Some 19th century Latter-day Saints on Seeing God Face-to-Face

  

George Q. Cannon:

 

[Upper Room of the Salt Lake Temple, April 20, 1893]

 . . . Prest. Cannon spoke very feelingly—was too full of utterance and had to wait to collect himself. Bore testimony to the fact that God and his son Jesus do live. He has seen and conversed with Jesus [as] a man with another. (Erastus Beaman Snow Journal, LDS Church Archives, Ms f 134 # 1)

 

. . . Prest. Geo. Q. Cannon: I have seen the Savior Jesus Christ and conversed with him face to face and he has talked with me. (L. John Nuttall journal, April 20, 1893) (The King Follett Discourse: Being a Reconstruction of the Text and Meaning of the April 7, 1844 Sermon by Joseph Smith, Jr. First Prophet Seer, Revelator, and Translator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and The Sermon in the Grove June 16, 1844 [The Frithurex Press, 2017], 151)

 

Editorial in the Millennial Star (May 1853)

 

You cannot know God without present revelation. Did you ever think of this most solemn and essential truth, before? You may have been accustomed to pray, all your life time, and as yet you, even you, do not know God. You may have heard many thousand sermons, with a sincere desire both to remember and practise them, and yet you do not know God. But it has been decided in the court of heaven, that no man can know the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son revealeth him. Now, has Jesus Christ ever revealed God the Father to you, dear reader? Be honest with yourself, and do not err in your answer to this most important question. However much the Son ay have revealed the Father to Prophets, Patriarchs, and Apostles of old, the question still remains in full force—has he revealed Him to you? A revelation to another man is by no means a revelation to you. For instance, God revealed himself to Samuel, and called him by name to be a Prophet. But the call to Samuel is by no means a call to you to be a Prophet. God called Abraham to kill Isaac, but that is no revelation to you to kill your son. God revealed the baptism of repentance unto John the Baptist, before Christ’s death, but that is not a revelation to you. He revealed authority to Paul to preach to the Gentiles, but what was told to Paul is not told to you, nor is it required of you. Again, you need the righteousness of God, to go where (led is, and be happy-and how will you get it except it is revealed to your personally? You cannot get it in any other way. Hence the Lord says, “The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith.” Don’t say now, as some do, that revelation was anciently given in order to establish the truth, and being once established it is no longer necessary to be revealed to subsequent generations of people. Don’t say this for your life, for revelation is just as necessary to establish truth now as it was then. You need the ministry of angels now, just as much as people did then. (Editorial, "The Coming Crisis--How to Meet it," Millennial Star volume 15 no. 19 [7 May 1853]:289)

 

Response to a Pro-GLBTQ+ Meme

 Colby Townsend (someone who larps as a biblical scholar as well as a sincere person) responded to a meme on homosexuality and the language of "abomination" as follows which was shared with me:

For those who want an interaction with such revisionism vis-a-vis the bible and homosexuality and related topics, see the following from an actual expert:

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

Gagnon has a number of useful videos on this issue, such as:

The Bible and Homosexuality: Interpreting the Scriptures | Dr. Robert Gagnon

The following debate with another bleeding heart liberal like Townsend is also enlightening:

Homosexuality and the Church Debate: Dr. Robert Gagnon vs. Dr. Daniel Kirk

My interactions with Colby (fortunately) have been limited. He is an uber regressive leftist. Note the following from the Millennial Mormons facebook page where Colby reveals himself to be a nut who thinks there are multiple genders:

To understand the absurdity of non-binary pronouns and other things, see the Non Sequitur show's episode on this topic:

What are Non-Binary Pronouns?

