Karl F. Morrison on Irenaeus, Cyprian, and the Question of Roman Primacy

Commenting on texts that some Catholic defenders of Roman/Papal Primacy cite from Irenaeus and Cyprian, Karl Morrison, then-professor of Medieval History at the University of Chicago, wrote:

Thus far, we have followed one school of interpretation by describing Sts. Irenaeus and Cyprian as representatives of the doctrine of collegiate episcopacy. Some scholars, however, have found in the works of each of these authors one passage which they interpret to endorse the contrary doctrine of papal monarchy, and we must digress briefly to refer to those passages. In his treatise, Against Heresies (III, 3, 1ff) Irenaeus argued that the truth of orthodox doctrine was attested by its antiquity, which clearly showed heretical doctrines to be recent inventions, quite apart from the original teachings of Christ and the Apostles. He referred in his argument to the episcopal succession in Rome. St. Peter was a co-founder of the Roman See, though not the first bishop; he and St Paul committed the episcopate to Linus. Clement succeeded Linus; as an immediate disciple of the Apostles, he had occasion to state the apostolic teaching in the letters which he sent to settle a dispute in the church at Corinth. Irenaeus then mentioned by name each Roman bishop down to Eleutherius, his contemporary, and concluded with the crucial passage which may be translated as follows: “In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth” (III, 3, 3).

Scholars who have thought this section the earliest assertion of papal supremacy have so argued because in their view St. Irenaeus seems to say that the faith of the whole Church has been preserved in the Roman succession, and thus, by implication, that the faith of the Roman Church, or even more the faith of the Roman bishops, is the canon of orthodoxy. This interpretation, however, leaves out of account two factors: the technical question of manuscript tradition and the context of Irenaeus’s remarks. Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies in Greek, but soon afterwards a Latin translation of it appeared which, as far as we can tell, was not consistently faithful to the original text. The Greek text only survives in fragments; the translation alone preserves large sections of the treatise. One such section is the passage in question. Any translation of this passage must do violence to the text as it stands. The confused syntax in the critical statement indicates that the translator did not accurately understand Irenaeus’s text, or that the translation itself has become garbled. In either case, the Latin version as it stands does not represent exactly Irenaeus’s thought. Furthermore, the context of the section argues strongly against the strict Romanist interpretations; for Irenaeus continued in the section immediately following the one in question to eulogize Polycarp of Smyrna as a bishop who had learned his doctrine from the Apostles themselves and ardently transmitted it, and whose testimony was handed down by the churches of Asia and by the men who succeeded him, and to recall that “the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the Apostles” (III, 3, 4) Whatever his meaning in citing the Roman episcopal succession, Irenaeus clearly did not intend to designate the Roman See as the exclusive repository of true doctrine, or as anything other than a see which cherished the heritage of faith which it shared with other apostolic churches such as Smyrna and Ephesus.

The disputed passage by St Cyprian likewise presents textual difficulties. Indeed, these remarks in Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Catholic Church (c. 4) occur in three independent readings. One of which exalts the Roman pre-eminence with the classic doctrine of Petrine primacy, the second emphasizing the equality of the Apostles, and the third, much the shortest, indicating without elaboration the unity of the Church prefigured in the unity of the Apostles. This diversity of texts, all of which occur in authentic manuscript traditions, has been the source of much partisan contention. It seems unlikely that, as some extreme Protestant scholars have maintained, the affirmation of Petrine primacy was a willful falsification by “Romish editors.” The reliability of the manuscript traditions supporting each of the versions indicates that the three recensions occurred very early, and that they may indeed have been executed by Cyprian himself. But if the problem of authenticity can be clarified by assuming that the different readings represent three quite sharp and important changes in Cyprian’s through, the problem remains of establishing their sequence. If Cyprian were the author of all three versions, which one states his mature judgment?

The crux of the dispute is whether Cyprian though the unity of the Church abided first in St. Peter as the Prince of the Apostles, and later in his see, or first in the whole college of the Apostles and afterwards in the episcopacy as a whole. Scholars who favor the most fully developed statement of Petrine primacy cite in support of their view another passage in a latter of the Father. There, discussing the appeal of some heretics to Rome, he wrote: “After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source, and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the teaching of the Apostle, to whom faithfulness could have no access” (Ep. 59, 14). But, in this letter to Pope Cornelius, Cyprian continued to deny that the Bishop of Rome could rightly judge the case appealed to him on the principle that every bishop must judge definitely the cases which arose in his see, and that once his judgment had been given there could be no appeal. The appropriate bishops had already decided the case, and Cyprian admonished Cornelius to have nothing to do with the appellants. In describing Rome as “the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source,” Cyprian consequently seems to have meant no more than the man he called his “master” meant in a similar passage. Tertullian once wrote of Rome as the see whence apostolic authority had come to the hands of North Africans (De praescr. haer., 36; Corp. Christ., ser. Lat., 1, 216f), but in that passage, he also referred to Corinth, Philippi, Thessaloniki, and Ephesus, all “apostolic churches, where the very thrones of the Apostles preside and their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.” Tertullian assigned no administrative headship to these apostolic sees, and in denying Rome adjudication in North African matters, Cyprian indicates that he was of the same mind. Indeed, the meaning of the controverted passage in On the Unity of the Catholic Church may be indicated by the chapter which immediately follows it, in which Cyprian explicitly stated his doctrine that the unity of the Church stood in the unity of the college of bishops.

The passages by Sts. Irenaeus and Cyprian which are sometimes adduced as testimonies to Roman primacy are, therefore, textually unclear, and their elucidation is consequently uncertain. The context of these two chapters, the burden of other works by the same authors not clouded with textual difficulties, and the policies which the two bishops followed in their official actions all indicate that in their different ways they subscribed not to the Petrine theories read into these passages, but to the doctrine of episcopal collegiality. (Karl F. Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church 300-1140 [Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969], 24-27)

True Righteousness for Evangelical Protestants

Ex-Mormon Michael Flournoy continues to misrepresent the biblical theology of justification and righteousness by attempting to defend the blasphemous doctrine of alien imputed righteousness. As I have been sent this link by a few people, I have decided to write up a response.

Alien Righteousness for Mormons

For a refutation of much of the biblical texts Flournoy rips out of context (e.g., Phil 3:9), see my response to John Kauer, “Are You Considered as Good as Jesus? The Imputation Approach” in Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell, eds. Sharing the Good News with Mormons (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 2018), 273-81, 339:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness (cf. Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30)

With respect to the clothing imagery Flournoy appeals to, do note that the Bible uses the imagery of "clothing" as an outward sign of an inward reality (in other words, such imagery refutes the blasphemous legal fiction Flournoy now accepts as "gospel"). In Isa 61:9-10 we read the following:

Their descendants shall be known among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge that they are a people whom the Lord has blessed. I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (NRSV)

Notice how the people of God are said to be "clothed with the garments of salvation" and "covered with the robe of righteousness." While some, mainly Calvinists, may latch onto the last description as evidence that clothing imagery supports the conception of a forensic imputation of righteousness, one's possession of salvation is not reputation merely but a reality, with such clothing imagery serving the role of an outward sign of an inward reality.

