Apostasy, Part 2

Read Part 1 first if you haven’t already. This will make more sense in context.

Note: References to Socrates are not to a Greek Philosopher chronicled by Plaro, but to a 4^th century historian of the same name,

Overview

The early church struggled with self-definition. The apostles were sent out to be witnesses of Christ in all the world. This they and the results were remarkable. Success dates from the great Pentecost experience, after which Peter becomes a stalwart, powerful and mature leader. Yet there was much which needed definition – and there were no printing presses, telephones, powered vehicles, etc, etc. to assist in this process. So leadership meetings were difficult and relatively rare and communication was by personal visits, messengers or letters. Much of the New Testament is comprised of some of these letters. Keep in mind that these written letters were “occasional” in nature – that is, written as a thing in itself in response to a need, situation or problem. This is in contrast to some like, say, the Federalist Papers which were written as a body of work, building one upon another or in response to other letters on the same topic, a succession of letters made into one whole. Also, Paul’s preference was to visit with “his” congregations personally, second choice was to send a messenger or emissary, and writing a letter was the third option in order of preference. From this we might infer that if there was something really important for him to address, he might well have done so in person, thus depriving us (and potentially the rest of Christendom of his time) a written record of whatever was going on. [Note also the titillating fact that a version of the Book of Acts has been identified which is about 20% longer than our current book.]

Moral of the story thus far: To our best knowledge there was never a handbook written outlining the doctrines and practices of the church. But if there was such a thing, we certainly don’t have it. And we won’t even slow down to comment on the argument that we don’t need anything more than the Bible, that it is fully adequate. Manifestly untrue. Were it fully adequate, why are there so many creeds, edicts, papal bulls . . . . most using non-scriptural terms to define the faith? Whoops, I wasn’t going to go there,

The histories of the churches demonstrate growing, real differences. What constitutes scripture? [Have you seen a Catholic Bible?] The first known list of scriptural books which make up our New Testament dates from the early 4^th century. Many volumes did not make the cut to get into the official scriptures, although individual churches or movements used them.

I think you get the drift.

Anyway, enter Constantine. It is not our purpose to spend much time on him. But he was Emperor, which counts for a whole lot, and he converted to Christianity. He became unhappy with the wrangling and the “wrestling” in the church over doctrine and decided to do something about it. He called for a world-wide council and told them, essentially, that their behavior unacceptable and that he wanted the squabbling stopped and that no one got to go home until they had solved the doctrinal questions which beset the church.

Some Pre-Nicean Background

With the loss of the apostles and their authority, the church was really a set of congregations. They struggled within themselves and between each other. They were obviously well disposed to each other and did things like share the apostolic letters and post-apostolic letters they had through the expensive and time consuming and problematic process of hand copying. Within the void of leadership we see the emergence of the ‘Church Fathers’ – a group of educated leaders who essentially filled the leadership void because they could write and had scholarly credentials. Many of their writings exist and give us great insight into what was happening, especially in the 3^rd and 4^th centuries of the church.

The training of the day was Greek Philosophy, rhetoric and dialectic. Rhetoric being the art of philosophical debate or argumentation and dialectic being a popular and powerful example of how the rhetoricians argued. In fact, many of these folks traveled around as itinerant teachers or performers, earning a living through their knowledge and rhetoric.

Into this context we have an event which the historian Socrates credits as being impetus for
Constantine to call the Council of Nicea. He describes it this way:

One day [the Bishop of Alexandria] in a meeting of his presbyters and the rest of the clergy under him theologized in a rather showy way on the subject of the Holy Trinity; philosophizing to the effect that that in a triad is really a monad. Arias, one of the presbyters under his authority and not unskilled in dialectic give and take, took the extreme opposite position, just to show how much smarter he was, and replied bitingly to the things the Bishop had said. . . . By constructing his (Arias) syllogisms by this novel reasoning, he attracted everybody’s attention – and with a small spark lit a might blaze.

Here we see the problems with philosophy, i.e., man’s wisdom. The Bishop was being showy, using non-scriptural terms like triad and monad, and Arias taking on the challenge just to outshine the Bishop. They were not motivated to discover the truth and they started a controversy which engulfed the whole church. Constantine said this disunity was improper and led the children of God astray. Thus he called the Council of Nicea to settle the controversy once and for all.

