Brief Note on D&C 84:57

And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but do to according to that which I have written. (D&C 84:57)

I have heard some critics cite this verse as evidence against Latter-day Saint claims, as they claim that this verse in the Doctrine and Covenants equates the [New] Covenant with the Book of Mormon. However, this is a misreading.

Firstly, the “covenant” in view in D&C 84:57 is not only the Book of Mormon; it encompasses “the Book of Mormon and the former commandments” received by early Latter-day Saints, so in reality, there is no issue. The Book of Mormon is part of the saving covenant of God in the same way the text of the Bible is part of God’s saving covenant—being a written expression of the contents of the Gospel and commandments and ordinances thereof.

Further, Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines the noun “covenant” thusly:

Covenant

COVENANT, noun [L, to come; a coming together; a meeting or agreement of minds.]

1. A mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract; stipulation. A covenant is created by deed in writing, sealed and executed; or it may be implied in the contract.

2. A writing containing the terms of agreement or contract between parties; or the clause of agreement in a deed containing the covenant

3. In theology, the covenant of works, is that implied in the commands, prohibitions, and promises of God; the promise of God to man, that mans perfect obedience should entitle him to happiness. This do, and live; that do, and die.

The covenant of redemption, is the mutual agreement between the Father and Son, respecting the redemption of sinners by Christ.

The covenant of grace, is that by which God engages to bestow salvation on man, upon the condition that man shall believe in Christ and yield obedience to the terms of the gospel.

4. In church affairs, a solemn agreement between the members of a church, that they will walk together according to the precepts of the gospel, in brotherly affection.

Even if one wishes to absolutise the verse as some critics are wont to do, there is no issue, as definitions 2 and 4 fit perfectly the verse.

Commenting on this verse, Stephen Robinson and H. Dean Garrett in vol. 3 of A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, wrote the following on this verse which is rather á propos:

If the Saints will just read the Book of Mormon, they will learn the doctrine of Christ. The fulness of the gospel can also be found in the Bible (see Introduction to the Book of Mormon) and the other scriptures of the Church, but the Book of Mormon has been revealed in the last days specifically as a witness for our dispensation.

With respect to "the former commandments," Robinson and Garrett wrote:

Commandment sometimes equals revelation in the language of the Doctrine and Covenants. "The former commandments" may mean the revelations of Joseph Smith, soon to be printed in the 1833 Book of Commandments, or "former" may mean prior to the Book of Mormon and would thus indicate the revelations given by God in the Bible, which also contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel" (Introduction to the Book of Mormon).

Again, we see that some critics are guilty of engaging in a gross misreading of uniquely Latter-day Saint Scriptures to attack the Church. Instead of revealing problems with LDS theology and Scripture, it only shows the poor comprehension skills of some critics of the Restored Gospel.

1 Nephi 22:7: “a mighty nation” = the Spanish Empire?

My friend Bruce Webster has an interesting article arguing that the "mighty nation" in 1 Nephi 22:7 is a prediction of the Spanish Empire, not the United States of America. I agree with his reading, and view the USA interpretation to be an example of ethnocentric reading by US readers of the Book of Mormon:

1 Nephi 22:7: “a mighty nation” = the Spanish Empire?

God's Love being conditional and unconditional

Today, I came across the following image from critics of the Church about how LDS leaders have allegedly contradicted one another being God's love (i.e., whether it is conditional or unconditional):

Let us ignore the fact that many of these quotes are not official statements from the Church and are not reflective of official LDS Church teachings (on this, see my post On the Scope and Formation of Latter-day Saint Doctrine), does this meme carry any meaningful weight? In reality, it just shows the naivety of critics. God, as with us, has different kinds of love; He does not have just one type and expression of love. As humans, we love our wife/husband, kids, pet cats/dogs, and ice-cream, but the type and intensities of these different loves are, of course, different. Similarly, unless one wishes to make God "sub-human," he, too, has different loves. In the matter of salvation, God has an unconditional love for all people as He wills their salvation and Christ died for them; notwithstanding, He has a conditional, covenantal/salvific love for those who truly bow the knee in humble submission to Him and Jesus Christ.

