JOD 01-07

For the next installment of our series on the Journal of Discourses, we'll be looking at the seventh discourse in the first volume. This was delivered by George A. Smith (1817-1875), who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and later went on to serve as First Counselor in Brigham Young's First Presidency; he was also Joseph Smith's first cousin, being a son of John Smith (1781-1854), the brother of Joseph Smith Jr.'s father Joseph Smith Sr. (1771-1840). The discourse in question was delivered in the tabernacle in the Great Salt Lake Valley, Utah, on 24 July 1852. The text of the discourse as we have it was reported by George Darling Watt (1812-1881). The main themes of Elder Smith's oration that day were liberty, persecution, and the United States government.

1. After looking proudly upon the civil liberties that the Latter-day Saints enjoy in the Utah Territory (JD 1:42), Elder Smith turns to a reflection upon the 'martyrdom' of his cousins Joseph and Hyrum. He specifically says that they were "sacrified" as "martyrs, sealing their testimony" (JD 1:43). I suppose the question I have here is over the concept of martyrdom. Does a person constitute a martyr, properly speaking, if they attempt to retaliate through violent means? In the broader Christian tradition, I think to a great extent the answer is often no. Think of so many other martyrs:

• The protomartyr Stephen didn't hurl stones back into the crowd while he was being stoned to death; instead, he prayed for the forgiveness of those who were stoning him and refused to strike back.
• James the son of Zebedee, one of Christ's disciples, was executed by sword by order of Herod. Nothing in Acts suggests that James attempted to physically harm Herod or the executioner in any way.
• Peter was famously crucified in Rome. Nowhere is there an indication that he struck back at those who were crucifying him.
• Paul was beheaded in Rome - another execution by sword. Nowhere is it indicated that he fought back and attempted to do physical harm to his executioners.
• James the brother of Jesus was, according to the accounts we have, thrown from the Jerusalem temple and beaten to death with a club. He did not resist the physical violence that was being done to him.
• Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was taken by Roman soldiers and carted off to Rome to be thrown to the lions. He did not attempt to resist, and in fact discouraged other Christians from attempting to divert him from this destiny.
• Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was burned at the stake and pierced with a spear, according to the narrative of his martyrdom. He went peacefully with his executioner and refused to deny Christ.
• Justin Martyr - along with other Christians named Chariton, Euelpistus, Hierax, Paeon, and Liberianus - was beheaded under the Roman prefect Rusticus. Rather than resist those who were executing them, they praised God for his goodness.
• Pothinus, the bishop who served in Lugdunum prior to Irenaeus, was seized by a mob and tossed into prison, where he was horribly abused and died from his injuries; his companions - Alexander, Attalus, Espagathus, Maturus, and Sanctius - survived long enough to be ripped apart by animals in the amphitheatre. The accounts do not show any indication that they attempted to in any way injure their persecutors, despite it being a case of mob violence.
• Perpetua and Felicitas, two well-known female martyrs, also submitted to their execution without attempting to resist violently. The same is true of those who were martyred with them.
• Leonides of Alexandria was beheaded by the orders of the Egyptian prefect Lactus during the terrible persecution under Septimus Severus, just as were Perpetua and Felicitas. There is no indication that Leonides attempted to injure Lactus or anyone else in retaliation.
• Leonides' son, the famed early Alexandrian theologian Origen, was horribly tortured during the persecution under Decius. His death occurred three years later, a slow and lingering death from his wounds. Neither before nor after his torture did Origen, so far as all evidence and good sense indicates, attempt to avenge himself upon Decius or his local agents.
• It's said that, before the Armenians converted to Christianity, they kept Thomas of Marash in prison for 22 years, mutilating him annually to attempt to induce him to surrender his faith. At no time did Thomas attempt to injure his captors. While Thomas may have been a confessor rather than a martyr, he certainly captures the spirit here.
• Skipping forward to the seventeenth century, Francis Ferdinand de Capillas was decapitated in China after enduring numerous tortures, on the grounds that he was a Christian missionary and was preaching Christian teachings. During his tortures, imprisonment, and execution, Fr. Francis did not lash out. On the contrary, he bore it well and gained the admiration of even some of his guards.
• Thomas Baker, a nineteenth-century missionary to Fiji, was butchered with an axe and cannibalized, along with a number of Christian companions. According to his guide who escaped the massacre, Baker sensed that the tensions were such that if he pressed onward, he would be killed - but he accepted that fate for the sake of the gospel and did not retaliate against his murderers.
• In the 1950s, Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, and three other Christian missionaries were speared to death by the Waodani ('Auca') tribe of Ecuador. They could have likely defeated the Waodani with violent defensive measures - Jim Elliot was armed with a pistol - but instead attempted to merely scare off their attackers rather than resist with lethal force.
• In January of this year, Muslim gunmen ambushed a group of Coptic Christians outside of a cathedral in Nag Hammadi, massacring them after a service there. Those Christians were murdered for being Christians and were killed too quickly to react.
• More recently this year, Muslim gunmen ambushed a Catholic church in Baghdad during an evening mass, killing over 50 Christians who did not attempt to resist violence with violence.