Socrates gives us this view of some pre-council activities:

Meanwhile, not long before the general assembly was to take place, certain dialecticians were addressing the multitude and showing off in controversy. Great crowds being attracted by the pleasure of hearing them, one of the confessors, a layman with a clear head, stood up and rebuked the dialecticians and said to them that Christ and the Apostles did not give to us the dialectical art nor empty tricks, but straightforward knowledge preserved by faith and good works. When he said this, all those present were flabbergasted, and then agreed. And the dialecticians, hearing straight talk, became a good deal more sober and contained. Thus was abated the uproar which dialectic had stirred up.

Well, there were apparently some clear headed people around. Unfortunately they were not among those who were about to make the creeds.

Here is another interesting vignette. It involves Justin and someone identified only as an old man or aged Christian. Justin was a pagan and a philosopher who converted to Christianity and became one of the more influential early writers and teachers in the church. This dialogue goes a long way to illustrate the problem faced in the early church.

In a public forum Justin explains that the main business of philosophy is the search for God. To this the old man questions:

OM: What do philosophers say God is?

Justin: That which always has the same relationships to things, is always the same in and of itself and is the cause of all other things. That is God.

OM: How can such a being be known? If someone told you that there was an animal in Ludia shaped like no other animal on earth with such and such properties . . . and you haven’t seen it, you would at least need to talk to someone who had seen it. [Justin agrees.] Then how can philosophers think correctly about God or say anything true about him since they don’t have any actual knowledge about him, having at no time either seen or heard,

Justin: But my dear old man, God is not to be seen with the eyes as other living things are, but only to be grasped with the mind, as Plato says, and I believe him! According to Plato, God is seen with the mind’s eye; He being the cause of all perceptible things but himself; having no color, no shape, no dimension – none of such qualities as may be seen by the eye, but yet is that which exists beyond all existence; unutterable, indiscernible, yet alone beautiful and good, coming as a direct intuition to properly disposed spirits because of their kinship and their desire to see Him.

Compare this with Matthew 16:16-17; John 17:3.

So the Council was held. Out of came a creed which was more philosophical than scriptural. It passed on a close vote. At the end of the Council, Constantine address the group, restated that the squabbling was to stop and declared the new creed binding on all of Christendom. After all, he says, “it is incomprehensible.”

Hillary, a participant and Christian writer of the time, had this to say:

"We avoid believing that of Christ which He told us to believe, so that we might establish a treacherous unity in the false name of peace, and we rebel with new definitions of God against what we falsely call innovations, and in the name of the Scriptures we deceitfully cite things that are not in the Scriptures: changeful, prodigal, impious, changing established things, abolishing accepted doctrine, presuming irreligious things."

As on observer noted, “Either the Christians became philosophers, or the ancient philosophers were somehow Christians all along.”

Eusubius, a major Christian historian, went to great pains to hail this Council as a wonderful thing and that his employer, Constantine, had done a great thing to bring this to a wonderful conclusion. He defends the use of non-scriptural terms and reassures us that this wall just fine. After all, the council had worked hard and all was arrived at not without careful examination and according to opinions presented and agreed upon in carefully worded “logismoi”.

Logismoi? Yes, an interesting choice of wording because Paul uses this very word when he says revealed knowledge invalidates and confounds all “logismoi: -- that is all calculations of men.

This is in contrast to how the church, led by a prophet, resolves disputes. Let’s go back to one of the disputed ideas in the early church which we considered at the beginning – the problem of circumcision. The church leaders met together and counseled and prayed. Then Peter announced the decision that was given him of the spirit. Acts 15:12 says “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”

Conclusion

A brief one, as we are out of time. But the reformation comes along, primarily to correct abusive practices in the church. Luther had 95 theses which he thought needed to be addressed, for example. He had no intention of starting his own church, but he wanted to resolve differences. Gradually, very gradually, religious toleration increased. This paved the way for a new nation to be founded specifically as a place where the gospel could be restored and the long famine of hearing the word of the Lord could be over. (Amos 8:11-12) But it was a near thing. Bringing forth of the gospel “Cost the best blood of the 19^th century” (D&C 135) and the persecutions are not over yet – not by a long way.

But if the Latter-day Saints have been spared this groping in the philosophical half-light, searching for the ideation called God, it is because we have been lead by living prophets and apostles. It is worth remembering that Paul warned Timothy that the church would harbor those who were “ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

A final note on faith and works – “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free. . . . If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” (John 8:31-32, 36)

It has been pointed out to me just how derelict I have been in blogging. All I can say is that I am flattered anyone noticed. So in honor of those requests, I am posting my notes for my Friday Night Gospel Study presentation. This will be given July 1.

