Posted on 01/22/2003 3:16:06 PM PST by RnMomof7
Brigham Young Sermon:
Joseph Smith's Consent Needed to Enter Heaven
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p.282-91)
Quick Link
JOSEPH SMITH'S CONSENT NEEDED IN ORDER TO BE WITH GOD AND CHRIST IN HEAVEN
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.
---283---
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
---284---
nation, kindred, tongue, and people, and bring it to Zion.
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
---285---
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
Oh... do they grow on TREES?
Well, the first argument isn't watertight IMHO. I threw it out there because I thought it was usefully evidentiary, but I didn't think it was absolutely compelling.
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.
Hmmm.... I don't think I can give you this one.
I submit that, if you can't define the "time-passage" critique from Scripture, then I am unable to consider it a valid critique.
2) We have no record of what would have happened if they had touched but not eaten.
Yes, but we do have the record that while Adam had touched, but not yet eaten, he was not yet Spiritually Dead until after he ate. Thus, we have a Record which fulfills the same function as the hypothetical -- it describes a point in time in which Adam had touched, but had not eaten, and was yet Not Spiritually Dead at that point.
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?
It may be "incidental" to this discussion but it's certainly not a "trivial" point by any means! That said, I don't know that the issue is so much the fact that both ate, as the fact that Adam ate -- i.e., not a "delay" function, but a "trigger" function.
That would make this point "incidental" to the Imperfection of Worship discussion, but it does attend to the Nature of Original Sin, which definitely seems to be judged upon Adam's Transgression. At least, that is when the Consequence falls.
Correct!
My point all along is that we don't know too much!
The question before us is : Do we know enough to speculate accurately?
Fortunately, your response to my third point serves to assist in my response:
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?
It may be "incidental" to this discussion but it's certainly not a "trivial" point by any means! That said, I don't know that the issue is so much the fact that both ate, as the fact that Adam ate -- i.e., not a "delay" function, but a "trigger" function.
That would make this point "incidental" to the Imperfection of Worship discussion, but it does attend to the Nature of Original Sin, which definitely seems to be judged upon Adam's Transgression. At least, that is when the Consequence falls.
emphasis in the paragraph added by Calvinist_Dark_Lord.
So then, if Adam's act was the "trigger function", we need not consider Eve's actions with regard to her own touching and eating as evidentary at all, since there would be no consequence until Adam had "triggered" the consequences by his action.
QED, we have no basis to draw conclusions on the validity of Eve's "neither shall ye touch it" statement based on Eve's actions alone.
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.
Hmmm.... I don't think I can give you this one.
Here's why: I'm going to ask you to define (from Scripture) the time-passage between touching and eating which would "sufficiently determine" for us that the acts were, or were not, morally distinct in consequence.
I submit that, if you can't define the "time-passage" critique from Scripture, then I am unable to consider it a valid critique.
First off, making a "moral distinction" between the two acts may possibly be question begging...why on earth would they want to touch the fruit, were it not for the purpose of eating? This seems to be my weaker argument...because Eve made a distinction...still, is this adding to the commandment of God, or is it simply drawing a conclusion from the commandment? i don't think i can make that case from the language of the passage, as it appears that both statements are attributed to God. This on the other hand, leads us to a very thorny problem:
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
The problem is if either Adam or Eve added to God's word, then one of them was already a liar. The last time i checked, lying was a sin.
It moves away from the question of Imperfect Worship and right back to the question of Original Sin
Concerning the time passage issue, i cannot define the standard from the scriptures, as you well know (hence the challenge! i wasn't a great debator, but neither was i a stupid one!).
i would appeal to human reflex. How long an interval between touching and eating? How long would it have taken to notice any consequence? Pick up an apple (for example) from the table and take a bite out of it, how long a time interval between picking up and eating? What is your attention focused on during that interval? Why would we think these physical realities and limits any different in two actually righteous, yet finite human beings?
Again, we seem to be gendering more questions than we are answering, although we have managed to come to a "meeting engagement" in this discussion.
Michelangelo spent a good chunk of his adult life working on the tomb of Julius II, much of that time well after Julius had died anyway. Michelangelo wasn't able to finish that excessive and ostentatious project in his own lifetime, let alone Julius'.
Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmmmmm" I guess
As they got closer, the lookouts could see 3 very elaborate huts on the shore. Well, convinced that the island was certainly not deserted, the captain got together a rescue party and went ashore to see what was going on.
Sure enough, as soon as they landed, a man rushed out of one of the huts screaming, “Thank God you’re here, thank God. I was washed ashore this island 5 years ago when my ship sank, and I’ve been all alone here waiting to be rescued.”
