Early LDS on the importance of critical thinking

“We have heard men that hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything that they were told to do by those who preside over them (even) if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent human beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong.themselves.”
—[unsigned editorial [perhaps Samuel W. Richards]., Millennial Star, Vol. 14, Num.38, pp.594

Jesus as an Apostle: Evidence for Subordinationism

In Heb 3:1, we read the following description of Jesus:

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.

The Greek term translated as "apostle" is αποστολος, referring to a messenger or an emissary. It is the noun form of the verb αποστελλω, "to send out." The Hebrew equivalents of this noun and verb would be שׁליח and שׁלח, respectively. The use of this term for Jesus vis-a-vis His relationship with the Father is further biblical evidence for His subordination to the Father.

In the Bible, the one who sends is greater than the one who is sent/apostle. For instance, note the description of John the Baptist:

There was a man sent (αποστελλω) from God, whose name was John. (John 1:6)

Obviously, John the Baptist is subordinate to God.

This verb is used of the relationship between the Father and the Son as well as the relationship between the Son and the apostles:

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I come out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send (αποστελλω) me. (John 17:8)

As (καθος) thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me into the world, even so have I also sent (αποστελλω) them into the world. (John 17:18)

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me . . . I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me . . . O righteous father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me. (John 17:21, 23, 25).

Such usage underscores (1) the subordination of the apostles to Jesus and, by extension, (2) the subordination of Jesus to the Father. Such is shown, for instance, in the usage of the conjunction καθος in John 17:18 (quoted above) which means “just as,” showing the reciprocal relationship between the Father and the Son with the Son and the apostles.

Suggested works on Homosexuality and the Bible

This topic is a rather contentious issue, and it doesn’t appear that it will cease to be the case anytime soon. The following are the best works in recent years addressing the topic of the Bible’s attitudes towards homosexuality, using careful exegetical and scholarly research. They are also void of any ill-will towards those with same-sex attraction. However, they come firmly down on the side that yes, the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour in spite of revisionist attempts.

Robert A.J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics

Michael L. Brown, Can you be Gay and Christian? Responding with Love and Truth to Questions about Homosexuality

Idem. A Queer Thing Happened to America

The best “revisionist” attempt, of course, would be John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century.

Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity

The following link is to John Tvedtnes' paper, "Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity" from the book, The Temple in Time and Antiquity. It shows the ancient Christian evidence for the doctrine of baptism for the dead. It is a fascinating read. Tvedtnes' summary is rather apt:

Though most Christians stopped baptizing for the dead in the early centuries after Christ, documentary evidence makes it clear that the practice was known in various parts of the Mediterranean world and that it found ready acceptance in such areas as Egypt. The ordinance is especially attested in pseudepigraphic texts whose authorship is open to question; nevertheless, from their geographical distribution it seems that these documents were widely circulated among early Christian groups and therefore contain doctrines with which those Christians were familiar.

The importance of one's assumptions and presuppositions

The following is a portion of an email I sent to a member of the Church who, for over four decades, has held to inerrantist (read: fundamentalist) assumptions about the Church's leadership, scripture, and history, who is now struggling with elements thereof. I am reproducing it (with some editing to protect identity), as it does show the importance of having realistic and correct assumptions and the danger of a fundamentalist worldview.

Hi x,

As you did not go into any major detail into most of the issues you raised, I will just offer some comments, but if you wish to discuss any specific issue(s) in more depth, let me know.

The Importance of Presuppositions and World-view

I think that in many of these cases a lot of time it ultimately boils down to one's presuppositions--as you told me [in person], you held to (still hold to?) a rather fundamentalist conception of faith and the Church, such as prophetic infallibility and impeccability, which are both simply false, as are things such as scriptural inerrancy and other related concepts. A good analogy on the true nature of revelation and prophets can be seen in 1 Nephi 8 and 11 where we have different accounts of the same vision of the Tree of Life, with Nephi even commenting that Lehi, due to how he perceived things and his analysis of the revelation he received, did not notice things that Nephi would (see 1 Nephi 15:27)--what this shows that, even in the act of receiving a revelation, an oracle (whether a prophet, stake president, or someone like you or I) are still interpreters (and fallible ones at that) of the revelation they receive; it also shows that the act of receiving revelation is not simply the prophet being a secretary taking a word-for-word dictation from God, but instead, upon receiving a revelation, one has to put it into their own language, manner of expression, and so forth, and such will always be filtered by their personal background, education, biases, limits of language, and so forth--the same also applies for its interpretation by both the prophet and the audience of the revelation. That this is the view of revelation Joseph Smith took can be seen in a number of areas, not the least his own editing of revelations he received in the 1833 A Book of Commandments and the subsequent 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants; his editing of the Book of Mormon (not just the 1837 and 1840 editions during this lifetime, but even during the printing process), etc.

I am rather fond of what Brigham Young once said:

I do not believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church; that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, as far as they go, but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities. (Journal of Discourses, 2:314 [July 8, 1855]).