Why is this so serious? To quote from Gagnon on 1 Cor 6:9-11, a text Colby and his ilk disdain:

 

Paul was clearly concerned that believers might return to former patterns of sinful practices, including same-sex intercourse, practices that could lead to loss of salvation. In Rom 6:19, he writes “just as you (formerly) presented members as slaves to uncleanness and to lawlessness for the purpose of (living in) lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for the purpose of (living in) holiness.” The reference to “uncleanness” identified with “sin” in 6:16-18, 20, 22-23 and shameful practices in 6:21 and leading to “death” according to 6:16, 21, 23, is a clear allusion to the range of sinful behaviors enumerated in 1:24-31, particularly the description of same-sex intercourse in 1:24-27. The entire discussion of 6:1-8:17, including the section of the argument in 6:15-23, is aimed at establishing that gentile believers who return to the pattern of sinful activity that characterized their former pre-Christian existence will not inherit eternal life (8:12-13). There would be no point to the discussion unless there was a realistic possibility in Paul’s mind that gentile Christian could once more succumb to and come under the sway of the same sinful impulse operating in the “flesh” in manifold forms. (Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001], 288; emphasis added)

 

Jay Dyer on the Eastern Orthodox Understanding of the Doctrine of "Theosis"

 Eastern Orthodox apologist (and slayer of Erick Ybarra on the Papacy) Jay Dyer was interviewed on the Gospel Simplicity page discussing the Eastern Orthodox understanding of theosis. It was rather informative:

An Introduction to Theosis (w/ Jay Dyer)

Franklin D. Richards: The Three Nephites are Not on Earth 24/7

 

This view of the subject brings me to think and to speak a word in reference to the three Nephites. They wanted to tarry until Jesus came, and that they might He took them into the heavens and endowed them with the power of translation, probably in one of Enoch's temples, and brought them back to the earth. Thus they received power to live until the coming of the Son of Man. I believe He took them to Enoch's city and gave them their endowments there. I expect that in the city of Enoch there are temples; and when Enoch and his people come back, they will come back with their city, their temples, blessings and powers. The north country will yield up its multitude, with the Apostle John, who is looking after them. They also will come to Zion and receive their crowns at the hands of their brethren of Ephraim. There will also be nations here on the earth that have not received the Gospel, but who will receive it, and thus the work of God will go on in all its phases, for the living and for the dead. (JOD 25:236-37 | May 17, 1884)

 

Thomas Ward, "On the Correction of Errors in the Priesthood" (1842): Holding the Priesthood/Being a Church Leader Does Not Result in their Infallibility or Impeccability

 

 

We feel it necessary at this time to give a few hints on the subject of the correction of errors in the priesthood, as we find in different districts that much evil has arisen from a want of knowledge of this subject. Let it not be supposed for a moment that an officer in the church of Christ, one who has received the power and authority of the holy priesthood, is incapable of getting into error, or that he, in the exercise of his office, becomes infallible. Neither let it be supposed that an officer of whatever order, committing error, either in his public walk or in his ministerial duties, is to do so with impunity. What is it then? We will endeavour to state the subject clearly to our readers.

 

On the 65th and 66th pages of the Book of Mormon we read thus,--"Adam fell, that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, to redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall, they have become free for ever, knowing good from evil." Let it then be clearly understood that the human mind, by coming into contact with the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ, by becoming subject to the laws of the kingdom of God, does not thereby give up that freedom which God has given to it, and become trammelled and bound by the worst of all slaveries, the subjugation of the soul. God forbid! But on the contrary, that freedom of thought, that free agency of man, of which we are all in possession, can be fully exercised and is perfectly compatible with the acknowledgement of the authorities of the church of God, and with a perfect obedience to all the requisitions of his ministers when enforced in accordance with his will.

 

And while it is perfectly correct that no member, for instance, has a right to rebuke an elder, or to teach, or sit in judgment upon him, yet if such elder or other officer be guilty of preaching false doctrine, or even of preaching truth with a wrong spirit, and imprudently, so as to do mischief, and cause individuals to stumble,--if that officer will not listen to the entreaties of his brother or brethren, they have a perfect right to bring the subject before the council, or before those authorities of the church that have power to examine and to try the case, and also to sit in judgment upon the individual accused. Of course if a false accusation be made, those who make it must bear the consequences and the chastisement due to falsehood under all circumstances; but let it be clearly understood that the most obscure member of the Church has a perfectly legal right to appeal against erroneous teaching or conduct on the part of any officer of whatever rank in the priesthood, in order that the authorities that have the power may sit in judgment upon him, and that the evil may be put away.

 

At the same time that we make these remarks, we would caution the saints generally against the cultivation of a critical spirit upon the teachings and preachings of the priesthood, and would exhort them to uphold them by prayer unto the Lord God that they may be endowed with the spirit of wisdom and knowledge in the things of the kingdom of God; and let this be borne in mind at all times, and let them not be forgetful that though an individual have much talent or ability, it is as necessary for us to lift up our hearts on his behalf as well as for the weakest brother in the priesthood.

 

And let those who are called into the ministry of the Church of Christ magnify their office, and be not forgetful of the mission they have to fulfil, which is, not to revel with delight in the absurdities and abominations of the religions of men, but to proclaim the gospel in its fulness and in its original and beautiful simplicity, with the addition that the hour of God's judgments is at hand. There are also many great subjects connected with the work of God in the last days, which should occupy the minds of his servants, and of which they should bear testimony only as they arrive at the knowledge of them.

 

Every one will be aware that we are surrounded by multitudes, who both from bigotry and education, and their customary associations in life, are much prejudiced against the truth. How foolish, then, it must be when such come to hear the gospel to find the absurdities of their own systems principally dwelt upon, and instead of meeting with the attractions of the cross, they meet with abundant amplifications on the errors of their own creeds. May the Lord grant both unto the priesthood and the people of God the spirit of supplication, that they may be endowed with understanding in all things connected with his kingdom for Christ's sake. Amen. (Thomas Ward, "On the Correction of Errors in the Priesthood," Millennial Star volume 2 no 10 [February 1842]:157-58)

 

Eva Rydelnik on the Weaknesses of the Non-Messianic Interpretations of Proverbs 30:4

 

The second question (“what is the name of His Son?”) is a more challenging inquiry. It is linked with the first name request, and “since ‘God’ is the only possible answer to that question, it is striking that the text speaks of his ‘son.’” (D. A. Garrett, “Proverbs” in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1993) 237.) Although this question is frequently glossed over by commentators, it is essential to understanding the passage. The answer lies at the heart of solving the riddle: What is the name of His Son in this passage? Several identities have been suggested as the answer to this puzzling question. (C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, “Proverbs” in Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 279.)

 

First, perhaps the weakest possibility is that it refers to Agur’s sons, Ithiel and Ucal. This is based on the lexical presupposition that in Proverbs “son” refers to the son being taught by his father (Prv 1:8; 2:1; 3:1; 5:1; 6:20). There are two problems with this view. First, although Agur identifies Ithiel and Ucal, they are not identified as his sons. Furthermore, the question of the son’s identity is not linked to Agur, but to the Lord, the One who is described in the four “Who?” questions.

 

Second, the people of Israel have been suggested as the name of the son. This links the name of the son with that of the Lord, as Israel is related to Him. At the time of the exodus, Israel is called God’s firstborn son (Ex 4:22). Israel is often called the son of God throughout the OT (e.g., Dt 14:1; 32:5-6, 19; Isa 43:6; 45:11; Jer 3:19). The problem with seeing the people of Israel as the answer to the riddle of the name of the Son is that the people of Israel are a group, whereas the question of the name of the Son seems to be demanding an individual person. Jewish interpreters wrestled with this verse by understanding the noun as plural, rather than singular, identifying son as “the children of Israel” or “the name of his sons.” This is the LXX translation, as well as Midrash Yalkut Shimoni, (Visotzky, Midrash on Proverbs, 118.) but does not seem true to the question of the name of the son as an individual.

