Michael T. Griffith on Divine Justice in the Book of Mormon

While reading 3 Nephi 8-9 today, I was reminded of the following article by LDS apologist Michael T. Griffith:

Divine Justice in the Book of Mormon: A Reply to Anti-Mormon Criticisms of the Great Destruction and of the Savior's New World Ministry Recorded in 3 Nephi

It is a response to a piece by Ed Decker, "The Book of Mormon: A Testament of ANOTHER Jesus Christ?" from 1989. Griffith does a fine job at answering that the picture of Jesus in 3 Nephi 9 is not anti-biblical but completely consistent with the Old and New Testaments (notwithstanding how uneasy some are that Jesus would enact divine justice [one wonders if they have read the book of Revelation or Jesus' own discussion of Last Judgment scenes and his role therein in Mark 13 and related texts . . . ])

Joseph F. Smith vs. "Canonical Inerrancy"

Commenting on section 101 in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph F. Smith, in a sermon was recorded to have said the following:

. . . I here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "running before he was sent," and "taking liberties without license," so to speak, hence the publication, by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to those who understand the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of the early existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage by the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery. (JOD 20:29 | 7 July 1878)

In 1883, Joseph F. Smith gave an even more detailed account of his understanding of this section:

Joseph received it [a revelation on plural marriage] in 1831 but he was told by the Lord that the time was not come to reveal it, and was forbidden to publish it save it be to a few. Joseph did entrust this to a few soon after 1831.

Lyman E. Johnson, one of the Apostles received this from Joseph, we also understand that Oliver Cowdery received it from Joseph also [sic]—did not know of any others that Joseph entrusted it to. L.E. Johnson testified of this to Orson Pratt as early as 1832 or a little later, and Brother Orson Pratt has left his written testimony of the facts relating to this matter: Oliver Cowdery was not so discreet in regard to this matter but in consequence of his conduct brought reproach upon the Church in bringing upon the Church the accusation of fornication & polygamy—he wrote an article to stave off the impression that had been made which was published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants which has been left out of the New Edition because it was not one of the Revelations. (Joseph F. Smith, Statement on Oliver Cowdery and Polygamy, Provo Utah General Stake, Quarterly Stake Conference, Sunday afternoon session, 271-72 [available online here])

What is interesting about this is that it shows that at least some Latter-day Saints, including Smith, a then-future president of the Church, were not “canonical inerrantists,” that is, they did not believe that, if something was in the canon ipso facto it meant that it was inspired, and, furthermore, for Smith, there was something in the canon that should never have been there to begin with! The fact that he believed, irrespective of whether his understanding was correct, that this section was inserted into the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants “without authority” and was reflective of Oliver Cowdery subverting Joseph Smith.

While one could appeal to Joseph Smith commenting that the Song of Solomon was not inspired in his revision of the Bible as evidence of this, I think it is rather telling that a then-apostle of the Church would have a similar understanding but of modern revelation is telling, too. It does show that something being canonical does not automatically mean it is inspired, just as there are things that are inspired that are not part of our canon (e.g., the rather positive appraisal of the Apocrypha in D&C 91).

For a thorough discussion of this section in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, see Chapter 7: Oliver Cowdery’s Article on “Marriage” in  Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 1: History (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), pp. 153-82.

James White Admits 2 Timothy 3 Cannot be Used to Support Tota (and therefore, Sola) Scriptura

In a recent episode of The Dividing Line, James White (unwittingly) admitted that Sola Scriptura cannot be taught from the Bible, including 2 Tim 3:16-17. In response to Jay Dyer, a former Calvinist who was a Sedevacantist and Feenyite before embracing Eastern Orthodoxy said the following:

So when you hear that, what is the assumption that you need to identify? Well, first of all, it is not Paul's intention to be addressing the canon of scripture in writing to Timothy. He's writing to Timothy during a period of inscripturation. Was Titus written after this? Did Paul even recognise which of his books, because we know he wrote other letters, did he himself know which would be in the canon of scripture if he even was thinking of a canon of scripture? There's no way he could even be communicating with Peter or with Jude or with John or with Matthew or Mark, or Luke (well, with Luke he could). So he doesn't know what the apostles, he didn't go say [on phone] John, where are you, just working on Colossians here, alright, thanks [off phone]. That wasn't a possibility. Couldn't be done. So he's not talking about the canon of scripture. So, if you use 2 Timothy 3 to establish canon of scripture, you would be in error. And what they're doing is they're making you defend that by the way they make the statement. Now, that is what Karl Keating did, and I just saw so many Christians getting pushed into defending something, that's something what happened when Gerry [Matatics] and I debated the Papacy in Denver and Keating and Madrid debated two Fundamentalist Baptists the same night. (beginning at the 1:31:43 mark)

Why is this the end of the debate for proponents of Sola Scriptura? According to proponents of Sola Scriptura (e.g., David King; William Webster; James White himself) Tota Scriptura (“all of Scripture”) is necessary for Sola Scriptura to be operative as the final/ultimate/formally sufficient rule of faith. In other words, all of Scripture (exhausted by the 66 books of the Protestant canon in Chapter 1 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith) must be inscripturated, and there is an admission that, during times of special revelation (e.g., during the time of Christ and the authoring of the New Testament), other sources (e.g., apostolic teachings that were in oral form at the time) were en par with the authority of inscripturated revelation.

During the cross-examination period of a debate between Gerry Matatics and James White on the topic of sola scriptura, the following exchange took place, showing that White has previously admitted that, for Sola Scriptura to be operative, all of Scripture must be inscripturated:

Gerry Matatics (M): Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord?

James White (W): I have said over, and over, and over again that sola scriptura is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the Church, not to times of inscripturation.

M: So your answer is "no"?

W: That is exactly what my answer is--it is "no"

M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or no

W: No

M: Thank you; did the successors to the apostles practice sola scriptura; only believing that Timothy [in 2 Tim 3:16-17] only believed what Paul had written him?

W: Eh, what do you mean? The first generations who were alive during the time of inscripturation?

M: Titus . . .

W: Again, as you should know as a graduate of Westminster theological seminary, you are asking every question of a straw-man--it [sola scriptura] speaks of times after the inscripturation of Scripture.

M: Thank you Mr. White

W: So I am glad to affirm everything you said.

M: So, Mr. White; you admit then that Jesus didn't practice sola scriptura . . .

W: I asserted it

M: . . . His hearers do not; the apostles do not and their successors do not; and yet you want to persuade this audience that they should depart from this pattern for reasons you believe are sufficient and now adopt a different methodology . . .(From “The Great Debate II: Sola Scriptura” [1997])

In other words, the Lord Jesus and the Apostles could not have taught Sola Scriptura. Indeed, as one critic of the doctrine noted:

Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24)

2 Timothy 3 cannot if one wishes to engage in exegesis, not eisegesis, be used to support Sola Scriptura, even according to defenders of the doctrine who appeal to it to make their case(!)

For more on the evidence against this doctrine, see:

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

Brigham Young Using "Elohim" to Denote a Single Divine Person

In a sermon dated 17 November 1867, Brigham Young used Elohim (“Eloheim”) to denote a single divine person, not in the sense of “gods” (many LDS I have encountered naively think all instances of Elohim means “gods,” so this is apropos):

We have great reason to be thankful for the blessings we enjoy as individuals and as a people. There is no other people on the earth, that we have any knowledge of, who are blessed to the same extent as this people called Latter-day Saints. If we are blessed more than others, we should be more thankful than others. The blessings and bounties of the Lord upon us are bestowed according to our faithfulness and obedience to the requirements made of us. We have seen times in our history as a people, that if the hand of God had not been immediately over us, we must have perished. But to secure His blessings the Lord requires the strict obedience of His people. This is our duty. We obey the Lord, Him who is called Jehovah, the Great I AM, I am a man of war, Eloheim, etc. We are under many obligations to obey Him. How shall we know that we obey Him? There is but one method by which we can know it, and that is by the inspiration of the Spirit of the Lord witnessing unto our spirit that we are His, that we love Him, and that He loves us. It is by the spirit of revelation we know this. We have no witness to ourselves internally, without the spirit of revelation. We have no witness outwardly only by obedience to the ordinances. (JOD 12:99)

The YEC Misrepresentation of Uniformitarianism

Many who hold to a Global Flood and Young Earth (LDS and non-LDS) seem to misinterpret “Uniformitarianism.” In response to this, with respect to the Grand Canyon, two Evangelical Protestants wrote:

Misrepresenting Uniformitarianism

Flood geologists commonly demonize uniformitarianism by misrepresenting it as being synonymous with materialism or evolutionism. Ye when they seek to find scientific evidence in support of a young Earth, they actually apply uniformitarian principles! For example, some prominent flood geologists believe that the 1980 catastrophic eruption of Mount St. Helens provides clues to a rapid formation of the Grand Canyon. Specifically, the volcanic eruption delivered dozens of feet of sediment and ash in the valley below the mountain in the span of just hours. Later, an impressive gorge was carved in the very-soft ash sediment. The deposits contain layers and beddings, which flood geologists say look like rocks and cliff faces in the Grand Canyon.

This comparison of modern deposits to ancient deposits is a fully uniformitarian exercise – the present (Mount St. Helens) is the key to the past (Grand Canyon). In this case, however, as in many other examples, flood geologists are not consistent in comparing applies with apples and oranges with oranges. The formation and behavior of volcanic ash layers cannot be directly compared with the formation and behavior or sandstone or limestone. The rocks in the Grand Canyon are made of entirely different materials from ash, and the immense size of the canyon’s vertical cliffs (much larger than those found at Mount St. Helens) clearly testifies to the fact that the cliffs were already hardened to rock before they were cut by the Colorado River.

Flood geologists further depart from uniformitarian principles (and from Christian doctrines of God’s consistency and providence) when they assume that natural laws describing physical and chemical processes must have been different during the creation week, before the fall in the Garden of Eden, or at various points during Noah’s flood. Some Young Earth advocates write that the natural laws in the whole universe are a consequence of God’s “curse” or punishment for the fall. These arguments fail to be supported by either science or Scripture. In science, all observations points to a consistency in the laws of nature, back to the first microseconds of the universe. The Bible likewise sayings nothing about the fundamental laws of nature being altered after man’s sin. (Stephen Moshier and Gregg Davidson, “Using the Present to Understand the Past” in The Grand Canyon Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah’s Flood Explain the Grand Canyon [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2016], 73-79, here, pp. 73-74)

Young Earth Evolutionists?

In a book I read recently, produced by a number of Evangelical Protestants who hold to a form of Old Earth Creationism and a limited flood, offered the following about how Young Earth Creationists hold to a radical form of macroevolution, even if they do not recognise such(!)

Young Earth Evolutionists?

It may surprise readers to learn that leading Young Earth Creationists now argue that differences between organisms today and those found as fossils in flood layers can be explained by hyper-fast adaptation since the time of the flood. For example, today’s lions, tigers, cougars, pumas, ocelots, panthers, bobcats, lynx, margays, house cats, and the many extinct saber-toothed forms are said to have evolved from a single pair of specially created feline creatures (cat “kind”) that were on Noah’s Ark. Belief in evolution is disguised by calling it adaptation, but it still means new species deriving from old—though at rates far faster than suggested by any evolutionists. By flood geologist reasoning, creatures alive today, such as coral, should be expected to look different from ancestral coral species at the time of the flood. But even using the Young Earth definition of “kind,” how many examples of dinosaur kinds, flowering plant kinds, mammal kinds, or bird kinds are found in Grant Canyon layers? The answer is still zero. (Ralph Stearley, “Fossils of the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase” in The Grand Canyon Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah’s Flood Explain the Grand Canyon [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2016], 131-43, here, p. 136)

Such reminds me of the following cartoon from Saturday Morning Breakfast Club:

Abraham H. Cannon's Diary Entry for July 10, 1890 and Allowances for Post-Manifesto Polygamy in Mexico

In a diary entry for July 10, 1890, Abraham H. Cannon wrote:

The resolution of the First Presidency of June 30/90 in regard to plural marriages was read. It is to the effect that none shall be permitted to occur even in Mexico unless the contracting parties, or at least the female, has resolved to remain in that country. (Candid Insights of a Mormon Apostle: The Diaries of Abraham H. Cannon, 1889–1895, ed. Edward Leo Lyman [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2010], 104)

So, even before the Manifesto (Official Declaration 1 in the Pearl of Great Price) allowed for post-Manifesto polygamy in Mexico, albeit, under certain conditions.