Such mirrors the use of clothing imagery to describe, not the reputed merely, but the intrinsic righteousness of Yahweh:

The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he had girded himself; the world also is stablished, that is cannot be moved. (Psa 93:1)

Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. (Psa 104:1)

For more on this theme, see:

Transformative Justification in the Odes of Solomon

D&C 138:51 and Clothing Imagery

Martha Himmelfarb on Clothing Imagery and Transformation in 2 and 3 Enoch

What was rather interesting is that Flournoy appealed to Gal 3:27 to support his position when, in fact, it refutes it (again, showing that Flournoy's grasp of exegesis and theology are, at best, shallow). The text reads thusly:

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Gal 3:27)

Commenting on this text and its theology of baptism, J. Louis Martyn wrote:

were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ as though he were your clothing. The liturgy presupposes the removal of clothing as one enters the water, an act signifying separation from “the old man and his [evil] deeds” (Col 3:9). The new robe, put on as one comes out of the water, signifies Christ himself. For he is the “place” in which the baptized now find their corporate life. The sons are made sons by being conformed to the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; cf. Gal 4:19). Paul can affirm the Jewish-Christian image of baptism as a cleansing bath (1 Cor 6:11), but for him the image of new clothing has less to do with cleansing than with equipping the baptized for participation in apocalyptic warfare. Recognizing the danger of its being understood as a cultic act that merely replaces circumcision as the rite of entry (1 Cor 1:11–17), Paul sees in baptism the juncture at which the person both participates in the death of Christ (Rom 6:4) and is equipped with the armor for apocalyptic battle (1 Thess 5:8–10; 1 Cor 15:53–54; Rom 13:12). These are motifs he can easily find reflected in the baptismal liturgy’s reference to the end of the old cosmos with its taken-for-granted pairs of opposites. (J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 375-76)

Matthew Thiessen, commenting on the theology of this verse, wrote:

 . . . Paul also claims that those who “have been baptized into Christ have been clothed in Christ” (ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε, Gal 3:27; cf. Rom 13:12-14). This language of being clothed in Christ within a context stressing the promised pneuma, suggests that the Galatians have been pneumatically placed into Christ (3:26). Although Gal 3:26-29 lacks any explicit reference to the pneuma, the language of “enclothing” (ενδυω) often occurs in pneumatic contexts. For instance, Judg 6:34 states that the pneuma of God enclothed Gideon, empowering him to defend the nation of Israel. Likewise, 1 Chron 12:19 LXX states that the pneuma enclothed Amasai, leading to his verbal commitment to David, while 2 Chron 24:20 portrays the pneuma of God enclothing Zechariah enabling him to prophesy against the sins of Judah and Jerusalem. Closer to Paul’s time, the speaker of the Qumran scroll known as “Bless O My Soul,” states, “[God has] clothed me in the ruaḥ of salvation” (4Q438 frag. 4 ii.5). Writing after Paul, Luke portrays the risen Jesus saying to his disciples: “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed” (ἐνδύσησθε) in power from on high" (Luke 24:49). This latter passage, with its connections between the pneuma, the promise, and being enclothed, closely parallels Paul’s argument in Gal 3:24-29. David John Lull observes, “When Paul first speaks of the Spirit in 3:1-5, where he refers to the Galatians’ receiving of the initial gift of the Spirit, he mentions neither baptism nor ‘sonship.’ In 3:26-28, where he does mention baptism and ‘sonship,’ he does not mention the Spirit.” This shift from discussing the pneuma to baptism and “sonship/adoption” suggests that Paul equates baptism and sonship/adoption with the reception of the pneuma.

To receive the pneuma is to be enclothed in Christ because the pneuma is the pneuma of God’s son, who is Christ (Gal 2:20; 4:6; cf. Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19). In the words of Johnson Hodge, “Baptism ushers gentiles ‘into’ Christ; it forges kinship relationship between them and Christ. In the same way that the descendants share the same “stuff” as ancestors, gentiles are ‘of Christ’—they have taken in his pneuma.” The Galatians envelop Christ—Christ’s pneuma is in them (3:13; 4:6), and are simultaneously enveloped by Christ—they put on Christ (3:26-28). This mutual enveloping occurs also in Pseudo-Philo, which asserts that Kenaz was able to defeat Israel’s enemies because he “was clothed in” (indutus est) a spiritus of power, while having this same spiritus inhabit (habitans in) him (L.A.B. 27.10, 28:6; cf. Judg 10:3). Such mutual interpenetration recalls ancient debates about mixtures, a question that ancient philosophers spent considerable time discussing. (Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016], 111-12)

Commenting on Paul’s use of preformed Christian tradition and the salvific efficacy of water baptism therein, in 1 Cor 6:11 (as well as Rom 6:3), Jerry L. Sumney (professor of biblical studies at Lexington Theological Seminary) wrote:

Romans 6:3 and 1 Cor 6:11 may cite traditions that relate the death of Jesus to baptism. Paul even introduces the Rom 6 citation with what some see as a recitative hoti. The preceding phrase, “don’t you know,” may also indicate that Paul is about to cite a known formula. The use of apoloyō (“wash”) in 1 Cor 6:11 is a hapax legomenon in Paul, and it appears only one other time in the New Testament (Acts 22:16), where it also refers to baptism. Its use in the passive suggests to many interpreters that it is already technical language for baptism. Since Paul does not use this metaphor to describe the effects of baptism elsewhere, it seems likely that he is not the originator of this interpretation. Raymond Collins notes that in addition to the singular o “washed” the phrase “our Lord Jesus Christ” is another traditional phrase . . . The verb hagiazō (“to make holy”) is also relatively rare in Paul. As often as he uses the cognate nouns “saints” to describe believers (at least twenty-three times), he uses the verb only ix times. It is related directly to baptism only in 1 Cor 6:11. So this is an unusual sense for Paul, especially when compared to its two uses in 1 Cor 7:14, where an unbeliever is made holy through association with a believing spouse. There is then significant, but not decisive evidence that Paul is citing or alluding to preformed tradition in Rom 6:3 and 1 Cor 6:11. If he is citing traditional material in either passage, it indicates a pre-Pauline (or at least non-Pauline) view of baptism understood as a rite that is incorporated the baptized into the death of Christ. Furthermore, this interpretation of baptism assumes that Jesus’s death is “for us” and has salvific effect. . . . [on 1 Cor 6:11] Interpreters often find Paul drawing on the language of a baptismal tradition here. Fragments of the tradition are fairly obvious, especially the claim that these were done “in the name of . . .” . . . The relationship between baptism and a cleansing from sin is made in Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb 10:22. These multiple citations of this understanding suggest that it was earlier than and beyond Paul’s influence. In addition, the verb apelusasthe (“to be washed”) appears only here in the Pauline corpus, indicating that Paul draws it from a source beyond his usage. Further, that this verb appears in the passive may also indicate that it is part of the tradition.

