Heber C. Kimball and People Rejecting the Gospel in the Spirit World

In a sermon dated July 26, 1857, Heber C. Kimball was recorded as saying the following:

 

Every man that is alive can act for himself under the hands of a man having authority. How will you manage for the dead? You will have to do it by proxy. For instance, I have got a father who died before "Mormonism" came; I go to brother Brigham when we have a place for it:  says I, "brother Brigham, I want to be baptized for my father;" he takes me and baptizes me for my father, I acting as proxy, or for and in behalf of my father, and it is done upon the same principle that we do it for ourselves; and that is recorded.

 

Can I go and be baptized for my mother? Yes, I can be, though that is not the strict order of the law of the kingdom; but let a man act for a man, and a woman for a woman, that each may bear their share. I will let my wife go and attend to that, she acting as proxy for my mother, and I for my father. Well now, I have got to attend to all the ordinances faithfully that I attend to for myself, and then, when the time comes, I can take my father and mother, and act for my father, and my wife act for my mother; and then they can be connected in marriage, and then their father and their mother, and so keep going on until we get back where we came from, and connect the Priesthood together, and have the chain perfect from these days to the days of Jesus, and then back to Adam.

 

Perhaps my father may not receive the Gospel. If he don't, my baptism will not do him any good. He is in the spirit-world; he has to believe and embrace the Gospel in his heart and affections, and then I receive knowledge from him through a proper authority, and I am administered to for him. You might as well go and be baptized for a devil as for a man who will not receive the Gospel in the spirit-world. (JOD 5:90)

 

I found this interesting as it (1) implicitly refutes the belief that one’s knowledge from pre-existence is immediately restored to them after death (cf. Melvin J. Ballard on the Knowledge of the Gospel by those in the Spirit World) and (2) refutes the belief that all the dead will accept the gospel in the hereafter (or at least, it will be relatively easy to do such; contrast with Alma 34:34).

George Q. Cannon Addressing Adam-God in 1898

The following comes from George Q. Cannon, "Things That Should and Things That Should Not Be Taught in Our Sunday School" delivered November 28, 1898, that touches upon Adam-God issue over two decades after Brigham Young died:

 

Many questions come up from theological classes--questions that are, to say the least, somewhat abstruse, and concerning which there is no written revelation; questions, too, that are not pertinent at all to the work of the schools. I was stopped yesterday afternoon by a young man, who wanted to know whether Adam was the father of our Lord and Savior--whether he was the being we worshiped, etc. Now, we can get ourselves very puzzled, if we choose to do so, by speculating upon doctrines and principles of this character. The Lord has said through His Prophet that there are two personages in the Godhead. That ought to be sufficient for us at the present time. I have heard during my life a great many speculations concerning the personage of the Holy Ghost--whether he was a personage or not But it has always seemed to me that we had better not endeavor to puzzle ourselves or allow our minds to be drawn out upon questions of this kind, concerning which the Lord has not revealed perhaps all that we desire. When men give themselves license to do this, they are very apt to be led along into error and imbibe ideas that are not sound . . . Concerning the doctrine in regard to Adam and the Savior, the Prophet Brigham taught some things concerning that; but the First Presidency and the Twelve do not think it wise to advocate these matters. It is sufficient to know that we have a Father--God the Eternal Father, who reveals Himself by His Holy Spirit unto those who seek unto Him; and that Jesus Christ is His Son, our Redeemer, the Savior of the world. If we confine ourselves to the facts as they are written in the word that the Lord has given unto us, we will do well. I would therefore say to all the brethren and sisters, refrain from indulging in these speculations; it does not lead to good. Do not indulge in the asking of foolish and improper questions. The Lord has revealed enough to keep us busy if we but study His word. (Proceedings of the Sunday School Convention [Salt Lake City: Deseret Sunday School Union, 1899], 87, 88)

  

Brigham Young on the Nature of Spirits of Then-Unborn Children

The following comes from a sermon dated September 21, 1856, from Brigham Young:

 

Do you understand this? I have told you many times that there are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty?—to prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can; hence if my women leave, I will go and search up others who will abide the celestial law, and let all I now have go where they please; though I will send the Gospel to them.

 

This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth.

 

If the men of the world were right, or if they were anywhere near right, there might not be the necessity which there now is. But they are wholly given up to idolatry, and to all manner of wickedness. (JOD 4:56)

 

Note that Brigham did not believe that the spirit of those who would be born into non-LDS families was not pleasing in the eyes of God and that the question of which family a spirit would be born into was an open question (ranging from dyed-in-the-wool LDS family to the polar opposite). This militates against the idea that, at least here, Brigham (and a number of his contemporaries) believed that those who were born into non-LDS families and those of African descent were “neutral” or even cursed in the pre-existence.