This is an extremely partial list, not even capturing a barest fraction of the known Christian martyrs throughout the ages. These seem to me to be the exempla of true Christian martyrdom - one which is both for the sake of the gospel (rather than something else) and involves accepting suffering without violent retaliation. In my opinion, this would exclude some martyrs claimed by some traditions, such as St. Ludmila of Bohemia, who was purportedly strangled because of her influence over her grandson ('Good King Wenceslaus') rather than because of her confession of Christian faith. And in my opinion, it seems as though it must also exclude Joseph Smith, who - when assaulted by a mob in prison while awaiting trial for treason - shot and injured at least three of his assailants. (It's also open to question, I think, whether Joseph Smith was killed for his faith or rather for distinct actions, whether political or personal.) Now, don't misunderstand me. I don't personally think that Joseph Smith acted immorally in defending himself in that way, nor that it shows that the martyrs listed above were more faithful, or anything like that. I don't at all blame Joseph Smith for dying in that way. I simply have reservations over whether he should be counted as a martyr for it. Perhaps, perhaps not. I can certainly see why Latter-day Saints would especially want to count him as a martyr. After all, he was maliciously and unfairly killed as a result of mob violence. And that must not be minimized. I just have reservations about putting his death in the same category as that of Stephen.

2. After mentioning that, Elder Smith goes on to deliver a very powerful protest against the persecution that the Latter-day Saints have been facing up until this point:

The history of our persecutions is unparalleled in the history of past ages. To be sure, persecutions have existed in countries where religion was established by law, and where any other religion than the one established, was decreed by law to be heretical, and its votaries doomed to persecution and the flames. But in the countries where we suffered our persecution, there is a good government; there are good institutions that are calculated to protect every person in the enjoyment of every right that is dear to man. The persecutions we have suffered were in violation of every good institution, of every wholesome law, of every institution and constitution which exist in the countries where they have been inflicted. And what is more singular, out of the hundreds of murders which have been committed upon men, women, and children, in the most barbarous, ruthless, and reckless manner - not one murderer has ever been brought to justice; not a single man who has shed the blood of a Latter-day Saint has ever been punished or brought to justice; but they are permitted to run at large, in the face and eyes of every officer of government, who are directly concerned to preserve the laws, and see them faithfully executed. The history of no country on earth affords a parallel to this; it cannot be found; that is, such a wholesale murder, robbery, house burning, butchering of men, women, and children, and, finally, the wholesale banishment of tens of thousands of souls from their homes and country; this has actually been effected in violation of the laws and regulations of the country where it occurred, and not one person has ever been punished for these crimes. I challenge the world to produce the record upon the face of the earth, that shows, in all these murders, cold-blooded butcheries, house burnings, and wholesale robberies, that a single person suffered the just penalty of the law; that a solitary criminal was punished; that any of the unprincipled savages who were guilty of these high-handed depredations, were ever brought to justice. (JD 1:43)

George Smith appears to have three major points here. First of all, the persecution of the Latter-day Saints was extremely horrible in both cruelty and extent. Second, unlike other similar persecutions of other groups, this one happened in countries with a strong dedication to religious freedom. And third, despite the massive incongruity between the law of the land and the events that transpired, there were no penalties to those who brutalized the early Latter-day Saints. Now, I don't know enough about the history to know the stated motives of those who did persecute the early Latter-day Saints as a group, nor do I know that George Smith isn't exaggerating here when he says that none of them were punished. All I can say is that I believe this to be one of the deepest and darkest blots on American history.

3. After further similar laments, George Smith turns to a further castigation of the United States government. He points out that after the Latter-day Saints settled on their land in the Utah Valley and its environs, that land was transferred by treaty from Mexico to the United States. Thus, from that point on, the Utah Territory was an American territory. George Smith notes that it is quite customary for the United States federal government to give certain sorts of assistance to the governments of all such American territories. And yet, he insists, the United States government has refused to do any of this with them, showing - Smith believed - a particular prejudice against the Latter-day Saints as a people (JD 1:44). He follows his incisive questions up with the observation:

I will say, with all reverence to the constituted authority that exists in the General Government, that I do believe that the same spirit of tradition, and the same spirit of persecution, that have ever followed the people of God, have more or less influence with them; and that if we would actually go to work, and alter our name, we might possibly be treated as other men. Be this as it may, I feel, while I stand upon the face of the earth, determined to defend my right, and the rights of my friends and brethren. I know that there is no "Mormonism" known in the constitution of the U.S., but all men are there considered equal, and free to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and enjoy equal rights and privileges. (JD 1:45)

I understand the meaning of this to be that, if the Latter-day Saints were to assimilate, they could probably avoid persecution that way; however, it is a right protected under the United States Constitution that persons must be treated equally and must be free to practice their religion without the sort of infringement that had been previously inflicted upon the Latter-day Saints - and thus Elder Smith protests, since the Latter-day Saints are not being treated equally as was their right under the constitution.