If the substance of Paul’s assertions about baptism here is drawn from earlier tradition, as seems probable, then baptism’s association with forgiveness of sins, with granting holiness, and perhaps with the coming of the Spirit are all part of the church’s message before Paul wielded significant influence. The Didache’s use of baptism as the line of demarcation between those who may participate in the Eucharist and the “unholy dogs” also indicates that it sees baptism as the rite that cleanses and makes one holy (9.5). Even if we determine that the terminology of cleansing and making holy as they appear in 1 Cor 6;11 is not directly taken from earlier tradition, this passage in the Didache indicates that these understandings are part of the church’s teaching before the time of Paul and outside his influence. (Jerry L. Sumney, Steward of God’s Mysteries: Paul and Early Church Tradition [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2017], 35-36, 81-82, emphasis added, comment in square bracket added for clarification)

Elsewhere, on Gal 3:27-28 and 1 Cor 12:13, Sumney writes:

Gal 3:27-28 and 1 Cor 12:13 [are] citations of a preformed baptismal liturgy. The evidence includes its pairs of opposites, the insertion of baptism into the context, and the change from first person plural (“we”) to second person plural (“you”). These all indicate that (at least) Gal 3:27-28 is a set piece that Paul inserts into his argument. This formula provides evidence for an early partially realized eschatology. In this formula, those baptized are brought “into Christ” and have “been clothed with Christ.” This identification with Christ beings the baptized into the realm that is determined by Christ’s identity. The eschatological nature of this claim is evident in the return to oneness. This is nowhere more clear than in the allusion to Gen 1:27. The obvious change in the pattern of the opposed pairs in the formula shows that the oneness that the liturgy proclaims is a return to the primordial or Edenic ideal state. It is a common feature of apocalyptic Judaism to see the coming age as a return to the ideal original state of creation. This formula draws on that understanding in its allusion to Gen 1:27. The formula also proclaims that this state of existence is a present reality for the baptized. (Ibid., 99, emphasis added, comment in square bracket added for clarification)

Therefore, the only conclusion one can reach, based on the evidence, is that both Paul and the earliest strata of pre-Pauline Christian tradition explicated transformative justification as well as baptismal regeneration, including the theology one finds within Gal 3:27 and other like-texts. Again, Flournoy is way out in left field on this and other topics.

Of course, Flournoy has been refuted time and time again by myself and other LDS apologists on this issue. For a refutation of some of his previous posts and articles on this, see:

Michael Flournoy's ignorance of Hebrews and the Eucharist

Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer

Response to Michael Flournoy

Trading one's inheritance for a bowl of pottage/damnable false gospel

Michael Flournoy Misunderstands Grace, Mormonism, and the Bible

Refuting the Claim that singing the hymn "Praise to the Man" is an act of Idolatry

Why Evangelical Anti-Mormonism Makes No Sense

Michael Flournoy on Forensic Justification and Imputed Righteousness

Flournoy has been deceived into accepting a false gospel, and is now himself engaged in deceiving by defending such a false gospel. He should be pitied, and one should pray for him before it is too late (cf. Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29).

Does Moroni 8:22 refute the need for Baptism for the Dead?

In an attempt to portray baptism for the dead as being contrary to the Book of Mormon, the Tanners, in their magnum opus, write the following:

The Book of Mormon also teaches that those who have died without the law need no baptism:

For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—(Moroni 8:22)

Therefore, according to the Book of Mormon, there is no class of people that baptism for the dead could help. Those who have not had the law need no baptism, therefore, it would be a waste of time to search out their genealogies and be baptized for them. (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5^th ed.; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987, 2008], 455)

The Moroni 8:22 text should be also compared with Mosiah 2:36-39:

And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom's paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved--I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples. Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.

Matt Roper, writing in response to Luke Wilson who used the Moroni 8 text in a manner similar to that of the Tanners, provided the following comments on that and the Mosiah pericope quoted above in Salvation for the Dead: A Response to Luke Wilson:

MOSIAH 2:36-39

In these passages King Benjamin is concerned with those who have already “been taught” concerning the truth (Mosiah 2:34) and then have turned away, coming out in “open rebellion against God” (Mosiah 2:37). He is not speaking of those who died without the opportunity to hear the Gospel, as Wilson implies. In the following chapter, Benjamin goes on to say that the blood of Christ atones for the sins of those “who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned” (Mosiah 3:11). The only way for anyone to be saved is through the atonement and “there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men” (Mosiah 3:17). Benjamin also indicates that “the time shall come when a knowledge of a Savior shall spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue and people” (Mosiah 3:21). Since he has just mentioned those who “died not knowing the will of God concerning them” this passage suggests that the time would eventually come when they too would hear that message. “And, behold, when that time cometh, none shall be found blameless before God, except it be little children, only through repentance and faith on the name of the Lord God Omnipotent” (Mosiah 3:22). Contrary to Wilson, this passage is consistent with the LDS teaching.

MORONI 8:22-23

Moroni 8:22-23 states that those who died without the law are “alive in Christ,” that is, they are eligible for the mercies of Christ extended through the atonement and his Gospel. They are under no condemnation until they accept or reject the Gospel. Until adults could be taught the need to repent and receive the covenant of baptism, that ordinance would make no sense. At some point, however, as King Benjamin indicated earlier, those who died in ignorance would be taught and have the opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel.

There is no conflict between baptism for the dead specifically, and posthumous salvation in general, with the theology of the Book of Mormon.

For a response to another Book of Mormon “proof-text” often used against the validity of baptism for the dead, see:

Does Alma 34:32-34 conflict with posthumous salvation?

Donald S. Prudlo on Aquinas and Question of the Canonization of Saints being Infallible

Within Catholic circles, there is a debate as to whether canonization of saints is infallible. This is particularly important for the SSPX and other groups that, while seeking some agreement with the Vatican, reject the canonizations of John Paul II, Paul VI, Teresa of Calcutta, and Josemaría Escrivá (founder of Opus Dei).

