Joseph Fielding Smith on the issue of a Faithful and Faithless Spouse and the Hereafter

Addressing the question of whether a faithful spouse will be impeded in the hereafter by a faithless (or at least less faithful) spouse, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

If a man and his wife are saved in separate kingdoms, for instance, the celestial and terrestrial, automatically the sealing is broken; it is broken because of the sins of one of the parties. No one can be deprived of exaltation who remains faithful. In other words, an undeserving husband cannot prevent a faithful wife from an exaltation and vice versa. (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Celestial Marriage” in Blaine R. Porter, ed. The Latter-day Saint Family: A Book of Selected Reading [Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Printing Service, 1966], 208-23, here, p. 214, emphasis added)

Does LDS Theology Deny the "Way" being "Narrow"?

Many accuse Latter-day Saint theology of rejecting Jesus’ teachings of the narrowness of the way (Matt 7:14). Notwithstanding, in LDS theology, exaltation, while open to all, many commentators have noted that the way thereto is indeed narrow. As Melvin J. Ballard wrote:

The Mormon doctrine that we have just been declaring, that “as man is, God once was,” has its complement that, goes with it in that other very marvelous declaration that “as God is, man may become.” Do not let us misinterpret it, with the thought that man will become—for very few men ever will become what God is; and yet all men may become what he is. But they shall only become what he is by paying the price, by earning that right to enjoy that high privilege. (Melvin J. Ballard, “The Path to Celestial Happiness” in The Latter-day Saint Family: A Book of Selected Reading, ed. Blaine R. Porter [Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Printing Service, 1966], 187, emphasis added)

Raymond Moloney on the Knowledge of Jesus in the Early Patristic Period

Catholic New Testament scholar, Raymond Moloney, wrote the following about the earliest approaches to the knowledge of Jesus and explanations for Jesus’ ignorance of things in the Gospels, especially not knowing when the Second Coming would take place (Mk 13:32):

The First Patristic Period: 2ND and 3RD Centuries

In this, the first of the four patristic periods, Gnosticism and docetism are the enemies of the hour, with their threat to the doctrine of Christ’s full humanity. For this reason, writers like Irenaeus will appeal to texts like Mk 13:32 to underline the limitations of Christ’s knowledge and so the reality of his humanity.

But inflated beyond reason [with your own wisdom], you presumptuously maintain that you are acquainted with the unspeakable mysteries of God; while even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment, when he plainly declares, ‘But of that day and hour knows no man, neither the Son, but the Father only,’ If then, the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only, but declared what was true regarding the matter, neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions which may occur to us. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, II, 28, 6)

Origen, on the other hand, provides a salutary warning against concluding too much from the fact that Christ asks questions, as in Mk 5:30-31. After all, in the Old Testament, even the Almighty can ask questions: ‘Adam, where are you?’ (Gen 3:9. See also Gen 4:9. Thus Origen, In Mattaeum commentarii 10.14 [PG 13:865]) At the same time, Origen seems to accept the evidence of Mt 24:36 (Mk 13:32) as to real ignorance in Christ.

About that day and hour, no one knows neither the angels of heaven nor the Son only the Father (Mt 24:36). According to this passage the Saviour includes himself among those who are ignorant of that day and hour. In the saying, ‘No one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’ (Mt 11:27), he tells us that he knows the Father. Rightly might one ask how he who knows the Father does not know the day and hour of the end, and why the Father should conceal this from the Son. There must definitely be some reason why the time of the end is hidden from the Saviour and he is left in ignorance about it. Someone will go so far as to say that the man who is Saviour is understood to grow in wisdom, age and grace before God and human beings. H who developed so as to surpass all in knowledge and wisdom, but not so that perfection (of knowledge) should come to him before he has completed his life-work ([Greek: oikonomia; Latin: dispensation]. There is nothing extraordinary if this is the only thing out of all possible items which he did not know, namely the day and hour of the end. It is also possible that when he said he knew not the day nor the hour of the end, he said it before completing his life-work, but that after completing it he said no such thing – after God had exalted him and given him the name which is above all names. For afterwards the Son knew, receiving knowledge from the Father even about the day and hour of the end, so that not only the Father should know about it but the Son also. (Origen, In Matthaeum commentarii, ser. 55 [PG 123:1686])