As I wrote in a previous blog post about John 3:16, a biblical text often abused to support the idea that, as God loves everyone unconditionally (insofar as He sent his unique Son to die for all of us), there is no need for anything else (e.g., repentance):

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 3:16 is a favourite text by many, and is one of a few texts that all people, regardless of how “biblically literate” they are, know and can often recite. As with many precious texts, this is one that has often been abused, both historically and in modern times.

One should note that the phrase “whosoever believeth” is not a completely accurate translation of the underlining Greek. The Greek is ὁ πιστεύων which is a participle, properly translated as “the ones believing.” This shows that the “belief” John is speaking about it not a superficial belief, or a faith that only lasts momentarily, as one finds with Antinomian and “No-Lordship Salvation” camps; instead, it is an on-going belief in the life of a believer, and one that perseveres until the end.

Another abuse of this text is that it teaches God has no particular love for any individual or group; instead, he loves all people equally the same. This is, at best, a half-truth. Yes, God loves all people insofar as Christ died for all men without distinction (cf. 1 Tim 2:1-4, which, contra Calvinists, teaches universal atonement). However, just as we have different types of “love” for different people (how I love my pet dog clearly differs from the love I have for my parents), God has a special or “salvific” love to true believers.

That John is teaching a particularity vis-à-vis God’s love in John 3 can be seen in verses 3-5, whereJesus teaches the need for baptism to enter the Kingdom of God (cf. 1 Pet 3:21). Furthermore, John’s use of the Old Testament is also further evidence of this. John presents Jesus as the antitype (the fulfilment of a type) of the brazen serpent in verse 14:

And as (καθος) Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.

John hearkens back to Num 21, where God commands Moses to forge a serpent made from bronze (KJV: brass) to counteract the fiery serpents that invaded the Israelite camp:

And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. (Num 21:6-9)

The Book of Mormon also speaks of the brazen serpent as an Old Testament “type” that would be fulfilled in the then-future atoning sacrifice of Christ:

Behold, he was spoken of by Moses; yea, and behold a type was raised up in the wilderness, that whosoever would look upon it might live. And many did look and live. (Alma 33:19)

Of course, not all the Israelites looked upon the brazen serpent and died, notwithstanding the provision being made for all the Israelite camp (Amulek, in Alma 33:19, states that “many,” not “all,” of the Israelites looked upon it). John, in discussing the Father’s giving of his unique Son, shows that the Father does not just have a salvific love for national Israel, but for the entire world, but to read into John 3:16, in light of its Old Testament background, universal salvation or other theologies, is to engage in eisegesis.

Revelations in Context

Yesterday, my paperback edition of the new manual, Revelations in Context, arrived. It is a pretty solid Church manual giving a good overview of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, and many chapters are written by the "heavy hitters" of modern LDS historical studies and research (e.g., Steven C. Harper).

One can find the manual for free online here. A very important volume to this year's Gospel Doctrine course on the Doctrine and Covenants/Church History, to be sure.

James White engaging in damage control

After his defeat at the hands of Catholic apologist on the topic of the perseverance of the saints, Trent Horn, James White is engaging in damage control with a video attempting to rehabilitate himself with this new video:

To understand how poorly the debate went, Sam Shamoun, who agrees with White on the perseverance of the saints wrote the following:

After hearing the debate between White and Trent Horn, I must say that Horn decisively won this debate. If I were to score it then it would be Horn-7 and White-3. There were times when Horn seemed a little confused and discombobulated, specifically during the first cross-examination. However, Horn put a lot of pressure on White and seemed to unnerve him since at least twice White took a swipe at Horn, with Horn nailing him for it the first time he did so.

FYI, I take White's position on this issue but have to be honest enough to say that I thought Horn did a better job than White did. This only goes to show that debates can be productive, but can also be quite unproductive, especially when dealing with such an in-depth topic. (source)

 White's poor exegetical skills really helps us understand why so many of his friends, such as Jeff Durbin, are incapable of engaging in exegesis, too.

The Uncontrolling Love of God: A Mormon Approach

As some know, I am an Open Theist, and I believe that Latter-day Saint theology allows for a more consistent approach to this issue, such as our rejection of creatio ex nihilo (see my review of Thomas Oord's Creation Made Free here, for e.g.).

LDS scholar, James McLachlan has contributed to Thomas Oord's blog a short but penetrating article on this subject that many may find to be informative:

The Uncontrolling Love of God: A Mormon Approach

N.T. Wright Refutes Rapture Theologies