 

This should be read also in light of the following the minutes for the Salt Lake School of the Prophets:

 

December 25, 1869; Saturday

 

The School of the Prophets met. Many questions were asked by the members and answered by President Brigham Young. Elder Lorenzo Snow asked if the spirits of negroes were neutral in Heaven, as some one had said that the Prophet Joseph [Smith] said they were? President Young said; No, they were not, there were no neutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the rebellion, all took sides. If any one says they heard the Prophet Joseph say that the spirit of the blacks were neutral in Heaven, he would not believe them, for he heard Joseph say to the contrary. All spirits are pure that came from the presence of God. The posterity of Cain are black because he committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure that enter their tabernacles and there will be a chance for the redemption of all the children of Adam, except the sons of perdition. Wilford Woodruff made a speech upon apostasy. (Salt Lake School of the Prophets, 1867-1883 [ed. Devery S. Anderson; Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2018], 44, emphasis added)

 

The Problems of Rejecting the Personal Pre-Existence of Jesus by an Advocate of "Socinian" Christology

One of, if not the, weakest links in the chain of Christadelphian truth claims is the group's rejection of the personal pre-existence of Jesus. I have addressed this topic a bit in my critiques of the group (see Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues). One Christadelphian apologist, George McHaffie, writing in 1959, admitted this, too, and the problems with the common approaches they and other proponents of “Socinian” Christology take to the Gospel of John:

 

(ii) His Pre-existence

               This subject has always been a weak link.  Many of our arguments lack power in the case of such texts as ‘I came down from heaven not to do mine own will’ (John 6:38) which implies a decision in heaven before he descended.  Or again, ‘Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape’ (John 5:37) carrying the obvious implication that Jesus had.  Normally we explain such passages in reference to the Logos of John, chapter 1 verses 1-14, and by implication take them as relating to a period prior to his birth.  With such a view there seems no logical escape from the conclusion that he existed as a personality ‘I’ before his birth.  The teaching of the Socinians on this yields a lost clue.  They believed that prior to his ministry, but when Jesus was a grown man, he ascended to Heaven and had conversations with God and afterwards returned to earth with knowledge of Heavenly things (John 3:12). This view is elaborated (of all places) in a book by a Trinitarian who does not believe John’s Gospel teaches the pre-existence of Christ! (C. J. Wright in Jesus, the Revelation of God according to John).  If we take this ascent as a figure of receipt of revelation, we strike truth (compare Rev. 4:1, 2 Cor. 12:1-4). (George McHaffie, Christadelphia Redivivus [1959], 26-27)

 

George McHaffie on the Problems of the Christadelphian Understanding of the Devil and Demons

 

 

7.  Devils and Demons

 

            Dr Thomas’ teaching under this head may be summarised as follows:

(a) The devil in the Bible is only an expression for flesh as a great seducer of men to sin.

(b) Demons are simply a mode of language used to describe diseases like madness and epilepsy.

               The proof advanced to support the first proposition was that the words ‘devil’ and ‘Satan’ in the original Greek (and ‘Satan’ in the original Hebrew) simply meant false accuser or adversary.  Comparisons were made with the use of the word diabolos in Titus 2:3 where the word is translated ‘false accusers’.  There is a fallacy here though.  The original words for ‘Devil’ and ‘Satan’ are nearly always in a grammatical form which makes them proper names and we cannot therefore support the idea that they were intended to be only general references to individual or national false accusation etc.  A parallel would be translating Peter by ‘stone’ and alleging there to be no Peter, just a personified stone.

            On the second proposition, while it may be true that ‘lunatic’ is derived from a primitive notion that the moon was the cause of the condition and in using it now, we do so in innocence of the original meaning, the use of ‘demon’ in the New Testament goes far beyond this. The demons speak, discuss their fate, ask not to be sent to the ‘abyss’, the traditional ‘home’ of the demons (Luke 8:26-33) and much more.

            The origin of Dr Thomas’ views here is not to be sought in the Bible primarily, but in the rationalist spirit of the age in which he wrote.

               Mede, the prophetic expositor of the early seventeenth century, to whose writings Dr Thomas refers with approval in the preface to Eureka Volume 3, was already of the same outlook on the demons. In his discourse on John 10:20, he says:

I am persuaded until I shall hear better reasons to the contrary that these demoniacs were no other than such as we call madmen and lunatics.

On 1 Timothy 4:1 of ‘doctrines of devils’:

It is plain from the context that the apostle did not mean the worship of departed human souls but the doctrines that were advanced by very wicked and cunning men.

On 1 John 4:1 ‘Believe not every spirit...’ he translates:

Believe not every doctrine but try the doctrines whether they be of God.

               By 1739 the controversy on the subject was hot. Dr Gregory Sharpe, Master of the Temple, published A Review of the Controversy about the Demoniacks in that year and concludes:

That the New Testament, speaking of demons possessing men, speaks in words of common use and in the vulgar notions not concerning itself in strict philosophical speculations.

               Hugh Farmer in an Essay on the Demoniacs of the New Testament (1775), has for his theme that ‘the demoniacs of the New Testament are all either madmen or epileptics.’