4. After an anecdote about even the persecutors of the Latter-day Saints turning to them for help in times of need - showing an awareness that the Saints were virtuous people - George Smith concludes with a paragraph that needs no comment from me but seems especially apt to remember in our day and age:

I have but a few more remarks to make, which will be directed to the twenty-four young men, and the braves and warriors of these mountains. Young men, braves and warriors, who sit before me this day, let me admonish you, never to let the hand of tyranny or oppression rise in these mountains, but stand unflinchingly true by the Constitution of the United States, which our fathers sealed with their blood; never suffer its provisions to be infringed upon; and if any man, or any set of men form themselves into a mob in these mountains, to violate that sacred document, by taking away the civil or religious rights of any man, if he should be one of the most inferior beings that exist upon the face of the earth, be sure you crush it, or spend the last drop of blood in your veins with the words of - Truth and Liberty, Liberty and Truth, forever! (JD 1:45)

JOD 01-06

For the sixth installment of our series on the Journal of Discourses, we'll be looking at the sixth discourse in the first volume. This was preached by Brigham Young (1801-1877), the second president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The discourse in question was delivered in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 11 July 1852. The text as we have it was reported by George Darling Watt (1812-1881). The major themes of President Young's discourse were knowledge of the doctrine of Christ, the contrast between religions of men and the religion of God, Joseph Smith, and persecution, among others.

1. Brigham Young quickly finds himself on a controversial note, bearing witness that no non-LDS person could possibly have knowledge of certain basic things. For instance, President Young says:

Who are the individuals that can say that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true, and that he lives? Can the Christian world? They cannot. (JD 1:37)

I hate to be a bit of a controversialist here myself, but... yes, we can. I can, and many of the other Christians I know can. I have the well-attested testimony of the Scriptures to the veracity of the gospel and to Christ's glorified and risen life - and beyond this, I also have the direct witness of the Holy Spirit to myself that Jesus lives and that the good news of the kingdom is true. I have received it from the Holy Spirit both through publicly available means and through the Spirit's private witness to myself; I have directly encountered the power of God in manifold ways. And I am not alone. (And even if I did not have that private witness from the Spirit, still I would know that he lives and that the gospel is true, because my belief in it is both true and also warranted by many means.) So here, it seems, President Young made claims that were far too strong, for Latter-day Saints do not have a monopoly on this witness.

2. Brigham Young continues with a larger unit I will leave together:

Permit me, my hearers, brethren and strangers, to say to you, there is not that man that hears the sound of my voice this day, that can say that Jesus lives, whether he professes to be his disciple or not; and can say at the same time, that Joseph Smith is not a Prophet of the Lord. There is not that being that ever had the privilege of hearing the way of life and salvation set before him as it is written in the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon, and in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, by a Latter-day Saint, that can say that Jesus lives, that his Gospel is true; and at the same time say that Joseph Smith was not a Prophet of God. That is strong testimony, but it is true. No man can say that this book (laying his hand on the Bible) is true, is the word of the Lord, is the way, is the guide-board in the path, and a charter by which we may learn the will of God; and at the same time say, that the Book of Mormon is untrue; if he has had the privilege of reading it, or of hearing it read, and learning its doctrines. There is not that person on the face of the earth who has had the privilege of learning the Gospel of Jesus Christ from these two books, that can say that one is true, and the other is false. No Latter-day Saint, no man or woman, can say that the Book of Mormon is true, and at the same time say that the Bible is untrue. If one be true, both are; and if one be false, both are false. (JD 1:38)

To virtually all of this, I must once more respectfully disagree. I have known numerous people who have in all sincerity read both the Bible and the Book of Mormon and have sought earnestly the truth of the matter, and yet have come to believe that the Bible is true and that Jesus Christ lives, and yet that the Book of Mormon is not true scripture and that Joseph Smith, for all his virtues, was not a prophet who faithfully carried out a divine commission to speak on God's behalf. As I say, I know a number of truly honest, sincere, godly counterexamples to Brigham Young's categorical negative - and I, too, for my part am compelled to say the same, having read and studied out these things with faithfulness and yet receiving a testimony of the truth of the orthodox teaching as enshrined in the traditional creeds rather than in the views of the Latter Day Saint movement. So here, while I do have quite a bit of respect for Brigham Young, I must say that I find these words of his to be untrue, and am myself among the evidences of its untruth.

3. Moving on, Brigham Young makes some very peculiar comments about the Roman Catholic and Anglican communions. He states that it would be simple to, within just a few years, reach the full depth of their teachings and have no further to go; but that this is wholly untrue regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the only one the teaching of which cannot be circumscribed (JD 1:39). To this, I simply must disagree and suggest that perhaps President Young did not fathom how deep the orthodox tradition likewise is. I have seen elsewhere instances of Brigham Young espousing fundamental misunderstandings of basic orthodox teaching. With all due respect, I would suggest that this indicates that, contrary to his statements here, President Young considerably overestimated his grasp of it. There is a great deal of depth in Latter-day Saint teaching, but also in more traditional Christian teaching. I do not here venture a statement as to which is deeper, if either; but neither should be underestimated.

4. After an excursus to trumpet his pride in the LDS faith, President Young turns to the tragic history of persecution that was inflicted upon their people (JD 1:40-41). (While it would be a gross oversimplification to portray the early Latter-day Saints as either exclusively innocent victims or the villains they were portrayed as in popular caricature, it cannot be denied that a great deal was done to the Latter-day Saints that should grieve the hearts of every person attuned to an awareness of basic human dignity.) He talks about the lynching of Joseph Smith, about the many failed lawsuits against him, and about the sufferings of the Saints in Missouri, Ohio, and elsewhere. Having already objected to some of Young's statements, I certainly don't want to quibble here. There is a grave depth to the capacity for evil that is had by those who were made to be mirrors of glory and yet permitted themselves to become warped - and that is seen very clearly in the way in which Latter-day Saints have been treated.

5. Finally, Brigham Young closes on a wholly agreeable note, where he announces his willingness to rebuke evil no matter where he finds it - whether outside the Church or within it - and declares that he will do so regardless of the cost. And this is, I believe, a proper attitude for Christian leaders to have:

I am aware, as well as brother Kimball, if my body fall into the dust, I am laying it down to abide the penalty of the law broken in the fall of man; for dust I am, and unto dust I must return. It is all right to me; I have seen a great many times that I would like to have this body lie down, but as long as the spirit and the body hold together, my tongue shall be swift against evil, the Lord Almighty being my helper. Though it may be in "Mormon" Elders, among the people in or out of the Church, if they come in my path, where I can chastise them, the Lord Almighty being my helper, my tongue shall be swift against evil; and if evil come, let it come. If for this my body shall fall, let it fall; when they have destroyed the body, then they have no more that they can do; that is the end of their power, and of the power of the devil on this earth; but Jesus Christ has power to destroy both soul and body in hell. I thank you for your attention. May the Lord bless you. Amen. (JD 1:41-42)

JOD 01-05

For the fifth installment of our series on the Journal of Discourses, we'll be looking at the fifth discourse in the first volume. This was preached by Heber C. Kimball (1801-1868), who was not only an original member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles but also, at the time of this discourse, was serving in the First Presidency. The discourse in question was delivered in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 11 July 1852. The text as we have it was reported by George Darling Watt (1812-1881). The major themes of President Kimball's discourse that day were believing the Bible, the Gospel, persecution, and 'spirit-rapping'.

1. Early in the discourse, President Kimball announces - contrary to popular criticisms - that Latter-day Saints do believe in the Bible and that they ought to seek to establish for themselves the truth of the religion they've adopted:

You know that it is generally understood, and perhaps by many of the strangers that are present today, that we do not believe the Bible. That is a great mistake; we do believe it. I can say, as one of the Apostles of old said, and it is my advice and instruction to you - prove all things, and try all things, and hold fast to that which is good. As he exhorted you to prove these things, to investigate them, and reflect upon them, and prove the truth of that which is called "Mormonism," let me tell you, gentlemen, the day will come, if you don't do it, you will be sorry. (JD 1:34)

What he says here is, I think, true but in need of some qualification. First is the issue of believing the Bible, which I take to involve accepting and utilizing the Bible as a proper authoritative source for belief and praxis. This is in need of qualification because there are certain trends in at least contemporary LDS circles that mitigate this proper reliance. For example, I have spoken with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - elders, even - who have said that they "could spend all day proving the Bible wrong". Part of this results from a conviction that the biblical text as we have it today does not correspond well with what God meant for the text to say. Consequently, in discussions with some Latter-day Saints, if I have brought up an apparent discrepancy between the position they've espoused and something stated in the Bible, in many cases the knee-jerk response has been to suggest - without any reference to evidence from textual criticism or translation history or anything of the sort - that the text is simply unreliable at that point. It seems clear to me, however, that if we wish to profess a belief in the Bible, then we ought to submit our opinions to it where possible, and so in the event of a discrepancy, this avenue should only be open if textual or other evidence seems to permit it; otherwise, the task is ours of grappling with the problem directly. That being said, of course Latter-day Saints value the Bible as one of the four Standard Works, and it is very frequently cited/quoted in Church publications, in talks, etc. It would be erroneous to assume, as early critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may have, that there has been a replacement of the Bible by the Book of Mormon, and so on that count, President Kimball was quite correct. I also strongly support his invitation for members to investigate for themselves the Church's teachings, which I think must involve not only testing it against personal religious experience but also testing it against the Bible, against sound reason and philosophy, against historical data, etc. All must be taken into account.

2. I must take issue with something else said by President Kimball shortly thereafter:

The people profess to believe the Bible; the whole Christian world profess to believe that book - to believe that it is the Bible, but do they believe what is in that Bible? If they do, they don't practice it. (JD 1:34)

As said, I must object. Unfortunately, President Kimball is short on examples, and I will get to the one he does seem to offer in a little bit. Suffice it to say that, in terms of beliefs and practices that the Bible seems to indicate ought to be continuing throughout the existence of the church, I am not convinced that it is generally lacking in orthodox Christianity.

3. Heber C. Kimball cites one particular case, choosing via caricature to pick on the way baptism is practiced in non-LDS circles:

I have been at the Methodists' meeting many a time, and have followed up their protracted meetings, and sought for religion; and when people were converted to the faith of Methodism, I have seen the priest go to the water because some wished to be baptized in the water, but not because it was at all necessary. One would say I want to be sprinkled; another, I want to have the water poured upon me; and another, I want to be plunged. All right, says the minister, one of these is just as necessary as the other, for none of them are essential to salvation; we only attend to them to satisfy the candidate. Suppose the laws of the United States were made upon this principle, just to suit everybody's fancy and notions, making laws for every one to do just as he pleased - what kind of laws would they be? (JD 1:35)

