Inheriting a paradisiacal/celestial earth as the Eschatological Reward For God's People

We believe . . . that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. (Article of Faith 10)

While many Latter-day Saints seem unaware of such these days (perhaps because it is not taught that much in missionary discussions and explicated in LDS circles these days, coupled with many converts coming from “mainstream” faiths and retain errant doctrines), in LDS eschatology, there will be a "marriage" between heaven and earth. Notwithstanding (errant) LDS tend to speak of "going to heaven," in reality, the eschatological goal, if you will, will be dwelling in a “celestialised” (paradisiacal) earth. Consider the following from various LDS sources:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches of three degrees of glory in the afterlife-the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. Jesus alluded to these when he said, "In my Father's house are many mansions" (John 14:2). Paul likened them to the sun, moon, and stars, with the highest or celestial being typical of the sun (1 Cor. 15:40-41; cf. D&C 76:50-98). The Celestial Kingdom was seen in vision by John the Revelator, Paul, and the Prophet Joseph Smith (Rev. 4:6; 2 Cor. 12:2; Tpjs, pp. 106-107). This earth in its "sanctified, immortal, and eternal state" will become a celestial sphere (D&C 88:19-20;130:9).

Celestial glory comes to those "who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial,…and who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true" (D&C 76:51-53). Within the celestial glory are three levels, and to obtain the highest requires a temple marriage or sealing.

Inhabitants of the highest celestial degree inherit "thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers," and dwell with God and Jesus Christ forever (D&C 76:54-70;132:19-20). (Susan Easton Black, “Celestial Kingdom,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism)

THE ORIGIN AND DESTINY OF THE EARTH. Joseph Smith wrote, "We believe…that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory" (A of F 10). LDS revelation declares that the earth is destined to become a celestial body fit for the abode of the most exalted or celestial beings (D&C 88:18-20, 25-26). This is a unique departure from the traditional Christian beliefs that heaven is the dwelling place for all saved beings, and that after fulfilling its useful role the earth will become uninhabited, or be destroyed. Doctrine and Covenants 130:9teaches that finally the earth will become sanctified and immortalized, and be made crystal-like. The "sea of glass" spoken of in Revelation 4:6"is the earth, in its sanctified, immortal, and eternal state" (D&C 77:1). Elder James E. Talmage wrote of this earthly regeneration: "In regard to the revealed word concerning the regeneration of earth, and the acquirement of a celestial glory by our planet, science has nothing to offer either by way of support or contradiction" (AF, p. 381).

Latter-day Saints understand the entire history of the earth to be directly linked to its role in God's Plan of Salvation for his children, his work and glory, "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). The earth was created as a paradise. Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, it was transformed to a telestial state, or the present mortal earth. This interval will end with the return of the Savior, after which the earth will be changed to a terrestrial state and prepared during the Millennium for its final transformation into a celestial sphere after the Millennium (D&C 88:18-19). The ancient Nephite concept derived from Christ's teachings to them includes the idea that before the final judgment the earth will be "rolled together as a scroll, and the elements [will] melt with fervent heat" (Morm. 9:2), "and the heavens and the earth [shall] pass away" (3 Ne. 26:3). This historical account is linear, marked by unique, important events that link the theological and physical history of the earth, that is, creation, fall, renewal at the second coming of Christ, and final glory. (Morris S. Petersen, "Earth,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism)

CELESTIAL EARTH. — Following the millennium plus "a little season" (D. & C. 29:22-25), the earth will die, be resurrected and become like a "sea of glass" (D. & C. 130:7), attain unto "its sanctified, immortal, and eternal state." (D. & C. 77:1-2.) Then the poor and the meek — that is, the godfearing and the righteous — shall inherit the earth; it will become an abiding place for the Father and the Son and celestial beings will possess it forever and ever. (D. & C. 88:14-26, 111.) (Bruce McConkie, "Earth" in Mormon Doctrine)

This earth will be rolled back into the presence of God and crowned with Celestial Glory. (Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 60)

Following the Millennium, this earth will be sanctified, receive its celestial glory, and become the heavenly orb described by John as a "sea of glass" (Articles of Faith 1:10; D&C 77:1). It will be as a sacred seer stone to the celestial Saints who dwell thereon (D&C 130:8-9). In this connection, several statements by President Brigham Young are worth pondering: "When the earth is sanctified, cleansed, and purified by fire, and returns to its paradisiacal state, and becomes like a sea of glass, urim and thummin; when all this is done, and the Savior has presented the earth to his Father, and it is placed in the cluster of the celestial kingdoms, and the Son and all his faithful brethren and sisters have received the welcome plaudit, 'Enter ye into the joy of the Lord', and the Savior is crowned, then and not till then, will the saints receive their everlasting inheritance" (JD 17:117). "This earth, when it becomes purified and sanctified, or celestialized, will become like a sea of glass; and a person, by looking into it, can know things past, present, and to come; though none but celestialized beings can enjoy this privilege. They will look into the earth, and the things they desire to know will be exhibited to them, the same as the face is seen by looking into a mirror." (JD 9:87.) (Hoyt W. Brewster, Doctrine and Covenants Encyclopedia)