In this period we notice that the approach of these writers, when compared with later on, is uncomplicated. Knowledge, or the lack of it, is attributed directly to the one subject, Jesus, without distinction of natures. (Raymond Moloney, “Patristic Approaches to Christ’s Knowledge, Part 1” Milltown Studies no. 37, Spring 1996, 65-81, *here, pp. 67-68, emphasis in bold added)

What Is The Book of Mormon? | Now You Know

The Church's Youtube page has posted a good, short video introducing the Book of Mormon:

What Is The Book of Mormon? | Now You Know

The text makes reference to Jesus' mention of his having "other sheep" in John 10:16 and how, in part, that refers to the Book of Mormon peoples. For a defence of this reading, see:

The "other sheep" of John 10:16: A Critique of the "Gentile" Interpretation

Did Joseph Smith Prophesy Falsely About Not Being Able to Be Killed By His Enemies?

In an interesting essay discussing Joseph Smith’s prophecies of his then-future martyrdom, Richard Lloyd Anderson responds thusly to an argument that Joseph Smith prophesied (falsely) the opposite from various letters from Sarah Scott:

[These] letters reflect a deep family tragedy, one which dramatists could take out of the letters to make a Mormon play of considerable stature. Two married sisters were converted in New England and came to Nauvoo. Martha was Israel Barlow’s wife, and the younger sister Sarah married Isaac Scott. Sarah first writes of their primitive conditions, but she is positive about loving to hear Joseph Smith preach. Then her letters become bitter as she believers the dissenters, so she is highly sceptical of the Prophet by the time of his murder. She accuses Joseph of being a false prophet and about the martyrdom in these words:

The Church believed that he would be acquitted as he had been on former occasions, and Joseph prophesied in the last Neighbor that was published before his death that they would come off victorious over them all, as sure as there was a God in Israel. Joseph also prophesied on the stand a year ago last conference that he could not be killed within five years from that time—that they could not kill him till the Temple would be completed, for that he had received an unconditional promise from the Almighty concerning his days, and he set earth and hell at defiance. And then said, putting his hand on his head, they never could kill this child. But now that he is killed some of the Church say that he said: unless he gave himself up. My husband was there at the time and says there was no conditions whatever, and many others testify to the same thing. (Sarah Scott to Abigail and Calvin Hall, July 22, 1844, Nauvoo, Ill., cit. George F. Partridge, The Death of a Mormon Dictator, New England Quarterly 9:597 [1936])

Fortunately, we can go behind this opinion and check the accuracy of Sarah’s sources of information. The first thing to find is the issue of the Nauvoo Neighbor referred to. Joseph is defiant because he is actually warning the non-Mormon marauders not to re-enact a repetition of the Far West siege, circling and isolating the city. The Expositor had been destroyed, and the Prophet is saying that if people will stay away, the courts can settle the conflict. Then as the mayor of the city, responsible for public order and safety, he issues a solemn warning:

I, therefore, in behalf of the Municipal Court of Nauvoo, warn the lawless not to precipitate in any interference in our affairs. For as sure as there is a God in Israel, we will ride triumphant over all oppression. (Joseph Smith, Mayor, “Proclamation,” June 16, 1844, Nauvoo Neighbor, June 19, 1844)

This quotation is clearly that mentioned by Sarah Scott: the prophecy of victory “as sure as there was a God in Israel.” But what direct bearing does it have on Joseph’s expectation of living or dying? He simply promises that God will not allow Nauvoo to be victimized by “oppression,” and his personal initiative to go to Carthage was designed to further such a result. His personal fate is not at issue in this warning. The people to triumph over oppression are not Joseph and Hyrum in this printed statement, but the people of Nauvoo.

