D&C 107:45 and the nature of the JST

In D&C 107:45, we read of the following event in the life of Adam:

God called upon Cainan in the wilderness in the fortieth year of his age; and he met Adam in journeying to the place Shedolamak. He was eighty-seven years old when he received his ordination.

This verse stood out to me as, not only is this narrative in the life of Adam not in the Bible, but it also is missing in the JST, showing that one should not view the JST as being exhaustive or that it is completed and the “be all and end of” for Latter-day Saints with respect to biblical studies, and one cannot go beyond the insights within the JST (an errant attitude one has encountered many times in the Church, alas).

While discussing “Shedolamak,” Hoyt Brewster wrote the following:

The only mention of a place called Shedolamak is in a revelation on priesthood, given in March 1835 (D&C 107:45). Adam is reported to have been traveling to this place when he was met by his great-grandson, Cainan, upon whom he conferred the priesthood. Adam was at that point in his 412th year, for Cainan was ordained at age 87. No authoritative description of Shedolamak has been revealed. (Hoyt W. Brewster, Doctrine and Covenants Encyclopedia, S.V. "Shedolamak")

“Be One” 40th Anniversary Celebration

Recently, to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the revelation that resulted in the Priesthood (and Temple) restriction, the Church held the "Be One" celebration:

"Be One" 40th Anniversary Celebration

Notwithstanding there being no official apology from the Church for the obvious racist origins of the restrictions, it was a good celebration (also, the idea of a black man portraying Joseph Smith? Awesome!)

For a book-length discussion of the history of blacks within "Mormonism," 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)

Be sure to also check out the Gospel Topics essay, Race and the Priesthood

Carey A. Moore on David Noel Freedman's Comments about the Council of Jamnia

Carey A. Moore, author of the Anchor Bible Commentary on Judith (one of the books of the Apocrypha/Deutero-Canon) shared the following private correspondence she had with David Noel Freedman on the Council of Jamnia:

Freedman’s words in private correspondence with me are very apropos: “What do we really know about the Council of Jamnia? Everybody quotes everybody else about this famous or infamous Council, but what are the ancient sources, and what are reasonable inferences about its activity? Personally, I think it was a non-event, and not much happened, unlike the Council of Nicaea, for example. It would be refreshing if someone cited actually ancient sources for this Council and its work.” (Carey A. Moore, “Why Wasn’t the Book Judith Included in the Hebrew Bible?” in John C. VanderKam, ed. “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith [Early Judaism and its Literature 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992], 61-71, here, p. 68 n. 14

Dave Bartosiewicz on the Evils of Abortion and the Recent Irish Referendum

It is no secret that I strongly disagree with Dave Bartosiewicz on theology. Notwithstanding, I agree 100% with his condemnation of my country (Ireland) with last week's referendum result where 2/3 of the electorate voted in favour of legalising the killing of unborn children:

Ireland voted 'YES, The UNSPOKEN SAYS "NO", Don't ABORT ME!

I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and Dave is correct--abortion is an intrinsic evil and last week's "yes" vote resulting in the repeal of the 8th amendment of the Irish Constitution will result in the destruction of innocent human life. What is sadder is that the LDS Church in Ireland was so silent (except for at least one rascally counselor on a branch presidency in the south-west of the nation who called local church leadership "spineless" due to their failures to speak out against abortion . . .), including a stake president whose entire family voted "yes" (I have been labelled a "misogynist" by many members in the Dublin area). Such nonsense is why I wrote a recent article:

Thoughts on Sustaining, Opposing, and Recognising and Resisting Errant Church Leaders

Please pray for Ireland, that the sanctity of the life of the unborn will be restored somehow; pray for the Church here in Ireland and that pro-abortion members of the Church will be moved to repentance alongside the rest of the Irish population.

Catholic Response to my Work on the Immaculate Conception: Roman Catholic Sola Ecclesia!

On Lizzie Reezay's youtube video, What I LOVE and HATE about Mormonism! (From a Catholic), I made a few comments about some of the errors she made in this video and made her aware of other articles I have written against her (unintentional, I am sure) abuse of sources and misunderstanding of Catholic theology:

Adolf Von Harnack vs. the Monarchial Episcopacy in Rome

Answering a Catholic Apologist on the Veneration of Images

After providing some evidence that early Christians such as Irenaeus accused Mary of personal sin, one Catholic commentator, Raphael Kohen, wrote the following, which exemplifies a common attitude among some of the more errant Catholic apologists--"Rome has spoken, the thinking has been done!":

It should be noted that in my essay refuting Tim Staples on the Immaculate Conception and Patristic Mariology, one quoted Roman Catholic sources (e.g., Luigi Gambero; Peter Fehlner; Ludwig Ott). Furthermore, according to Rome herself, the Immaculate Conception is a doctrine that has been taught throughout all of Christian history, something Pius IX explicitly stated in Ineffabilis Deus:

[T]his doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine.

This is a lie, and I will happily debate any Catholic apologist on this dogma (the Immaculate Conception) in a public setting.

Finally, it should be noted that this commentators attitude is "Don't blind me with facts, the Church has authoritatively spoken!" While I know many well-informed Catholics who are not like that (do not want to seem like I think some of the better Catholic apologists [e.g., Trent Horn; Robert Sungenis--both of whom, to their credit, keep up with the critical works against Catholicism and interact with such] are like this are, well, cultic.

For those with intellectual integrity and honesty (which, sadly, this Catholic commentator does not have), see my book-length treatment of Mariology:

Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology

God and the Heart of Pharaoh

Often, when one debates the Reformed vs. non-Reformed interpretation of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, what is often overlooked is that both sides are half-correct. Yes, the non-Reformed reading is correct, up to a point--Pharaoh, of his own will, hardened his heart. Notwithstanding, the Calvinists are correct in arguing that God also hardened Pharaoh's heart. However, the full picture is that upon Pharaoh hardening his heart, God further hardened his heart to increase his just condemnation in the age to come (cf. Alma 14:11). That this is the proper interpretation of Pharaoh and the hardening of his heart can be seen in D&C 105:27:

And I will soften the hearts of the people, as I did the heart of Pharaoh, from time to time, until my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and mine elders, whom I have appointed, shall have time to gather up the strength of my house.

While the focus is on the softening of Pharaoh's heart, no Latter-day Saint would argue that the people God promised to interact with could reject God's calling of them--there would still be a synergy between God and those whose hearts they are softening or hardening.

For a discussion of the flaws in Reformed theology, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Jared Cook, Prophetic Fallibility, Institutional Revelation, and Institutional Salvation

While I find a number of this posts to be pretty lame (especially his articles on the Christology of the Book of Mormon [see here and here]), Jared Cook has a good discussion of prophetic infallibility and related topics on the By Common Consent blog:

Prophetic Fallibility, Institutional Revelation, and Institutional Salvation

Speaking of the claim that the leaders of the Church will not lead members astray, Cook cogently notes that this does not mean leaders will never make mistakes (even on doctrinal issues) but that the Church will never fall into a Great Apostasy:

In other words, I read the teaching that the church will never be led astray not as a promise that the church will never be wrong at all, but as a restatement of the idea that some the church may get things wrong, it will not fall into a total apostasy and lose the restored priesthood. This is sort of like the institutional analogue to the idea of perseverance–the idea that an individual person is assured of salvation while still in life.