This Earth will become a celestial body—be like a sea of glass, or like a Urim and Thummim; and when you wish to know anything, you can look in this Earth and see all the eternities of God. We shall make our homes here, and go on our missions as we do now. (Brigham Young, JOD 8:200)

This earth, when it becomes purified and sanctified, or celestialized, will become like a sea of glass; and a person, by looking into it, can know things past, present, and to come; though none but celestialized beings can enjoy this privilege. They will look into the earth, and the things they desire to know will be exhibited to them, the same as the face is seen by looking into a mirror. (Brigham Young, JOD 9:87)

And this world, so benighted at present, and so lightly esteemed by infidels, when it becomes celestialized, it will be like the sun, and be prepared for the habitation of the Saints, and be brought back into the presence of the Father and the Son. It will not then be an opaque body as it now is, but it will be like the stars of the firmament, full of light and glory; it will be a body of light. John compared it, in its celestialized state, to a sea of glass." (Brigham Young, JOD 10:175)

Some of the main texts in modern revelation supporting this view are:

But blessed are the poor who are pure in heart, whose hearts are broken, and whose spirits are contrite, for they shall see the kingdom of God coming in power and great glory unto their deliverance; for the fatness of the earth shall be theirs. (D&C 56:18)

Verily I say, that inasmuch as ye do this, the fulness of the earth is yours, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which climbeth upon the trees and walketh upon the earth; (D&C 59:16)

  

Q. What is the sea of glass spoken of by John, 4th chapter, and 6th verse of the Revelation? A. It is the earth, in its sanctified, immortal, and eternal state.

Q. What are we to understand by the four beasts, spoken of in the same verse? A. They are figurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created. (D&C 77:1-2)

Now, verily I say unto you, that through the redemption which is made for you is brought to pass the resurrection from the dead. And the spirit and the body are the soul of man. And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul. And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it. Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory; for after it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father; that bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified. And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom. For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory. And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law--wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it. (D&C 88:14-26)

But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. (D&C 130:7)

So, while there are passages that speak of one “going to” or “being brought” to heaven (e.g., Mosiah 5:15), the one must read such passages that the earth and heaven will be brought together, with the (celestial) earth being the inheritance of the righteous. One cannot absolutise one set of Scriptures to the exclusion of the whole when it comes to all theological issues, including this area of eschatology.

Some who believe that “going to heaven” to the exclusion of inhabiting the earth in a paradisiacal state will appeal to certain passages, such as the (false) idea that the righteous go to heaven immediately after death. Such texts include:

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. (2 Cor 5:6-9)

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better. (Phil 1:21-23)

I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. (Phil 3:14)

 Commenting on Phil 1 and 2 Cor 5,  J. Richard Middleton presents a pretty sound refutation of the popular misuse of these texts:

[On 2 Cor 5:6-9] The first thing we should note is how Paul has already stated in 5:1-2 that his actual hope is for the heavenly dwelling that God has prepared (the resurrection body), and in 5:3-4 he affirms that he does not want to be “naked” or “unclothed” (disembodied). And yet Paul says that he prefers to be away from the (present) body and at home with the Lord (5:8). Could Paul have contradictory hopes? . . .[W]e need to pay attention to Paul’s key statement near the end of chapter 4 about the basis of his hope even amid tribulations and suffering (vv.8-12). The reason why Paul says he can live faithfully in the midst of suffering is this: “We know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus, and will bring us with you into his presence”(v. 14). There is no separation here of resurrection and being with Christ. Not only does Paul look forward to the resurrection but he also conceives of being in a resurrected (embodied) state in the Lord’s presence. This means that when Paul comes to speak of being “at home with the Lord” in 5:8, there is no reason to separate this from his hope of resurrection (except that we are habituated to reading the text this way). Paul is not speaking of being with Christ immediately at death; rather, he is looking to the second coming, at which time we will be raised and be with Christ in the new creation. [On Phil 1:23] While interpreters often take Paul as expressing a preference for death . . . the text does not actually say that it would be immediate. Yes, he wants to be “with Christ,” but he does not elaborate on where or exactly when this will be. Once again, the rest of Scripture would lead us to expect that Paul is thinking of the eschaton. There is no clear teaching here of any interim state in heaven. (J. Ricahrd Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2014], 230-31)

On Phil 1, the Expositor’s Greek New Testament, ed. Nicholl, the commentator, H.A.A. Kennedy, wrote the following cautious note about reading too much into this text (emphasis added):

It is, however, hazardous to build up eschatological theories on these isolated utterances of the Apostle. He has, apparently, no fixed scheme of thought on the subject. The Resurrection is not before his mind at all in this passage. His eschatology, as Dsm (Th. LZ, 1898, col. 14) well observes, must rather be conceived as ἐλπίς. Death cannot interrupt the life ἐν Χριστῷ. This is the preparation for being σὺν Χ. Even contemporary Jewish thought was familiar with a similar idea. So, e.g., Tanchuma, Wajjikra, 8: “When the righteous leave the world they ascend at once and stand on high” (Weber, Lehren d. Talmud, p. 323). See also Charles, Eschatology, p. 399 ff.—πολλῷ κ.τ.λ. It seems necessary for the sense to insert γάρ with the best authorities. The double comparat. is fairly common.