Interestingly, many Catholic theologians have argued that canonizations are protected from theological error, so in a secondary sense, they are infallible (the concept of the “secondary objects of infallibility”). In his study of the origins and early development of papal infallibility, Donald S. Prudlo discusses Aquinas’ reasoning to support this teaching:

For Thomas, the pope is unable to err in canonization for three reasons: (1) he makes a thorough investigation into holiness of life, (2) this is confirmed by the testimony of miracles, and (3) the Holy Spirit leads him (for Thomas, the clincher). When a pope elevates a saint, he proclaims that the saint is in heaven. The pope asks the faithful to give honor to the saint, which means that the faithful are making a quasi-profession of faith in the glory of the saint. Since, as Thomas says, no damnable error can exist in the church and since it would be a damnable error or the faithful to honor a saint in hell, therefore no canonized saint can be in hell. Or Thomas the church, then, is not “liable to error” in this case. Thomas would say that the canonization of a saint involves a declaration that relates materially to a dogma of the church. Thomas articulated, for the first time, the infallibility of the papacy in the glorification of saints. For him, though, the definition of dogma is a very strict business. Since nothing without at least in seed in the scriptures can be an article of faith, Thomas would not call infallibility in canonization in itself a dogma. He makes a rather fine distinction. Each canonization was infallible considered in itself, because no damnable error can exist in the church, but since it cannot be absolutely derived from the scriptures, the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope in canonization is a matter of pious belief only. Later thinkers would follow Thomas’s reasoning but would not be as reticent in their thoughts on the binding authority of the doctrine. (Donald S. Prudlo, Certain Sainthood: Canonization and the Origins of Papal Infallibility in the Medieval Church [Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2015], 128-29)

In an Appendix, “Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibet IX, q. 8,” Prudlo reproduces Aquinas’ own comments on this issue:

Title 1

Whether all saints who are canonized by the Church are in glory or whether some are in hell.

Title 2

And it seems that some are able to be in hell among those who are canonized by the Church.

Argument 1

No one is able to be certain about the condition of anyone, as one is of himself, “For who among men knows the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in hell?” as 1 Corinthians 2:11 has it. But man is not able to be certain about his own condition, as to whether he be in a state of salvation for as Sirach 9:1 says, “Love from hatred man cannot tell.” Therefore how much less can the Pope know, therefore he is able to err in canonization.

Argument 2

Furthermore, whoever relies upon a fallible medium in judging is able to err. But the church in canonizing saints relies upon human testimony, when she inquires of witnesses regarding lie and miracles. Therefore, since the testimony of humans may be fallible, it seems that the church is able to err in canonizing saints.

Contra 1

On the contrary, in the church there is not able to be a damnable error. But it would be a damnable error if she would venerate a saint who was a sinner, because anyone knowing their sin might believe the church to be false and if this were to happen, they might be led into error. Therefore the church is not able to err in such things.

Contra 2

Further, Augustine says in a letter to Jerome that if there is admitted to be any lie in canonical scripture our faith will waver, since it depends on canonical scripture. But we are bound to believe that which is in the holy scriptures, so also that which is commonly determined by the church; therefore heretics are judged who believe things contrary to the determinations of the Councils. Therefore the universal judgment of the church is not able to err, and thus the same result as above.

Response

It must be said, that something can be judged to be possible when considered in itself, which in relation to something outside itself is found to be impossible. Therefore I say that the judgment of those who rule the church is able to err in anything, if they are considered in their persons. If, in truth, divine providence is considered—by which the Holy Spirit directs his Church, so that she might not err, as He Himself promised in John 10, that the Spirit was coming to teach them all truth, namely about those things necessary for salvation—then it is certain that it is impossible for the judgment of the universal church to err in those things which pertain to the faith. Wherefore how much more certain is the determination of the Pope, to whom it pertains to pronounce on faith, than in the wisdom of any other man in their scriptural opinions; it is read when Caiaphas—though wicked—nevertheless prophesied because he was high priest, though he did not know it (that is, he did not know it himself) as John 11:51 has it. Truly in other determinations which pertain to particular facts, as is done with property, or crimes, or other such things, it is possible for the church to err on account of false testimony. But truly the canonization of saints is between these two things. Since the honor we pay the saints is in a certain way a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints, we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.

Ad 1

To the first is therefore to be said, that the Pontiff—to whom it belongs to canonize saints—is able to certify the condition of any by means of an inquiry into their life and by witnesses to their miracles; and especially by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who searches all things, even unto the profundity of God.

Ad 2

To the second is to be said, that Divine Providence preserves the Church assuredly in such things as may be deceived by fallible human testimony. (Ibid., 181-83)

Examining the Changes to Book of Commandments IV and the "Gift(s)" of Joseph Smith

In the 1833 A Book of Commandments, we read:

And now, behold, this shall you say unto him:--I the Lord am God, and I have given these things unto my servant Joseph, and I have commanded him that he should stand as a witness of these things, nevertheless I have caused him that he should enter into a covenant with me, that he should not show them except I command him, and he has no power over them except I grant it unto him; and he has a gift to translate the book, and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift. (IV:2)

In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, this verse was changed to read:

Behold I say unto you, that as my servant Martin Harris has desired a witness at my hand, that you, my servant Joseph Smith, jr. have got the plates of which you have testified and borne record that you have received of me: and now behold, this shall you say unto him, He who spake unto you said unto you, I the Lord am God, and have given these things unto you, my servant Joseph Smith, jr. and have commanded you that you shall stand as a witness of these things, and I have caused you that you should enter into a covenant with me that you should not show them except to those persons to whom I command you; and you have no power over them except I grant it unto you. And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you, and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished. (32:1-2)

In the modern printing of the Doctrine and Covenants the text reads:

And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished. (D&C 5:4)

According to some critics, Joseph was meant to have only one gift only (i.e., the translation of the Book of Mormon), and such changes contradict that, as he decided to have other (spiritual) gifts. Commenting on the changes one finds between the 1833 A Book of Commandments and subsequent versions of this revelation, Jerald and Sandra Tanner wrote:

This is certainly one of the most significant changes in the Doctrine and Covenants. David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, gave this interesting information:

After the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished, early in the spring of 1830, before April 6th, Joseph gave the stone to Oliver Cowdery and told me as well as the rest that he was through with it, and he did not use the stone anymore. He said he was through the work God had given him to perform, except to preach the gospel. He told us that we would all have to depend on the Holy Ghost hereafter to be guided into truth and obtain the will of the Lord. (An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p. 32)

The fact that Joseph Smith was not planning on doing any other work besides the Book of Mormon is well verified by the revelation given in March of 1829. This revelation was printed in the Book of Commandments as Chapter 4, Verse 2 reads as follows: “ . . . and he has a gif to translate the book, and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.”

By the year 1835, when this revelation was reprinted in the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith had pretended to at least one other gift besides that of translating the Book of Mormon. He had pretended to the gift of rewording the Bible (Inspired Version), and a short time after this he brought forth the Book of Abraham. Certainly this revelation commanding Joseph Smith to pretend to no other gift but to translate the Book of Mormon could not remain in its original uncensored form. The church had decided to go beyond the Book of Mormon and accept Joseph Smith’s other writings as scripture. This change in church policy necessitated a change in the revelation. Therefore, it was changed to read as follows:

And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift, until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished. (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 5, verse 4)

Thus the entire meaning of this revelation was changed, making it appear that the Lord would grant him other gifts besides that of translating the Book of Mormon. At least 22 words were added to this verse to make the change. David Whitmer made this statement about this matter:

. . . he [Joseph Smith] was not called to organize and establish the church anymore than the rest of us Elders . . . as if God had commanded Joseph to pretend to no other gift but to translate the Book of Mormon, that he would “grant him no other gift,” and then afterwards God had changed his mind and concluded to grant him another gift. God does not change and work in this manner. The way the revelation has been changed, twenty-two words being added to it, it would appear that God had broken His word after giving His word in plainness; commanding Brother Joseph to pretend to no other gift but to translate the Book of Mormon, and then the Lord had changed and concluded to grant Joseph the gift of a Seer to the Church . . . May God have mercy on the heads of the church for their translation is my prayer. (An Address to All Believers in Christ, pp. 57-58) (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5^th ed.; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987, 2008], 27)

Firstly, it should be noted that the Tanners, as did David Whitmer, operated under the false a priori assumption that God would never change, or allow to be changed, His inscripturated revelation. The Bible itself evidences many cases of prophets of God changing their revelations and/or the revelations of previous prophets. See my article:

Biblical Prophets Changing their Words and the Words of Previous Prophets

Secondly, both versions of the revelation can be harmonised rather easily in light of the fact that, at the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph was expected to be dedicated to that alone, and not to seek after other gifts. At the time of the initial reception of the revelation, he was indeed not to pretend to have other gifts as none would be forthcoming until after he completed the Book of Mormon. The changes to the revelation were made simply to clarify this.

That this is indeed the case can be seen in the Book of Mormon itself and its description of the then-future translator of the volume. Lehi, speaking to his son Jacob repeated the words of Joseph of Egypt and his discussion of the latter-day “Joseph” whom he prophesied of, and of the great work he would do, far beyond translate the Book of Mormon:

But a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins-- and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them. Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord. And out of weakness he shall be made strong, in that day when my work shall commence among all my people, unto the restoring thee, O house of Israel, saith the Lord. And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: Behold, that seer will the Lord bless; and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise, which I have obtained of the Lord, of the fruit of my loins, shall be fulfilled. Behold, I am sure of the fulfilling of this promise; and his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me; for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation. Yea, thus prophesied Joseph: I am sure of this thing, even as I am sure of the promise of Moses; for the Lord hath said unto me, I will preserve thy seed forever. And the Lord hath said: I will raise up a Moses; and I will give power unto him in a rod; and I will give judgment unto him in writing. Yet I will not loose his tongue, that he shall speak much, for I will not make him mighty in speaking. But I will write unto him my law, by the finger of mine own hand; and I will make a spokesman for him. And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it. And the words which he shall write shall be the words which are expedient in my wisdom should go forth unto the fruit of thy loins. And it shall be as if the fruit of thy loins had cried unto them from the dust; for I know their faith. And they shall cry from the dust; yea, even repentance unto their brethren, even after many generations have gone by them. And it shall come to pass that their cry shall go, even according to the simpleness of their words. Because of their faith their words shall proceed forth out of my mouth unto their brethren who are the fruit of thy loins; and the weakness of their words will I make strong in their faith, unto the remembering of my covenant which I made unto thy fathers. (2 Nephi 3:10-21)

Related to this is Mosiah 8:13-17 which refutes Whitmer’s claim that it was only after the Book of Mormon that Joseph claimed to be a “Seer,” not a translator merely:

Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer. And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God. And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet. And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God. But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

In this pericope, one who has been gifted the ability to translate by the power of God is also a "seer," and that "a seer is greater than a prophet." Commenting on vv. 16-17 and the function of a seer, Brant Gardner wrote:

Ammon expands the definition of the seer. The seer has two different kinds of connection to the power of the Spirit. A seer is both a revelator and a prophet. What is the difference between these two? The prophet is one who sees the future. A revelatory makes understandable aspects of the Lord’s will which are hidden from others. In this particular case, Ammon and Limhi apparently assume that the revelatory applies to the patterns of the past that teach about the future. The will of the Lord—past, present, and future—would become known as the revelatory reveals the contents of that which is hidden—in this case in an unreadable text.

We now have three terms: prophet, seer, and revelator. The seer, according to Ammon’s definition, is one who possesses the interpreters, aids not only to translation but to revealing the hidden: “He has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer” (Mosiah 8:13).

Although Ammon concludes with a simple functional definition of the seer as the possessor of the interpreters, his description of the interpreters is more complex. They aid in “translat[ing] all records that are of ancient date,” but are so powerful that they cannot be used except by Yahweh’s direct commandment, since otherwise, one might “look for that he ought not.” Obviously this function goes beyond the translation of ancient languages. Why would a linguist’s soul be jeopardized by translating, for example, a Hittite grocery list? Clearly, the power of the interpreters is not simply in translation, but rather in revelation. One acting without the Spirit might use the interpreters to find information that he would be tempted to use unrighteously, to understand knowledge that is forbidden for good reason, and apply the lessons of the past to exploit the future. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 3:222-23)

The evidence from the Book of Mormon is all the more significant as Whitmer viewed the Book of Mormon as a rather exhaustive treatise on ecclesiology in his 1887 monograph, and would often critique Joseph Smith (whom he viewed as a fallen prophet) and the "Brighamites" for going beyond the Book of Mormon (on this, see D&C 128:18 and its description of "The Dispensation of the Fulness of Times").

There is no merit to the claim, advanced by Whitmer and the Tanners, that Joseph Smith claimed to be more than a translator of the Book of Mormon in his early prophetic career.