THE APOSTASY

We have to begin this discussion by setting some background. There are three points I want to make about what was going on in the early church. I will try to make these points in 10 minutes each, leaving 30 minutes for discussion of the central event which crystallized the apostasy and, in my mind, kind of made it official. [Although it had happened long before this, insidiously, it was the Council of Nicea which stands out in my mind as the point in history we can point to which makes it a done deal, no turning back and all the churches thereafter signed up that his creed was the official document of the apostasy. It was not the apostasy, it was just the formal signed declaration which assured they would teach ever after the doctrines of men and reason and not the doctrines of Christ and of revelation.]

It is very clear that from this point forward the churches taught the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

Point #1: What is happening in the early church?

The far flung world was made large by the difficulty of communication and travel. Letters took long journeys and replies were slow. Each of the apostles worked diligently to testify of Christ in all the world. [Acts1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.] As we shall see, the apostles initially had a narrow of view of what this meant, but then we are in pre-Pentecost days here and the weight of revelation in the church was yet to come.

A big question in the church concerned the relationship of the church and the gospel to the Jewish and the gentile members. There are three populations in the church:

The Jews living in the area of Jerusalem, the Jews living in the Greek/Roman world, the Diaspora, and the gentile converts, or Greeks as they were often called.

Now here I am giving my view and I am doing it in 10 minutes so it is quick and broad brush, but I think it will help as a context.

The Jewish Christians came up through the Jewish religion. They were the chosen people of God. The worked hard at their religion, which required a great deal more of them than did the pagan religions which surrounded them. [N.B. “Pagan” here means non-Jewish and/or non Christian. Pagan religions were generally polytheistic and imbued nature with religious powers which they respected and celebrated. Pagan does not have the negative connotation that it does today in our ordinarily language, e.g., “sinner” or “reprobate.”]

So here might be the Jewish Christian view of the world. We are the chosen people, we had Moses who gave us God’s law and we live the Law of Moses. Our prophets prophesied of the Messiah to come and that He would come through Judah. The Messiah did come, we are still the same chosen people [after all, the Messiah did come to us] and we keep going as Jews, Children of Abraham and of the covenant, with the now re-instituted and expanded Gospel. Still right, still chosen, still doing the same things only bundled in faith and not the performances of the Law, etc, etc.

Peter was clearly of such a mind as this in the beginning of his ministry as well. He began to change through the revelation to take the gospel to the gentiles, beginning with Cornelius, It is interesting to me that the Lord used the metaphor of Food, non-Kosher we would say today. Peter said he had never eaten that which was unclean. But he was corrected – things thought to be unclean in the past are not so now. By understanding this vision perhaps Peter also begins to understand that not only will the gospel go to the gentiles, to all the world, but that the Law truly is done away.

There were two issues which brought this into clear focus; Circumcision and the sitting at table with gentiles. From a Jewish Christian point of view, new converts needed to be circumcised to keep the Abrahamic covenant [Genesis 17:9-11]. In fact, this did happen in some cases. But in Acts 15 we have the model for the resolution of doctrinal questions in the Church. You go to the Prophet, to the 12, and they discuss it, pray about it and receive revelation.

The gentile convert view might look something like this: This is a new dispensation of the gospel. We believe the message and are baptized as a sign of our covenant with God. We are not Jews nor do we need to be. But the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, but literally and figuratively. We are the Children of Christ, not Abraham.

This set of issues plays its way throughout the New Testament letters and the Book of Acts. If you keep this in mind as you read and study, you will be impressed with just how difficult a problem it was to solve in the actual practices of the various congregations throughout the New Testament world.

Point #2: The Problem of Works

Works #1

Works of the Law of Moses. These are all of the performances, sacrifices and rituals required by the Law to teach the people to look forward to the Messiah and how to recognize him. He would be the fulfillment of the Law. A) He would personally keep all aspects of the Law, fulfill it in his own life. He did all the things required of a faithful Jew of the day. B) He was also the fulfillment of the Law in that He was the Messiah, the sacrifice, the LAMB OF GOD put upon the altar for us. So the Law was fulfilled in reality – not cast aside, but completed.

This was a sticking point in the New Testament church and much of Paul’s writing dealt with these issues. It is important to differentiate between when Paul is talking about these kinds of works vs. when he talks about Works #2 or Works#3.

Works#2

The ordinances, judgments, sacraments of the church are often referred to as works. For example, baptism is an ordinance or sacrament of the church.

The problem here is both simple and very insidious. Here is the simple way to think about these “works.” Is baptism necessary? Yes. Is baptism sufficient? No.

[Acts 19 shows us good intentions are not enough and there are right and wrong ways for baptism, but that is for another day. Joseph Smith commented that you might as well baptize a bag of sand as to baptize someone who was not full of faith and repentant.]

The problem with Works#2 will be discussed in a moment.

So we ask, In what way is baptism not sufficient?

This brings us directly to Works#3.

This version of works refers to personal righteousness, service, charity of heart and “good deeds.”

Are they necessary? Yes.

Are they sufficient? No. [1 Corinthians 13, Section 121:34-46, Matt 7:24ff]

This issue became difficult as a growing worldwide church became large, somewhat contentious over doctrine and as confused as the primitive church over practices. Institutional solutions to problems were solved through synods, conferences, rhetoric, dialectic, heated debate, etc and eventually voted on or decreed by the head of the church or of the government. Many issues and doctrines were not “settled” for 1000 years! Some, like faith vs. works, is still a contentious issue throughout Christendom and we could spend hours on this. [The main problem is those who want to craft a theology out of verses read in isolation and out of context. The New Testament is not a theological treatise and was not written that way and to wrest the scriptures in that way leads to creeds which are an abomination is the sight of God.]

The church in the middle ages became more aligned to procedure and ordinances. You can, after all, keep track of this – its empirical. The issues of faith and good works took a back seat. This lead to abuses [there are always abuses, even in our church, see 121 again. Thankfully, though, we have no “career paths” in the church and release people from leadership and make them followers again to reduce the chances of personality cults, etc.]. The REFORMERS, especially, Martin Luther, set out to bring things back into balance, not to overthrow the church. They wanted, in a sense to bring into balance Faith and Works (ordinances) and Works (personal righteousness).

Point #3: So where did we go wrong?

It is difficult to describe the processes in the early church in any detail. We just don’t know the facts. Most of what we “know” is inferred from history, context and thoughtful speculation. We do know some things:

The testimony of the Savior and the spiritual writings of the early leaders were powerful enough to echo through the centuries and endure to our time.

Devoted people spent much of their lives in service so that we could have the scriptures. This includes the Jews and the early Christians.

The Brethren appear to have more difficulties keeping the churches in line than they did in creating new churches through preaching. Splinter groups, setting up on their own terms but using the name of the church and some of its writings (and some of their own) were a confusion and a distraction.

The church cannot be run according to man’s wisdom. Paul saw that early on and warned against it. Note that he was one of the brightest and most gifted and he knew of the folly of men's wisdom (foolishness to God).

There were constant warnings of apostasy – both individual and institutional. We should not be surprised that the church did not remain.

With the loss of apostolic authority, the loss of direction became an obvious problem. No longer did people act with true authority, but took that honor unto themselves. (Heb 5:4)

Peter really captures these problems in a letter to James:

“They think they are able to interpret my own words better than I can, telling their hearers they are conveying my very thoughts to them – while such things never entered my head. If they take such liberties while I am alive, what will they do when I am gone?”

Well, he was gone and so were the 12. The now leaderless church struggled for identity, direction and guidance. Where was the Moses, the Samuel, the Peter, for their time? Priesthood leadership from ordinary people called of God by prophecy was replaced by scholars trained in classical Hellenistic philosophy, dialectic and rhetoric. The church began to be followers of Aristotle, Plato and other philosophical schools and THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH BECAME THE LANGUAGE OF PHILOSOPHY and SO DID THE DOCTRINES – mingled with scripture.

All this come to a crescendo with Constantine. He became tired of the bickering and “wrestling” in the church and called the church leaders into council and told them they were not to leave until the problem was solved.

What Problem? The problem of a church nearly 300 years old did not know who or what they were worshiping.

We will now take a sneak peak at the Council of Nicea, because it is a living laboratory of how man’s wisdom is foolishness to God.

[The look at Nicea is coming in the next Blog]

Mini Blogs

You have either forgotten entirely that I have a blog or you have charitably noticed, but not mentioned, that I haven't posted anything in a month. I plan to remedy that, starting right now. I am going to enter some mini-blogs about the Book of Mormon. They are not designed to be scholarly, because I am not one, but they take from the work of scholars. In other words, these are more homey and personal -- yet profound because of the truths contained.

It is no accident that this comes 24 hours before I give a presentation on the Book of Mormon to our ward as a Friday Night Fireside. There is so much material about the Church, the Book of Mormon and the Prophet Joseph that we just can't comprehend much of it! [E.g., "No man knows my history." That includes, by the way, Fawn Brodie who wrote a book about Joseph and took that quote as the title. That was the highlight folks, it was downhill after that. She also wrote a similarly wretched book about Thomas Jefferson which would have completely ruined her academic reputation if she hadn't relieved a lot of people's minds about Joseph Smith. Hugh Nibley wrote a riposte called "No Ma'am, That's Not History," which shreds Brodie's scurrilous book. I have a copy which can be borrowed with a promise of careful handling.]

So, blogette #1

'I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone to our religion, and that a man can get closer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book." This is a bold claim. Joseph Smith did not respond to the Lord's call to the prophet ship tentatively. He was, as we now like to say, "all in." If he was perpetrating a fraud, it was a bold one. If he was trying to pass off fantasy for fact, he was doing so with a flourish. many, assuming to know the answer before investigating, look high and low for explanations of this great revealed keystone of our religion -- everywhere but in the book itself. As one historian noted, tongue in cheek, the Book of Mormon is one book people don't need to read in order to have an opinion of it! So true!

How do we resolve the question? By taking the one course which will give us the answer and which, by the way is right in front of us. Read the book! Follow its precepts! See what happens! Stop wringing your hands (or your brains)! This is good doctrine. The Lord Himself explained this to reticent listeners in His day: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." [John 7:17) As my parents were wont to say, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

So quit looking for a replacement for the Spaulding Manuscript. That ship sailed over a 100 years ago.

We can apply all this in the micro as well as the macro sense. When we are troubled, when we are down, when we are spiritually confused, WHEN WE FEEL FAR FROM GOD, the answer is the same. Sup from the pages of the Book of Mormon, apply them to your life and you will feel the renewing spirit of God come back into your life. "I will not leave your comfortless: I will come to you." (John 14:18)

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000014630 StartFragment:0000000484 EndFragment:0000014614

“Joseph, Joseph, Joseph”

--Last words of Brigham Young

The ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee;

While the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand. [D&C 122:1-2]

Recently I read an article which tossed off Joseph Smith with a phrase. It was one of those, “As we all know, Smith was a _________. You can fill in the blank with any one of a half dozen flippancies: Farm boy, evil genius, an expert in mass hypnosis, a charlatan and fraud, paranoid schizophrenic, etc, etc. But the interesting thing is the author then assumed he had handled an otherwise awkward problem, and never returned to discuss Joseph again – he just went on with his rehash of old business about the church.

I was incensed and offended. I thought, “What have YOU done, mr. author, that was so great? You trot out your resume and we will compare it with Joseph's and see just who the pretender really is!” The thought came to my mind that someone who wants to take on Joseph had better bring the “A Game!” And still they are going to fall very short of the prophet. So with a bit of a chip on my shoulder, I began to consider the little bit I know about the life, works, leadership, sacrifice of Joseph Smith.

As a base line, let's remember that Joseph had very little education. He was, basically, uneducated – except he could read because of the Bible study which the Smith Family did consistently. The more one studies Joseph, the more one realizes he knew a great deal about the Bible. In fact, as he translated Book of Mormon passages which taught familiar Bible truths, he often used Bible phraseology to express the ideas. He did this without referring to the Bible itself. The old anti-Mormon canard that we don't use or believe in the Bible is crazy – the Founder loved and was intimately acquainted with the Bible and quoted it often.

So let's take a few peeks at Joseph and what he accomplished and then ask ourselves about this resume and see if we like it.

Origins

First we are all familiar with the origin stories. The First Vision and the Moroni visits. We could spend the full time on any of this and get good value, but we won't. Here is an interesting view aspect of the visions of Joseph. These first visits were to Joseph alone. Thereafter, the significant events involving Heavenly Messengers always included other people. When John the Baptist came and bestowed the Aaronic Priesthood, Oliver was there. Same with the Melchizedek, bestowed by Peter James and John. When the 76^th Section was given, there was Sidney Rigdon. The visit of the savior to the accept the Kirtland Temple, there was Oliver again. The heavenly manifestations in Kirtland were seen by many, many people, both in the temple and from the outside.

And then there are the Book of Mormon witnesses. How do you get people to sign such a document as the Three Witnesses did, then have them leave the church but never refute their testimony of the Book of Mormon. This is a good trick. The entire public life of the three witnesses was dogged by their witness of the Book of Mormon. And these were considerable men.

Martin Harris, on his deathbed, had someone hold up his right arm as he testified again of the truth of the Book. David Whitmer seemingly spent his life testifying of the Book and being interviewed by newspapers and many others who came to visit. Oliver also. Now, they did not just ADMIT they signed the statement in the Book of Mormon, they aggressively testified of its truth, and did so at every opportunity.

The Anthon Manuscript.

There is a lot of controversy about the Anthon Manuscript. What did happen when Martin Harris took those characters to New York to see Professor Anthon and perhaps a few others. [BYU Studies of a few years back gives and excellent treatment to this trip and all its details.] Do we believe Martin Harris' version or Anthon's recollections which were prodded out of him many years later? We will never really know, from a historian's point of view, what really happened. Here is what we well and truly know. Martin Harris was about to pledge his farm and a large sum of money for the printing of the Book of Mormon. He had doubts. He wanted reassurance. He took the characters and went to New York City and Columbia University. When he returned from the trip he pledged his farm. You decide what happened on the trip.

The Book of Mormon

What will yo do with the Book of Mormon? Let's just take a brief look at that and get some appreciation. Elder Bednar's, in a talk to mission presidents, told about writing a book with a colleague while he was on the faculty of a business school. It was very exciting to open this new book, which had been several years in the making, and gratifying to see the results of all that work. They were the product of a lot of effort. He began to flip through it and already could see a couple of errors. Oh well, that happens in printing. Then he thought about some interesting new data which had come to light since they had put the book “to bed.” Well, that's always going to happen. In fact, he mused, in about five years he and his co-author would probably have to completely revise the book or abandon it altogether. Things become out-dated that quickly.

Then his thoughts turned to the Book of Mormon. In contrast, he thought, this book had lasted 175 years with some printing and face-lift sort of changes since it was written on foolscap and turned over to the printer. He marveled how his book was the product of 5 years of research and work, the involvement of many graduate students and assistants, the product of professional editors and publishers and finally printed under the auspices of a large and prestigious publishing company. Poor Joseph and Oliver and a quill pen. They turned over their manuscript as a rough draft – Oliver having made an additional copy by hand just in case. [Joseph wasn't about to forget the 116 lost pages.]

The editing services were done by the printer. At first he added punctuation and paragraphs as he went [the manuscript essentially had none], then he began taking the manuscript home at night to edit it so he could use his time in the printing shop to set the type. This, briefly, is the origin of the Book which had withstood 175+ years of intense and malignant scrutiny. Instead of being a Ph.D. In his subject, Joseph knew nothing of the geography, language, culture, celebrations, customs, language, names, way of life of these people of whom he and Oliver wrote. But he got it all right.

The Evangelical Conference paper

In 1997, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen delivered a paper at an evangelical conference entitled “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?” In this paper they very thoughtfully review Book of Mormon scholarship and point out that attacking the Church on the Book of Mormon may not be the best use of resources. In fact, reading this you can see why the Book of Mormon has stood the test of time. [The article can be found here: http://www.cephas-library.com/mormon_apologetics_losing_battle.html. You will also note that is is an unauthorized draft and the authors have republished it with additions and editorial changes. The bibliographical reference is at the top of the article.]

Why Hasn't it Been Proven True?

Trying to tear down Joseph Smith makes some otherwise intelligent people say some pretty stupid things. Like one by a couple of “scholars”: “If the Book of Mormon were true, why hasn't there been anything discovered to prove it right?” This is laughable for two reasons: [1] EVERYTHING which comes along in the fields of egyptology, Mesoamerican research, etc etc etc, substantiates to Book of Mormon claims. Here is a quick and very incomplete laundry list:

Saudi Archeology and Geography

Land Bountiful

Word Prints

Chiasmus

Reformed Egyptian

Lakish Letters

Names in the BOM

Doctrinal Consistency

Internal Consistency of the BOM

[Each of these, and many more topics, are a presentation of themselves.]

Nearly 200 years of intense scrutiny of Joseph, his life, the scriptures and the church he founded finds only the normal insignificant foibles of humanity and no evidence which proves the Book of Mormon or the church wrong.

Reason [2] After 175 years, if the Book of Mormon were FALSE, wouldn't something have popped up to prove it wrong? Everything his critics have pointed out turn out to be positive for Joseph. Machinery in the BOM, likewise cement, making Alma a male name, the Hebrew forms of the language, the fealty of the 3 and 12 witnesses, the voluntary martyrdom, and the list goes on and on.

Well, we have not yet scratched the surface on Joseph. He was an extraordinary man. Tossing him off with a flippant comment and a biased epithet just won't do. And we haven't talked about 100,000 European converts leaving their homeland in the 19^th Century. We haven't talked about how the work survived after Joseph and Hyrum. We haven't talked about a steady stream of 50,000 self-supported missionaries. And you can think of thirty other things. So, if you want a piece of Joseph Smith, bring your “A Game.” I doubt it will be enough. I open with 100 million copies of the Book of Mormon printed and distributed by the year 2000. What have you got? ANYTHING like that? I didn't think so.

As a post script, here are a few more personal things about Joseph for your consideration. If the references are new to you, you can look them up or ask me about it. I have to quit, and not because I'm out of material!

How Joseph conducted his life

“I'm sorry five dollars worth”

Anthony and his slave son

Helping Emma in the house

Working side by side

Zions march, sharing authority

People coming into Nauvoo and recognizing Joseph in the crowd, though they had never seen him

People volunteering to die in his place

His return to Nauvoo and Carthage voluntarily

The Shrugging Off meeting

The sending away of the best and brightest at critical times [Kirtland, Martyrdom time]

Section 135

[If pushed, I could put together a Joseph Smith bibliography, even though others are MUCH more qualified.]

Elder Holland

Elder Holland came to Australia to choose a new stake president for the Deer Park Stake, releasing our friend David Hoare. While there, he spoke publicly to the YSA of 6 stake, the Leadership meeting of conference and two cinference session, then the 6-stake seminary graduation, then all day on Monday to the two combined Melbourne missions. These notes are hastily taken and, it goes without saying, he should not be held accountable for my note taking nor my extrapolations. I will say that it was one of the most spiritual, instructive and inspiring 4 days of my life.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

Priesthood Leadership Meeting

Deer Park Stake

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

November 19, 2005

We see, once again, where the spirit touches someone’s life and give them insight and inspiration. Again, revelation comes with an assignment, with something TO DO, not just insight but also work to do to assist in the Kingdom.

Elder Holland starts his remarks noting that Joseph was not only inspired by James 1:5, but went and did something about it.

JS 1:14-16 The word “power” is used here over and over.

However, one thing we learn here is it is not given to Lucifer to take a life – he cannot do it. If there ever was anyone Lucifer would like to have killed, it was Joseph. He would have if he could have.

So instead, Lucifer binds his tongue so he could not speak! There is a great lesson here. All we need to do for this church to fail is to keep our mouths shut! DO NOT LET LUCIFER BIND YOUR TONGUE AND DO NOT DO IT VOLUNTARILY!

After Joseph finds himself delivered from the power of the adversary, he is suffused in a heavenly light whose brightness and glory defy all description. It takes a moment, but he remembers why he came into the grove in the first place. We do not have his exact words, but we know his intent was to find which church he should join. So he asks. His answer comes in JS 1:19.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

Two important points regarding this statement by the Lord to Joseph. The first one is personal. “They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”

Lips vs. Hearts. This is one of the marks of apostasy and the biblical term for this is Hypocrisy.

“Brethren, we need to put our hearts where our mouths are!”

ily Home Evening -- better than we hold Family Home Evening. This applies to missionary work, temples scripture study and so forth. We talk better than we perform.

Point number two is more institutional in nature. It concerns “having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof.”

The ultimate maek of the true church is having the keys and power of the priesthood. The churches on the four corners of the main street in Palmyra all looked like churches. They had steeples, the Bible, etc. That is, they had the form of the church, but not the power.

"Behold, I say unto you, the redemption of Zion must needs come by power; Therefore, I will raise up unto my people a man, who shall lead them like as Moses led the children of Israel. For ye are the children of Israel, and of the seed of Abraham, and ye must needs be led out of bondage by power, and with a stretched–out arm." (D&C 103:15-17)

The power spoken of here is clearly the Priesthood. Not just the authority of the priesthood, but the power thereof, ie, the priesthood exercised in righteousness. (see D&C 121:36-38) Moses with his staff defied the most powerful man in the world. His outstretched arm with the staff was the priesthood – the power by which he did all that he did, including the parting of the Red Sea. This staff is the scepter referred to in D&C 121. See also D&C 84:19-22.

What this world needs is the “power of godliness made manifest in the flesh.” (D&C 84:22). We’ve got to get beyond the form of religion and get the power. We spend a lot of time in the forms – it is not enough just to show up at the buildings!

God said to Joseph, You give me your heart and I’ll give you the power and we will change the world! The answer to every problem in this stake lies in the exercise of priesthood power by someone.

There are 3 ways to increase the number of Melchizedek Priesthood holders.

1. Prospective elders and less active elders. Activate them and ordain them.
2. Advance Aaronic Priesthood holders. We lose too many of them.
3. Baptize them. NB: “Missionaries are not going to find adult men – the members have to do this.”

Ekder Holland to YSA

This Generation

Instruction by Elder Jeffrey Holland

Young Single Adult Fireside

Melbourne, Australia

November 18, 2005

The President of the Church appreciates your prayers, as surely as he prays for you.

Testimony “from me to you” that God lives and Jesus is the Christ and this is His church.

You live in the greatest moment of the history of the planet. I don’t know why we were born here and now, but this is the brightest hour in history – this is the best time and into it comes the restoration of the gospel with Priesthood, temples and missionaries around the world. I can only imagine the responsibility we have fro living here and now.

This time also offers the toughest challenges ever faced. The good and evil which has always existed is at a fever pitch.

I ask you to take seriously your moment on the stage and your role in the drama in these latter days. We need you. Were we to lose you and others in your generation, we would have to go back to New York and find 6 people and start all over again. When Brother Sybrowsky said you are the church, he was not exaggerating. You must carry it forward!

Every other dispensation was able to too keep working and keep sacrificing, not because they knew they would succeed – they knew they would not – but because they knew we could get it done. That puts a great responsibility on all of us. We owe them a great burden of success. We live in the dispensation when priesthood and apostles and temples, and all we are trying to do will continue and not be taken from the earth until the Savior comes.

A brief Joseph Smith Chronology

Event Age

First vision 14

Moroni’s first visit 17

Receives plates 21

Book of Mormon,

Church organized 24

Move to Kirtland 26

Zion’s Camp 28

Calls the 12 29

Kirtland Temple 30

Liberty Jail 33

Nauvoo City and Temple 34

Martyrdom 38

Christmas 2004

Christmas 2004

If you could be at some historical event, some time in history, what would that be? My brother raised that question when he said he would have liked to be on a hillside in Judea many years ago when the heavenly choir of angels announced to the world the birth of the Messiah.

Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. (Luke 2:10 - 11)

Here was announced the birth of the Messiah – the one looked for by all Israel, the object of all holy writ, of all the Law and the Prophets. Also was announced His role – the Saviour.

Who expected the announcement would come to shepherds? Why such a humble beginning? Who would hear their testimony?

And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. (Luke 2:16 - 17)

Was this any way to usher in the reign of the Messiah?

In the words of Janice Kapp Perry:*

His birth was so simple, the manger so plain

Where was the majesty fit for a King?

Born without fanfare, born without show,

That only the faithful might know.

Goliath found out the hard way that the Lord often chooses the weak and simple things of the earth to work out his purposes. They are the ones who be trusted to work in the Lord’s way and by His Spirit, not by their own designs.

So the Savior was born into a carpenter’s family, not one of the great houses of the time. He came from the wrong side of town, so many asked, “Who is this fellow?”

Who were his parents?

What kind of car does he drive?

What schools did he attend?

What honors has he acquired?

What – no scholarships, no sports trophies, no fine clothes, no professional

degrees, not the right clubs?

Who could have known on that Bethlehem night

The babe in the manger brought heaven’s pure light?

Only those who were wise, who followed the signs

Only they knew the child was divine.

And so in our time, when God decided to “restore all things in one,” (Eph 1:10) He again called upon the weak and simple things of the earth. A Boy prophet? Absurd! Why, he was from a poor family – why should we listen to this fellow. He’s a menace. You might as well accept the testimony of . . . shepherds!

But truly wise men, who watched for and followed the signs, came, and brought gifts and worshipped. Today, wise men still seek him.

What gifts will we bring? “What do you want for Christmas?” What does Jesus want for Christmas this year?

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. (John 21:15 - 17)

And now, behold, I say unto you, that the thing which will be of the most worth unto you will be to declare repentance unto this people, that you may bring souls unto me, that you may rest with them in the kingdom of my Father. (Doctrine and Covenants 15:6)

Who could have known that the baby so small

Was sent by the Father to rule over all?

Only those who have seen, who heard angels sing

Only they knew the child was a King.

Only they knew the love He would bring.

Only those who believed, who knelt at his feet

To worship the wee perfect one.

Only they knew the child was God’s son.

My Christmas wish is that we may be privileged to hear the angels sing and then, in gratitude and wonder, feed His sheep.

*”Who Could Have Known,” from Sing a Song of Christmas, Prime Recordings, Provo, 1988.