A lot of times our FAIR wiki writers are being purposefully brief by featuring the simplest explanation. There is a hope that those who need more nuance and more possibilities explored will take advantage of the additional resources we point to. I like it when those struggling with an intellectual problem think independently about it. When they find their own solution to a criticism that works for them, I encourage them to stick with what works. Sometimes I will speak up if I see that a particular solution is inadequate and perhaps setting up someone for a future fall from encountering a more advanced criticism. An example of the FAIR wiki’s brevity occurs in the page providing talking point answers to 50 soundbyte questions:
1. Why does the Mormon church still teach that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God after he made a false prophecy about a temple built in Missouri in his generation (D&C 84:1-5)
This was not a prophecy, but a command from God to build the temple. There’s a difference. Jesus said people should repent; just because many didn’t doesn’t make Him a false messenger, simply a messenger that fallible people didn’t heed.
Learn more here: Independence temple to be built “in this generation”
Of course even the expanded article doesn’t consider all the possible solutions that can be made. So here is one of my personal speculations I would like to share:
I actually think it is easy (almost trivial) to prove that Section 84 is a commandment. The first publication of a selection of Joseph Smith’s revelations to the early Saints was called the Book of Commandments. The Saints would go to Joseph Smith to obtain a”commandment,” which was their preferred term even over “revelation” or “prophecy.” So each section, 84 included, was primarily a commandment. Hence we have the preface for Book of Commandments stating:
37 Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.
38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
So section 84 is a commandment by definition. The Saints were commanded to build a temple. A question is if it was just a commandment or it was both a commandment and a prophecy. Actually it turns out that this is a distinction without a difference, because if it is a prophecy, its fulfillment is conditioned by a sufficient number of moral agents choosing to obey the commandment and other moral agents choosing not to prevent compliance with the commandment. In other words, agency frequently trumps prophecy. Prophecy is often conditional, whether the condition has been made explicit or not. Prophecy inspires us to see what could be and does not necessarily tell us what has to be. There are exceptions to that rule, as I think God can use his agency to carry out of his promises, especially regarding salvation.
D&C 124:49, 51 makes it clear to me that the Lord withdrew his commandment to build a temple in Jackson county. He accepted “the will for the deed” when he accepted the Saints’ offering. The underlying purpose for building a temple in Jackson County has arguably already been fulfilled. That generation of Saints was not deprived of any temple blessings, they simply built temples elsewhere. I think that after the Saints learned they could not recover their land, the place for the temple became negotiable in the Lord’s eyes. Zion is wherever the Saints gather, sometimes the Saints move to Zion as a designated place and sometimes the place (Zion) moves with the Saints.
If there is any future in conjunction with the temple site in Jackson County, I hope we never put a building there. Why? Because I would rather view dedicated sites there and in Far West as outdoor temples. After all temples are built (at least in part) to symbolize the Garden of Eden which in turn symbolizes heavenly/paradisaical realm(s) where God dwells or visits. I would rather see a Garden of Eden restored. Building a temple there just to more literally fulfill a prophecy would undercut the learning experience that we as a people gained about agency and the persistence of God and his covenant people finding ways to honor (or find a satisfactory substitution for) their promises even after setbacks make the original terms impossible. The atonement enables reconciliation, by allowing for substitutions to be made on our end of the covenant, so why not allow God the same privilege?
I don’t really expect anyone to agree with my take on things. If you asked me a year from now, I might not even have the same understanding. Nibley’s Christian Envy of the Temple gives me pause as I think about the consequences of over-spiritualizing temple elements to compensate for a profound sense of loss. Maybe it is actually a good thing the wiki doesn’t cover all possible speculations ! So I ask, what are some of your solutions to when critics raise charges of false prophecy?
Keller said: “The Saints would go to Joseph Smith to obtain a”commandment,” which was their preferred term even over “revelation” or “prophecy.” So each section, 84 included, was primarily a commandment”.
Section 84 is tied to section 28, and Lamanites are involved. It is interesting how attempts are made to redefine the scriptures. For example, at FAIR:
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Lamanites_in_the_Doctrine_and_Covenants
the words of the Savior are discredited to be only Joseph’s choice of words for Lamanites.
From this logic, the name of the LDS Church was not given by our Savior, it was only Joseph’s word choice.
The reason the temple was not built was because of the lack of faith and the failures of the members of the Church from their own personal weaknesses.
Logic applied as seen at FAIR destroys faith, not unlike the events which occurred with the early members.
Interesting comments, Mike. You write “The reason the temple was not built was because of the lack of faith and the failures of the members of the Church from their own personal weaknesses.”
Like I said, if others find a solution that works for them then I say stick with what works. I would be inclined to start looking at how members’ unfaithfulfulness may have violated any possible conditions that might lead to unfulfillment, like you, were it not for D&C 124 attributing the lack of success to the enemies of the church, while extoling the Saints’ faithfulness. But if your solution works for you, despite its inconsistency with D&C 124, I say go with it as Emerson stated “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” You or I should not necessarily expect the FAIR wiki to validate our alternative explanations though.
I also see a connection to section 28 which explains that the location of Zion will be revealed later, hence my remark about the location of Zion being negotiable and movable. While I wax nostalgic for the Missouri Zion, I feel privileged to live in a Utah Zion or the Zion that exists wherever the pure in heart gather. Redefining terms is entirely justified in a religion led by continuing revelation.
If you do not like how the FAIR wiki defines the term Lamanite, then you should feel free to disregard it, as it is only one possible solution.
“But if your solution works for you, despite its inconsistency with D&C 124, I say go with it”
–
It is not inconsistent with D&C 124. It is merely inconsistent with your interpretation of D&C 124, which I might turn around and suggest is strikingly inconsistent with 1 Nephi 3:7.
–
The Lord explained on multiple occasions why the saints were ousted from Missouri, and the citation you mention is the most generous of all such accounts. D&C 101:2 has “I, the Lord, have suffered the affliction to come upon them, wherewith they have been afflicted, in consequence of their transgressions”. D&C 103:4 mentions “chastening” in connection with the Missouri eviction. The parable in D&C 101, I find most instructive.
–
In the end, all of the scriptures are right (surprised)? Most individuals in the church were trying to do what was right. However, not all, and it caused disputations and delays, which gave their enemies opportunity to come in and do them harm in their weak state.
–
In this regard, Joseph Smith often pondered this issue of why the church had failed to retain its place in Jackson County, Missouri. His own conclusion was not that they had simply been overcome by their enemies, but rather that wicked men from within the church brought the calamity upon them, and what worried him most of all was that the many righteous people in the church were obliged to suffer along with the wicked. He further resolved this issue as best he could muster, by considering that the church as a whole had failed in not removing the wicked from among them. (Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, p. 32)
–
Another instructively parallel scenario that would superficially seem to be in conflict with 1 Nephi 3:7 is Wilford Woodruff’s Manifesto. I would argue that the apparent conflict could be similarly resolved, though there are also further considerations that make that situation a little less vexing.
–
Personally, I find the standard church curriculum explanation to be very satisfying. The prophecy in section 84 is taken as a prophecy and the word “generation” is taken to be relatively synonymous with dispensation. (See also: Orson Pratt, “King Limhi’s Enquiry, etc.”, Journal of Discourses, pp. 215-216) However, I think you have a valid point as well in stating that prophecies can have conditions attached to them which are not made explicit. That consideration could also resolve the point. The difference that remains would have to do with one’s expectations regarding certain possible signs of the second coming. I have no references on that point, though I hadn’t really considered that subtle but important point much.
–
I also think FAIR does a decent job in their treatment of the term “Lamanite” in the article mentioned by Mike. It’s a bit of a simplification, but it’s sufficient to illustrate the kind of issues that are ignored by the criticism the article is addressing. (The use of the term “Lamanite” changes meaning a few different times in the Book of Mormon, and for a time is even done away with, but the reference cited, I think, best describes the division that we are left with at the end of the Book of Mormon. Certainly many literal descendants of Nephi would have been represented among the “Lamanites” of that time. This is not completely different from the way we consider ourselves to be of the house of Israel. As we use the term now, however, I believe we would say a “Lamanite” is one who is descended from the group referred to as “Lamanites” in the Book of Mormon, or at the very least we could consider the group as a cohesive cultural entity.)
Anyhow, there’s about 2 cents worth.
You make a number of good points, Sean. I acknowledge that some passages, including to those you cite, suggest that if the Saints had been more Saintly things would have worked out better. Count me a little bit skeptical, given what I have learned about the causes of tension between the Mormons and Missourians. Section 124 easily has the most direct bearing (in my interpretation of course 🙂 ) in regards to the temple.
I would like to think that if Nephi had been unable to secure the Brass Plates due to Laban’s opposition, the Lord would have accepted Nephi’s “will for the deed” and prepared an alternative way for him to accomplish the underlying purpose for the commandment: to secure reliable scripture for his descendents. Surely the Lord could have directed him elsewhere to find a suitable copy of scripture, just like he had the Saints build a temple elsewhere. If Lehi’s sons had failed, Nephi could always blame his brother’s unrighteousness and himself for not disassociating more from their wickedness. I suggest that Nephi’s statement of faith in 1 Ne. 3:7 would have stayed intact with either these hypothetical outcomes.
I am not surprised by arguments that harmonize apparently inconsistent passages by situating the real conflict in interpretation. I do not believe, however, that harmonizing interpretations should always be prefered over interpretions that allow scripture writers to not be univocal or not be inerrant.
Some of the official LDS sources address this quite well.
For example, the current lesson manual: Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith,Chapter 15: Establishing the Cause of Zion
Others include:
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, 150
Lesson 27: “They Must Needs Be Chastened and Tried, Even as Abraham”
Ensign, July 2001, Lessons from the Experience by Max H. Parkin
“Section 124 easily has the most direct bearing in regards to the temple.”
I would disagree on this point. Section 101, I think gives the fullest treatment of the subject. However, they both have rather “direct” bearing in regards to the temple, (I have a hard time imagining an argument that puts one above the other in directness) but I hardly think there is any license provided to ignore or prefer one over the other.
“I would like to think that if Nephi had been unable to secure the Brass Plates due to Laban’s opposition…”
I would also disagree regarding 1 Nephi 3:7. I would feel compelled to add that if Nephi, in his weakness, had failed to do what the Lord commanded (which was a specific thing, not a general thing), then, of course the Lord would have accepted his sacrifice, but I would further expect that Nephi would have been rebuked and possibly even chastened for his weakness. You can have both, as seems to have been the case in Jackson County, Missouri.
If Laban had acted differently than he did, the Lord, for his part, would have acted differently. So long as Nephi was faithful, it is not possible that Laban could have had sufficient power over him to thwart his intentions, for he had the implicit promise of God. Similarly, it did not matter what the church’s enemies did. If the saints had been faithful and diligent, their enemies would not have been able to stop them from building the temple and founding Zion (which, I would note, is not yet here, which, I think, throws serious doubt on the idea that the work done in Utah was sufficient to take the place of the work that he requested the saints to do in Jackson County, Missouri).
This would not be unlike the loss of the 116 pages. The Lord was prepared and another way was made available to accomplish his purposes. One could say that the Lord’s commandments were broken due to the interference of wicked men. Just as correctly, you could say that the Lord’s commandments were broken due to the failings of Joseph Smith and Martin Harris. They’re two legitimate parts of the same whole. However, if we speak in relation to Nephi’s assertion in 1 Nephi 3:7, it is clear that Joseph’s enemies were but background noise.
Nephi’s assertion is a natural and rational one. God is omnipotent. If he commands us and it is impossible to succeed then he is implicitly responsible for our failure to obey, which would be unjust. God, however, is perfect, and there is no injustice in him, so, if he commands a person or group, he obligates himself to support that entity conditional upon the entity’s obedience. Any other condition, unless made a fundamental part of the commandment, would violate that obligation to justice.
Hence, there is something akin to a covenant implicit in any commandment and the allowance of any “real” third party interference (meaning, absent the disobedience of the one commanded) would be a violation of God’s obligation, which violation would make him ungodly and is hence, not within the realm of consideration. Hence, from the standpoint of the covenant, the enemies are just background noise until they are given leverage through the disobedience of the one who was commanded.
Anyhow. I suppose you may easily disagree with some portion of that reasoning, but I think it rather fundamental nonetheless.
Sean, while I agree that one should take the perspectives of both sections into account, from a historical basis section 124 offers the more complete assessment of the two. In 1833, it was still very much a possibility that lands in Zion could be recovered through petitioning the government or raising a militia (like Zion’s Camp). Hence Section 101’s chastening is a temporary displacement from the Jackson County Zion. Section 124 reflects on all events up to 1838, and with the benefit of knowledge gained from experience and revelation, puts the blame more squarely on their enemies and not so much on the Saints.
Without divine intervention, I do not think that even if the Saints had been on their best behavior, they could have avoided getting kicked out of Jackson in 1833. What I find to be the root (natural) causes for tension with the Missourians are the following:
1. W.W. Phelps taking an abolitonist stance in the church newspaper. See: Lester E. Bush page 12-13.
2. The greed of Missourians to take Mormon lands with impugnity. See Alex Baugh’s research
3. The Missourians anti-democratic pre-emptive strike to stop Mormons from gaining a majority vote. see: Steven Harper “Dictated by Christ”: Joseph Smith and the Politics of Revelation Journal of the Early Republic – Volume 26, Number 2, Summer 2006, pp. 275-304
4. Harper argues that fear of continuing revelation drove the actions in point 3.
5. Disassociating themselves from apostate Mormons by kicking them out of the community (The solution that Joseph Smith arrived at when he pondered past failures, although I am not certain Joseph approved of the manner in which it was carried out.)
6. Escalation caused by Mormon methods of self-defense.
So while I grant that a list of Mormon bad behaviors that had a natural, causal effect on their eviction could also be made (and the last 2 points may belong more in that list), such causes would pale in comparison. The overall weight (from my POV) of the historical evidence, Sunday School lessons, D&C 101, and 124 is that if the Saints had been more righteous then perhaps more divine intervention would have occured to soften the hearts of their enemies and thus overidden natural causes. Why God doesn’t intervene more to circumvent harmful natural causes is part of the Problem of Evil.
“I would also disagree regarding 1 Nephi 3:7. I would feel compelled to add that if Nephi, in his weakness, had failed to do what the Lord commanded (which was a specific thing, not a general thing),”
You make some useful distinctions between general and specific commandments. This is at least part of the reason why I take an open theistic approach that specifics in a covenant relationship can be renegotiated in case of failure if the following conditions are met: 1) due dilligence was made to meet the original terms, 2) God chooses to be forgiving and merciful (perhaps after sufficient chastening), 3) an acceptable substitution of specifics can be made that meet the underlying purpose of the original terms.
As to 1 Nephi 3:7, one does not have to look very far before tension with other concepts can be found. The way prepared for Nephi involved him brealing another commandment (“thou shalt not kill”). See John Welch for a more nuanced discussion of the legal codes involved. I think, we get the idea that sometimes commandmentsare in conflict with each other and we won’t necessarily have a way to follow both and hence we must choose to follow the one bringing about the greater good (see for instance Garden of Eden narratives). Trying to look at it from God’s POV, He must have obligations to provide blessings that come into conflict and neccesitate some hard choices or creative solutions. Hence the Lord commands and revokes as seemeth him good (D&C 56:4).
I like you take on the loss of the 116 pages. I would agree that blame can be put on both JS and MH, although the lion’s share and more proximal cause is that of their enemies. After sufficient chastening, a satisfactory substitute for the 116 pages was put in place that met the same underlying purpose as the original command to translate the plates.
“God is omnipotent.”
One has to be careful here, because there are some obvious and less obvious constraints on God’s power. I accept that God can’t do anything that is logically impossible. More debatable I suppose are: He can’t create things out of nothing and he either can’t or doesn’t violate moral agency.
“if it is impossible to succeed then he is implicitly responsible”
This is the same reasoning that is used to hold God responsible for “the problem of evil.” Where Latter-day Saints have made progress towards a solution it has stressed moral agency and the compensatory power of the atonement.
“God, however, is perfect, and there is no injustice in him, so, if he commands a person or group, he obligates himself to support that entity conditional upon the entity’s obedience.”
Justice can also be served if an adequate substitution of promised blessings is made. Is there really all that much opposition to this idea?
Maybe what would be helpful for people to understand where I am coming from would be to see the response section on false prophecy that was primarily written by myself for the Joseph vs. Jesus video. For example, the command (some would say prophecy) that David Patten would serve a mission to Europe in Section 114 and 118. There we have a clear cut case of Patten being righteous while enemies of the Church prevented fulfillment. The Lord seems to have provided adequate substitutions is two ways: 1) Let a new member of the Twelve fulfill the underlying purpose to serve a mission to Europe 2) delayed the time designated for that mission (spring) to a more suitable one 3) transferred (substitute) the location of Elder Patten’s mission from Europe to the spirit world.
You can see where my “will for the deed” quote comes from.
I also surveyed the Doctrine and Covenants for commandment following ethics that apply even when (or especially when) we are prevented or unable to comply in that response.
Other incidents could be analyzed. Like Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son and then prevented from doing so, but not by any unrighteousness of his own. The Lord did not prepare the way so that original specifics could be met, rather he provided for a satisfactory alternative. Here is a case where no one is emotionally attached to the seeing Isaac still be sacrificed despite the adequate substitution. We, don’t for instance, wish that Abraham had sacrificed Isaac somewhat later in their dispensation or that the two would be translated so fulfillment of the original command is still possible.
Judas’ unrighteousness could have ruined for the rest of the Twelve, Christ’s promise that they would inherit 12 thrones to judge Israel. Again, we see God substitute one of the specifics of that promise with an adequate replacement (Matthias).
Zion’s Camp failed to meet their divine mandate to redeem Jackson County lands, yet the Lord substituted those blessings by helping them find “promised land” elsewhere and providing a learning experience for future leaders. Brigham and the Twelve gained skills in organizing mass migrations that came in handy for two future occassions. (Abraham’s trial with Isaac was also a learning experience.)
“Without divine intervention, I do not think that even if the Saints had been on their best behavior, they could have avoided getting kicked out of Jackson in 1833.”
Right, and divine assistance is almost exactly what the Lord promised in D&C 101. I do not think that God benefited in any respect from the “knowledge gained from experience” before revealing what we have now as D&C 124. You speak about God as if he were an ignorant man, but it would be better to understand that he understood what was going on long before the events in Missouri transpired. D&C 124 does nothing to negate the already stated fact that the saints had put themselves in danger by dragging their feet.
“As to 1 Nephi 3:7, one does not have to look very far before tension with other concepts can be found.”
I think the “thou shalt not kill” example is particularly inept for the point you are trying to make. Nephi, having some more direct knowledge of the linguistic issues, would know better. Further, it could very easily be argued that the 10 commandments fit into a third category (since you’ve highlighted my apparent bucketing of individual and group commandments) of either general commandments, or principled commandments. General commandments *might* have individual exceptions, and principled commandments might have a scope governed by the scopes of the related principles. A better example would be “Thou shalt not steal.”
“Steal” is exactly what Nephi did. We don’t kill and we don’t steal generally, and based upon principle. However, there are limits to the extent to which those principles apply, and hence, there can be exceptions. This is very common in law where one clause may assert a general rule, but a later clause can specifically declare an exception. If the Lord, however, tells me to go and do some singular specific thing, then it is not possible for there to be an exceptional case, for there is only one case.
If the Lord gives me a specific commandment to do some singular thing and he then declares an exception upon my failure, then how fickle would God be? Yet, he is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow?
Further, commandments are sometimes based on little more than natural law and the context of our environment and are intended to protect us, warn us, or simply inform us. Sometimes, however, it is required for us to hurt ourselves to gain a greater blessing. Hence we may “transgress” a putative “commandment”, and not be held culpable of a sin by the Lord because the law that was transgressed was merely an environmental one and we are left to suffer the natural consequences of our actions. Such was the eating of the forbidden fruit. Such is my declaration to my son that he not touch a hot stove. If he touches, it’ll hurt, but he’ll receive no further censure from me on the matter.
Such also is how one might consider the situation in Jackson County, Missouri. The Lord offered the saints a way to protect themselves, but they neglected to take advantage of the offer and suffered for it. (Certainly the mobs were culpable, but this is not the aspect of the event that is in question.)
“One has to be careful here, because there are some obvious and less obvious constraints on God’s power.”
Clearly, and for a fuller treatment I once gave of this issue see: http://www.smcox.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=544
Anyhow, none of this is sufficient to suggest that any one or any group can be sufficiently crafty to get in God’s way if God doesn’t let them. He wouldn’t even need to mess with their agency necessarily. In the Jackson County, Missouri scenario, thanks to D&C 101, we know pretty much exactly what God had in mind. If the saints had built the temple, they would have been apprised of the movements of their enemies and been able to appropriately counter them. Very little “intervention” at all. Certainly no free will interruption, or God smiting down the sinners (though he’s seen fit to do that on occasion).
“This is the same reasoning that is used to hold God responsible for “the problem of evil.””
Yes, the problem of evil worriers define God differently though. (See my comments cited above on omnipotence.) Their fallacies don’t really apply to my analysis. Certainly the problem of evil isn’t resolved by just turning a blind eye to the apparent culpability of God and declaring it all to be nonsense. Whereas, in your suggested resolution to the problem of evil, God has provided a way, it is clear that God also provides a way for us to follow his commandments, and he provided a way for the saints to protect themselves.
“Justice can also be served if an adequate substitution of promised blessings is made.”
Sort of, but what adequate substitute did God make for the peace and security which his people might have received through obedience?
Technically speaking, D&C 114:1 is neither a commandment that Patten go on a mission, nor a prophecy that he would. It is a commandment that he “prepare” for a mission. It is quite possible (probable in my view) that such preparation may have been intended to serve another purpose, much like Zion’s camp (which, by the way, technically failed to meet the Lord’s stated prerequisites for redeeming Zion, but was told to go anyway, hence the failure to redeem Zion should be unsurprising, but it is clear that the excursion was nevertheless recommended for other reasons).
Anyhow, it’s not so clear cut as you suggest.
I could say more on the other points, but I will forbear. (Unless you really want my thoughts on Abraham. Judas I actually couldn’t speak to, as I have not attended to those details so much as to the other situations I’ve discussed.)
Suffice it to say that I see no clear cut violation of the principle derived from the common interpretation of 1 Nephi 3:7.
Sean, I really appreciate how much thought and effort you have put into thinking about these issues. Sometimes that gets over shadowed when I devote much of my text wrestling with ideas. For me it is uplifting to carry out a discussion with some one as brilliant as yourself. Great thoughts in you blog about what we mean when we use the phrase omnipotent.
A lot of times when I am writing apologetics I try to find ways to be persuasive, so that even those who do not accept the same assumptions I do can still accept my conclusions. That helps me stay grounded even though I hold minority (in the Church) view on such issues as whether God has perfect foreknowledge. Blake Ostler’s works have been highly influential to me. I mentioned open theism and I note that my fellow FAIR volunteer also has a recent blog on a related subject if you are interested.
You are quite perceptive that scriptures that demonstrate God is always the same pose a problem for me.
However I do not think my conclusions about Section 101 hinge on accepting open theism. I think even if God comprehended the future with perfect certainty, he would be limited in what he can communicate to the Saints. Understanding some verbal communication is entirely dependent on having shared experiences as an interpretive key. God speaks to us in our weakness and in our own language, which is also inherently flawed. So if we concentrate on how revelations were received and understood, I think my point stands on how Section 124 represents further light and knowledge for them (and us) in comparison to Section 101.
Good point about “preparing” vs. actually departing. That makes it not such a clear cut case. I would still say that Elder Patten was prevented from being completely prepared. However 118:4 is another command that applies to David Patten (especially him) as a member of the Twelve, and that states that they should depart in the next spring. None of the other Twelve were “prepared” to leave for Europe in the spring so it is doubtful that Elder Patten would have been either.
I much appreciate your links related to “open theism”. (Blake seems to refer to the opposite as “classical theism”. I’m not familiar with this terminology, and I’m only passingly familiar with the underlying issues.)
Regarding the foreknowledge of God. I generally make the base assumption that God knows some things about the future, and tend to feel that he probably has access to knowledge about the future in much the same way as he has access to knowledge about the past. (As a physicist by education, I am nevertheless not convinced that the evidence proves that God plays dice with the universe, but I was a little more certain of that view before I learned my physics.)
I generally rationalize that there is no conflict between determinism and agency on the basis that agency can be understood as being, not necessarily free from causal operation but as being free, to a degree, from external limitations upon our options so that outcomes can be determined by our internal machinations. (That may not be the best way to describe my thoughts, but I will illustrate…)
In my mind, I imagine myself as a game piece on a board, and my freedom I consider to be the moves I can make. Some moves “sin” will reduce my long term freedom, while other moves might increase my long term freedom. (Players of chess or go, understand this principle and it becomes part of their strategy.) Some moves, “sacrifice” might temporarily limit my freedom but result in greater long-term freedom.
If only one move were available to me at a time, I would consider that to be no freedom. I would be constrained, and have no options. If my moves did not have an affect upon the outcome, I would also consider that to be a no freedom situation.
Conversely, if my moves are random, then I wonder very intensely upon what basis God thinks he can judge me as I, and all others would not seem to be inherently well defined creatures, or upon what basis we can have trust in God. Though perhaps one can imagine that he has succeeded in self-constraining his freedom, and perhaps that’s the point, though it seems odd and unjust if my ability to direct or self-constrain my freedom were random. That may be an unfair conclusion to draw, however.
Really, I come to no satisfactory conclusion. I can understand that people have issues with determinism, and I personally have issues with true randomness. It puts me in mind to really wonder about the nature of intelligences.
Issues that more fundamentally perplex me are issues such as color, sound, touch and smell/taste perception. (Smell and taste don’t strike me as being different enough to really be bucketed separately.)
From either a determinative, or a causal standpoint, data is just data, yet I cannot quite settle with the idea that there’s nothing more to these perceptions than data. We can program computers to “see”, but it seems impossible to me that we might endow them with the same type of perception that we experience daily.
You can’t really explain the feelings of the spirit, just like you can’t really explain the taste of salt. But I can’t explain hot, F#, or red either. People try. The blind have had blue compared with ice, and that certainly may do something to invoke the emotion of blue, but they will not really know blue as a result, and it highlights an interesting point that the best we can do in talking about our perceptions, is compare them to other perceptions. This can sometimes get us to an emotional equivalence, which is perhaps deeper, but it is still not a full explanation.
Anyhow, talking about manifestly inexplicable things can be more than a bit frustrating. I would not be too surprised to find that intelligences are strange indeed, neither determinate nor truly random, and that these perceptions are peculiar to them and perhaps even different aspects of a single unified perception feature, like the different aspects of the single force that physicists look for. (They do seem to make regular progress with that.) The possibilities boggle the mind.
Anyhow, we reach the boundaries of my ability of theologize, philosophize, and just plain keep my head in one piece. I wonder most earnestly regarding our fundamental nature, but I’ve found no clue beyond what is superficially apparent in the book of Abraham. (And one could easily dispute my reading there.)
Still, we seem to get on better than most philosophers (certainly better than most theologians).
Aside from the debate on whether it was a prophecy or commandment, why the temple was not built, etc., do not forget that it still must be built before the return of our Savior. So while examining the past with theories, keep a clear mind of future fullfillment of prophecies.
Actually, the idea that the temple must be built before the Second Coming is dependent of issues surrounding section 84. It comes from how church leaders interpretted section 84 which I believe has been rescinded by 124, whether it a just a command or a both a command and prophecy (the only two feasible options). Since scriptures trump general authority speculation, I think it is entirely OK to not believe a temple will be built there. See http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/a-yellow-dog-wags-his-tail-in-jackson-county/
In D&C 105, the revelation that disbanded Zion’s Camp, the Lord said:
Then in Moses we read:
It seems quite clear that the center place of Zion will definitely be established in Jackson County, with a temple, prior to the coming of the Lord.
Theodore, as Section 124 still trumps earlier sections, these passages cause little difficulty for a belief that the the Lord is powerful enough to prepare a place we will be happy to call “Zion” or “New Jerusalem” at a location other than Jackson County. Using Moses 7 as a Jackson County proof-text simply begs the question.
So, if Prophecy is the act of describing one of many possible future scenarios (which scenario being based on the efforts of the people involved), then what exactly is unique or special about a Prophet making prophecies?
Is there anyone reading this blog who couldn’t make predictions which may or may not come true, and are dependent on the efforts of the people involved to make them come true?
For example, I prophesy that within a generation, the FAIR Blog will become the most widely read blog in the world. I prophesy that the Church will soon build not one but two Temples within my (California) stake boundaries. I prophesy that the Church will quickly reach worldwide membership of 100 million members, with an average activity rate of 85%.
If you judge my prophecies the same way you judge Joseph Smith’s, I can’t go wrong.
Keller, I don’t see where Section 124:49-51 trumps anything. It simply releases the Saints from the commandment to build the temple in Jackson County at that time, as did Section 105 above. Sections 101 and 103 also confirm that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will not be moved out of her place and that the Saints would “return” “to the lands of their inheritances“ from which they were scattered.
D&C 101:17-19
17 Zion shall not be moved out of her place, notwithstanding her children are scattered.
18 They that remain, and are pure in heart, shall return, and come to their inheritances, they and their children, with songs of everlasting joy, to build up the waste places of Zion–
19 And all these things that the prophets might be fulfilled.
D&C 103:11-13
11 But verily I say unto you, I have decreed that your brethren which have been scattered shall return to the lands of their inheritances, and shall build up the waste places of Zion.
12 For after much tribulation, as I have said unto you in a former commandment, cometh the blessing.
13 Behold, this is the blessing which I have promised after your tribulations, and the tribulations of your brethren–your redemption, and the redemption of your brethren, even their RESTORATION to the land of Zion, to be established, no more to be thrown down.
I am not citing anything as “proof texts,” as you put it, but simply as solid evidence that Jackson County is the still the place of the New Jerusalem. He can put it wherever He wants, but He has stated clearly that it will be in Jackson County, Mo. What evidence do you have that it will be somewhere else?
Cinepro:
I think Kellers explanation of “Commandment vs. Revelation” is not entirely negatable in this circumstance. Though, I find myself ultimately coming to the same conclusion you have. When Prophecy “works” we praise the leaders as the inerrent mouth pieces of God. When Prophecy fails it is always the stupid members fault. When Joseph Smith is percieved to have been in error it usually because some faithful dimwit transcribed incorrectly, or out of unbridled zeal, published an unconfirmed rumor of what Joseph Smith was thought to have said (William Clayton?).
“So, if Prophecy is the act of describing one of many possible future scenarios (which scenario being based on the efforts of the people involved), then what exactly is unique or special about a Prophet making prophecies?”
You have hit upon something important here. Open theism has about as hard of a time accounting for true prophecy as classical theism has for false prophecy. I note that cowboy has so eloquently conveyed the classical-leaning strategies, which I think are unconvincing for some and we lose some members over it. So this blog is my attempt to promote the paradigm shift that might help some folks not throw the baby out with the bath water.
So what is the advantage of prophecy if there are no garauntees it will come to pass? First, the more knowledge one has of the past, the better one can spot trends and predict the future. So a being like God should have the ability (through a prophet) to foretell a future possibility that will actually be realized with greater probability than what a less knowledgable person, on average, can come up with. Second, there is the self-fulfilling effect. The more power and control one has, the more likely one is to be able to make something happen. So a powerful God (or a network of agents working in harmony) is more trustworthy than a typical person. Classicalists push those two attributes (knowledge and power) to their absolute extremes to maximize trust in God.
I find the more useful prophecies to be those that either inspire righteousness or repentance, the ones where a group of people have to become personally invested to bring about the envisioned outcome. How much divine help can be counted on where human efforts fall short? I think this is where embedding prophecy in a covenant (contract theory) framework that can be periodically re-evaluted based on justice and mercy makes the most sense.
Prophecy for the sake of evidence is way overhyped (in my opinion) in Mormon culture, especially since the evidence can be construed to cut both ways.
>What evidence do you have that it will be somewhere else?
Temples that served that generation of Saints were built in other places. Zion (I am not aware of New Jerusalem being relocated, but I would argue by analogy with Zion) has been identified in other places (see the Juvenile Instructor blog I linked to in a previous comment.)
The main evidence is that section 124 rescinds the command to build a temple in Jackson County. You make an inductive argument that the revocation is not permanent. That is an interesting idea I haven’t considered. I can not falsify that position as I believe God can command and revoke and re-command as seemeth him good. A re-command would have to based on its own merits and not because God has anything to prove based on what was said in the past. I do not see any good coming of building a Jackson County temple in the near future. There is already a temple being built nearby and it would be a long time before membership density would justify another one. We arguably already have enough tourist temples and the economic downturns might curtail such future luxuries. I have argued that an unfinished temple has much more value for teaching an important lesson. Finally another restoration group owns that land. Do we really want to recreate the bad feelings that led to wars over the Old Jerusalem? I am sure tour guides are sick of comments they hear concerning an inevitable hostile takeover.
I apologize for labeling Moses 7 a proof-text.
I acknowledge that you have made some effective counter-arguments already against my position that 124 trumps everything revealed before it, still I would appreciate seeing some engagement of the actual arguments I have made supporting that position.
Some prophesies are conditional upon faithfulness such as promised blessing in ordinances and Patriarchal Blessings. Some prophesies are absolute but the timing may be dependant upon faithfulness. The coming of the Messiah is sure. However, the timing of His coming may be variable depending on the faithfulness of the Saints in preparing the way before him. Similarly, the prophesy of the building of the city and temple of New Jerusalem in Moses 7:62 and in D&C 84:2-4 is sure, but the timing is dependant upon the faithfulness of the Saints.
As to your question , “what are some of your solutions to when critics raise charges of false prophecy?” There is an answer in D&C 58:31-33:
And some prophecies have nothing to do with the future whatsoever, but attempt to shed light on certain “mysteries”. Patriarchs declare a persons lineage and with it appendant promises and blessings associated with the house of Israel. Of course the specifics regarding the literalness of the lineage pronouncement are debatable. Brigham Young spoke in tongues, and Joseph Smith declared it to be “of God”. There is debate regarding what Joseph Smith is thought to have said relative to the origin of the plates “discovered” in Kinderhook (hence my reference to William Clayton). Brigham Young prophesied on the order of heaven respecting the origin, destiny, and fate of the African race including those with whom they intermarry. These revelations cannot be so quickly dismissed with, “the time has not yet come (Second Coming)” or “the circumstances have changed (Jonah and nineveh, or the Temple in Missouri).
Theodore, I really enjoy getting your input in this discussion. Your useful distinctions help me refine my own thinking. I like the division between absolute and dependent elements in prophecies. The only problem I see is that we, as mortals can’t always make that distinction. Your first example, is rather clear cut distinction, and our ability to discern it is enhanced that a variety of prophets spread out widely in time and circumstance all testified by Christ’s second coming, even though their speculation (which we have an easier time as identifying as such in hindsight) about when that was to occur has been much less accurate.
An example where it is difficult to make the distinction between what is negotiable and non-negotiable is this blog discussion thread.
Cowboy, since the class of prophecies you mention have less to do with future possibilities, the open theism tools I have developed have little to do with them.
Tribal identification is not really falsifiable. Genetics show that after a sufficient number of generations (absent geographical isolation) have passed, if a person has at least one living descendant, than every living person is a descendent. Hence everybody now living has an ancestor from every tribe that they theoretically could be assigned to. We also would all be descendents of Cain by the same token.
I recognized the reference to Kinderhook, but the newer studies consider Clayton a reliable witness. I heard from Mark Ashurst-McGee at the Bushman seminar that he may publish on the issue. Brian Hauglid also presented a paper at the seminar that might get published in the Religious Educator.
My approach can add some insight to Brigham Young’s prediction of when Blacks would receive the priesthood, since later prophets, like McKay and Kimball acted as negotiators/mediators to get a revelation authorizing giving the Blacks the priesthood. The granting of that permission appears to me to have been contingent on Mormon society, to a sufficient degree, growing out of the racial prejudices it inherited from the ambient culture. The priesthood ban, fits a pattern where a resistant-to-change people is temporarily given a lesser law until they mature, such as the Israelites wandering for forty years before entering the promised land (they needed to lose the cultural baggage they absorbed from the ambient society in Egypt) or the Law of Moses being given at Mount Sinai (they demonstrated that they couldn’t handle a higher law). The latter had tenets that were considered in terms of eternal law (like circumcision) and spoken in terms of permanence and yet Christ came and affected (successfully mediated) a change.
I’m sure this comes as no surprise, but I have to chime in in support of Theodore.
Despite the existence of poorly understood scenarios in which God “seems” to repent or change his mind, I can find no strong evidence to support such an idea, whereas, it seems clear that God’s ability to keep his promises is a fundamental aspect of his godhood.
Regarding the issue at hand, it is abundantly evident through prophetic authority that the Lord actually planned on the saints going to Utah well before they ever went to Missouri. Yet, the Lord identified Missouri as the center point for Zion and after they were evicted, the Lord stated they would return. (See: D&C 49:24-25 || James E. Talmage, “Articles of Faith”, p. 22 || D&C 101:17-19)
The fact of the matter is, that I have never heard of a bona fide false prophecy coming from Joseph Smith. Believing in open theism may make it easier to rationalize superficially apparent false prophecies, but that does not make it correct. Of the many examples that seem to support open theism that have been brought up, I haven’t found one that really supports the idea in a clear-cut way.
What seems to be more abundantly clear, is that God’s ways are not man’s ways, and the fact that he has failed to conform to our expectations is not so much due to his having changed, but that we have been sloppy in forming our expectations.
The problem I see with open theism is that it make no assumption that God will be dependable or consistent except that I continue to here of the idea of “equivalent substitution”. Perhaps that idea appears to resonate with the proxy work we do, but it rings hollow to me in the face of specific prophecies and commandments appearing to fail.
Simply put, no matter how much we may cherish Utah, it is not, and never was, an equivalent substitution for Missouri. There is no evidence beyond conjecture and pet theory that it was ever intended as such, while there is ample evidence that Missouri is still the intended center point of Zion in spite of the saints’ eviction.
Further, as I have stated before, D&C 124 does not “trump” D&C 101. (So I wonder why that ridiculous assertion was made again.) D&C 124 doesn’t even directly address the issues that are putatively trumped. In fact that’s the only reason that can be provided for such an assertion, that it fails to address the issues. We then become as bad as the poor thinkers who fill the ranks of anti-mormonism interpreting a lack of evidence as counter-evidence.
Keller, why do you think LDS were initially resistant to Blacks receiving the priesthood, and then changed over time thus facilitating OD2? (January 20th, 2009 at 1:16 pm)
As far as I know, LDS had no problem with the priesthood going to Japanese, Mexicans, Chinese, or other traditionally discriminated peoples. Why were blacks any different, to the degree that God had to edict the priesthood ban in order to protect our sensibilities? Such a theory doesn’t make God or His people look very good.
Do you really believe that God couldn’t tell Brigham Young “Hey Brigham, skin color doesn’t matter, blacks are my children too, and they deserve the same blessings as my other children. Get the word out.” If anything, Brigham showed a willingness to voice unusual and ground-breaking ideas.
Hi Cowboy
You say:
Yes. The spirit of prophesy and of revelation are so closely intertwined that they are almost synonymous. The two words appear in tandem about fifteen times in The Book of Mormon and the D&C.
The literalness of the pronounced tribal lineage are historically and scientifically unknowable at the present time, and are also somewhat irrelevant. It is a designation that has pre-mortal as well as post-mortal significance. It is very common for the same patriarch to designate different tribal affiliation for children of the same parents.
Are you suggesting that it was not of God? Following Brigham’s speaking Joseph also continued in the same tongue and then stated that Brigham and he had been both speaking in the Adamic tongue, and that it was given to them by God (Elder Seymour B. Young, Conference Report, October 1922, Third Day Morning Session, p.146)
The debate over what Joseph is thought to have said has more to do with an attempted fraud by the men from Kinderhook than with revelation. The fact that Joseph did not translate the fake plates is evidence that he did not fall into the trap that was set for him.
Part of this may have been revelation and part of it Brigham’s personal opinion. One indicator as to which is revelation is the support given to it by subsequent prophets.
Sean, you write:
>Simply put, no matter how much we may cherish Utah, it is not, and never was, an equivalent substitution for Missouri.
Utah would only be one candidate to play a pivotal role as a Zion/promised land/gathering place/place significant in the sacred memory of Lamanites/location for temple/center of a millenial government role that was temporarily envisioned for Missouri. For example the place of Bountiful, where the ressurected Saviour appeared would be arguably more sacred to Lamanite descendents if its location could be revealed.
But Utah’s bonafides easily outweigh Missouri. If Christ comes to Utah we have the infrastructure to allow him to govern. The conference center or Edward’s stadiun provide capacity for large amount of people to participate in a meeting with him. The media that the Church own is well equipped for world wide broadcasts and translations into all kinds of different languages. I am not saying that these advantages can’t be realized somewhere else (if Missouri teaches us anything, it should be that the land of promise can be moved because of persecution.)
God can make any land the promised land. The Nephites were fugitives from their original promised land (Jerusalem) and Jacob (chapter 4) and others lamented that displacement. Even in the new world, for the Nephites the original promised land (The Land of first Inheritance) had to be abandoned, so the Nephites had to flee to a new “promised land.” I would humbly compare those who cling to the Missouri Zion theory to Zeniff’s party who were over-zealous to return to the original new world promised land, they surely had good intentions, but not much lasting came of it.
Utah has a lot more prophecy going for it than does Missouri. I agree Rocky Mountain prophecies were in play before they left Missouri, which I suggest prepared people to accept that commands in regards to Missouri were only temporary.
Here is the late President Hinckley’s opinion about the matter upon the occasion of the dedication of the Conference Center:
As this is the quintessential New Jerusalem prophecy, I do not think it is ridiculous to suggest that section 124 and a recent living prophet trump section 101 and past prophets.
“The problem I see with open theism is that it make no assumption that God will be dependable or consistent except that I continue to here of the idea of “equivalent substitution”. Perhaps that idea appears to resonate with the proxy work we do, but it rings hollow to me in the face of specific prophecies and commandments appearing to fail.”
This may speak more to my inability to teach about open theism than it is a problem for open theism. There is really no substitute ( 🙂 )for exhaustively comparing its overall merits to classical theism such as Blake Ostler does in his Attributes of God series. Reading it is a minimal requirement that will enable someone to do an adequate critique of what I have postulated about prophecy and commandments in a covenantal (I/Thou relationship) framework.
Keller,
While you’re at it perhaps we should move the Old Jerusalem to New York. There are probably more observant Jews in New York than there are in Jerusalem. That would solve the Muslim/Israeli conflict. But then New York is a little crowded already so perhaps we should take Ahmadinejad’s advice and move Jerusalem to Alaska? I think that Sarah would let them in. 🙂
Theodore, Thanks for humoring me 🙂
“As far as I know, LDS had no problem with the priesthood going to Japanese, Mexicans, Chinese, or other traditionally discriminated peoples.”
That is my understanding as well.
“Why do you think LDS were initially resistant to Blacks receiving the priesthood, and then changed over time thus facilitating OD2?”
Actually, I think LDS were initially accepting of giving the Blacks the priesthood as demonstrated by a handful of ordinations. As I mentioned earlier on this thread, the Mormons were kicked out of Jackson County primarily because what Phelps wrote supported abolition in the Church newspaper. The defense mechanism of the Saints to smooth things over with the Southerners was to pay homage to theological, racial arguments used to justify slavery, which singled out Blacks and not the other races you mention. There are a lot of historical twists and turns that make what I am saying here an over-simplification. I was a primary writer of the FAIR wiki material on the subject drawing heavily from Lester Bush, if you want my full views (However other FAIR volunteers made sure other options were stressed as well.)
Coincidentally, I may have had a small impact on getting Lester Bush recognition for being Mormon of the year for 1973 by Times and Seasons. Last Lemming justified the selection because he is the only pre-1978 writer that FAIR quotes on the priesthood ban.
>Why were blacks any different, to the degree that God had to edict the priesthood ban in order to protect our sensibilities? Such a theory doesn’t make God or His people look very good.
I agree that Mormon people do not look very good on racial issues. Nobody did back then. My position is that God did not initiate the ban through revelation, but rather left it up to those in charge to formulate their own policy based on cultural expediencies. While God might not look good for allowing the ban to be in place for so long, covenant/atonement framework suggests he can compensate the Blacks for their suffering during that era in the next life. Hopefully I will be given opportunities here and there to help make that compensation.
Keller,
Your explanation of the priesthood ban, and most current discussions of it, focus on the cultural issues of the early days of the Church and give little mention of, or discount the influence of the Book of Abraham in the origin of the ban. I quote the relevant passages here for consideration:
Surely this was the original source for the priesthood ban of the descendants of Cain.
I should add that my views about atonement are not identical with penal substitution. The mercy we gain from receiving full justice for our sins in only one aspect. I think another is about compensation. When people suffer as a result of someone else’s sins or random acts of nature or disease, they should be able to sue or petition God for redress or satisfaction in the next life.
Keller,
Agreed, but that redress is dependant upon our forgiving who or what offended us.
My opinion about the Book of Abraham is that it was used as an aid to justify the priesthood ban in an ad hoc manner. It was not the source of the ban, rather the ban was a source of supplying preconceived notions on how those passages should be read. What I and Nibley and Mauss and David O. McKay suggest is that those passages can be read in entirely different light when we read them with a corrected lens. Here is how Mauss is quoted in the FAIR wiki :
So compared to historical analysis, the scriptures offer little explaining power about the ban, except in describing how the ban became so entrenched in Mormon consciousness. Once an idea gets attributed to scriptures (whether the idea is really there or not) it is difficult to offer a corrective. Appeals to reason have little chance against appeals to authority.
The arguments presented by Mauss to dismiss scripture as a source for the priesthood ban are not compelling. The above verses alone from the Book of Abraham establish clearly that there was a blood line preserved after the flood through Ham’s wife, Egyptus, that did not have the right to hold the priesthood.
Although it does not establish a rule that would extend to our day it would seem that the reading of this scripture alone would cause the Prophet Joseph to ponder and inquire of the Lord as to the meaning of it.
Theodore, I read the Book of Abraham to suggest that the Egyptian pharoahs lines didn’t have the priesthood because of apostasy and not geneology or race.
The idea about Ham’s wife perpetuating the curse would not have been new to Joseph, it is centuries old, so he would not have pressed for a revelation on how it might apply to his day.
Your theory of Book of Abraham origins of the ban is not historically supportable. No church leader appealed those passages in support of the ban until 1885 (B.H. Roberts). In my humble opinion, reading the Bush article is a minimal requirement for taking the FAIR wiki to task on the position it takes. The fact that free blacks continued to be ordained until 1846-1847 ish, suggests a complete ban was not revealed to Joseph at all.
I know that Hugh Nibley used to make a case that the Priesthood “curse” as mentioned in Abraham 1, had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with a false ordination by matriarchal order, ie, Egyptus to her sons. I’ve never been able to quite figure Nibley out in instances like these because the text just does not bear that conclusion out. As Theodore mentioned Ham is credited as the person who “preserved the curse in the land”. If a curse was preserved with Egyptus’s parents, it could not have begun with her, I get at least that much of the “chicken and the egg” debate. The text also makes a few pointed references to the “blood of the Canaanite” within confined textual proximities. I know this also was another place where Nibley’s innovative theories tended to stray from the conventional “blacks/canaanites” juxtapositions, by suggesting that the canaanites in this case may have been derivative of “Canaanim” (forgive the spelling, I am sure it is incorrect), which was apparently different. From what I have read most scholars reject that hypothesis, and rather accept that “yes, these where Canaanites from Canaan”. Which is why the protestant hyptothesis, that was traditionally OT based, has lasted so long as a justification for the broad misfortune of the African race, as they feel it correlates to Noah’s curse that “a servant of servants shall he be…”. Frankly our scriptures, including the words of modern prophets (even recent ones), are the ones that gave scriptural/authoritative umph to the correlation with Cain.
The above notwithstanding, Keller is also correct that Joseph Smith era Mormonism did not seem to employ the BY era rhetoric. What Joseph Smiths attitude here was is hard to know. Perhaps he was of the opinion that the curse was a pre-restoration condition, but was to be done away with in the Restitution. However, given the noted dichotomy, we are left to try and read between the lines with Keller’s take, or just read straight from the book on Theodores position.
Keller,
In response to your question about false prophecy, I think the crux of the matter lies in the Lord’s definition of the word “generation”. A few years ago a friend mentioned an Orson Pratt talk about returning to Jackson County to rebuild the temple in which he mentioned the meaning of this phrase – see Redemption of Zion. I found his talk illuminating given the fact that it was given some 40 years after D&C 84 was given to the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Theodore:
It’s good to talk to you again. Just a follow up on your comments to me. For most of the examples I was listing, Patriarchal Blessings, BY speaking in tongues, etc, I was not intending to debate the veracity of those circumstances, because frankly there is no way to do so. I was merely pointing out that revelation as used by Joseph Smith more often than not was a declaration of fact, rather than a prognostication on the future. That being the case, the two responses that both you and Keller provided as a solutions to supposed failed prophecies would not suffice in most cases. Case and point is our exchange regarding the Kinderhook plates:
“The debate over what Joseph is thought to have said has more to do with an attempted fraud by the men from Kinderhook than with revelation. The fact that Joseph did not translate the fake plates is evidence that he did not fall into the trap that was set for him”.
The jury is out here, even the LDS jury, the plates were a fraud. Moving forward there is no forseeable circumstance that could change which would have altered the historicity of the plates. As for what Joseph Smith said regarding the plates, that is the real debate. I don’t think we can infer anything from the fact that Joseph Smith did not translate the plates, particularly for two reasons:
1) The Kinderhook incident took place in the late spring of 1843, Joseph was dead one year later. That last year Joseph found himself pretty busy, between legal troubles, running for President, managing the polygamy controversy which was burgeoning from within the inner circles, trying to manage Nauvoo, and trying to manage his difficulties with Emma. The fact that he did not jump right into trying to work on yet another book seems quite reasonable.
2) We are not certain as to what Joseph’s interest level may have been. I’m a bit puzzled with conclusion that the hoax had more to do with the fraud than revelation. I would argue that the hoax was a fraud perpetrated in an effort to falsify Joseph’s revelation. Given what we now know, they may have actually succeeded. I will admit that there are holes in the account, particularly why it took until the 1880’s to expose the fraud, but according to the records Joseph did infact prophesy about who the plates belonged, and more importantly how the owner recived “his kingdom from the God of Heaven and Earth”. That sounds like unequivocol prophetic language to me. The only reasonable defense at this point is to throw William Clayton under the bus by suggesting he was writing rumor as fact. If Joseph did infact make the declaration, this would be absolute proof that Joseph lied about, at least some, of his revelations. So, Theodore I would have to disagree, Kinderhook has everything to do with revelation.
Cowboy, thanks for your comments summarizing and critiquing Nibley. Nibley may or may not have drawn right conclusions, but he is on the right track inasmuch as he is looking for a proximal cause for the early Pharoahs not having the priesthood. I do not want to enter into a detailed discussion of textual exegesis (which isn’t one of my apologetic interests) because to do so is to start looking at the trees before a forest level understanding is in place. Scriptures are like Ogres, they have layers. In every case we should consider the cultural lens that the original writers wrote through and we also have consider the cultural baggage through which the texts are translated into or interpretted. If Kevin Barney is correct, the Book of Abraham is a semitic redaction, which adds yet another layer to consider.
We should allow ourselves to be a little arrogant on this issue, because we have more scientific knowledge (DNA haplotype tracing, genetics, natural selection) and more revealed knowledge (June 1978 revelation) than anyone that had a hand in writing, transmitting, or interpretting the texts prior to us. The Book of Mormon writers’ give us permission to reject views that we can identify as the mistakes of man in their works. I thank God, just as they suggest, that I (or we) are more wise than they on issues of race.
So before we deal with the trees, I would suggest there are some big ideas to come to grips with first.
1) Skin color is not a curse and likely never has been. The curse is a spiritual separation from God (apostasy) and the curse is removed on an indvidual basis any time someone repents. See Tvedtnes’ writings on the Book of Mormon, for example.
2) Skin color usually (if not always) only changes through natural causes. Natural selection in hotter, out-door climates will result in darker skin for subsequent generations. Intermarriage with a darker person will result in darker offspring. Sometimes skin color is cosmetically altered (make-up, war paint, tatoos) for cultural reasons.
3) Some societies forbid marrying outside of the same religion. Anciently there was little separation of church and state, so religion often corresponded with political boundaries. Some societies’ culturally-biased ideals of beauty favor lighter skin.
4) Rival political groups (or any time an us vs. them dynamic is present) often manufacture propaganda that compares their best to their rival’s worst. The worst observations were used in a stereotypical way.
5) The white vs. black motif was seen in much more symbolic fashion in terms of representing cleanliness or purity.
6) My understanding of DNA research supports an African origins idea for man. So perhaps we should all be considered descendants of Cain. (I am by no means and expert here, but this is my second argument I have made so far with this conclusion.)
7)Intergeneration “curses” are tricky business since we believe men should be punished for their own sins. However parents can create an environment that makes it difficult for a child to adopt different views or behaviors.
8)The ancients, lacking scientific method, would attempt to fill in the gaps of their knowledge with “just so” stories. Sub-groups trying to integrate would have incentive to believe they had a recent common ancestor as a way preventing bloodshed. Reasons also could be invented to explain perceived differences with other races, while maintaining their own sense of choseness or superiority.
9) Scientifically a universal flood is not tenable, so Ham’s wife was not the only the only survivor of her race (see also #6)
More points could be added to include prevailing modern cultural views about race before the civil rights movement and 1978.
About Kinderhook, as I indicated there will be forthcoming apologetic works that do not throw Clayton under the bus. I have learned through sad experience that it is foolish to try to defend somebody else’s views in advance of those views being accessible to everyone else. So I respectfully will leave it to others to discuss that topic.
Keller:
I agree with your wish to avoid getting into exegesis, but I think the Abraham account is clear that the curse on the Priesthood through the Pharoahs predates Egyptus. As far as your numerated comments, I can say that I largely agree with almost every point, though many of your conclusions toss a huge stick in the spokes of traditional LDS thought. I would argue your first point regarding skin color as a curse. This is largely semantics, the scriptures never do label skin color a “curse”, though they do call it a “mark” which is usually placed on a cursed/wicked/filthy/loathsome, people, and that as a warning against intermarriage. So, while you are correct “curse” may be technically incorrect, the sentiment is still the same by associating darker skin color with a groups relative unworthiness.
Keller:
I would be interested to hear what McGee will have to say on the Kinderhook plates. I have read the brief statement posed by Hauglid during the Bushman Q&A, which I find less than encouraging. Perhaps he will have a more solid published statement. From the Bushman seminar he seems to infer that Clayton did record Joseph correctly, but that an alternative explanation was that Joseph was trying to translate both academically and spiritually, but came up short on the spiritual side, so he just made an intellectual error. this is a bigger stretch than the laws of probability would allow I’m sure, given that the characters on the kinderhook plates were just copied from latin, greek and chinese gibberish decorated on the side of a second rate tea set in order to give it an authentic feel. I know you said that you don’t want to shoot before the papers are out, so I will let this stand.
I heard Hauglid’s paper at the Bushman seminar. I thought it was a reasonable and interesting approach. I was rather impressed with this presentation. Hauglid is an Egyptologist, not a specialist in Kinderhookery, if you will, so this was relatively new territory for his research.
He disagreed (or took issues) with apologetic responses that claim William Clayton must have been misinformed when he recorded that Joseph had translated part of the plates or said that they were from a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, etc.
He noted that Clayton was quite the stickler when it came to details, and if his account is to be trusted (it is still possible he had heard the info from another source) we could plausibly accept that Joseph looked at the plates and possibly gave an opinion on them or made an attempt to translate. (I’ll add my thoughts on whether JS made the statements recorded by WC or not below.)
Most important to Hauglid, (and I agree with him here, as explained below) is that Joseph either became aware that the plates weren’t authentic or that he simply became uninterested in them. He never made it beyond the phase of preliminary observations. The conspirators never got to spring the trap on him. Why not!?
Hauglid said the Prophet’s normal sequence with ancient records was transcribing, then publishing, then publicizing, all usually in a short period of time. There is no evidence for _any_ of these things taking place with the Kinderhook Plates.
Now, as for my thoughts:
Some believe that as Joseph’s scribe, Clayton must have received all his information from Joseph himself. Indeed, he received a lot of information directly from JS. I think it is reasonable to assume he received this information from JS as well. Still, this is (quite frankly) impossible to prove at this point historically speaking. Additionally, other rumors about the plates circulated through Nauvoo. Again, nothing ever became of these rumors. To denmonstrate the difficulty of verifying what JS said and what Clayton wrote consider the King Follett Discourse. Clayton contributed there as well in the form of shorthand notes but how was this contribution different?
First, Clayton’s notes are from an actual dated sermon of Joseph Smith. His notes can be compared with those of Willard Richards, Samuel W. Richards, Thomas Bullock, Wilford Woodruff, and George Laub.
Still, the quasi-official version we use today (found in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. Joseph Fielding Smith) may be less reliable than members of the Church have known thus far. Shorthand was still years away, and comparing the notes of the above named men makes for a very interesting historical exercise. The TPJS version is based upon Bullock’s Times and Seasons amalgamated version which was not done until the month after the sermon. Joseph Smith possibly reviewed the text, but there is no record that he did either way. Thus, when I read the quasi-official version now there is a lingering doubt. I am more disposed to compare the various notes and see what I can discover there, than I am to accept the TPJS version at face value.
So there is ambiguity in what JS said in the KFD, and we have multiple sources there, so what can we say about this one scrap of info? Tough to judge. Other accounts of JS’s supposed translation of the KH plates contradict aspects Clayton’s and agree with other aspects, much like the KFD, but these differences can’t be attributed to differences in recording the same words at the same time as others. We are working with rumor mill stuff.