Such a sentiment is paralleled by similar texts in the Doctrine and Covenants (emphasis added)

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

Your eyes have been upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and his language you have known, and his imperfections you have known; and you have sough in your hearts knowledge that you might express beyond his language; this you also know. (D&C 67:5)

Often, such (fundamentalist) assumptions lead to the idea that prophets are inspired prophets on a 24/7/365 basis, which, again, goes against the entire strand of LDS theology and teaching as well as well as the teachings of all the Scriptures themselves. Notice the following examples from LDS leaders of rejecting such (examples could be multiplied):

February 8, 1843, Joseph Smith wrote, "[I] visited with a brother and sister from Michigan who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet;' but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such" (History of the Church 5.265).  Prophets are, after all, human beings. 

Joseph Smith occasionally used wording such as "this is my counsel" (History of the Church 1.455) or "I therefore warn" (Nauvoo Neighbor, June 19, 1844)

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.  My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them.  Let us have this matter clear.  We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.  You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works." (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)

President Harold B. Lee declared, "If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.  And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth" (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69).

Much more could be said, but I am a firm believer that a lot of issues (not all, nor am I trying to downplay the validity of your issues) can be answered by examining one's world-view and presuppositions. I have studied these issues for 14+ years and, perhaps it is just my personality and the fact I have engaged a lot of biblical scholarship where these issues are part-and-parcel of the field (such controversies are not unique within the realm of "Mormonism") but have never been troubled by such things. I say this not to gloat or what not, but instead, that there are reasonably intelligent people who have a firm witness of the Church and yet have a very nuanced (and I would say, rewarding) understanding of the nature of "faith" and the Church. Ultimately, one has to have a spiritual grounding (as Paul states in 1 Cor 2:9-14, spiritual things are to be spiritually discerned) which is serves as a solid foundation and serves to inform one's approach to the issues, though one also has a more nuanced (read: realistic) expectation of the Church and the leadership thereof. I am reminded of what a friend recently said, "the Church is paradoxically true and flawed." At least, that has been my experience.

A good blog post on this would be Kevin L. Barney, "Lowered Expectations."

James White fails on Isaiah 44:24

On his “Dividing Line” webcast, James R. White provided an attempted interpretation of Isa 44:24 against “Mormon” theology. One can watch this episode of his show. His comments on this verse begin at the 36:57 mark here.

There are a number of problems with White’s interpretation (read: eisegesis) of this verse. One such problem is his misinformed comment that:

"Anybody who can read the original language can know that Elohim and Jehovah are not separate Gods"

White has been corrected on many occasions by LDS scholars on this issue, including Daniel C. Peterson, William Hamblin, and Daniel McClellan. The near-consensus of Old Testament scholarship is that Yahweh (Jehovah) and Elohim were separate deities who were only at a later stage identified with one another. For a good discussion, see Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford, 2001). One key text is Deut 32:7-9 which differentiates Yahweh from El Elyon:

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High (Elyon) apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; and the Lord's (Yahweh) portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. (NRSV)

The Masoretic Hebrew text reads "sons of man," but the earliest Hebrew text of this pericope from Qumran reads "sons of God" (alt. "gods"), with Yahweh being one of these deities distinct from El Elyon.

For further discussion, see Daniel McCllelan's post, "Decoupling YHWH and El."

One cannot help but see the double standards in White’s interpretation of Isa 44:24 when he asks which divine person creates in the LDS temple endowment in light of this text. However, keep in mind what White believes that Paul “split” the Shema in 1 Cor 8:4-6; such an interpretation (based on Bauckham’s ludicrous idea of divine identity) results in one rendering the Greek of Deut 6:4 as follows:

"Akoue Israel, Iesou o Pater hemon, Iesou eis estin" (Listen Israel, Jesus is our Father, Jesus is one)

Needless to say, such is inane (and results, not in the Trinity, but Modalism), but such is the exegetical gymnastics (read: eisegesis) one must engage in to hold to the Trinity.

One other problem for White is that he does not address which divine person is speaking in this passage. In both the Hebrew and the LXX, singular verbs and singular personal pronouns are used, indicating one divine person is speaking, not three. Which member of the Trinity is speaking? And if White wishes to absolutise this passage and be consistent, where is the exegetical justification for allowing an additional two divine persons in his belief?

Unlike White, I provided a careful exegesis of this text previously on this blog; for the sake of convenience. let me reproduce it here:

Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. (Isa 44:24)

This verse has been used by a number of critics of Latter-day Saint theology, arguing that God, and God alone, was involved in creation, contrary to the Book of Abraham that has “the gods,” under the jurisdiction of the Father, involved in creation (see chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of Abraham). However, there are problems for our Trinitarian opponents who sometimes use this verse against Latter-day Saint theology and Scripture.

Firstly, one should compare Isa 44:24 with Heb 1:1-2:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he also made the world.

In this pericope, it is the singular person of the Father who is the creator, with Jesus as an intermediary (cf. 1 Cor 8:4-6). Absolutising both these passages, the Isaiah text forces us to conclude that the person of the Father alone was the creator, which, of course, is antithetical to Trinitarian sensibilities.