               In 1842 an anonymous pamphlet appeared in London pleading that belief in the devil and demons was of pagan origin and the appearance of the Devil and Satan in the New Testament was a result of mistranslation.  The subject was definitely in the air, so much so that Edward White in his book Life in Christ (1875), which challenged belief in the immortality of the soul, could comment in the preface that his continued belief in the apostles’ ‘doctrines of Evil Spirits as an essential part of Christianity, will deeply displease some as old-fashioned and uncritical...’.

            There seems little doubt on this point.  Dr Thomas was carried forward on a wave of reasoned scepticism which he shared with many of his contemporaries.

. . .

3. The Devil and Demons

 

            The few people who believe in the Devil and demons today are all seriously religious people, and hold their belief because of traditional Christian opinion or fundamentalist conviction.  A quotation from the controversies of 1739 may bring out the attitude of such people.  The writer is anonymous and is replying to those who do not believe in demons.

For is it probable that one of the evangelists should say that a spirit tare him; and another that the devil threw him down and tare him, in writings designed for the use of the world, if no more was in it than the effects of natural disorder?  Is it probable that all three evangelists should tell us that Jesus rebuked the Devil or the unclean spirit? and is it possible (for I really won’t ask whether it be probable) that our Saviour should speak to one labouring under a mere disorder only, these words ‘Thou deaf and dumb spirit I charge thee etc.’

            With regard to the Devil, our contention that the Bible teaches this to be flesh or human nature ‘in its various manifestations’ will simply not match up to Eph. 6:11,12. ‘... stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood... but...spiritual wickedness in high places.’  The repeated references to the devil, the power of demons, and their being exorcised without any statement that there is no devil or even an ‘as is supposed’ in reference to a demon would carry conviction to most people that the Bible writers believed in the devil and demons. Supposing they did: would they have written any differently?

            Yet it seems beyond question that the phenomena once thought to be the work of demons etc. are more rationally explicable on other grounds.  The only explanation of all this seems to be as already outlined under ‘Fundamentalism’ that the Bible contains references to contemporary beliefs on many things incidental to the main intention of revelation.  It would make our witness much more frank if we could acknowledge this primitive element rather than endeavour to build up a case to show that it is not actually in the Bible at all.  This carries with it, also, the implication that if anyone, out of conviction, believes in the devil and demons, he is nevertheless acceptable to God providing his behaviour is otherwise Christian. (George McHaffie, Christadelphia Redivivus [1959], 14-15, 22-23)

 

The Validity of John Thomas' Baptism When He Then-Professed Belief in Immortal Emergence

In her interesting book, Founding Fathers and Facing Facts, Christadelphian author Ruth McHaffie wrote the following about John Thomas and, from a Christadelphian perspective, John Thomas’ baptism is questionable and perhaps ineffectual(!):

 

By Christadelphian criteria, "brotherhood" depends on beliefs held at the time of baptism. As Dr. Thomas explained with italicised emphasis,

 

The principle which first turned up as the result of proving all things, was that the immersion of an individual whose "faith" was not the faith of the gospel was a valueless immersion - it was not christian baptism... Out of this principle grew another, namely, that a knowledge of truth acquired subsequently to such an immersion did not convert it into obedience of the gospel of christian baptism. (Thomas, Herald of the Kingdom, Vol. I, 1851, p. 2)

 

And again, as he wrote (to Robert Roberts),

 

No one should be recognised as one of Christ's brethren who is not sound in the first principles of the gospel before immersion. (Roberts, Autobiography, [1939 edit.], p. 115) (Ruth McHaffie, Finding Founders and Facing Facts [Edinburgh, 2001], 100)

 

In a footnote to the above, we read:

 

Despite this attestation, we must remember that John Thomas himself was baptised while believing in immortal emergence (see his Anastasis, p. 25). That doctrine would today forbid immersion into our community and would be counted as legitimate reason for disfellowship should any existing member express it. The logical, but appalling, conclusion regarding our pioneer would, however, be too distressing for our community to contemplate. (Ibid., 100 n. 25)

 

For those who do not know, "immortal emergence" is the belief that the righteous, when they "emerge" from the grave, are in a state of intrinsic immortality; this is a heresy according to Christadelphian theology (John Thomas, only late in his life, would be dogmatic about this). Instead, they hold to "mortal" emergence--the righteous, when they are raised from the dead, are still in a state of mortality and will only be granted immortality at the judgment.

Karlo Broussard on the Necessity of Water Baptism

 Catholic Answers has posted a video wherein Karlo Broussard has defended (with some qualifications [e.g. invincible ignorance]) of baptismal regeneration:

122820 FOCUS Karlo Baptism Necessary

Broussard does a good job, such as refuting the canard that Acts 10:47 refutes baptismal regeneration. On this, see Acts 10:47, Cornelius, and Baptismal Regeneration (cf. Does Cornelius Help Refute Baptismal Regeneration? and. Was Cornelius Converted Before Acts 10?)