With respect to Phil 3:14, it is based on a mistranslation of the Greek text. The Greek of the text reads:

κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω εἰς τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

The term τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ is not correctly rendered by the NIV; instead, it refers, not to Paul being called to heaven, but that the calling of Paul originates from God. Peter O'Brien, a Reformed Protestant and New Testament scholar, commenting on this passage, wrote:

κλησις can be understood in its customary Pauline sense of the divine calling to salvation, particularly the initial summons, while the prize is that which is announced by the call. On any view του θεου indicates that it is God himself who issues the call, while εν Χριστω Ιησου probably signifies that it is in the sphere of Christ Jesus himself that this summons is given. In the immediate context the prize (το βραβειον) is the full and complete gaining of Christ for whose sake everything else has been counted loss. (Peter T. O’Brien, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: Philippians [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991], 433)

What further militates against this understanding of Phil 3:14 is that the context is about, not the intermediate state of believers, but the resurrection (cf. Phil 3:21).

That Paul did not believe that all the elect would immediately go to heaven can be seen in a text that also soundly refutes various Protestant theologies, 1 Cor 3:15. For a full discussion of the theology of this verse, see:

1 Corinthians 3:15: A very un-Protestant Biblical Verse

With respect to Luke 23:43 and the "good thief," the claim is made that Jesus promised him that he would go to heaven the day he (and Jesus) died:

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

One is simply begging the question with the equation of “paradise” with “heaven.” This is not the case according to the New Testament, as we know Jesus when he died, did not go to heaven. In John 20:17, after revealing himself to Mary Magdelene the day he was resurrected, he read that:

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and day unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Where Jesus spent the three days between his death and triumphant resurrection was the “spirit world,” as seen in 1 Pet 3:18-20 (cf. D&C 138):

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight, souls were saved by water.

Some may appeal to texts that speak of one's reward being "in heaven" (e.g., Matt 5:12); the argument goes that one will receive such a reward in heaven to the exclusion of a glorified earth. However, this is fallacious on many levels. Firstly, such texts speak of the present location of the reward with respect to the relationship between Heaven and the earth--in the eschaton, they will be "married" if you will. Secondly, the texts speak of where the gift/reward is, not where one will receive such--an analogy would be a wife telling her husband that his dinner is in the oven--such does not mean that one must enter into the over to receive it, only that is present location is in the oven awaiting receipt by the husband. Similarly, the reward comes from heaven to the righteous on a paradisiacal earth.

That this is the proper reading of Matt 5:12 and other like-texts can be seen from other passages:

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matt 16:27)

Set you affection on the things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Col 3:2-4)

To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you. (1 Pet 1:4)

And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. (1 Pet 5:4)

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Rev 22:12)

Indeed, in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ promises the earth to the righteous:

Blessed are the meek: for (ὅτι; alt."because") they shall inherit the earth (Matt 5:5)

Another text often used is that of John 14:2

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Every reference to God’s house in the Bible is to His house on the earth:

Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord. (2 Kgs 20:5)

But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. (Mic 4:1-2)

And I said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. (John 2:16)

As we see, while one should avoid the either-or fallacy (either a paradisiacal earth [as per JW and other theologies] or heaven merely), a celestial earth will be the inheritance of the saints. This is a beautiful doctrine that should be more explicated in LDS talks and discussions of the nature of the Celestial Kingdom and our eschatology and hope.

For a previous discussion of a much different understanding of eschatology (Seventh Day Adventist), see: 

Response to Douglas V. Pond on Biblical and LDS Anthropology and Eschatology

Albert E. Brown on the Importance of Churches Not Caving into (False) Popular Beliefs and Practices

One of the darkest moments in Utah and Latter-day Saint history is the practice of slavery in the Deseret area, beginning with the passing of the Act in Relation to Service (February 4, 1852) until June 19, 1862 when the US Congress prohibited slavery in all US territories.

Albert E. Bowen (1875-1953), at the time of the publication of his book, Constancy Amid Change, a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, commented on the capitulation of Christian churches on the question of slavery; while not including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it would be wise to realise that, on this issue as well as the temple/priesthood restriction, the LDS Church would fall under such condemnation (and rightly, too):

If you want an example take the case of slavery. By and large the ministry did not condemn it so long as the institution was powerful. But if slavery was wrong it was just as wrong when in the bloom of its power as it was when attacked by the forces that crushed it, and it just as much merited the condemnation of the church. There could be only one result. The church became servile, opportunistic, worldly, a faithful counterparty of the society which it served. It lost most of its own self-respect and it did not command the respect of the laity. Men drew their convictions from their own practices and habits, the prevailing usages of their times. It is as if man had lifted the ideals of contemporary life bodily out of their setting and had transferred them over to himself and made them his every day religion, the only religion which for him had any reality. He became thoroughly saturated with the materialistic spirit of the age. He was its product. The society in which he lived made its own moral standards restrained only by conventions. For him practices have dictated principles; what he does has determined what he believes. (Albert E. Bowen, Constancy Amid Change [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News Press, 1944], 51-52)

Sadly, in many quarters (e.g., here in Ireland), many members (including leaders) have capitulated on the topic of abortion and have demonstrated the same spinelessness many 19th century church members and leaders on slavery, both moral evils.

For the best discussion of the history of blacks in the Church, see:

Russell W. Stevenson, For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2013 (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2014)

Catholic Answers Still Repeating Long-Answered Arguments against Latter-day Saint Theology

As much as I like Trent Horn on many issues (e.g., his great work on pro-life issues and he is also one of the best modern Catholic apologists [see his books, Persuasive Pro-Life and The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections), as with most Catholic apologists, his arguments against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are, to put it nicely, weak, and it is sad to see that he repeats long-answered arguments (1) against "Mormonism" as well as (2) in favour of Catholicism (e.g., the bogus claim the ancient Church and modern Catholic Church believes the same things [*]) in a recent article:

'Mormon' No More?

His arguments against LDS theology (e.g., God the Father being embodied) in this article, among others, were dealt with in my review of his book, 20 Answers: Mormonism:

Answering Trent Horn on “Mormonism”

(*) An example of this would be the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. See:

Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception

Luke Rivington: Appealing to Luke 22:32 for Papal Infallibility is a "Childish Principle"

Luke, recording the words of Jesus to Peter, wrote:

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (Luke 22:32)

Many Catholic apologists appeal to this verse as evidence, not just of Petrine primacy, but the infallibility of Peter and his successors (i.e., the Papacy [e.g., Tim Staples in his 2000 debate against James White on Papal Infallibility]).

Responding to Ignaz von Döllinger, Luke Rivington, an Anglican convert to Roman Catholicism, wrote the following about this particular texts and its post-biblical application by Roman bishops:

Dr. Döllinger parodies the Church’s application of this text to the successor of St. Peter when he calls it ‘far from being a guarantee of infallibility for every single dictum on an article of ecclesiastical doctrine.’ No theologian ever laid down such a childish principle nor did the Church ever call on Dr. Döllinger to believe it. He insinuates the same absurdity when he says, ‘the exhortation that Peter should strengthen his brethren by no means involves a promise that he would really do so in every single instance.’ Our Lord promised the security arising from his own prayer; and that security need not be, and never was, stretched to include ‘every single instance,’ of whatsoever kind. (Luke Rivington, The Primitive Church and the See of Peter [London: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1894], 310 n. 1, italics in original, emphasis in bold added)

Some may retort that Rivington is refuting the naïve view that everything a pope does/says is free from error, an absurdity that Döllinger, who was very learned, would not have claimed (see his The Pope and the Council [1869]). Furthermore, it also avoids that a pope, when he exercises his authority on issues such as the form of sacraments and other issues, is free from error, even if he does not exercise the criteria explicated by Vatican I to meet an ex cathedra statement as such would fall under the category of “secondary objects of infallibility.” As John Salza and Robert Siscoe wrote:

[A]ccording to the teaching of the Church’s theologians, the Church also speaks infallibly on other matters, which fall into the category of secondary objects of infallibility. These include (a) theological conclusions (i.e., inferences deduced from two premises, one of which is immediately revealed, while the other is a truth known by natural reason), (b) dogmatic facts, (c) universal disciplines, and the (d) canonization of saints. These secondary objects of infallibility are not believed with Divine and Catholic Faith but with Ecclesiastical Faith, which is faith in the infallible Church teaching (but not in God revealing). (John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors [Winona, Minn.: St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, 2015], 379, italics in original)

An example of a papal statement fitting this is discussed by the authors:

We have an example of this in Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, which condemned contraception. Even though the teaching in the encyclical was not infallible by virtue of the Extraordinary Magisterium(since Paul VI did not issue a “definition”), nevertheless, the teaching was infallible by virtue of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and therefore requires the assent of faith. Cardinal Felici explained this following the issuance of the encyclical. From L’Osseratore Romano: “On this problem we must remember that a truth may be sure and certain, and hence it may be obligatory even without the sanction of an ex cathedra definition. So it is with the encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which the pope, the supreme pontiff of the Church, utters a truth which has been constantly taught by the Church’s Magisterium and which accords with the precepts of Revelation” (L’Osservatore Romano, October 19, 1968, p. 3, emphasis added). (Ibid., 202 n. 40)

Arthur Chris Eccel Refutes the Spalding-Rigdon Theory of Book of Mormon Origins

Arthur Chris Eccel, a former Latter-day Saint who is now an atheist and critic of the Church, wrote the following against the Spalding (alt. Spaulding) theory of Book of Mormon origins and the (lack of) credibility of the witnesses Doctor Philastus Hurlbut, collected for E. D. Howe’s 1834 book, Mormonism Unvailed:

Rumor dynamics have been studied for many decades. The classical study is the 1947 Psychology of Rumor, by Gordon Allport and Joseph Postman. They identified three processes: leaving, sharpening, and assimilation. In the first, there is a loss of detail as a result of the process of transmission facilitating the spread of the rumor. Sharpening involves the selection of the key elements to be included in its transmission. The process of assimilation refers to distortion as a result of subconscious motivations and the intrusion of extraneous information. There can be considerable competition or one-upmanship. A stereotypical example is a housewife saying to her neighbor over the clothesline, “Very interesting. But wait till I tell you what I’ve heard she did.” Those who had known Spalding were ideally situated to participate. “I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately, and suddenly, I remembered . . . “

The importance of rumor in this discussion is that it provided an important backdrop for the process of memory reconstruction. Suggesting this process is not an accusation directed at any individual. It is the way memory works for us all. In this context, it means that the process of memory reconstruction was already underway even before Hurlbut came along. To complete their qualifications for participation in the rumor mill, even those who had a claim to having had an association with Spalding should have some knowledge also of the Book of Mormon in order to say that they had noticed a similarity. At least they should have read the first ten or twenty pages. This provided the occasion for the more salient details of the BOM narrative to be subconsciously incorporated into and shape their own and faint memories. This is not simply speculation: a statement collected from John N. Miller refers to this phenomenon: “The names of Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, and in fact all the principal names are bro’t fresh to my recollection, by the Gold Bible” (Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 398).

In the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences we read:

Cognitive processes are active. When we perceive and encode events in the world, we construct (rather than copy) the outside world as we comprehend the events. If perceiving is a construction, then remembering the original experience involves a reconstruction. Reconstructive memory refers to the idea that remembering the past reflects our attempts to reconstruct the events experienced previously. These efforts are based partly on traces of past events, but also on our general knowledge, our expectations, and our assumptions about what must have happened. As such, recollections may be filled with errors, when our assumptions and inferences, rather than memories—constitute the prime evidence for reconstructive processes in remembering. Several different sources of error (inferences during encoding, information we receive about an event after its occurrence, our perspective during retrieval) exist. Contrary to popular belief, memory does not work like a video-recorder, faithfully capturing the past to be played back unerringly at a later time. Rather, even when we are accurate, we are reconstructing events from the past when we remember. (H.L. Roediger III, “Psychology of Reconstructive Memory,” International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences [Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V., 2001], 12844-12849).

Simply accessing one’s memory many years later is one thing. Doing so at the behest and under the influence of an interviewer is another. At this point memory reconstruction is influenced by the questions. This introduces the issue of the leading question. Have myself taught survey methods at the university level, I can assure that one of the most common mistakes of untrained interviewers or questionnaire designers is to ask leading questions. It is not only possible, but even probable that Hurlbut committed this fallacy, with or without conscious intent of coaching the informant. For example, instead of asking, “Do you remember any of the names in the manuscript Spalding read from?” he might very well have asked, “Now try hard. Did the name ‘Nephi’ occur or Lehi? How about ‘Laban?’” In this manner, an informant’s statement can be influenced, even coached. Usually a long discussion ensues, and then the interviewer draws up a draft statement and asks, “Is this a fair summary of what you have just told me?” We have all seen this in CSI documentaries.

Furthermore, even though John and Martha Spalding knew Solomon very well, it is his widow Matilda who actually lived with him throughout the period that he worked on his romance, and she could not remember anything about the contents.

Spalding died in 1816. He moved to Conneaut to Pittsburg in 1812. By 1833, the statements listed supra would have been made circa twenty years later. The now considerable physiological evidence regarding memory, especially over time, informs us that normally it is impossible to access a memory without altering it. The act of trying to remember and old and faint memory is itself a process of memory creation. Reading the Book of Mormon feeds details into the mid, to supplement memories.

. . .

When Names are a Double-edged Sword

The most damning aspect of the statements is their feature that Howe thought to be one of their strongest points: “most of the names” of the Book of Mormon were found in the Spalding manuscript (Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 405). In fact, we find only Lehi, Nephi, Laban, Nephites, Lamanites, Moroni and Zarahemla in the foregoing statements. Aaron Wright stated, “the names more especially are the same without any alternation” (Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 399). The specificity here, after two decades, is indicative of reconstructive memory. We are asked to believe that the Smiths and Cowdery were so stupid that in plagiarizing Spalding’s work, they did not even think to change the names of the most important protagonists. Since the Spalding-origin claim is usually argued in the form of the Spalding-Rigdon origin, we are actually asked to believe that Sidney Rigdon was so stupid as to retain the most obvious evidence of his plagiarism. (Arthur Chris Eccel, Mormon Genesis [Hilo, Hawaii: GP Touchstone, 2018], 312-14, 315-16, emphasis in original)

Concluding his chapter (pp. 304-27) examining the Rigdon-Spalding theory of Book of Mormon origins, Eccel discusses the statistical impossibility thereof:

A Multiple-Contingency Hypothesis: Beware the Weakest Link

The Spalding-Rigdon argument is a multiple-contingency hypothesis, dependent on the following contingencies:

1.     Did Solomon Spalding write not just one but two historical romances on pre-Columbian migration to America, the Oberlin manuscript featuring a party of Romans, and a second history featuring Israelites? (This might be inferred from the follow-up interviews done by Hurlbut.)