For a previous refutation of Whitmer on another change in the revelations, this time those in D&C 18, see:

Examining the Change in D&C 18:3-4

Stephen Turley on the Apocalyptic Backdrop of John's Baptism

I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your fetishes. And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh; and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My laws and faithfully to observe My rules. (Ezek 36:25-27, 1985 JPS Tanakh)

Wash yourselves clean; Put your evil doings Away from My sight. Cease to do evil; Learn to do good. Devote yourselves to justice; Aid the wronged. Uphold the rights of the orphan; Defend the cause of the widow. (Isa 1:16-17, 1985 JPS Tanakh)

Commenting on John’s baptism and its Old Testament apocalyptic background and meaning, Stephen Turley wrote:

As regards John’s baptism, there are a number of scholars who see Ezekiel 36.25-7 (and Isa. 1.16-17) as the prophetic-apocalyptic backdrop necessary for its intelligibility . . . Mark identifies John’s ablutions with a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” in view of the imminent arrival of one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit (1.8). The Markan Gospel ascribes the location of John as a substantiation of Isaiah 40.3 (perhaps conflated with Exod. 23.20) in 1.2-4, serving as a wilderness stage for the enactment of traditions that spoke of Elijah’s return to avert the wrath of God and to lead Israel to repentance (cf. Mal. 4:5; Sir. 48:9-10). John’s baptism can therefore be appropriated within a trajectory of Jewish washings for theophanies, that is, ritual bathings that were applicable to the general population in preparation for a future yet imminent divine encounter (e.g. Exod. 19.10-15).

Furthermore, the locative parallel between John’s baptism and the dramatic crossing of the Jordan River under the leadership of Joshua in effect summoned all Israel to prepare for the divine judgment that was approaching. Regardless of whether the baptism of John was an initiation rite or not, in administrating a baptism that mediated the forgiveness of sins by God, John’s baptizing ministry could not have but created a distinction between two groups of people: those who were ritually prepared for the coming of God and those who were not. The baptism is, in parallel with Ezekiel 36.25-27, a corporate baptism, a cleaning of a people purified by and for God.

Finally, in addition to the pneumatic, temporal, and communal frames of reference, there is a strong emphasis on repentance and ethical transformation associated with John’s baptism, particularly evident in Josephus’ description of John’s ritual activity (Ant. 18.116-19). Josephus indicates that John’s baptism called for the Jews to “exercise virtue” (18.117, κελευοντα αρετην) with “righteousness to one another and piety toward God” (18.117, προς αλληλους δικαιοσυνη και προς τον θεον ευσεβεια) such that their bodies would be purified by the washing and their souls “thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness” (18.117, της ψυχης δικαιοσυνη προεκκεκαθαρμενης) . . . John’s baptism and the repentance that accompanies it are preparatory for the eschatological arrival of the Spirit. (Stephen Richard Turley, The Ritualized Revelation of the Messianic Age: Washings and Meals in Galatians and 1 Corinthians [Library of New Testament Studies 544; London: T&T Clark, 2018], 90-91)

Refuting the Tanners on Old Testament Practices and Mormonism: Cursing One's Enemies

In chapter 23 “Old Testament Practices” of their book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? the Tanners wrote:

There are several Old Testament practices that have found their way into Mormonism; one of these is the practice of cursing one’s enemies. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon state that this practice was to cease with the coming of Christ. Now that Christ has come, we are supposed to rely upon him and let him take all hate out of our hearts. If we have no hate in our hearts we will have no desire to curse our enemies or wish any evil upon them. The words that Jesus spoke in the Sermon on the Mount are also recorded in the Book of Mormon:

And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy;
But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you; (3 Nephi 12:43-44).

In the Bible, we read as follows:

Bless them which persecute you;
Bless, and curse not. (Romans 12:14)

In spite of these clear teachings in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith gave a revelation which sanctioned the cursing of one's enemies:

And inasmuch as mine enemies come against you  . . ye shall curse them:
And whomsoever ye curse, I will curse, and ye shall avenge me of mine enemies. (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 103, verses 24-25). (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5^th ed; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987, 2008], 370)

Under the heading of “Wine and Curses,” the authors write:

The cursing of enemies was actually carried out in the Kirtland Temple. The Mormon Apostle George A. Smith gave this account:

Now I will illustrate this still further. The Lord did actually reveal one principle to us there, and that one principle was apparently so simple, and so foolish in their eyes, that a great many apostatized over it, because it was so contrary to their notion and views. It was this, after the people had fasted all day, they sent out and got wine and bread, and blessed them, and distributed them to the multitude, that is, to the whole assembly of the brethren, and they ate and drank, and prophesied, and bore testimony, and continued so to do until some of the High Council of Missouri stepped into the stand, and, as righteous Noah did when he awoke from his wine, commenced to curse their enemies. You never felt such a shock go through any house or company in the world as went through that. There was almost a rebellion because men would get up and curse their enemies . . .  Some of the brethren thought it was best to apostatize . . . The Lord dated not then reveal anything more; He had given us all we could swallow . . . (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 216) (Ibid., 370)

Elsewhere (pp. 370-72), the Tanners provide instances of early LDS calling down divine curses from heaven upon their enemies. On p. 372, they then conclude:

In Romans 12:20 we read: “Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; . . .” According to Charles L. Walker, Brigham Young taught just the opposite:

Sun., Apr. 28. Went up to the Tabernacle . . . Bro. Brigham . . . said that those who sell their provisions to feed our enemies either man or women should be cursed, and said he, I curse them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the congregation shouted, Amen. (“Diary of Charles L. Walker,” 1853-1902, Excerpts typed, page 12)

Jesus said, “love your enemies,” but the Mormon Apostle George A. Smith remarked:

You must know that I love my friends, and God Almighty knows that I do hate my enemies. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, page 110)

Jesus said that we should pray for our enemies. Heber C. Kimball prayed for his enemies in the following manner:

Pray for them? Yes, I pray that God Almighty would send them to hell. Some say across lots; but I would like to have them take a round about road, and be as long as they can be in going there. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, page 89)

The only apologetic response to such a criticism comes from Jeff Hardy who wrote:

God alone is the only one who can judge who should be cursed (something He did in both the Old and New Testament, Gen. 3:17, Gen. 5:29, Gen. 12:3, Mark 11:21).

The circumstances surrounding the D&C scriptures represented not just enemies against an individual man, but an even more important threat against the restoration of God's gospel to the earth. Because of this, God Himself gave Joseph Smith the permission and power to curse those who violently fought against the Kingdom of God so that it might be preserved. (source)

While the essence of this response is sound, I will build upon such in the rest of this blog post.