Now, IIRC the Clayton account or others claim JS sent for a lexicon when he was looking at the plates. If we accept Clayton’s account, which is fine, I think it’s plausible, given that he didn’t attempt to do so (or claim to do so) via revelation or of use of the seer stone, and instead sent for lexicons, it appears to have been a secular or academic approach unlike the revelations. He did not attempt to do so via his role as a Prophet in other words. So Joseph, who often demonstrated a fascination with languages, may have attempted to study it out in his mind, hit some roadblocks, then asked if it be right only to receive a stupor of thought or summat.
Further, can you find any historical evidence that suggests Smith translated a “portion?” What happened to the portion? If it even existed, why did it disappear? An interesting hole in the KH plates issue. If Joseph was an eager impostor one might think he would jump at this chance and see it through, especially given the hard evidence in the form of plates to show all. (Of course, he may not have liked that evidence, either.)
As a corollary, the most crucial thing about the scenario imo is that JS never “completed” a translation, attempted to publish one, etc. for this incident.The trap wasn’t sprung. Interesting stuff.
Again, given the time period of the Kinderhook plates, it really isn’t at all remarkable that Joseph Smith didn’t get too involved. Particularly given that the general Church consensus regarding the plates for 60 – 100 years was that the documents were authentic. So if we are going to accept negative evidence, such as “Joseph never completed the translation therefore he likely didn’t accept them”, then we can easily cancel that out with the opposing negative that Joseph never declared them fraud, so he must have believed them. In either case the conclusions either of us draw from the subjective piece of evidence is merely conjecture. I do agree that the Kinderhook plates do not absolutely demonstrate anything about Joseph Smith without the assumptions we make to support our theories.
I am not sure I follow the question regarding a translation. If you are suggesting that no contemporary document exists seperate to William Clayton’s Journal demonstrating an attempt to translate, then I guess I see your point. However, if we take Claytons entry at face value and suppose it is correct, then I would argue you have a partial translation there. Hauglid, among others, in order to make a case for the preliminary academic opinion theory suggest that Joseph Smith was just making an intellectual observation that if the plates were Egyptian, then likely the author decended from Ham’s lineage. This would almost work if Clayton’s journal suggested that the plates author was “a descendant of Pharoah through the loins of Ham”, and left it at that. Unfortunately he also includes a prophetic qualifier that this same man “recieved his kingdom from the God of Heaven and Earth”. That seems like an odd intellectual observation, but bears a remarkable prophetic quality. I am sure we could debate this as I cannot demonstrate what exactly Joseph’s intent may have been with that phrase. I also have a hard accepting that Joseph was able to use his Lexicon to get that passage out of some linguisticaly mixed gibberish.
I would argue that if we are to accept Clayton’s record as correct then it appears Joseph interpreted some fraudulent plates. I would also argue that as the reason why the long standing apologist position has been to throw Clayton uner the bus. The trouble has been that doing so may not seem tenable, or could at least jeopardize the intergrity of other things he may have written.
I do agree that the Kinderhook plates do not absolutely demonstrate anything about Joseph Smith without the assumptions we make to support our theories.
I think that is a fine way of stating the general situation. In regards to your other points, my original statements stand as they are.
Fair enough.
An interesting side effect of taking Clayton seriously would be that it provides a counter-example to the pervasive myth that Ham’s descendents all inherited Cain’s curse through Ham’s wife and therefore were excluded from any priesthood responsibilities solely because of genetics. I think Mauss pointed this out in one of his publications.
I can think of many ancient works that are written with a political agenda that establishes its protagonist as having rights to lead that were divinely given and superior to any rival: 1st Nephi, the Gospels, Book of Abraham, Moses vs. Pharoah, David vs. Saul, Paul’s letters, etc. So Joseph Smith’s speculation that a random, presumably ancient work would make such a claim is academically defensible in terms of probabilities and could easily have been a generalization of the ancient texts he had already worked with.
I think I’ll echo Bhodges sentiment, my original statement stands.
Two thoughts about the Kinderhook plates:
1. Joseph didn’t always act “quickly” to translate. He possessed the papyri in 1835, and never got around to translating the Book of Joseph.
2. Any consideration of the plates must explain where Clayton got the idea that the plates were a record of a descendant of Ham. If Joseph didn’t say this to him, did Clayton make it up? Was it someone else’s speculation? If it isn’t a record of Joseph’s claims, then what else was Clayton misreporting or making up in his record?
Cinepro
Just to belabor one point, any consideration should do more than just explain where Clayton got the idea for Ham’s lineage. It should also explain how he came to the conclusion that this man inherited his kingdom from God, something that is certainly beyond the scope of academic conjecture.
If Clayton contrived the account, or reported rumor as fact, then Joseph Smith is off the hook (no pun intended). Unfortunately as you point out, that raises the question of credibility surrounding other facts of Church history that hang upon Claytons witness.
I thought I would post somewhat of an update on the approach that I took in this post and in the comments. A mover and shaker in the countercult industry raised wrote his own blog, without being aware of mine, on whether past belief regarding the meaning of the term generation get Mormonism off the hook. I won’t link to it, because I am not going to critique any of the arguments brought up there.
One can see that it might be more of a stretch for us than, say, Joseph F. Smith’s time (could be a generation gap thing 🙂 ) Vocabulary wrestling is not all that interesting to me, unless I wanted to hold more people’s feet to the fire to convert them to my open theism paradigm. But I think that would be counter-productive and seen as an attack on scripture.
For any fence sitters, consider that Section 124 (the section I regard as the last authoritative word on the subject, although Pres. Hinckley’s remarks are interesting) explains that enemies that prevented construction would be cursed for multiple generations. The word generation is used in some form 29 times in that section by my count, none of them accommodate the reading usually given 84’s use.
Hopefully that is a weak enough argument, so as not to seed cognitive dissonance to those firmly entrenched in a favorite interpretation and hold dear the possibility of a more literal fulfillment than do I. While I would cheer for such, I do not think that such a vision is the best defence against the charge of false prophecy. I am content that thoughtful individuals have different opinions than I do. After all open theism could be just a phase I am going through.
I have argued in the past that the relative ability to see implied conditions behind prophecies that may appear to have been failures may rely on one’s position on the Calvinism-Open Theism spectrum. I noticed that Norman Geisler [1] recently (while disagreeing with open theism) recognizes that open theism entails that “all prophecy is conditional” and his objection seems to be that it takes the force out of a countercultist’s favorite proof-text:
“It Undermines the Test for False Prophecy
If all prophecy is conditional, then there cannot be any such thing as a false prophecy. The Old Testament, however, lays down tests for false prophets, one of which is whether or not the prediction comes to pass. ‘If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously’ (Deut. 18:22). If the neotheists are correct, however, then this test cannot be valid.”
On the other hand, assumptions of biblical inerrancy and an omniscient God, helps some classical theists charitably (towards the human prophet) read an implied condition for what would otherwise be a failed prophecy such as 2 Kings 20:1 and Jonah 3:4.
If I was a Doctrine and Covenants inerrantist and a classical theist I would charitably (towards Joseph Smith) and creatively look for an unwritten condition analogous to what some biblical inerrantists do[2]. So while an open theism paradigm is not necessary to come to the same conclusion I do (84:1-5 is not a false prophecy) it would appear to be sufficient.
[1]http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/nor_geisler/nor_geisler.nom.html
[2] for example see: http://www.founders.org/journal/fj52/article2.html
Another aspect that deserves attention is regarding the original Isaiah prophecy about the New Jerusalem (referenced by Pres. Hinckley above). Are modern parallels an example of Mormons likening Isaiah to our day (and perhaps not really fulfilling what Isaiah had in mind) or Isaiah likening or explaining his vision in terms his immediate audience would understand?
I agree that the scriptures up through D&C 133:13 consistently identify the spot for Is. 2:2-3,5 as Jerusalem. However scripture prophets only see through a glass darkly (enigmatically). The identity of Jerusalem as the location is not arguably not the essential part of the prophecy.
The argument about presentist interpretation cuts boths ways. Isaiah uses Jerusalem as the setting for his prophecy because he was not culturally conditioned to imagine any other setting. A vision of, say, Salt Lake and its environs would have been meaningless to him and perhaps created more confusion compared to the simple message the revelation was intended to convey to him about a glorious temple in the future.