Joseph Smith's Consent Needed to Enter Heaven (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p.282-91)

Brigham Young Sermon:
Joseph Smith's Consent Needed to Enter Heaven
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p.282-91)

Brigham Young, October 9, 1859
Intelligence, Etc.
Remarks by President BRIGHAM YOUNG,
delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 9, 1859.
Reported by G. D. Watt
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p.282-91

I shall address you this morning upon a subject that is more interesting to me than any other pertaining to the life of man. It is a subject of deep study and research, and has been from age to age among the reflecting and philosophical portions of the human family. The intelligence given to the children of men is the subject to which I allude, and upon which has been expended more intellectual labour and profound thought than upon any other that has ever attracted the attention of man.

The Psalmist has written, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." This passage is but one of many which refer to the organization of man as though it were a great mystery—something that could not be fully comprehended by the greatest minds while dwelling in earthly tabernaeles. It is a matter of vital interest to each of us, and yet it is often farthest from the thoughts of the greater portion of mankind. Instead of reflecting upon and searching for hidden things of the greatest value to them, they rather wish to learn how to secure their way through this world as easily and as comfortably as possible. The reflections what they are here for, who produced them, and where they are from, far too seldom enter their minds.

Many have written upon this great; subject, and there exists a great variety of reflections, views, and opinions which I have not time to dwell upon in detail. I will merely give you a few texts, or what you may term a text-book. Nor shall I now take time to minutely elaborate any particular point, but will present such views as shall come into my mind, trusting that I shall have your faith and prayers to be able to edify both Saint and sinner, believer and unbeliever.

If the inhabitants of the earth throughly understood their own being, their views, feelings, faith, and affections would be very different from what they now are. Many believe in predestination, while others of the Christian world oppose that doctrine and exclusively advocate free grace, free will, free offering, etc.; and each party of Christians has its pet theory or doctrine, upon which it builds its hopes of eternal salvation. Such a course is like five or six hundred men each selecting and running off with a piece of the machinery of a cotton mill, and declaring that he had the cotton mill entire. This comparison may be truly applied to the Christian. world as it now is with regard to the holy and divine principles which have been revealed pertaining to eternal life and salvation.

Many of you, no doubt, have concluded that the doctrine of election and reprobation is true, and you do so with propriety, for it is true; it is a scriptural, doctrine. Others do not believe this doctrine, affirming with all their faith, might, and skill that free grace and freewill are or ought to be the foundation of man's faith in his Creator. Very well. I can also say to them that free grace and freewill are scripturally true. The first-named doctrine is as true as the second, and the second as the first. Others, again, declare that mankind have no will, neither free nor restrained, in their actions; for instance, the Rationalists or Freethinkers, who deny the existence and divinity of the Gods that we believe in. But so far from their believing their own theory, Mr. Neil, of Boston, while in prison for having no religion, wrote an essay, in which he declared that "All is God."

I might enumerate many more instances, and say that they are all right so far as they go in truth. The doctrine of freewill and conditional salvation, the doctrine of free grace and unconditional salvation, the doctrine of foreordination and reprobation, and many more that I have not time enumerate, can all be fully and satisfactorily proved by the Scriptures, and are true.

On the other hand, many untrue doctrines are taught and believed such as there being infants, not a span long, weltering in the flames of hell, there to remain throughout the countless ages of eternity, and the doctrine of total depravity. Some have gone so far as to say that a man or woman who wishes to be saved in the kingdom of God—who wishes to be a servant or handmaid of the Almighty, must feel that deep contrition of heart, that sound repentance, and such a sense of his or her unworthiness and nothingness, and of the supremacy; glory, and exaltation of that Deity they believe in, as to exclaim before God and their brethren and sisters that they are willing to be damned. To me that is one of the heights of nonsense; for if a person is willing to be damned, he cares not to make the efforts necessary to secure salvation. All this confusion is in the world—party against party—communities against communities—individuals against individuals. One sets out with five truths and fifteen errors, making the articles of his faith twenty; another dissents from him, rejects those five truths, selects perhaps five more, and adds as many errors as did the former one, and then he comes out a flaming reformer. Men, in dissenting from one another, have too often exercised no better judgment than to deny and dissent from many truths because their ancestors cherished and believed them, which has produced numerous parties, sects, and articles of faith, when, in fact, taking them in mass, they have an immense amount of true principles.