 For more on baptism and its salvific efficacy, something I have written a great deal about, see:

 Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7

Jerome D. Quinn on Titus 3:5 and Baptismal Regeneration

Water Baptism being a Spiritual Circumcision and Baptism being Salvific in Colossians 2:11-14

Chad Pierce on the Salvific Efficacy of Water Baptism

Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians

Paul S. Williamson on Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians

Andrew Lincoln on Paul's Theology of Water Baptism in Ephesians 5:26

J. Paul Sampley on Baptismal Regeneration and Ephesians 5:25-27 

On the related issue of imputed righteousness (which informs a lot of the errant arguments against baptismal regeneration and other doctrines), see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

Dallin H. Oaks on Righteous Desires and D&C 124:49-51

  

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them to hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments so I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God. Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God. (D&C 124:49-51; cf. Refuting James Walker on Joseph Smith's Prophecies)

 

In his October 8, 1985, BYU speech, "The Desires of Our Hearts," Dallin Oaks said the following which mirrors D&C 124:49-51:

 

There is also good news. Under the law of God, we can be rewarded for righteousness even where we are unable to perform the acts that are usually associated with such blessings.

Blessings for Righteous Desires

When someone genuinely wanted to do something for my father-in-law but was prevented by circumstances, he would say: “Thank you. I will take the good will for the deed.” Similarly, I believe that our Father in Heaven will receive the true desires of our hearts as a substitute for actions that are genuinely impossible.

Here we see another contrast between the laws of God and the laws of men. It is entirely impractical to grant a legal advantage on the basis of an intent not translated into action. “I intended to sign that contract” or “We intended to get married” cannot stand as the equivalent of the act required by law. If the law were to give effect to intentions in lieu of specific acts, it would open the door for too much abuse, since the laws of man have no reliable means of determining our innermost thoughts.

In contrast, the law of God can reward a righteous desire because an omniscient God can discern it. As revealed through the prophet of this dispensation, God “is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (D&C 33:1). If a person refrains from a particular act because he is genuinely unable to perform it, but truly would if he could, our Heavenly Father will know this and can reward that person accordingly.

Perhaps the best scriptural illustration of this is King Benjamin’s teaching about giving:

And again, I say unto the poor. . . all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.

And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless. [Mosiah 4:24–25]

Paul described the same principle in his second letter to the Corinthians: “If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not” (2 Corinthians 8:12).

President Harold B. Lee relied on these scriptures in another example:

[Women] who have been denied the blessings of wifehood or motherhood in this life—who say in their heart, if I could have done, I would have done, or I would give if I had, but I cannot for I have not—the Lord will bless you as though you had done, and the world to come will compensate for those who desire in their hearts the righteous blessings that they were not able to have because of no fault of their own. [Harold B. Lee, Ye Are the Light of the World (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974), p. 292]

The desires of our hearts will be an important consideration in the final judgment. Alma taught that God “granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; . . . according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction. Yea, . . . he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires” (Alma 29:4–5).

That is a sobering teaching, but it is also a gratifying one. It means that when we have done all that we can, our desires will carry us the rest of the way. It also means that if our desires are right, we can be forgiven for the mistakes we will inevitably make as we try to carry those desires into effect. What a comfort for our feelings of inadequacy! As Alma said:

It is requisite with the justice of God that. . . if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.

If he hath repented of his sins, and desired righteousness until the end of his days, even so he shall be rewarded unto righteousness. [Alma 41:3, 6]

Similarly, in this dispensation the Lord has revealed that he “will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts” (D&C 137:9).

I caution against two possible misunderstandings: First, we must remember that desire is a substitute only when action is truly impossible. If we attempt to use impossibility of action as a cover for our lack of true desire and therefore do not do all that we can to perform the acts that have been commanded, we may deceive ourselves, but we will not deceive the Righteous Judge.

In order to serve as a substitute for action, desire cannot be superficial, impulsive, or temporary. It must be heartfelt, through and through. To be efficacious for blessings, the desires of our hearts must be so genuine that they can be called godly.

Second, we should not assume that the desires of our hearts can serve as a substitute for an ordinance of the gospel. Consider the words of the Lord in commanding two gospel ordinances: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). And in respect to the three degrees in the celestial glory, modern revelation states, “In order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]” (D&C 131:2). No exception is implied in these commands or authorized elsewhere in the scriptures.

In the justice and mercy of God, these rigid commands pertaining to essential ordinances are tempered by divine authorization to perform those ordinances by proxy for those who did not have them performed in this life. Thus, a person in the spirit world who so desires is credited with participating in the ordinance just as if he or she had done so personally. In this manner, through the loving service of living proxies, departed spirits are also rewarded for the desires of their hearts.

In summary, under the law of God we are accountable for our feelings and desires as well as our acts. Evil thoughts and desires will be punished. Acts that seem to be good bring blessings only when they are done with real and righteous intent. On the positive side, we will be blessed for the righteous desires of our hearts even though some outside circumstance has made it impossible for us to carry those desires into action.

To paraphrase Paul’s teaching in Romans 2:29, he is a true Latter-day Saint who is one inwardly, whose conversion is that of the spirit, in the heart, whose praise is not of men for outward acts, but of God, for the inward desires of the heart.