2.     Did Spalding take a manuscript to a publisher in Pittsburg, possibly Peterson & Lambdin, hoping to get it published? (Hurlbut’s statements.)

3.     If so, was the manuscript taken to Pittsburgh the Israelite one, not the Roman one? (Totally unevidenced.)

4.     Although the publisher did not undertake to publish it, did Spalding simply leave it there, rather than reclaiming it for submission elsewhere, or to keep it with his prized manuscripts out of pride of authorship? Did this manuscript languish with the publisher after Spalding’s death, even for years? If so, did it stay there until Rigdon showed up in 1822? (Totally unevidenced.)

5.     Did Sidney Rigdon gain sufficient access to the publisher’s office to rummage through the accumulated papers and discover this manuscript? The time window is very narrow, since his release from the Pittsburgh congregation was near the end of 1823, he became a journeyman tanner in 1824 and moved to Bainbridge at the end of 1825. (A late statement suggests a possibility, but his having done so is totally unevidenced. This would be nearly a decade after Spalding might have left it there.)

6.     Did Rigdon, who had never shown any interest in the claim that pre-Columbian populations are of Israelite origin, or interest to gospelize them, nevertheless take interest in this manuscript? (Totally unevidenced.)

7.     Did Rigdon get possession of the manuscript, either by theft, purchasing it or receiving it for free? (Totally unevidenced.)

8.     In spite of his difficult circumstances, dedication to Campellism and work as a tanner to support his growing family, did Rigdon get the many months free that would be required to plagiarize Spalding’s work to produce that would become the precursor to the Book of Mormon? (Totally unevidenced, and seemingly impossible.)

9.     Did Rigdon, living in Ohio, have some sort of encounter with either the Smiths or Oliver Cowdery, or both? (There is a vague report of contact with some stranger, but actually contact with Smith or Cowdery is unevidenced.)

10.  Overcoming his own pride of authorship or personal agenda, did Rigdon provide this manuscript to the Smiths, with who he could only have had the slightest acquaintanceship, but probably none at all? Was Rigdon the sort of man to just give his work away? (Totally unevidenced.)

11.  Did Smith decide to plagiarize this work? If so, in the process, were he, Cowdery or Even Rigdon not even clever enough to change the names of the principal protagonists? (Totally unevidenced.)

12.  Did Rigdon provide a replacement text for the 116 lost pages? (Totally unevidenced. This suggests a scenario where Smith or Cowdery approach Rigdon to say, “Sidney, my friend. It seems I have lost the first quarter of my work, and need a replacement text with less history and more religion. Can you help me out?”)

13.  Would Rigdon keep this secret all his life, even after leaving the LDS Church, and in his lowest and bitterest moments?

One might be tempted to treat this as a simply multiple probability problem. Just for illustration, however, let us reduce the first eleven contingences to only six, with each an independent probability of fifty-fifty (p=.5). Then the probability is .5⁶ (i.e. .5X.5X.5X.5X.5X.5), which yields .015625, or less than two chances in 100.

In fact, the Spalding-Rigdon hypothesis is more complex. It hangs from a chain of contingencies, and even if just one fails, out of at least the first eleven, the hypothesis falls entirely. To simplify matters, assume there are nine contingencies, and liken this to throwing a single die nine times. In three cases you allow a “success” to be any number but three, or 55 changes out of six, with probably (P) equal to .83 (eighty-three chances out of a hundred). In two cases, a “success” is scored with any even number (3 out of 6, or P=.5). In two cases you need to get either a three or a five (2 out of 6, or P=.33). And finally, in two cases either a one or a two or a four or a six is needed, or four chances out of six (P=.67). Just as order is essential in the eleven contingencies above, these must occur in a particular order.

Nine throws, their order and probabilities: .5|.83|.67|.83|.33|.5|.33|.83|.67

This yields only seven chances out of a thousand. Strictly speaking, the probabilities of getting any given face of a die are not mathematically analogous to the assigned probabilities of these nine events. This has been addressed by assigning them probabilities that are much higher than my own personal estimates. Even so, there are two features that are totally valid. First, the combined probability of the nine events is significantly smaller when required to occur in a fixed order. Second, the house rule for the die toss is that on any throw of the die, if the required number fails to come up, one loses the entire game. Thus, on your first role of the die you have a fifth-fifty chance for a success. If you get it, you move on to the next throw. If not, it is game over and you lose your entire stake. You can only win if you get all nine “successes.” The same is true of the nine hypothetical historical events. If just one failed to occur, the Spalding-Rigdon conclusion fails. Of course there is no game like this in Vegas. This is because no gambler would play it, even when well oiled with booze. (Ibid., 325-27)

For more refuting this theory of Book of Mormon origins, check out the various materials listed at:

Resources on the Spaulding Theory of Book of Mormon Origins

Yngve Brilioth on "Mystery" in the New Testament and the Theology of the Lord's Supper

Mystery in the New Testament

The Christian mystery has two poles or foci, which are already clearly discernible in the New Testament. We may call them the Synoptic and the Johannine types, if we see that the ideas to some extent overlap. The first is the thought of the Saviour as personally present at the eucharist; the second, the thought of the sacred elements as channels of Divine power and grace. It must be added that the line was perhaps never very sharply drawn between the presence of the Lord at other times, when the two or three are met in his name, and his sacramental presence; but it is with the latter that we are specially concerned.