Writing after Jesus gave the command, and after the resurrection and ascension, Paul wrote:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:6-9)

The term translated as “accursed” is αναθεμα. While it can have a positive meaning (a votive offering), it is obviously being used in a negative sense here. As BDAG defines the term, with reference to Gal 1:8:

2. that which has been cursed, cursed, accursed )LXX as a rule=חֵרֶם: what is ‘devoted to the divinity’ can be either consecrated or accursed. The mng. of the word in the other NT passages moves definitely in the direction of the latter [like Num 21:3; Dt 7:26; Josh 6:17; 7:12; Judg 1:17; Zech 14:11, but also the curse-tablets from Megara, as IDefixWünsch 1, 17]) οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει· ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς no one who speaks by God’s Spirit says ‘Jesus be cursed’ 1 Cor 12:3 (on this subject Laud. Therap. 22 ὅταν ὁ δαίμων ἀλλοιώσας τὸν ἐνεργούμενον, ἐκεῖνος ὅλος λαλεῖ, τὸ στόμα τοῦ πάσχοντος ἴδιον τεχναζόμενος ὄργανον=when the divinity has altered the one it has influenced, then it is altogether the divinity that speaks, for it has skillfully made the victim’s mouth its own instrument; NBrox, BZ n.s. 12, ’68, 103-11). As a formula ἀνάθεμα ἔστω Gal 1:8f. For this ἤτω ἀ. 1 Cor 16:22. Likew. ηὐχόμην ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ I could wish that I myself would be accursed (and therefore separated) from Christ Ro 9:3 (CSchneider, D. Volks- u. Heimatgefühl b. Pls: Christentum u. Wissensch. 8, ’32, 1-14; PBratsiotis, Eine Notiz zu Rö 9:3 u. 10:1: NovT 5, ’62, 299f).

Commenting on Paul’s cursing of his enemies in Gal 1, Gordon P. Wiles, then-professor of religion of Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut, noted:

[There] are many examples of specific blessings and curses in the Old Testament, originally ‘power-laden words, spoken on cultic or other occasions and often accompanied by gestures or symbolic actions, through which the wholeness of the religious community was understood to be safeguarded or strengthened, and evil forces controlled or destroyed.’ (Gordon P. Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the Letters of St Paul [Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 24; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974], 25)

Elsewhere, with respect to Gal 1:8-9, as quoted above, writes that:

The first version of the curse (v. 8) is worded in such a way as to be a general apostolic and prophetic ruling about the unalterable nature of the gospel, rather than a judgment on particular individuals. The generalized nature of the maxim is indicated by its hypothetical syntax, ‘But even if we, or an angel . . . should preach,’ and by the two highly improbable instances adduced for consideration (apostle and angel). Furthermore, the possible omission of the first υμιν would serve to make the form still more general. The judgment is based ultimately not in Paul’s apostolic authority, but in the authority of the unchangeable gospel itself, which had been delivered to him together with his apostleship (1:1, 11f), and which in turn he had preached to them (1:8f.). His own apostolic authority is derived from the authority of the gospel, which he may prophetically interpret and apply, but not basically change. Such is the stable permanence and finality of that gospel of Christ (v. 7), that neither he nor even a heavenly messenger, have either the power or the authority to alter it.

In the second version of the curse (v. 9), Paul goes on to apply the general ruling to the actual Galatian crisis. The words ‘as we have said before’ probably refer to some earlier statement given by the apostle, perhaps in anticipation of the very situation which had now arisen. Thus the imprecation is claimed to be no merely hasty reaction to the immediate problem. The conditional clause is recast so as to suggest an actual happening: ‘if anyone is preaching to you,’ and the word τις may refer back to his description of the troublemakers themselves as τινες οι ταρασσοντες υμας. The gravity of heir defection from the true gospel is further underlined by the word παρελαβετε, an almost technical term in Pauline usage for the receiving of the traditional gospel message (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23, 15:2, 3, etc.).

Both versions include the authoritative traditional words αναθεμα εστω. In writing this grave juridical imprecation, Paul is assuming his full apostolic authority to apply a previously uttered ruling to a current crisis, and to take the sternest measures to protect the gospel against those who would distort it and mislead others. Certainly he intends at least excommunication from the church, although more than that would be included here. The curse must be read out liturgically at the eucharist in the Galatian churches, and the troublemakers solemnly handed over to the eschatological judgment and wrath of God, in the full assurance that they have been rightly judged. (Ibid., 127-29)

In effect, the apostle Paul is calling a curse upon his (theological) enemies, and all enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If the Tanners and others wish to absolutise the command to never curse one’s enemies and insist there are no allowable exceptions in extraordinary circumstances, there is a contradiction.

Even during the lifetime of Jesus, there were allowable curses. Indeed, Jesus cursed Jerusalem and faithless Jews of his time by his symbolic cursing of the Fig Tree:

And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. (Mark 11:12-14; cf. Matt 21:18-19a; Luke 13:6-9)

Commenting on the meaning of this incident, F.F. Bruce, an imminent Protestant New Testament scholar, wrote:

This incident is related by Mark and, in a more compressed form, by Matthew. According to Mark, Jesus and his disciples spent the night following his entry into Jerusalem in Bethany. Next morning they returned to Jerusalem. On the way he felt hungry, ‘and seeing in the distance a fig tree in lea, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing, but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.’ Then come the words quoted above [“May no one ever eat fruit from you again” Mark 11:14]. They continued on their way into Jerusalem, where that day he cleansed the temple; in the evening they returned to Bethany. Next morning, as they passed the same place, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. And Peter remembered and said to him, ‘Rabbi, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered’ (Mark 11:20-21).

Was it not unreasonable to curse the tree for being fruitless when, as Mark expressly says, ‘it was not the season for figs’? The problem is most satisfactorily cleared up in a discussion of ‘The Barren Fig Tree’ published many years ago by W. M. Christie, a Church of Scotland minister in Palestine under the British mandatory regime. He pointed out first the time of year at which the incident is said to have occurred (if, as is probable, Jesus was crucified on April 6th, A.D. 30, the incident occurred during the first days of April). ‘Now,’ wrote Dr. Christie, ‘the facts connected with the fig tree are these. Towards the end of March the leaves begin to appear, and in about a week foliage coating is complete. Coincident with [this], and sometimes even before, there appears quite a crop of small knobs, not the real figs, but a kind of early forerunner. They grow to the size of green almonds, in which condition they are eaten by peasants and others when hungry. When they come to their own indefinite maturity they drop off” (W.M. Christie, Palestine Calling [London, 1939], pp.118-120). These precursors of the true fig are called taqsh in Palestinian Arabic. Their appearance is a harbinger of the fully formed appearance of the true fig some six weeks later. So, as Mark says, the time for figs had not yet come. But if the leaves appear without any taqsh, that is a sign that there will be no figs. Since Jesus found ‘nothing but leaves’—leaves without any taqsh—he knew that ‘it was an absolutely hopeless, fruitless fig tree’, and said as much.