 

The late 19th-century Latter-day Saint Belief in the On-Going Role of Joseph Smith in Salvation History

The following comes from Diary Excerpts of Abraham H. Cannon, Internally Dated/Paginated

Vol. 8, 1886 (taken from The New Mormon CD-ROM):

 

                                                      Thursday, Oct. 14th: The following are words spoken by Apostle Moses Thatcher at Lewiston, Cache Co., Utah, 1886. (Original in the hands of W. S. Burton.) "It is my belief that every city, county, precinct and territorial office in this Territory will be in the hands of our enemies; that we shall be so burdened with taxes that it will be almost more than human nature can endure. That we shall cry to the Lord by night and by day for deliverance. That when our hearts are sufficiently subdued that our entire trust will be in the Lord, then shall that man like unto Moses be raised up, and shall lead us out of bondage back to Jackson County in the state of Missouri. There will be no hesitation; everything will be decisive and prompt. The mountains shall tremble before him and if there be a tree or anything else in the way of their progress, it shall be plucked up by the power of God. Then is the time the scriptures will be fulfilled that says: `One shall chase a thousand and two shall put ten thousand to flight.'"

 

                                                      "It is my belief that the time of our deliverance will be within five years, the time indicated being February 14th, 1891. (See Mill. Star, Vol. XV, Page 205) And that the man raised up will be no other than the Prophet Joseph Smith in his resurrected body. The power to lead Israel in the latter days as Moses led them anciently having been sealed upon his head by his father, Joseph Smith, the Patriarch of the Church at that time. If Father Smith had the power to bless, and that he had the power is most certain from the fact that he was ordained to this office and calling by his son, the Prophet, before the above blessing was pronounced upon the head of Joseph, no other man can perform this mission but the Prophet Joseph Smith. (See Mill. Star, Vol. XV, page 620) I do not say all the people of the nation will be destroyed within the time mentioned, but I do say, that in consequence of the wickedness and corruption of the officers of the nation, the government will pass into the hands of the Saints, and that within five years. There will not be a city in the Union that will not be in danger of disruption by the Knights of Labor, who are becoming a formidable power in the land. You people in quiet Lewiston need not be surprised if within the next four years the rails are torn up from Ogden to the Missouri River and to San Francisco and into Montana in the North, leaving us as isolated as we were when we first came to this Territory. There is a power to do this and a disposition to--meaning the Knights of Labor." (A servant of God, holding the power and keys of the Holy Apostleship does not speak in this manner for mere pastime. There is more in these utterances than we are apt to attach to them, unless we are aided by the Spirit of God.)

 

 Further Reading

Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology

Heber C. Kimball on the Promises Given to Thomas Marsh in the Doctrine and Covenants

In Thomas Marsh, D&C 112, and contingent foreknowledge, I discussed how various promises given to Thomas Marsh were contingent in nature. Notwithstanding, early Latter-day Saints who knew both Joseph Smith and Thomas Marsh understood such promises were real and not merely hypothetical but would never be fulfilled, further supporting the contingent, not exhaustive, foreknowledge-reading of such texts. Consider the following from Heber C. Kimball in a sermon dated July 12, 1857:

 

Thomas B. Marsh was once the President over the Quorum of the Twelve—over brother Brigham, me, and others; and God saw fit to give him a revelation to forewarn him of the course he would take; and still he took that course. We told him that if he would listen to that revelation he had received, he would he saved; but he listened to his wife, and away he went. His wife is now dead and damned. She led him some eighteen years; and as soon as she died he came to Winter Quarters—now Florence, and has written to us, pleading for mercy. We have extended it to him, and he will probably be here this season or the next. He says that he has sinned before God and his brethren, and is pleading for mercy; for he feels as though our Father and God would have a little bread for him after all the rest have eaten all they need. (JOD 5:29)

 

Wade Englund vs. the Tanners on the Kirtland Bank

While dated in light of the more recent research of Elizabeth Kuehn and Mark Lyman Staker, Wade Englund had a good response to chapter 35 of the Tanners’ Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? on the topic of the Kirtland Bank (""Speculation, Illegal Banking and Counterfeiting"). Here are the links:

 

 

Chapter 35 "Speculation, Illegal Banking and Counterfeiting"

 

Endnote #1 of Chapter 35 Speculation?

 

Endnote #2 of Chapter 35 The Kirtland Bank/Disaster?

 

Endnote #3 of Chapter 35 Bankruptcy/Fraud?

Book Request: Ian Barber, What Mormonism Isn't (1981)

 I am looking for a PDF (or even the paperback) of the following:

Ian Barber, What Mormonism Isn't: A Response to the Research of Jerald and Sandra Tanner (Auckland, New Zealand: Pioneer, 1981)

Email: IrishLDS87ATGmailDOTCom

Session XXIX of Trent vs. Ineffabilis Deus

In his lecture Fallibility of the Popes (November 2004), the late Fr. Gregory Hesse discussed a number of examples throughout Christian history of theological errors made by the Bishops of Rome (not just Honorius!) One such example appears in the (non-dogmatic) section of the bull defining the Immaculate Conception.