It was the occupation of Jesus Christ and his Apostles to propagate the Gospel of salvation and the principles of eternal life to the world, and it is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their elder brother, being at their head,) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanism of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every

The people upon this earth have a great many errors, and they have also a great many truths. This statement is not only true of the nations termed civilized—those. who profess to worship the true God, but is equally applicable to pagans of all countries, for in their religious rights and ceremonies may be found a great many truths which we will also gather home to Zion. All truth is for the salvation of the children of men—for their benefit and learning—for their furtherance in the principles of divine knowledge; and divine knowledge is any matter of fact—truth; and all truth pertains to divinity.

When we view mankind collectively, or as nations, communities, neighbourhoods, and families, we are led to inquire into the object of our being here and situated as we find ourselves to be. Did we produce ourselves, and endow ourselves with that knowledge and intelligence we now possess? All are ready to acknowledge that we had nothing to do with the origin of our being—that we were produced by a superior Power, without either the knowledge or the exercise of the agency we now possess. We know that we are here. We know that we live, breathe, and walk upon the earth. We know this naturally, as the brute creation knows. We know that our food and drink come from the elements around us: by them we are nourished, cherished, refreshed, and sustained, with the addition of sleep. We live and breathe, and breathe and live. Who can define and point out the particularities of the wonderful organization of man?

It enters into the minds of but few that the air we inhale is the greatest source of our life. We derive more real nourishment to our mortal tabernacles from this element than from the solid food we receive into our stomachs. Our lungs expand and contract to sustain the life which God has given us. Of the component parts of this great fountain of vitality I have not time to treat; but this interesting information you may gather in part from numerous works on natural philosophy. I will, however, say that the air is full of life and vitality, and its volume fills immensity. The relative terms height, depth, length, and breadth do not apply to it. Could you pass with the velocity of the electric fluid over telegraphic wires, during the continuation of more years than you can comprehend, you would still be surrounded by it and in the bosom of eternity as much as you now are; and it is filled with the spirit of life which emanates from God.

Many have tried to penetrate to the First Cause of all things; but it would be as easy for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth. It is not for man, with his limited intelligence, to grasp eternity in his comprehension. There is an eternity of life, from which we were composed by the wisdom and skill of superior Beings. It would be as easy for a gnat to trace the history of man back to his origin as for man to fathom the First Cause of all things, lift the veil of eternity, and reveal the mysteries that have been sought after by philosophers from the beginning. What, then, should be the calling and duty of the children of men? Instead of inquiring after the origin of the Gods—instead of trying to explore the depths of eternities that have been, that are, and that will be,—instead of endeavouring to discover the boundaries of boundless space, let them seek to know the object of their present existence, and how to apply, in the most profitable manner for their mutual good and salvation, the intelligence they possess. Let them seek to know and thoroughly understand

things within their reach, and to make themselves well acquainted with the object of their being here, by diligently seeking unto a superior Power for information, and by the careful study of the best books.

The life that is within us is a part of an eternity of life, and is organized spirit, which is clothed upon by tabernacles, thereby constituting our present being, which is designed for the attainment of further intelligence. The matter composing our bodies and spirits has been organized from the eternity of matter that fills immensity.

Were I to fully speak what I know and understand concerning myself and others, you might think me to be infringing. I shall therefore omit some things that I would otherwise say to you if the people were prepared to receive them.

Jesus Christ says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent." We are not now in a capacity to know him in his fulness of glory. We know a few things that he has revealed concerning himself, but there are a great many which we do not know. When people have secured to themselves eternal life, they are where they can understand the true character of their Father and God, and the object of the creation, fall, and redemption of man after the creation of this world. These points have ever been subjects for speculation with all classes of believers, and are subjects of much interest, to those who entertain a deep anxiety to know how to secure to themselves eternal life. Our bodies are organized from the eternity of matter, from such matter as we breathe, and from such matter as is found in the vegetable and mineral kingdoms. This matter is organized into a world, with all its appendages, by whom? By the Almighty and women who are made in the image of God.