But if that is the true explanation of his words, why should anyone trouble to record the incident as though it had some special significance? Because it did have some special significance. As recorded by Mark, it is an acted parable with the same lesson as the spoken parable of the fruitless fig tree in Luke 13:6-9. In that spoken parable a landowner came three years in succession expecting fruit from a fig tree on his property, and when year by year it proved to be fruitless, he told the man in charge of his vineyard to cut it down because it was using up the ground to no good purpose. In both the acted parable and the spoken parable it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the fig tree represents the city of Jerusalem, unresponsive to Jesus as he came to it with the message of God, and thereby incurring destruction. Elsewhere Luke records how Jesus swept over the city’s blindness to its true well-being and foretold its ruin ‘because you did not know the time of your visitation’ (Luke 19:41-44). It is because the incident of the cursing of the fig tree was seen to convey the same lesson that Mark, followed by Matthew, recorded it. (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983], 208-9. Comment in square bracket added for clarification)

Indeed, there are many "imprecatory" prayers in the New Testament itself that request God to avenge believers of their enemies, as well as promises of the same, too, including:

Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble (θλιβω, oppress/afflict) you. (2 Thess 1:6)

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that brought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Pet 2:1)

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and all of their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 14-15)

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried out with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? (Rev 6:9-10)

When one prays an imprecatory prayer, and in the case of the Doctrine and Covenants, requests God to curse one's enemies, they are actually following the divine prescription that only God can issue vengeance against the sinner, and he has the right to call down that vengeance. As Paul writes in Romans ch. 12:

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Rom 12:19)

As an aside, it is interesting that, while verses from this chapter of Romans is cited by the Tanners, they never (1) quote this particular verse and (2) exegete it, as such is strong evidence against their arguments.

In an attempt to add to current apologetics on this topic and related issues, I would like to introduce something similar to the concept within Catholic Canon Law, "Intrinsic Cessation." This is a teaching that holds that, if and when a practice or moral teaching, while good at the time of its revelation, when its purpose/telos ceases, loses its force, or proves to be a stumbling-block to faith, it ceases to be binding ipso facto. As one commentary on the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law put it:

A law may cease to bind in two ways: either by repeal, which is called extrinsic cessation, or by becoming inoperative without repeal, which is called intrinsic cessation. It is common doctrine that a law ceases to bind without repeal in two cases: first, if the circumstances are such that the law has become positively harmful or unreasonable; second, if the purpose of the law has entirely ceased for the entire community. (T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam C. Ellis SJ, Canon Law: A Text and Commentary [Milwaukee: Bruce 1946], 35)

Another source, this time commenting on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, wrote:

Likewise, the law initially might be accepted but could become obsolete or harmful over time and fall into desuetude, the phenomenon known as the intrinsic cessation of law. (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, eds. John P Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green [New York: Paulist Press, 2000], 59)

In this light, and in light of the fact, as Hardy noted, that the Church was facing great persecution, there was a (temporary) intrinsic cessation of the command not to curse but to only bless one’s enemies. Indeed, when one examines the context of JOD 5:110 from George A. Smith (August 2, 1857), and not the mere snippet the Tanners reproduce, we read of the great persecution and slander suffered by Church members at the time:

Under these circumstances, as big a coward as I am, I would say what I pleased; and for one thing I would say that every man that had anything to do with such a filthy, unconstitutional affair was a damned scoundrel. There is not a man, from the President of the United States to the Editors of their sanctorums, clear down to the low-bred letter-writers in this Territory, but would rob the coppers from a dead nigger's eyes, if they had a good opportunity. If I had the command of thunder and lightning, I would never let one of the damned scoundrels get here alive. I have heretofore said but very little about the Gentiles; but I have heard all that Drummond has said, and I have read all his lying, infamous letters; and although I have said but little, I think a heap. You must know that I love my friends, and God Almighty knows that I do hate my enemies. There have been men, and women, and children enough who have died through the oppression and tyranny of our enemies to damn any nation under heaven; and now a nation of 25,000,000 of people must exercise its wealth in violation of its own principles and the rights guaranteed by the blood of their fathers—blood that is more sacred than their own heart springs; and this they are doing to crush down a little handful who dwell in the midst of these mountains, and who dare to worship God as they please, and who dare to sing, pray, preach, think, and act as they please.

And with respect to Heber C. Kimball's comments in JOD 5:89 (July 26, 1857), here is the next paragraph adding important historical context to his comments:

I have been driven five times—been broken up and my goods robbed from me, and I have been afflicted almost to death. I am here with wives and children, and as good women as can be found in the United States. You may search the States through, and you cannot find as good ones. Have others here got as good? I do not know that I will talk about others; but I will say what I have a mind to about my own. I have got women that were brought up decently and respectably; and they are virtuous women; and you may send all the men from hell, and they cannot come around my women and brother Brigham's, notwithstanding some have told in Carson Valley that our women are all prostitutes, and that they could use any one of them they pleased, as I have been informed.

This highlights something important: Always check the Tanners’ sources. They tend to leave a lot out (for more documentation, see, for example, D. Charles Pyle and Cooper Johnson, Did Early LDS Leaders Misunderstand the First Vision? and my blog post, Answering the Tanners' Misrepresentation of Brigham Young on the “natural man”)

Finally,  early Christian inscriptions provide evidence that they would “curse” opponents on occasion. The following examples (just three of many) come from Gary J. Johnson, Early-Christian Epitaphs from Anatolia (Texts and Translations 35; Early Christian Literature Series 8; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).

From a marble stele from Perinthos-Herakleia (Thrace), we read (p. 55):

If anyone should harm this tomb,
he will leave behind orphaned children
and a bereaved wife.
He will run totally in fire; he will
die under the hand of evil men.

In an inscription “to the happy (dead)” from Bomos from Ishikli/Eumeneia (p. 87), we read:

If any other endeavors
to inter someone (here),
he will reckon with the living God.

Finally, from a stele from Iznik/Nikaea (p. 151), we read:

If any other should violate it,
he will give account to God
on Judgment Day

The phrase “on Judgment day” translates εν ημερα κρις[εως] (p. 150), showing that not just a temporary curse/punishment is in view, but eschatological judgement/condemnation!

As we can see, the Tanners’ argument against early Latter-day Saints on this issue flounders in light of careful examination and research, as with so many of their arguments against the Church.

Elsewhere (p. 372) they raise the issue of animal sacrifices. I refuted their arguments on this issue elsewhere at:

Old Testament Practices and Mormonism

An expanded version appeared in Chapter 14: Old Testament Practices and Mormonism in my book, After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood (pp. 198-213)