Now, first, let me say that I highly doubt that these Methodist ministers ever said that the only reason to get baptized was to satisfy the whims of the candidate, as though baptism were a wholly optional affair with no real meaning. That is the impression Heber Kimball gives, but I deem it quite implausible. Nor is this a case of laws just suiting everyone's fancy so they may do as they please. All that varies here is the precise mode of baptism. Everything else remains the same, including the baptismal formulae and the significance of identification with Christ's passion and resurrection, as well as the symbolic enactment of cleansing from sin through that process. But still there's that sticking point of how there can be different forms. (I might note that many Latter-day Saints have told me that with respect to the sacrament of communion, it doesn't matter what the substances are, so long as the symbolism is kept in mind. Any principle-based argument against variation in baptismal mode would seem to be at least equally applicable to the way the sacrament is handled in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) And also, let's remember that this variation in mode is not a novelty, but is in fact very ancient, stemming back perhaps even to apostolic times or immediately thereafter:

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. (Didache 7)

Now, note here that variation in the mode of baptism is completely acceptable. There is nothing inherently invalid about baptism by pouring. It isn't as though God looks at it and says, "Well, that one didn't take, so I guess you're out of luck." However, it must be said that there is a definite preference for immersion at this early stage, because this is more proper as a symbolism of dying and rising with Christ. Moreover, most preferable is to do it in 'living water', probably a river or sea, so that it better matches with Christ's own baptism in the River Jordan. So that ought to be what we aspire to in baptism, but less proper forms are not automatically invalid, nor is it the case that this somehow trivializes baptism. In this case, I think Heber Kimball judged incorrectly.

4. President Kimball goes on to bear testimony to his belief that Joseph Smith was truly a prophet and a martyr, and that Joseph's brother Hyrum was a true patriarch, etc. Since these are assertions rather than arguments based on publicly accessible grounds, I can't comment on that. But then he curiously turns to the interesting claim that the rise of the Latter Day Saint movement is disturbing the Powers-That-Be - both the political powers of the day and also the spirit-world, which is "all in commotion" (JD 1:36). Kimball seems to tie this to a sense that the "end of the world" is coming very soon - he doesn't come right out and say it, but that seems to be the underlying tone behind his words. Or does he indicate it? He does, after all, say, "The idea strikes me that the day of the Lord is approaching, and nearer than you think it is" (JD 1:36). I'm not sure exactly what he believed his audience was thinking, but I suspect that it was less than the 158 years between his discourse and our present.

5. I have no real comments to make on this last quote, but it is the conclusion of President Kimball's speech. He affirms the truthfulness of what he has said and seems to disparage 'this generation':

I know if I never go to the United States again, or to Great Britain, my skirts are clear from the blood of this generation. I have received nothing but ill wages for my labor from them; and if ever a man did his duty, I have done it to this generation. I have told you the truth, and whether you are in hell or in heaven you shall know that "Mormonism" is true, and what I and my brethren have told you this day is the Gospel of salvation. So may God have mercy upon you, and save you in His kingdom. Amen. (JD 1:37)

JOD 01-04

For the next installment of our series on the Journal of Discourses, we'll be looking at the fourth discourse in the first volume. This was preached by Brigham Young (1801-1877), the second president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The discourse in question was delivered in the Territorial House in Salt Lake City, Utah, during a legislative festival on 4 March 1852. The text as we have it was reported by George Darling Watt (1812-1881). The main theme of President Young's discourse that day was recreation.

1. One of the first things said by President Young that caught my interest is:

We are now enjoying our pastimes. We often meet together and worship the Lord by singing, praying, and preaching, fasting, and communing with each other in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Now we are met in the capacity of a social community - for what? That our minds may rest, and our bodies receive that recreation which is proper and necessary to keep up an equilibrium, to promote healthy action to the whole system. Let our minds sing for joy, and let life diffuse itself into every avenue of the body; for the object of our meeting is for its exercise, for it is good. (JD 1:29)

Right here, Brigham Young offers a defense of the importance of recreation, which is here a social activity. The function of this is to rest the mind and to keep up the health of the body through exercise. (I imagine, then, that the sort of recreation Young has in mind is not a stimulating game of chess!)

2. Another quote that stuck out at me was when President Young said:

I am in the best place I ever was during my life, and with the best society. I never saw a community that enjoyed the tranquility and peace that are enjoyed by this people in the valleys of the mountains. Is this not so? Judge for yourselves, ye are my witnesses. (JD 1:29)

A question for my Latter-day Saint friends: could you say this about your wards? And I wonder whether my Evangelical friends could say it about their congregations either. Or, for any of us, about our communities? The closest I could come to saying it would be about my seminary community.

3. The next bit:

It is good to look upon each other, because the faces of our friends, and the gladness of their countenances, cheer our hearts, furnishing food for future reflection. Under all circumstances, in every transaction of business and of social enjoyment, remember it is good to reflect and consider upon it now in the days of peace and prosperity, while we have the privilege. (JD 1:30)

These strike me as wise words that anyone - LDS, Evangelical, or otherwise - ought to be able to agree with. Loving community is one of the many great gifts that God has given us. As an introvert with a bit of an anti-social streak, I don't always cherish it in the way that I ought to. But in the good times of life, while we still get to enjoy these good gifts, we ought to savor them and reflect on them and be grateful for them, because the difficult times may come where that isn't so simple to do.

4. Brigham Young goes on to say that overindulgence in recreation without reflection can be a bad mistake because it leads to a sense of spiritual complacence as well; he goes on to state:

When we have had sufficient recreation for our good, let that suffice. It is alright; then let our minds labor instead of our bodies; and in all our exercises of body and mind, it is good to remember the Lord. If it cannot be so, but otherwise, I do not wish to see another party while I live. If I could not enjoy the Spirit of the Lord in this capacity with you this evening, and feel the power of God to rest upon me, I should cease from all such indulgence. From this time, never let us permit ourselves to go one step beyond that which the Lord will own and bless. (JD 1:30)

What I get out of this is, first, all things in moderation: don't be all work and no play, but don't overdo the play more than you need to, either. And that seems fair. The second point is that the underlying principle is to remember God in all things, to do them for his glory: to paraphrase, 'whether we play, we play unto the Lord; and whether we work, we work unto the Lord: whether we play, therefore, or work, we are the Lord's' (cf. Romans 14:8).

5. Brigham Young further explains that most people labor with their bodies but seldom with their minds; however:

But when men are brought to labor entirely in the field of intelligence, there are few minds to be found possessing strength enough to bear all things; the mind becomes overcharged, and when this is the case, it begins to wear upon the body, which will sink for want of the proper exercises. This is the reason why I believe in and practice what I do. (JD 1:31)

There's a lot of truth here. Most of my labor is in the field of intelligence, and thus I do try to make sure that I at least relax and socialize from time to time, which generally suffices to keep me balanced, along with a bit of activity here and there (though not as much as I probably ought).

6. Because this discourse doesn't interest me all that strongly, there's only one other passage I'd like to highlight:

Suppose every heart should say, if my neighbor does wrong to me, I will not complain, the Lord will take care of him. Let every heart be firm, and everyone say, I will never contend any more with a man for property, I will not be cruel to my fellow creature, but I will do all the good I can, and as little evil as possible. Now, where would be the wrong of taking this course? This is the way to approximate toward a celestial state. (JD 1:32)

This seems to me wholly true - and yet, how difficult it can yet be! Can we not all agree - whether LDS, Evangelical, or otherwise - to seek to cultivate this mindset in ourselves and to try to display it towards one another also?

On that note, I conclude this survey of the fourth discourse in the Journal of Discourses, and so I echo Brigham Young's own closing words:

May heaven bless you, brethren and sisters. Amen. (JD 1:34)

JOD 01-03

For the next installment of our series on the Journal of Discourses, we'll be looking at the third discourse in the first volume. This was delivered by John Taylor (1808-1887), who at the time was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and later became the third president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The discourse in question was delivered in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 22 August 1852. The text of the discourse as we have it was, like the previous two we looked at, reported by George Darling Watt (1812-1881). The main theme of Elder Taylor's discourse that day was the mission he served in Europe from 1849 to 1852. By way of clarification, John Taylor was himself European by birth - English, in fact - and served as a mission president in France during this time.

1. Early on in his talk, Elder Taylor speaks of this undertaking from which he's just returned as the beginning of an immense undertaking:

I am not going to preach. I wish to tell my feelings, and look at you, and think about what we have done, and what we are going to do, for it is not all done yet - we have only commenced the great work of the Lord, and are laying the foundation of that kingdom which is destined to stand forever; what we shall do, is yet in the future; we have commenced at the little end of the horn, and by and by we will come out at the big end. (JD 1:16)

In short, then, it may be said that Elder Taylor is helping his audience to keep the big picture clear in mind, and to perceive how their efforts in the present fit into that larger, sweeping narrative. This is something that all Christians - whether Latter-day Saints, Evangelicals, or otherwise - must learn to do. (As a side note, one of the best books I've found from a more Evangelical perspective that does this is The Drama of Scripture by Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen, and I highly recommend it.) I believe I also detect, in Taylor's comment about 'laying the foundation of that kingdom', more than a mere hint of an affinity with postmillennialism, unless I'm mistaken.

2. Elder Taylor's next remarks show a remarkable sense of indifference to the risk of death - a sense of indifference I might expect from someone more Calvinistically minded, perhaps, but which seems perhaps a bit shocking from a Latter-day Saint. He says:

True, some of our friends have dropped by the way, they have fallen asleep, but what of that? And who cares? It is as well to live as to die, or to die as to live, to sleep as to be awake, or to be awake as to sleep - it is all one, they have only gone a little before us. (JD 1:16)

And later he says:

Some people have said to me, sometimes, Are you not afraid to cross over the seas, and deserts, where there are wolves and bears, and other ferocious animals, as well as the savage Indians? Are you not afraid that you will drop by the way, and leave your body on the desert track, or beneath the ocean's wave? No. Who cares anything about it? What of it, if we should happen to drop by the way? (JD 1:17)

I grant, there is some truth here. The Christian calling is not one for the comfortable, not for those who fear death, because we are in the clutch of one who has triumphed over death, and death has lost its sting (1 Corinthians 15:55; Words of Mormon 7:5). Still, part of me wonders whether Elder Taylor has gone a bit too far here. We are to mourn indeed in the face of death, though we do so with hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13; cf. also Alma 28:12). I suspect that Elder Taylor's words are influenced by Romans 14:8-9, but I don't see that as declaring a fundamental equity between the two states.

3. I note with interest Elder Taylor's very harsh remarks concerning, well, pretty much every non-Latter-day Saint of his day:

I feel as though I am among the honorable of the earth when I am here; and when I get mixed up with the people abroad, and mingle with the great people of the world, I feel otherwise. I have seen and deplored the weakness of men - their folly, selfishness, and corruption. I do not know how they feel, but I have witnessed a great deal of ignorance and folly. I think there is a great deal of great littleness about them. There is very little power among them, their institutions are shattered, cracked, and laid open to the foundation. It is no matter what principle you refer to - if to their religion, it is a pack of nonsense; if to their philosophy and politics, they are a mass of dark confusion; their governments, churches, philosophy, and religion, are all darkness, misery, corruption, and folly. I see nothing but Babylon wherever I go - but darkness and confusion, with not a ray of light to cheer the sinking spirits of the nations of the earth, nor any hope that they will be delivered in this world, or in the world to come. (JD 1:17)

...Whoa. Those are some rather scathing comments! I have to say, this seems to be roughly the same tone of polemic that can be found in much purportedly 'anti-Mormon' writing; here it is simply used by a Latter-day Saint rather than against them. In this passage, it seems that Elder Taylor has virtually nothing good to say about the people he encountered on his mission. He calls their religion - and most likely would say the same of mine - a "pack of nonsense" and a bunch of "darkness, misery, corruption, and folly", representative of the harlot of Babylon and without hope. I can only here remark that, thankfully, there are Latter-day Saints alive today who do succeed in manifesting to others the spirit that they wish others to manifest to them - which is not what we have in this quote. But those, I suppose, were polemic-charged times for all parties involved. On another note, though, John Taylor has some very unflattering things to say about his experiences in France, so my main question for Latter-day Saints who have served a mission is, would you say these sorts of general statements about the people of the mission fields in which you worked?

4. Elder Taylor's next interesting remarks concern the matter of preaching:

Some people think that preaching is the greatest part of the business in building up the kingdom of God. This is a mistake. [...] Anybody can preach, he is a poor simpleton that cannot, it is the easiest thing in the world. But, as President Young says, it takes a man to practice. (JD 1:18)

My first question for those of you who have preached - or, for Latter-day Saints, those of you who have delivered talks at Sacrament Meeting - is, would you agree with John Taylor that this is 'the easiest thing in the world'? That aside, though, I think Elder Taylor's point is that it's one thing to talk the talk and quite another to walk the walk, and the latter is the tougher of the two - and that certainly seems true to me.

5. A bit further along, Elder Taylor said something else that caught my attention:

We [i.e., Latter-day Saints] are becoming notorious in the eyes of the nations; and the time is not far distant when the kings of the earth will be glad to come to our Elders to ask counsel to help them out of their difficulties; for their troubles are coming upon them like a flood, and they do not know how to extricate themselves. (JD 1:19)

It has been 158 years and several months since Elder Taylor originally delivered this address. Has this thus far happened? Have the 'kings of the earth' begun to regard leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as particularly wise counselors? I mean, perhaps they are in fact that - it's not my place here to pass such judgment - but have the political rulers of the world begun to recognize this as a significant truth? And, if not, do you think it will come to pass in the next few decades?

6. The next passage that really caught my eye was this, which I think it a quite well-worded quip that expresses the relationship between mission and exaltation from an LDS point-of-view, and has thought-provoking underlying principles applicable beyond merely an LDS perspective as well:

Some people talk about doing great things; but it is not a great thing to travel a little, or to preach a little. I hear some of our Elders saying, sometimes, that they are going to do great things - to be rulers in the kingdom of God, Kings and Priests to the Most High, and are again to exalt thousands of others to thrones, principalities, and powers, in the eternal worlds; but we cannot get them out of their nests, to travel a few miles here. If they cannot do this, how will they ever learn to go from world to world? (JD 1:19-20)

So one question I have for my Latter-day Saint readers who've been on a mission is, after reading this quote, do you feel as though your mission experience has helped to prepare you in some way for your future exaltation?

7. After discussing some unfortunate (but seemingly rather mild) harassment from English clergymen, Elder Taylor goes on to speak of his arrival in Paris, where he took a leading role in the translation of the Book of Mormon from English into French. Despite it being a translation of a translation (assuming the common LDS view on the Book of Mormon's origin), Elder Taylor was able to say:

We have got a translation of the Book of Mormon, as good a one as it is possible for anybody to make. I fear no contradiction to this statement from any man, learned or illiterate. I had it examined and tested by some of the best educated men in France. [...] I have made some little alterations, that is, I have marked the paragraphs, and numbered them, so as to tell where to refer to, when you wish to do so; and in some instances where the paragraphs are very long, I have divided them. The original simplicity of the book is retained, and it is as literal as the genius and idiom of the French language would admit of. (JD 1:21)

Elder Taylor also made mention of the periodical he founded in France, L'Etoile du Deseret, of which he explains:

It contains articles written on baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the necessity of gathering together, and all the leading points associated with the religion we believe in, that there may be evidence forthcoming at anytime and place, in the hands of the inquirer. If men should be there, not acquainted with the language, and individuals should make inquiries of them relating to the doctrines of their religion, they have nothing to do but hand them this Number or that Number of the "Star of Deseret," containing the information they wish. This will save them a great deal of trouble in talking. (JD 1:21)

It seems, then, that Elder Taylor's mission was an ambitious and productive one! One thing I'm wondering is whether the French translation he did is the one still in use in France, or whether it has perhaps been superseded by a later one. And another thing I'm wondering is whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still has anything comparable to L'Etoile du Deseret that fulfills some of the same purposes - and, if so, how widely is it used in the way Elder Taylor mentions here?