 

In Ineffabilis Deus, Pius IX gave this warning after the dogmatic definition:

 

Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

 

As Hesse noted, this is a theological error and explicitly contradicts session XXIX of the Council of Trent:

 

[DS 1814] But while the holy Synod recognizes that those prohibitions by reason of man’s disobedience are no longer of any use, and considers the grave sins which have their origin in such clandestine marriage, especially, indeed, the sins of those who remain in the state of damnation, after abandoning the first wife, with whom they made a secret contract, while they publicly contract another, and live with her in continual adultery, since the Church, which does not judge what is hidden, cannot correct this evil, unless a more efficacious remedy be applied, therefore by continuing in the footsteps of the holy Lateran Council [IV] proclaimed under INNOCENT III, it commands that in the future, before a marriage is contracted, public announcement be made three times on three consecutive feast days in the Church during the celebration of the Masses, by the proper pastor of the contracting parties between whom the marriage is to be contracted; after these publications have been made, if no legitimate impediment is put in the way, one can proceed with the celebration of the marriage in the open church, where the parish priest, after the man and woman have been questioned, and their mutual consent has been ascertained, shall either say: “I join you together in matrimony, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” or use other words, according to the accepted rite of each province.

 

In other words, the Church cannot judge the thoughts of a person, but only their external actions (e.g., what they say/do). While not an example of error ex cathedra, Pius IX's comments are an example of a theological error by the pope in a high-level document.

Ben Stanhope on the Ages of the Patriarchs in Genesis

  

In Genesis 25:8 we read: “Abraham breathed his last and died at good old age, an old man full of years.” Abraham is the first person in the Bible to be described as having obtained fullness of age. However, if the lifespans in Gen 5 and 11 are literal, this passage is bizarre because Abraham’s great, great, great, great grandfather Eber was still alive and kicking at Abraham’s death and even outlived him at 464 years (Gen 11:14-17). In fact, Abraham, who died in “good old age full of years” still had a spry great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather still living named Sheliah, along with his grandfather Shem (Gen 11:10-14).

 

Second is a related point. If literal, these genealogies imply every one of the patriarchs born back in Noah lived at the same time as Abraham! This is strange because the Bible otherwise appears to treat these men like they were long dead by this time. Joshua 24:2 and 14-15 speaks of Abraham’s “ancestors” have lived “long ago” (מעולם and claims they worshiped foreign gods. This would be an odd way of describing Abraham’s contemporaries, and it seems unlikely that paganism would have crept into Noah’s family line while survivors of the flood like Noah and his son Shem were still alive.

 

Indeed, except for Jacob blessing Joseph’s sons, none of the patriarchs is ever recorded as having related to his grandchildren. This isn’t a mere weak argument from silence. The whole point of patriarchal tribal culture is that the oldest surviving male ancestors should have still been the revered rulers and chief consultants of their family lines. Did no one really live with, visit, care for, or see fit to consult their ancestor so wise and venerable as Noah? Jacob founded the nation of Israel. Why do we never see him consulting with or meeting Abraham to whom the promise of this nation was once given? Why does Eber never appear in the Abrahamic narratives about the formation of the Hebrew people considering they were named after him? Where were any of these patriarchs at the rape of Dinah tragedy, or the supposed death of Joseph and the later famine in that story?

 

Third, the call of Abraham story gives us a more concrete example. If you remember, the story goes in Genesis 18 that Abraham is sitting in front of his tent in the heat of the day by the trees of Mamre, and three mysterious visitors come to him with a message from God. They tell him in a year he will bear a son. Abraham was incredulous. As Gen 18:11 says, “Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah.” Abraham responded (17:17): “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” Sarah, who overheard this conversation on the other side of the tent even laughs at the absurdity of it. “Then the Lord said to Abraham, ‘Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too difficult for the Lord? I will return to you at the appointed time next year, and Sarah will have a son.’” So, of course, a year passes and this miracle does come true. Sarah names the baby Isaac, meaning laughter in Hebrew—a testament of the miraculous power of God visited to her in her old age!

 

Here's the problem: If the numbers given in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies are literal, this wasn’t actually a miracle. Why not? Because Abraham’s own dad, Terah, fathered either Abraham or one of his brothers at 130 years old (Gen 11:32, 12:4, Acts 7:4). The Bible never hints that this birth was a miracle. In fact, not only his father but Abraham’s own grandson Jacob fathered multiple children between the ages of 84 and 105 (this calculation is derived by noting that Benjamin was born after the Dineh incident at Shechem [Gen 34:16-20])!

 

So why is that one of the most central legends in the Torah, about the very formation of the Hebrew people, makes such a big deal about the miracle of Abraham and Sarah having a son of the ages of 90 and 100 if their relatives both after and immediately before them had children at older ages? A literal interpretation detracts from the whole point of the birth of Isaac story as a miracle.