The captain asked, “You’ve been alone on this island for 5 years? We came here because we saw 3 huts on the shore. Could you tell us why you needed 3 huts if you are all alone?”
“Sure. That first hut is where I live. The second hut is where I go to church”
“So,” asked the captain, “what about the third hut?”
The castaway leaned over to the captain and said in a haughty and dismissive tone, “Well, that is where I used to go to church.”
And that makes it right?
He was a 'Pelegian' who denied Original sin.
LOL! No wonder Weseley found the Church of England a dead church. So dead that he and Whitefield could not preach in them, but had to go into the fields.
Calvinism is a great killer of churches (not to say men)
The Church of the Reformation in the Book of Revelation is the Church of Sardis
I know thy works that thou hast a name, that livest and art dead (Rev.3:1)
That makes it a turn-of-phrase that isn't unique to Calvin and hardly the "smoking gun" you seek.
It's a literary allusion to the incomprehensible vastness of God's sovereignty.
I think I'll use it more often.8~)
I've never bought into the seven churches of Revelation 2 & 3 representing the progression of the Church Age. I believe to do so does too much harm to the doctrine of the Imminent Return of Jesus.
Could very well be........
When my kid was growing up, she seemed to think MONEY did!
When my kid was growing up, she seemed to think MONEY did!
chuckle
When i was growing up, we never had enough of it to worry about where it came from, just where it was going!!
Interesting view.
However, while generations were going through those different Church ages, elements of all seven churches were present (as they are today)
What they did not know is which element was the dominant one.
Thus, while the Jews waited each generation for their Messiah and he could have come at any time, there was one generation that had been picked for that privilege long before it happened.
We now have the benefit of looking backward and seeing how that Messanic line developed, but they could only wait hope that they would be the generation in which it would occur.
We are the generation that can now look back and see the others over 2,000 years and notice the comparsion of those other 6 Churches with history.
Revelation is progressive as the prophecies in Daniel were sealed for another generation.
The 'churches' were not even revealed to Paul, but to John at the close of the First Century.
It is unique to Calvinists!
Or did you not know that the Church of England was Calvinistic, according to Jean?
It's a literary allusion to the incomprehensible vastness of God's sovereignty. I think I'll use it more often.8~)
It is not an literary allusion, it is the final answer to the Scriptures which go against the Calvinist view that God created mankind for the purpose of damning some and saving some.
Thus, Calvin's statement in 2Pet.3:9.
Clearly, you are in denial
She got it the same place that Calvinists get their predestination view, she made it up by adding to Scripture.
Anyway, rather than attempt to "win" an argument (which doesn't count for anything anyway as we try to rightly divide the Word, not score points -- as I must remind my prideful self), I'll just close by framing the Question as I see it.
I don't think that we can appeal to human reflex here. Our Guide is not Adam's feelings of what happened:
IF the Logical Order recorded by Scripture is correct, and (C) does not follow (A) while preceding (B), but rather specifically follows (B) after (A)....
Then in terms of logical progression, (C) was triggered by (B), not (A).
Which leaves us with the following quandary:
On the basis that (1) is cosmologically untenable, I hold position (2).
Which leaves us with the implication that Imperfect Worship (which is nothing but a catch-phrase for adding to God's Word, indeed a kind of Lie) existed in the Garden prior to the Forbidden Transgression.
I.E., if Adam touched the fruit and did not die, then this was not a correct statement of God's Command (for God cannot be mistaken) -- so then, Eve (and Adam her teacher, perhaps?) were already adding to God's Word even before they (particularly Adam) committed the specifically forbidden Transgression which specifically triggered the Fall Curse.
IOW, even before the specific commission of "Original Transgression", Men were already beginning to stray from the specific Word of God. At least, that's the implication, and the current status of the Debate.
And with that, I'm gonna respectfully ask your leave to excuse myself from any further attempts to "win" a Point which is only just beginning to be considered in earnest by far better Theologians than myself!! I think that "summation" on my part tends to Frame the Question under consideration adequately enough, and having enjoyed the discussion immensely it's probably time for my to engage my (rarely-used) Humility Gear and admit, "I know, that I do not know".
Best, OP
My original observation, waaaaaaaaaay back, was that your "arminian foreknowlege argument" sounded suspiciously like Jonathan Edwards' argument for the entrance of Original Sin. As argumentation proceeded, you have in fact convinced me that the two arguments (allowing for updated terminology) are indeed, alarmingly identical!
i have a suspicion that were we to keep this up, we would be in no condition to continue our usual activities on this thread, at least for a time.
So, now that all is said and done, i can haply <-that's not a typo- throw up my hands and say:
we gave it a good run!
CDL
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.