We begin, then, with the thought of the presence of the Lord at the eucharistic meal. The meal at Emmaus may serve as a type to show how the primitive eucharist united with the experience of social fellowship that of the presence of the Risen Lord in the midst, the Lord who had been visibly present at the Last Supper. The elements are his body and blood; they symbolise the presence of the Crucified, and they constitute a link with his passion.

This brings us to the records of the institution. In the Synoptic accounts Mystery finds expression in the equation of the bread with his body, the wine with his blood. Even if we were to give the phrases a purely symbolic meaning—“this represents my body”—the act of consuming the symbols would lead beyond the region of symbolism to that of Mystery. As we have seen, the ideas of sacrifice and of communion-fellowship are inseperable from the action, particularly in the Markan record; in Luke and in Paul the idea of the Covenant predominates with regard to the chalice. The primary aspect, however, is that of communion with the Lord. We need not again discuss the complicated problems connected with the accounts, and it will be permissible now to sum up the element of Mystery therein contained, in the following theses:

(1) In the eucharistic meal there is the experience of the presence of the Lord and of communion with him.

(2) The presence is associated with the bread and wine, and is defined by the way in which Jesus himself used these elements at the Last Supper.

(3) Hence any physical identification of the bread and wine with the material flesh and blood of Jesus is impossible, even apart from the Jewish sentiment, which viewed the drinking of blood with abhorrence. The words, so interpreted, would be meaningless, since at the Last Supper Jesus was sitting at the table with the disciples; and the copula—est, is—which was been taken in some later controversies as proof of a corporeal identity, was certainly lacking in the original Aramaic. It is the form which the words taken when translated that has contributed to the localising of the presence in the elements.

(4) Yet since the presence is associated with the elements, the repetition of the Lord’s action in the church’s eucharist makes really present that which his action at the Supper symbolised—his self-oblation to death; and the elements thus guarantee the connection of the rite not merely with the historical Saviour, but with his finished work of redemption.

(5) Hence the act of eating and drinking must express the receiving of the wholeness of his nature, and the fruits of his redemptive work. (Yngve Brilioth, Eucharistic Faith and Practice Evangelical and Catholic [trans. A.G. Herbert; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1930, 1934], 54-56)

Examining the Claim that Mosiah 2:28 and the concept of a Heavenly Choir is Anachronistic

In an attempt to portray the Book of Mormon as reflecting anachronistic concepts and theologies (in this instance, “Euro-Christianity”), Arthur Chris Eccel wrote the following:

Join the Choirs Above in Singing the Praise of a Just God

Mosiah 2:28, that I might go down in peace, and my immortal spirit may join the choirs above in singing the praises of a just God (cf. 1 Nephi 1:8; Mormon 7:7)

Psalms 148:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens; praise him in the heights. 2. Praise ye him, all his angels; praise ye him, all his hosts. 3. Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, and ye stars of light. 4. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

Luke 2:13. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 14. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

In the Bible, an angel (less commonly angels) is sent for specific purposes: to deliver a message, to protect, to destroy, to reap men or judgment, to gather the elect, etc. In Psalms 148, they are commanded to praise God, but apparently figuratively, since they are included with inanimate objects, such as stars and waters. This is reflected in the Hebrew word for angel, mal’akh, envoy, from a Semitic root “to send.” In the New Testament, the word angelos, envy, is a translation of the Semitic.

“Choir” does not occur in the Bible, and there is no mention of a group of angels singing, a “choir” (from Greek χορος [choros], a group of dancers or singers). At some point in the development of Euro-Christianity, the image of a “choir” of angels developed. Eventually, the angels were divided into various orders called choirs (9 choirs [orders] according to some, each with its function. Even so, in popular religion, this gave rise to the image of angels floating on clouds playing the harp. Whatever the meaning in this passage in Mosiah, this praise obviously comes from post-Biblical Euro-Christianity. The phrase is found in a hymn of Charles Wesley:

2. Thy will by me on earth be done, As by the choirs above,
Who always see thee on thy throne. And glory in thy love.

Contrast this with the Spurgeon sermon “Royal Homage” (no. 1102, 1873), “Nor can we expect that untrained voices should be admitted into the choirs above.” (Arthur Chris Eccel, Mormon Genesis [Hilo, Hawaii: GP Touchstone, 2018], 195-96)

Firstly, it should be noted that Eccel is dead wrong in (oddly) arguing that angels in the Bible are inanimate objects. When the Hebrew and Greek are used for angels in the sense of supernatural agents sent by God (not in a generic sense of a human emissary), they are still persons, not inanimate objects. A classic example would be the angel Gabriel (see Daniel 8 and Luke 1).