 

This issue, that 90 and 100 in Abraham’s day were considered “very old” and too old to have children is the basis for a fourth example. If you do some simple addition, Abraham’s grandson Jacob not only fathered children as late as 105, but he was apparently a virgin until 77 years old when he fell in love with Rachel and was up for 7 years of labor to pursue a sexual relationship with her. That means he waited until age 84 before he started fathering 12 kids in a mere 7 years.

 

We know something of ancient marriage in the ancient Near East. In the first millennium, at least, it has been estimated that Mesopotamian women typically married between 14 and 20, and men between 26 and 32 (Martha T. Roth, “Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Forms,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 29.4 [1987], 747). In the patriarchal period, Dinah must have been raped around it at least 13 or 14, and Judah can be calculated as marrying at 18 or 19. In light of the Abraham narrative, and what we know about ancient marriage, the Jacob timeline seems incongruent on multiple levels if taken literally.

 

A similar fifth example of how the lifespans seem intentionally exaggerated when considered in light of their associated narratives can be observed with Isaac. If you remember the stolen blessing story of Jacob and Esau, the whole motive for why Isaac wants to bless Esau is that he was supposedly near death. (27:2-4): “Behold I am old; I do not know the day of my death . . . Bring me some food . . . that I may bless you before I die.” Esau then reiterates in verse 41, “The days of mourning for my father are approaching.” This entire story is based around how Isaac is so old that he can’t even see well enough to tell his sons apart. What is the problem with this? Chronology places Isaac at 137 years old when this story takes place. However, Gen 35:28-9 claims he died at 180—43 years later. Was Esau an old man on the verge of death or not? A literal gap of 43 years seems to create an incongruence in the story.

 

The problems produced by a literal interpretation of the patriarchal lifespans in Genesis are considerable. It implies all the patriarchs would have been contemporaries of Abraham, a claim that the rest of the Bible doesn’t seem to support, and it creates tension with Abraham’s claimed “good old age, full of years.” It inexplicably nullifies the miraculousness of the birth of Isaac story central to the call of Abraham. Additionally, the claim that 90 and 100 were too old to have kids in Abraham’s day doesn’t cohere with Jacob waiting until 77 to marry and fathering 12 kids in 7 years starting at ages 84-105. A literal interpretation also has Isaac astonishingly outliving his deathbed by 43 years. (Ben Stanhope, (Mis)Interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible [Scarab Press, 2020], 174-77; for a discussion of the symbolic nature of the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis, see pp. 177-85. On D&C 107, see D&C 107 and the longevity of the Patriarchs)

 

J.B. Haws on D&C 10:38-45 and the "Plates of Nephi"

 

 

And now, verily I say unto you, that an account of those things that you have written, which have gone out of your hands, is engraven upon the plates of Nephi; Yea, and you remember it was said in those writings that a more particular account was given of these things upon the plates of Nephi. And now, because the account which is engraven upon the plates of Nephi is more particular concerning the things which, in my wisdom, I would bring to the knowledge of the people in this account-- Therefore, you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi, down even till you come to the reign of king Benjamin, or until you come to that which you have translated, which you have retained; And behold, you shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words. I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil. Behold, they have only got a part, or an abridgment of the account of Nephi. Behold, there are many things engraven upon the plates of Nephi which do throw greater views upon my gospel; therefore, it is wisdom in me that you should translate this first part of the engravings of Nephi, and send forth in this work. (D&C 10:38-45)

 

Commenting on this pericope, J.B. Haws noted the following:

 

The passage just quoted seems to refer to only one set of plates: the plates of Nephi. However, today’s readers of the Book of Mormon are accustomed to thinking in terms of two sets of “plates of Nephi”—a large set and a small set. Because of that common contemporary reading, it is not unexpected that a recent and important commentary on Doctrine and Covenants 10 suggested this about the passage just quoted: “The two references to ‘the plates of Nephi’ in this paragraph [the paragraph now Doctrine and Covenants 10:38-39] actually point to two different sets of plates.” But what if the repeated “plates of Nephi” phrases in Doctrine and Covenants 10:38-45 really do refer to only one set of “plates of Nephi,” as they seem to do at first glance—and that is the set we know now as the “small plates”? This is the alternative (and perhaps more straightforward) reading suggested here. This reading would give the phrase more consistency and believability, this reading fits with what Joseph Smith likely would have known (and not known) about the composition of the gold plates before translating what is now 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon—remembering that he received Doctrine and Covenants 10:38-45 therefore avoids a possible anachronism and adds credence to Joseph Smith’s account about the resolution of the lost 116 pages episode.

 

From everything we can glean about the plates that Joseph Smith possessed, only one section could accurately be called “the plates of Nephi,” and that is the “small plates” section. All the other plates that Joseph translated from, based on internal descriptions from the Book of Mormon, consisted of Mormon’s and Moroni’s abridgements and writings on plates of their own making. Therefore, contemporary students of the Book of Mormon understand the lost manuscript (what Joseph Smith in the preface to the first edition of the Book of Mormon called the “Book of Lehi”) as comprising a significant portion of Mormon’s abridgement of what we now know as “the large plates of Nephi” rather than a translation of the large plates of Nephi themselves. But it is doubtful that Joseph Smith and his scribes would have even thought yet in those terms. From one thing, the descriptors large and small do not come from Nephi or Mormon, but from Jacob’s writings that were included on the small plates (see Jacob 1:1; 3:13)—and Joseph had not yet translated the small plates at the time he received the revelation that is now Doctrine and Covenants 10.

 

How might Joseph have conceived of the source document for the 116 pages? In the preface to the first edition of the Book of Mormon, he described the contents of the 116 pages as “the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi”—not the plates of Nephi (Historical introduction to Preface to the Book of Mormon, circa August 1829, in JSP, D1:93; emphasis added). This characterization suggests a couple of key points. First, it is not unreasonable to infer that Joseph drew his understanding of this from Mormon’s own characterization of, or introduction to, the opening portion of his abridgement. That is, since Lehi’s story opened the record, it would have been natural for Mormon to designate that portion as the book or plates of Lehi; this fits, for example, the way Mormon introduced and grouped together books like Alma or Helaman, even though those books include abridged records of other custodial authors after Alma or Helaman. And Nephi himself wrote that he began his record (what we now call the “larger plates”) by documenting the account of his father, Lehi (see 1 Nephi 19:1). Second, up to this point in the Book of Mormon translation process—that is, up to the receipt of Doctrine and Covenants 10—Joseph and Martin had never translated directly from Nephi’s writings (or Jacob’s or Enos’s) or from Nephi’s plates, but rather from Mormon’s abridgement of those writings—unless Mormon had included quoted passages or excerpts on his own plates from Nephi or Jacob or Enos, as he did with writings and sermons of, say, King Benjamin or Alma. But even those passages would not have come from what we know as “the small plates of Nephi,” since before Benjamin’s day, the “large plates of Nephi” were apparently kept by a different line of authors than were the small plates (see Jarom 1:14; Omni 1:25)—and Mormon reported that he did not even search out the small plates until he had finished abridging the account “down to the reign of this King Benjamin” (Words of Mormon 1:3).

 

Therefore, if all of the references to the “plates of Nephi” in the revelation that is now section 10 of the Doctrine and Covenants refer to what modern Book of Mormon readers think of as the small plates of Nephi, the revelation reads very coherently. Here is a possible reading of the earlier extant copy of the revelation—chapter IX of the Book of Commandments—from that perspective, with suggested parenthetical interpretations: “And now, verily I say unto you, that an account of those things that you have written, which have gone out of your hands [the 116 pages], are engraved upon the plates of Nephji [small plates of Nephi]”—in other words, ‘The same basic story elements that you have already covered in translating the Book of Lehi (“an account of those things that you have written”) are also narrated (“engraven”) on the small plates of Nephi.’ The revelation continues:

 

Yea, and you remember, it was said in those writings [the now-lost writings, or Mormon’s abridgement of the Book of Lehi] that a more particular account was given of these things upon the plates of Nephi [the small plates]. And now, because the account which is engraven upon the plates of Nephi [the small plates] is more particular concerning these things, which in my wisdom I would bring to the knowledge of the people in this [more particular] account: therefore, you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi [the small plates], down even till you come to the reign of king Benjamin.

 

(the wording here is another indication that when Joseph recommenced translating after the loss of the 116 pages, he “apparently picked up where he and Harris had stopped, in the book of Mosiah,” and then he translated the books o the “small plates” last, based on the instructions in this revelation.) (JSP, H1:38)

 

As if to underscore the differences between the Book of Lehi and the plates of Nephi, the revelation makes this point: “Behold, they [those who stole the Book of Lehi manuscript] have only got a part, or an abridgment of the account [notice: not plates] of Nephi. Behold there are many things engraven on the plates of Nephi [the small plates of Npehi] which do throw great views upon my gospel.”

 

This suggested reading matters because the complexity of the relationship between the two sets of plates of Nephi likely became clear to Joseph Smith only after translating the small plates. Hence, it might very well have been anachronistic for a revelation in the spring of 1829 (Doctrine and Covenants 10) to refer to anything other than one set of the “plates of Nephi,” since Joseph would not yet have been thinking in terms of having more than one record of Nephi, because Mormon included in his compilation only one set of records that appropriately bore the title “the plates of Nephi”; the small plates. The phrasing of Doctrine and Covenants 10 thus fits with what Joseph Smith would have likely learned “line upon line” as he translated the plates, such that it also fits with a principle outlined in 2 Nephi and elsewhere: the Lord “speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3; see Doctrine and Covenants 1:24). (J.B. Haws, “The Lost 116 Pages Story: What We Do Know, What We Don’t Know, and What We Mgiht Know,” in Scott C. Esplin, ed., Raising the Standard of Truth: Exploring the History and Teachings of the Early Restoration [Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2020], 33-54, here, pp. 43-46)