[God] alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

In this passage, it is Yahweh alone who “trampled upon the waves of the sea” (NRSV). Interestingly, however, there is a difference between the Masoretic Text and the LXX. The LXX renders this portion of the verse as καὶ περιπατῶν ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἐδάφους ἐπὶ θαλάσσης, which Brenton renders in his translation as "and walks on the sea as on firm ground." Therefore, the LXX states that Yahweh alone has the authority to walk upon the seas. One should compare the LXX rendition of Job 9:8 with Matt 14:29:

[Jesus] said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus.

Absolutising LXX Job 9:8 in the way that critics of LDS theology absolutise Isa 44:24, one must conclude that Yahweh alone can walk on the water, and taking it to its “logical” conclusion, Peter is Yahweh(!) Of course, that is eisegesis, just as it is eisegesis to claim that Isa 44:24 is a strictly “Trinitarian.”

Ultimately, Isa 44:24 is better understood that the authority and source of creation derives from God (the Father) and all those who played a role in creation were under His jurisdiction, including the person of Jesus (see 1 Cor 8:4-6, as an example). This was the interpretation of the earliest Christian commentators, including Origen (185-254):

Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also [John 1:3], through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He [the Father]. (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John [Ante-Nicene Fathers 9:328]; comments in square brackets added for clarification)

We can further substantiate this by examining another text from the book of Isaiah:

I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no saviour. (Isa 43:11)

In this verse, God is said to be there only מושׁיע (“Saviour”). Notwithstanding, there are other figures who are referred to as being a מושׁיע:

And when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer (מושׁיע) to the children of Israel, who delivered them, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother. (Judg 3:9)

And the Lord gave Israel a saviour (מושׁיע), so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as before time. (2 Kgs 13:5)

In these verses, Isa 43:11 notwithstanding, Yahweh Himself commissions other “saviours” (מושׁיע). Absolutising Isa 43:11 in the way that our Trinitarian critics absolutise Isa 44:24, one would have to conclude that it is explicitly contradicted by the two aforementioned texts. However, if one understands that Yahweh is the ultimate source of being a saviour but can commission others to be “saviours” such as Othniel, there is no issue.

Ultimately, Isa 44:24 is properly understood, not speaking as the “number” of persons involved in the creation, but that the Father alone is the source of its causality and does not preclude other divinities having had a role as an intermediary in the creation, as one finds in the Book of Abraham and Latter-day Saint theology.

τελεω and τελειοω in the Johannine Corpus

John 19:30 is a common text defenders of penal substitution cite (sometimes as the “proof” of such a doctrine of atonement). In my post here, I addressed and refuted the claim that the use of τετελεσται supports such a forensic understanding of Christ’s sacrifice.

In this post, I will show that John’s use of the verb τελεω (the verb τετελεσται is derived from), and the related verb τελειοω, as used in the Johannine literature (the Gospel of John; 1-3 John; book of Revelation) never has such a penal/forensic meaning which is necessitated by the historical Protestant understanding of John 19:30

Other instances of τελεω in the Johannine corpus outside of John 19:28, 30:

But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. (Rev 10:7)

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. (Rev 11:7)

And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is ended . . . and the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power, and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled. (Rev 15:1, 8) What is interesting is that v. 1 speaks of the wrath of God having “ended” in a time period post-dating John 19:30 and Christ uttering the phrase, “it is done.” If a Protestant apologist wishes to be consistent, they would have to argue that fulfilment will be when the Father’s wrath is propitiated, notwithstanding their claim that John 19:30, in their view, teaches such happened when Christ uttered his final words!

For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. (Rev 17:17)

And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season . . . But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection . . . When the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison. (Rev 20:3, 5, 7)

Usages of τελειοω in the Johannine literature

Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34)

But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. (John 5:36)

I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. (John 17:4) The form of τελειοω in this verse is an active aorist participle τελειωσας, used with respect to Christ "having accomplished" (NASB) what the Father sent him to do. Using the approach Protestants often do to John 19:30, this "proves" that everything for salvation was "done and dusted" (reverently speaking) at the moment Christ offered his High Priestly prayer and God's wrath against sin was completely propitiated then and there. Of course, such is eisegesis.

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17:23) τελειοω in this verse is meant in the sense of moral perfection, not in a forensic or fiduciary sense.

After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. (John 19:28) In this verse, τελειοω is used alongside τετελεσται, but it clearly has a non-forensic meaning, being used to convey the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy.

But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. (1 John 2:5)

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us . . . Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:12, 17-18). The use of τελειοω in this pericope as well as 1 John 2:5 (cf. John 17:23) refutes the forensic understanding of this verb and its cognates. Here, John speaks of the completion/perfection of love, but love is a human volition, but in the Protestant understanding of the atonement and justification, it is a legal transaction, similar to a modern will, in contradistinction to love (as well as faith) which is a non-legal and timeless virtue.