Sarah Scott next alleges that Joseph preached “a year ago last conference that he could not be killed within five years from that time—that they could not kill him till the temple would be completed.” Her time of “five years” and the promise to live to achieve the temple program are found in other remarks of the Prophet, but her claim that Joseph spoke of five years from 1843 is not supported in the sources. We have three key Nauvoo journals close to the Prophet, easy to remember because the first names all begin with “W”: Willard Richards, William Clayton, and Wilford Woodruff. The five-year statement is not found in any of these. The closest thing to it comes later than Sarah claimed, a February, 1844 private prophecy of Joseph Smith that perhaps filtered to Sarah Scott by hearsay. Wilford Woodruff records being with the Prophet on a Sunday evening and reports:

President Joseph Smith prophesied that within five years we should be rid of our old enemies, whether they were apostates or of the world, and wished us to record it that when it comes to pass we need not say we had forgotten the saying. (Wilford Woodruff, Journal, Feb. 25, 1844)

Five years from 1844 means that the Saints were safely in Salt Lake Valley, which not only fulfilled the prophecy but no doubt is what the Prophet had in mind, since the western exodus was in the intensive planning stage then, according to these Nauvoo journals. However, the prophecy very significantly does not include the Prophet personally as alive and rid of his enemies. Sarah Scott was steeped in the false accusations of the William Law faction, which could have taken the above statement and twisted it for their purposes in discrediting the Prophet. A more remote possibility is the recollection of Lucy Smith that Joseph said in Kirtland that he had a promise of life for five years, but we are concentrating on things written down at the time. (Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Prophecies of Martyrdom” in Sidney B. Sperry Symposium: A Sesquicentennial Look at Church History [Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1980], 1-14, here, pp. 2-4)

For more on Joseph Smith's prophecies, see:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Baptismal Regeneration in D&C 55:1

D&C 55:1 reads as follows:

Behold, thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant William, yea, even the Lord of the whole earth, thou art called and chosen; and after thou hast been baptized by water, which if you do with an eye single to my glory, you shall have a remission of your sins and a reception of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands

Here we see that it is water baptism that brings about a forgiveness of one's past and then-present sins in Latter-day Saint Scripture (as well as the theology of Joseph Smith). This goes against those who, isolating one comment by Joseph Smith, has made a (doctrinal) mountain out of a (non-existent) molehill about remission of sins not being effectuated until confirmation.

For articles defending baptismal regeneration from the Bible, see, for e.g.:

Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7

Jerome D. Quinn on Titus 3:5 and Baptismal Regeneration

Chad Pierce on the Salvific Efficacy of Water Baptism

Acts 10:47, Cornelius, and Baptismal Regeneration (cf. Does Cornelius Help Refute Baptismal Regeneration? and. Was Cornelius Converted Before Acts 10?)

Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians

Paul S. Williamson on Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians

Andrew Lincoln on Paul's Theology of Water Baptism in Ephesians 5:26

J. Paul Sampley on Baptismal Regeneration and Ephesians 5:25-27

Is there really no reference to Jesus' Suffering in Gethsemane in the Book of Mormon?

A friend of mine shared with me the following from self-professed “Mormon Studies Scholar” Fred Anson:

The reality is that Jesus’ suffering in Gethsemane is mentioned in the Book of Mormon. In King Benjamin’s Speech, speaking of the then-future sacrifice of Christ, we read:

And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people. (Mosiah 3:7; cf. Luke 22:43-44; D&C 19:18)

More scholarly research from one of the contributors of the Beggars Bread blog, one that reveals he has never read the Book of Mormon and/or is dissembling when he pretends this is a "vexing question" he has. Even for Fred, this is embarrassing, and that says a lot.

If Fred and others wish to know how to mount a cogent critique of opposing theologies (one that shows one had read the relevant texts from the other side--intellectual integrity and all that), here are two examples aimed at his flavour of Protestantism:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura