Excerpts from John Oakley's Journal

  

Brother Joseph Smith invited us to the upper room of the Public Store. He shook hands with us and informed us that his enemies had been hunting him. He greeted us warmly and told us that we must not look for perfection in him. If we did, he would look for perfection in us. (John Oakley Journal, MS 8828, Church History Library)

 

I was called to act in the office of a Teacher and with my companion had a district assigned to us, and Brother Heber C. Kimball and Joseph Smith were in our district. We hesitated to visit such prominent men, as we well knew we are not capable of teaching them, yet we could not find any excuse to pass by their houses, so we ventured. The Presiding Bishop, Newel K. Whitney, gave us a routine of questions to ask everyone in our district. Among the questions was, “do you keep the word of wisdom?” We found that Brother Joseph Smith was the most submissive of any in our district. After he had answered our questions, he called his wife Emma to answer also. I then asked him the meaning and purport of the word of wisdom, as at that time there was a great diversity of opinion concerning it. He answered and said, “I understand the Word of Wisdom to mean that we must get in wisdom all things. If I think a glass of Brandy will do one good, or a cup of Coffee, or to some a cigar, I will use these things.” Thus, in short, he gave us the meaning of the Word of Wisdom. (John Oakley Journal, MS 8828, Church History Library)

 

 

Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-70) on "the original Word of God"

 First Session (Fourth Council of Constantinople, 869-870):

The original Word of God, which is Truth itself, namely Christ, the Lord and Saviour of us all, who possesses in himself the cognizance and survey of all the ages and knows everything before it even exists, . . . (The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 869-70 [trans. Richard Price; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2022], 109)

Karl Heinrich Rengstorf's TDNT Entry on Αποστελλω *NOT* Supporting Latter-day Saint Claims

In their commentary on Second Corinthians, Richard D. Draper and Michael D. Rhodes wrote about the apostleship:

 

Suggesting that the office was not meant to exist for only a short time is that, after the Resurrection again personally commissioned the Twelve and gave them their assignments (Matt. 28:16-20; Acts 1:4-9). Thus, they took his place as earthly leaders of his “kingdom” and pushed forward his work. It is clear from Acts that the Lord’s intent was not for the Twelve to minister for a brief span of time but for the whole period until his coming. Thus, the Lord cemented the calling’s place into his Church. This requirement demanded the following of the vacancy left by Judas (Acts 1:21-26) and, by extension, others. (Richard D. Draper and Michael D. Rhodes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Brigham Young University New Testament Commentary; Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 2023], 75)

 

However, it appears that the source they reference does not support the Latter-day Saint understanding:

 

With the post-Easter situation, which cannot be separated from the experience of the absoluteness of Jesus in the circle of the disciples, there is linked the lasting character of the commission which they are now given. The risen Lord does not now appoint His representatives merely for a limited span but for the whole period, of unknown duration, between Easter and His return. Yet He makes only the one appointment, and therefore it is only logical that the apostolate should be limited to the first generation and should not become an ecclesiastical office. (Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “Ἀποστέλλω (πέμπω), Ἐξαποστέλλω, Ἀπόστολος, Ψευδαπόστολος, Ἀποστολή,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, 10 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–], 1:432, emphasis in bold added)

 

On October 24, 2023, I emailed Michael Rhodes querying this, asking Michael:

 

would I be correct that you view that what Rengstorf writes supports LDS ecclesiology in light of the belief that the earliest NT Christians (or at least, many) believed that the parousia would be in their lifetime, so it was their position that “apostle” would be an office until the second coming, so what Rengstorf writes is not at odds with your referencing him//LDS ecclesiology? (this, btw, is not a “gottcha” question—I am LDS, just want to be sure before citing your comments as well as TDNT 1:432 if/when post-NT era apostleship comes up in a discussion with non-LDS).

 

I never got a response from Michael Rhodes.

 

I am bringing this to people’s attention as I try my best to be careful with my handling of sources, and I do call up critics when they are sloppy—all the more so when it comes to those on my side of the debate.

Alexander III, Letter Ex litteris tuis to the Resident Sultan in Iconium, 1169: Mary Gave Birth Without Experiencing Birth Pain

 [Mary] indeed, conceived without shame, gave birth without pain, and went hence without corruption, according to the word of the angel, or rather (the word) of God through the angel, so that she should be proved to be full, not merely hall filled, with grace and <so that> God her Son should faithfully fulfill the ancient commandment that he had formerly given, namely, to treat one’s father and mother with honor, and that thus the virginal flesh of Christ, which had been taken from the flesh of his virgin Mother, should not be totally different from her own.

 

Heinrich Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, ed. Peter Hünermann, Robert Fastiggi, and Anne Englund Nash (43rd ed; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), 245

Chad Pierce on κηρυσσω

 

The verb εκηρυξεν is often associated in the NT with the verb ευαγγελιζω or the noun ευαγγλελιον, linking preaching with the gospel. (See Matt 24:14; Mk 1:14; 13:10; 14:9; Lk 8:1; 1 Cor 1:23; 1 Thess 2:9) However, in each of these cases, the connection between the proclamation and the good news explicitly stated. There are, however, other instances within the NT in which εκηρυξεν is used in a more general or neutral sense of making an announcement. (Lk 12:3; Rom 2:21; Rev 5:2) Therefore the verb εκηρυξεν does not necessarily involve preaching the good news. (Chad Pierce, "Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18-22 in its Tradition-Historical and Literary Context" Ph.D. Thesis, Durham University, 2009], 204, emphasis added)

 

ὠδίνω (to have birth-pains) in BDAG

 ὠδίνω fut. 3 pl. ὠδινήσουσιν Hab 3:10; aor. 3 sg. ὠδίνησεν LXX (s. prec. entry; Hom.+; Kaibel 321, 12; 1103, 2; UPZ 77 col. 2, 27 [160 b.c.]; LXX; Philo, Mos. 1, 280 al.; SibOr 5, 514; Just., D. 111, 2) to experience pains associated with giving birth, have birth-pains

ⓐ lit. to have birth-pains, be in labor abs. Rv 12:2 (cp. Is 66:7; Mi 4:10); Ro 8:22 v.l. As a voc. ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα you who have no birth-pains Gal 4:27; 2 Cl 2:1, 2 (all three Is 54:1).

ⓑ in imagery, be in labor = suffer greatly (PGM 2, 92; Philo, Just.) τέκνα μου, οὓς πάλιν ὠδίνω Gal 4:19 (the acc. as in the lit. sense ‘bring forth in pain’ Trag.; Is 51:2).—DELG s.v. ὠδίς. M-M. TW.

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1102.

Joseph Smith, Agreement with John Taylor (January 23, 1844) mirroring the verbiage of D&C 20:1

 Joseph Smith, Agreement with John Taylor, January 23, 1844 (in the handwriting of William Clayton):

This article of agreement made and entered into this twenty third day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty four between John Taylor of the County of Hancock and State of Illinois of the one part and Joseph Smith of the County and state aforesaid of the other part . . . 

One should compare this with the verbiage of D&C 20:1 and other texts.