 

Third, the son has been identified as the demiurge, based on the description of God in Prv 30:4. Understood thus, the son is not God, but is somehow involved in the creation, having been created by God. A similar idea is to identify the son as the LXX concept of logos (Ps 33:6) but not fully God. (NET Bible 30:4. fn 2, 1144.)

 

Fourth, it has been suggested that this individual is an ideal son. He is a son who gains wisdom from his father who teaches him the Scriptures as the source of divine knowledge and understanding. This is a good general description of any individual who has a right relationship with the Lord and applies the Word of God to his (or her) life, as Prv 9:10-11 teaches; however, it seems to fall far short of the urgent question regarding the name of the son. (Eva Rydelnik, “Proverbs 30:4: The Riddle of the Son,” in Michael Rydelnik and Edwin eds., The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament [Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2019], 752-53)

  

Pre-Millennialism and the Vision of Daniel 2

 

 

It is significant that all of the kingdoms comprising the different body parts of the statue surveyed thus far (Babylon, Persia, Greece, historical Rome, Rome Phase II) are all literal kingdoms that existed for a literal time, occupied specific lands with identifiable borders, and had a capital city. This demands the question, why would not the last kingdom, represented by the stone cut without human hands, also not be a literal kingdom that will reign for a literal time (Rev 20:1-10), that will occupy a specific land with identifiable borders (Gn 15:18-21), and have a capital (Isa 2:2-3)? Such a presentation represents a premillennial view of history. The expression “millennium” simply means a thousand years. Premillennialism is the belief that the thousand-year kingdom will not come into existence until Jesus comes back first (or “pre”) and then sets up His earthly kingdom (cf. Rev 20:4-6).

 

However, the premillennial view is not the majority view of church history. The majority view instead is amillennialism, which argues that Jesus set up His kingdom spiritually in the first century. However, to arrive at this conclusion one must interpret everything in the statue literally except the smiting stone and then interpret it non-literally. Such interpretive vacillation is tantamount to switching hermeneutical horses in midstream. A consistent interpretation of the statue demands premillennialism. Dwight Pentecost explains why the presentation of the smiting stone found in Dan 2 is inconsistent with the belief that Christ established His kingdom at His first advent:

 

Amillennialists hold that this kingdom was established by Christ at His First Advent and that now the church is that kingdom. They argue that: (a) Christianity, like the growing mountain, began to grow and spread geographically and is still doing so; (b) Christ came in the days of the Roman Empire; (c) the Roman Empire fell into the hands of 10 kingdoms (10 toes); (d) Christ is the chief Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). Premillenarians, however, hold that the kingdom to be established by Christ on earth is yet future. At least six points favor that view: (1) The stone will become a mountain suddenly, not gradually. Christianity did not suddenly fill “the whole earth” (Dan. 2:35) at Christ’s First Advent. (2) Though Christ came in the days of the Roman Empire, He did not destroy it. (3) During Christ’s time on earth the Roman Empire did not have 10 kings at once. Yet Nebuchadnezzar’s statue suggests that when Christ comes to establish His kingdom, 10 rulers will be in existence and will be destroyed by Him. (4) Though Christ is now the chief Cornerstone to the church (Eph. 2:20) and “a stone that causes [unbelievers] to stumble” (1 Peter 2:8), He is not yet a smiting Stone as He will be when He comes again. (5) The Stone (Messiah) will crush and end all the kingdoms of the world. But the church has not and will not conquer the world’s kingdoms. (6) The church is not a kingdom with a political realm, but the future Millennium will be. Thus Nebuchadnezzar’s dream clearly teaches premillennialism, that Christ will return to earth to establish His rule on the earth, thereby subduing all nations. The church is not that kingdom. (J. Dwight Pentecost, “Daniel,” in Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Colorado Springs, CO: Victor, 1985), 1336) (Andrew M. Woods, “Daniel 2:29-45: The Times of the Gentiles and the Messianic Kingdom,” in Michael Rydelnik and Edwin eds., The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament [Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2019], 1123-24)