Not one that I have talked to in all the years since that time has been able to explain this to me. Both the present prophet and his father admitted their inability to make it clear, for several reasons. Let us examine. First, why ask the question: why speak of those two men being so young in years to occupy that position? I was older than Joseph Smith was when he was called of God to do the marvelous work. Yes, dear reader, older than Joseph Smith and (then) present prophet who saw the vision when he became the president of the church. 1st was not 25 years old when the church was organized. Joseph 2nd was not 28 years old when he was made president. R.C. Evans was over 40 years of age when he was called to the first presidency of the church. I was called to the first presidency of the church. I was older than many others who had occupied that position. I had a thousand times more experience in church work than many of them, including both prophets. For I had been ordained and labored for years as a Priest, Elder, Seventy and an apostle. They had none of these offices before they were called to the important work. So, to many the very question seemed absurd. But worse and more of it. The reason for calling the two young men was that before death invaded the presidency that is, before the prophet Joseph should die, these younger men should be prepared by association to be of assistance to whomsoever should be the chosen upon the emergency which should occur. If language is a science to convey ideas, then this means that these two young men would remain in the presidency, learning the ways of the prophet till death should call him away, and then these two younger men would be of assistance, or be the counselors to the person who should be chosen by the Lord to be the next president. I have never talked to a man in the church but has considered that this position was the best light they could see this revelation in, and if that be correct it proves that Frederick M. Smith is not the prophet of the Lord. It was not the Lord’s wish that he should occupy in his father’s place, but that when death took his father away he would be counselor with me to the incoming president. Now, if the Lord gave that revelation, what are we to think of one that came years late, calling Frederick M. Smith to be the president? Is it unfair to say that if this revelation is the word of the Lord, that the time came when poor old Joseph became stone blind and almost totally deaf and agonizing under a complication of diseases that a strong two hundred and thirty pound man had an influence over this blind, deaf and now childish father to make arrangements for his son to take his father’s place as president of the church.
There is another point in this vision that trouble the people. Joseph Caffall, of the Apostles, was seen sitting with the evangelical ministers. This never came to pass. Caffall never believed the revelation but left the Twelve and died a disappointed man.
Section 127 contains a lengthy revelation concerning the building of a church sanitarium for sick folk. Joseph Luff, one of the most brilliant apostles of the church, had given some attention to the study of medicine, and the Lord is supposed to have said that he said Joseph Luff should “be associated with the sanatorium as a medical director and physician to the church and be put in charge and this my servant Joseph Luff, may do and retain and exercise, his apostleship.”
I may say that in my many years of association with the prophet Joseph Smith this was the first time I had the courage to go to him and refuse to submit to the revelation that he said came from God. I compared the revelation as given by Jesus Christ in defining the commission of an apostle in the Bible, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” and “They went forth and preached the gospel everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word with signs following.” Mar 15:12; Mar 15:20. And we are told “He gave them power to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.” Matthew 10.
Now, this modern prophet tells us the apostle could both go into all the world, preaching the gospel and heal the sick, and stay at home and make pills to heal the sick in a sanatorium. I felt that the great apostle apostolic mission was degraded, and that this revelation was an evidence of humanity and at that time devoid of Divinity. This revelation was given April 14th, 190.
Just three years later, April 18th, 1909, the Lord, we are asked to believe, had so change his mind upon this matter that we hear Him say, through the same prophet: “My servant Joseph Luff cannot fulfil the duties of a member of the quorum of Twelve in actively looking after and caring for the missionary work in the field and discharge the duties of his calling as a physician, ministering to the many seeking his advice and aid with safety to himself and others. It is wise, therefore, that the church release him from the responsibility of the active apostleship as a member of the quorum, that he may act unreservedly in his calling. Doctrine and Covenants 129:2. (R.C. Evans, Forty Years in the Mormon Church: Why I Left It! [1920], 84-86)