All this vast creation was produced from element in its unorganized state; the mountains, rivers, seas, valleys, plains, and the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms beneath and around us, all speaking forth the wonderful works of the Great God. Shall I say that the seeds of vegetables were planted here by the Characters that framed and, built this world—that the seeds of every plant composing the vegetable kingdom were brought from another world? This would be news to many of you. Who brought them here? It matters little to us whether it was John, James, William, Adam, or Bartholomew who brought them; but it was some Being who had power to frame this earth with its seas, valleys, mountains, and rivers, and cause it to teem with vegetable and animal life.

Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. The offspring of Adam and Eve are commanded to take the rude elements, and, by the knowledge God has given, to convert them into everything required for their life, health, adornment, wealth, comfort, and consolation. Have we the knowledge to do this? We have. Who gave us this knowledge? Our Father who made us; for he is the only wise God, and to

In as far as it stands written, (perfect tense emulation that!), i quite agree. My argument is not "is it true?", my argument, question really, is..."is it All?" That is where the argument from silence comes into play. As an example, you realise, God has provided us with four different written witnesses for the Gospels, each one of them recording events not included in all of the others! For example, The Gospel of John is the only source for Jesus uttering the words: Tetelestai. Were we to look exclusively at the Gospel of Mark, we could not prove that Jesus spoke those words on the Cross. Our Christian view of the bible is that it is that it is a sufficient specific revelation from God to man, NOT that it is a total specific revelation to man. From the witness that we do have, we can prove that God said "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest therof thou shalt surely die." What we cannot prove, is the validity of the statement "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." We end up it the uncomfortable position of trying to "prove a negative" i would hope that you realise, that i am treading carefully here, and would prefer to err on the side of caution. i am prepared to be proven incorrect on this specific point

Well, I should begin by saying that I agree with "the_doc"s point that we do not have any idea (or at least, do not have a certainty) of where Eve got the "neither should you touch it" addition. I do tend to assume that Adam taught Eve the Commandment (Eve was formed after the Commandment, and there is no record of Eve later hearing it repeated directly from God); but it's at least possible that Eve made the additional commandment up on her own. And, of course, there's also the question of just where was Adam (whom Genesis 3:6 says was "with" Eve) during the conversation with the Serpent? If Adam was close-to-hand, then even if it is possible that Adam did not himself actually mis-teach Eve, certainly he at least failed to correct Eve's addition to God's Word.

But, supposing that we (hypothetically) shift the burden of "adding to God's Word" from Adam back onto Eve, we still have a fairly good case for an Imperfection of Worship in the Garden, we have just assumed Eve and not Adam to be the initial agent thereof by supposing that perhaps she made up the Error herself.

I am less persuaded by the "argument from silence" that just because the "additional commandment" is not recorded in Scripture we can't argue that God did not say anything of the sort. I am persuaded that we can say that God did not give the Commandment to Adam (and Eve, via Adam's teaching I assume) as Eve reported it to the Serpent. For two reasons:

In the first place, if we only had the Gospel of Mark then it is true that we could not prove that Jesus said "Tetelestai". But we don't just have the Gospel of Mark; we have everything that God intended us to have, included the Gospel of John. So I don't think that we can apply a "Were we to look exclusively at the Gospel of Mark" paradigm here because there's no "4 books of Genesis"; we have in Genesis everything on these subjects that God intended us to have. When we consider the Gospel of Mark exclusively, we nonetheless know that there is additional Infallible information about the Life of Christ in the other 3 Gospels. Genesis, OTOH, is complete in itself insofar as God intended to Reveal; I think that, given Sufficiency, it's a difficult argument to suggest that maybe God did also say "neither shall ye touch it lest ye die" and just didn't see fit to tell us so in Genesis 2:17 which records His Commandment. However...
That's really my weaker counter-argument and goes to Sufficiency of Scripture; here's my stronger counter-argument, attending to the Infallibility of Scripture: God did not say, "neither shall ye touch it lest ye die". How do I know this? Because neither Adam not Eve experienced Spiritual Death when they touched the Fruit of Trial -- but only when they ate it.
Therefore, since they didn't die when they touched the Fruit of Trial, God did not ever say that they would die if they touched the Fruit of Trial -- He said that they would die when they ate it, as recorded in Genesis 2:17.