Secondly, and more importantly, the theme of heavenly beings, not just angels but also exalted humans and prophets who have ascended into heaven, singing praises in a heavenly/angelic choir is well attested in antiquity, so the concept is not anachronistic or a novelty as a result of “Euro-Christianity.” Note the following examples:

But the sons of Abraham with their victorious mother are gathered together into the chorus (χορος) of the fathers, and have received pure and immortal souls from God. (4 Maccabees 18:23 NRSV)

And while he [the angel] was still speaking, behold the fire coming toward us round about, and a voice was in the fire like a voice of many waters, like a voice of the sea in its uproar. And the angel knelt down with me and worshiped. And I wanted to fall face down on the earth. And the place of highness on which we were standing now stopped on high now rolled down low. And he said, "Only worship, Abraham, and recite the song which I taught you." Since there was no ground to which I could fall prostrate, I only bowed down, and I recited the song which he had taught me. And he said, "Recite without ceasing." And I recited and he himself recited the song:

Eternal One, Mighty One, Holy El, God autocrat

self-originate, incorruptible, immaculate,

unbegotten, spotless, immortal,

self-perfected, self-devised,

without mother, without father, ungenerated,

exalted, fiery,

just, love of men, benevolent, compassionate, bountiful,

jealous love me, patient one, most merciful.

Eli, eternal, mighty one, holy Sabaoth,

most glorious El, El, El, El, Iaoel,

you are he my soul has loved, my protector

Eternal, fiery, shining,

light-giving, thunder-voiced, lightning-visioned, many-eyed,

receiving the petitions of those who honor you

and turning away from the petitions of those who restrain you

by the restraint of their provocations,

redeemer of those who dwell in the midst of the wicked ones,

of those who are dispersed among the just of the world,

in the corruptible age,

Showing forth the age of the just,

you make the light shin

before the morning light upon your creation

from your face

to spend the day on the earth,

and in your heavenly dwelling place

(there is) an inexhaustible light of an invincible dawning

from the light of your face.

Accept my prayer and delight in it,

and (accept) also the sacrifice which you yourself made

to yourself through me as I searched for you.

Receive me favorably,

teach me, show me, and make known to your servant

what you have promised me.

And as I was still reciting the son, the mouth of the fire which was on the firmament was rising up on high. (Apocalypse of Abraham 17:1-18:1)

After this the angel took me to heaven and I saw Abraham. So I prostrated myself before him and he received me graciously, he and all the godly ones. Then they all came together and did me honor because of my father. Then they took me by the hand and led me to the curtain before the throne of the Father. So I prostrated myself before him and worshipped him with my father and all the saints while we uttered praises and cried aloud, saying, “Most holy, most holy, most holy is the Lord Sabaoth! Heaven and earth are filled with your sanctified glory.” Then the Lord said to me from his holy height, “As to everyone who shall name his son after my beloved Isaac, my blessing shall rest upon him and be in his house forever. (Testament of Isaac, 6:1-6)

. . . They helped me and set me on that boat. Thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads of angels gave praise before me. I, myself, put on an angelic garment. I saw all of those angels praying. I, myself, prayed together with them, I knew their language, which they spoke with me. Now, moreover, my sons, this is the trial because it is necessary that the good and the evil be weighed in a balance. (The Apocalypse of Zephaniah, 8:1-5)

And he took me up into the sixth heaven, and there was none on the left, nor a throne in the middle, but all (were) of one appearance, and their praise (was) equal. And (strength) was given to me, and I also sang praises with them, and that angel also, and our praise was like theirs . . . And I saw one standing (there) whose glory surpassed that of all, and his glory was great and wonderful. And when they saw him, all the righteous whom I had seen and the angels came to him. And Adam and Abel and Seth and all the righteous approached first and worshipped him, and they all praised him with one voice, and I also was singing praises with them, and my praise was like theirs. And then all the angels approached, and worshiped, and sang praises. And he was transformed and became like an angel. And then the angel who led me said to me, “Worship this one,” and I worshiped and sang praises. And the angel said to me, “this is the Lord of all the praise which you have seen.” (Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, 8:16-17; 9:27-32)

And the angel said, "Listen, Baruch: The plain which contains in the pool and other wonders in the place where the souls of the righteous come, when they hold converse, living together in choirs (χορος). (3 Baruch 10:5)

At once Meṭaṭron, Prince of the Divine Presence, came and revived me and raised me to my feet, but still I had not strength enough to sing a hymn before the glorious throne of the glorious King, the mightiest of kings, the most splendid of potentates, until an hour had passed. But after an hour the Holy One, blessed be he, opened to me gates of šekinah, gates of peace, gates of wisdom, gates of strength, gates of might, gates of speech, gates of song, gates of sanctifying praise, gates of chant. He enlightened my eyes and my heart to utter psalm, praise, jubilation, thanksgiving, song, glory, majesty, laud, and strength. And when I opened my mouth and sang praises before the throne of glory the holy creatures below the throne of glory and above the throne responded after me, saying,
Holy, holy holy,
and,
Blessed be the glory of the Lord in his dwelling place. (3 Enoch 1:9-12)

As with so many charges of anachronism in the Book of Mormon, this is yet another one that, upon careful research and study, bites the dust.