Thus, God did not say "neither shall ye touch it lest ye die", which means that even prior to the Forbidden Transgression there was an Imperfection of Worship in the Garden in the adding of invented Commandments.... and now we're just arguing over who to pin it on first, Adam or Eve (which is purely secondary to me, and I'll admit not readily proveable).

OP, i do belive that you have made two minor mistakes. The first is that you have underestimated the power of your first argument, and the second being that you are still ascribing inspiration to matters we cannot yet know for reasons that i will go into below.

i quite agree that we do not know where Eve got the "do not touch" instructions from. i also agree that it simply will not do to "shift blame" from one to the other. It affects the argument not one iota, but still leaves us with the thorny problem of imperfect worship.

Now we will take a look at your "strong" argument, based on Inspiration

...here's my stronger counter-argument, attending to the Infallibility of Scripture: God did not say, "neither shall ye touch it lest ye die". How do I know this? Because neither Adam not Eve experienced Spiritual Death when they touched the Fruit of Trial -- but only when they ate it.

Here are my counter arguments to these propositions:

1) We cannot know if Adam and Eve suffered Spiritual Death or not, because the acts of touching and eating are not sufficiently separated in time for us to make that determination.
2) We have no record of what would have happened if they had touched but not eaten.
3) This is incidental, but merits consideration: scripture records that their eyes did not open until both of them ate the fruit. Would this not imply a "delay" function, rendering the "touching only" point moot?

The result is that on this point, we are still dealing with unknowns. Now it is true that i do not read Hebrew, and am not qualified to look at the language structure to make determinations. i have looked at the LXX, which i can read, but it still gives me the same problem, namely that it is a translation (one from Hebrew to English, the other from Hebrew to Greek). For what it is worth, no additional information is to be gleened from the LXX, the verbs being simple aorist indicatives, and aorist participles.

This next section will be the most difficult for me to counter, but the attempt will be made for the sake of completness.

In the first place, if we only had the Gospel of Mark then it is true that we could not prove that Jesus said "Tetelestai". But we don't just have the Gospel of Mark; we have everything that God intended us to have, included the Gospel of John. So I don't think that we can apply a "Were we to look exclusively at the Gospel of Mark" paradigm here because there's no "4 books of Genesis"; we have in Genesis everything on these subjects that God intended us to have. When we consider the Gospel of Mark exclusively, we nonetheless know that there is additional Infallible information about the Life of Christ in the other 3 Gospels. Genesis, OTOH, is complete in itself insofar as God intended to Reveal; I think that, given Sufficiency, it's a difficult argument to suggest that maybe God did also say "neither shall ye touch it lest ye die" and just didn't see fit to tell us so in Genesis 2:17 which records His Commandment. However...

You would be correct in saying that the "If we were to look at the book of Mark" paradigm does not apply to us, however it did apply to the first believers. You may recall that until the New Testament was completed, God's revelation to His people was progressive. After the New Testament was compiled that revelation was complete. The issue here is the Providence of God, providing sufficient revelation for the purpose of bringing His elect into the Kingdom. The believers in Rome (where Mark wrote his gospel), for example, could not know that Jesus uttered the word tetelestai, while believers in Ephesus (where John resided) would have. The fact is that God's Providence has brought the totality of his universal specific revelation together as his elect were further removed in time from the events. The argument is that we have that knowlege, all of them did not. There are things that we still do not know...just what did the seven thunders utter...

Having said all of this, i confess to you that i really am not capable of determining just what Genesis 3:6-7 says, because i lack the language tools, and must rely on translation. i tell you that i am also confident that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, in accordance with the tradition of biblical scholarship began by it's Spiritual human founder, J. Gresham Machen, will sort these matters out to the satisfaction of those who will not hide from the truth. i look forward to the results of their inquiry.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.