8. Elder Taylor discusses also the difficulties that his mission faced in a country that had so recently endured the French Revolution, and this quotation I found quite forceful:

"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, and Brotherhood," was written almost upon every door. You had liberty to speak, but might be put in prison for doing so. You had liberty to print, but they might burn what you printed, and put you into confinement for it. The nations of Europe know nothing about liberty, except England; and there it is much the same as here, that is, liberty to do right. (JD 1:22)

It's a highly unfortunate thing, I think, that the early Latter-day Saints faced so much active persecution in their early days. The founder of my own denomination, Jacob Albright (1759-1808), faced much the same thing for daring to preach the need for repentance and true conversion. Hopefully we can continue to work together towards a future in which those liberties are fully safeguarded in a way that they were not then, even in a France that laid them such exuberant lip-service.

9. Elder Taylor then goes on to make some remarks, once again, on the religious world with which he was confronted, and the picture he paints is not so pretty:

Infidelity prevails there to a great extent, and at the same time a certain kind of religion, a sort of Catholicism; not the Catholicism that was, but which is. Men have got sick of it, and look upon it as moonshine and folly. [...] I declare, personally, that if I could see nothing better than what is called Christianity there, I would be an infidel too; and I say the same also in regard to Protestantism. The Protestants talk a great deal about Catholic priests, but I believe they are much more honest in the sight of man, and will do more for their pay, than any Protestant minister you can find. [...] The idea of taking Protestantism among the French people is nonsense, for one Catholic priest could prevail over fifty Protestants. The Catholic priests are more intelligent, they know the basis upon which their church is founded, and they can reason upon principles the Protestants cannot enter into. Protestants can do very well when they have got a mass of their own people about them. (JD 1:22)

I wonder whether this impression was really true of the religious scene of France at the time, and whether anyone would argue that it really holds today as well in any significant way. I'm not inclined to give any more credit to this appraisal by Elder Taylor than I am to early Protestant and Catholic negative appraisals of the nascent Latter Day Saint movement. I suspect that Elder Taylor is here alluding to the fact that Roman Catholic ecclesiology of his day had some principles in common with that of the Latter-day Saints - which is why 'branch' imagery is so commonly used in early LDS criticisms of Protestantism, and still is today, despite the fact that a sophisticated Protestant thinker can easily see that this begins from the assumption of an ecclesiology that, say, an ecumenically minded Evangelical Christian would be unlikely to share in the first place.

10. After a few curious anecdotes, Elder Taylor goes on to say this about missionary work in a place like nineteenth-century France:

It is among this people we have got to introduce the Gospel. When they come to see it, they rejoice in it, but we do not preach religion much to them, for a great many of them are philosophers, and, of course, we must be philosophers too, and make it appear that our philosophy is better than theirs, and then show them that religion is at the bottom of it. (JD 1:23)

I'm reminded here of the immense resurgence in recent years of theistic, and specifically Christian, involvement in analytic philosophy, and particularly in analytic philosophy of religion, which has seen a major shift lately in favor of a strong case for theism. Sound Christian philosophy, and even Christian philosophical theology, is quite alive and well, and it serves good purposes outside of merely helping us to clarify and sharpen our awareness of the contents and implications of our beliefs. It is my hope that there will someday be a growing interest in philosophical theology among Latter-day Saints as well - much as we saw, of a sort, in Parley Pratt's discussion of the human spirit.

11. Elder Taylor next looks at his turn to Germany as a new focus, and his role in assisting with the German translation of the Book of Mormon as well as a German equivalent to L'Etoile du Deseret titled Zions Panier. Taylor also makes some remarks about Bible translation:

I have often heard old men in this country splutter a great deal about the meaning of odd words in the Bible, but this only exhibits their folly; it is the spirit and intention of the language that are to be looked at, and if the translator does not know this it is impossible for him to translate correctly, and this is the reason why there are so many blunders in the Bible. I believe the English Bible is translated as well as any book could be by uninspired men. The German translation of the Bible, I believe, is tolerably correct, but some of the French editions are miserable. (JD 1:24)

The historic LDS view of the Bible as we have it today is, of course, a notorious point of controversy between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals, and this isn't the place to get into a full-blown discussion of it. I can only remark that it seems quite important to understand both the meanings of individual words (in whatever languages are relevant at the moment) and the spirit of the language. Since I don't believe in 'inspired translation' in the sense that Elder Taylor seems to suppose here, I don't think that that's anything against the Bible translations that we have. And while no translation of a literary work can be perfect - and, indeed, I have even known Latter-day Saints who have said that Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Book of Mormon was similarly imperfect - I'm also skeptical of the allegations of numerous translator-introduced blunders (or, at least, numerous such blunders that are not significantly reduced in the most modern English translations).

12. The remainder of the message appears to mostly concern the conclusion of Elder Taylor's time in Europe, during which he has seen the rise of the Second French Empire under Napoleon III. There are also a few other disparaging references to the French philosophers he encountered (and, frankly, given the trends in Continental philosophy at that time, I can't really say I blame him). There are only two more quotes I'd like to focus on. This first is this:

I never ask the Lord to do a thing I could do for myself. We should be acquainted with all things, should obtain intelligence both by faith and by study. We are instructed to gather it out of the best books, and become acquainted with governments, nations, and laws. The Elders of this Church have need to study these things, that when they go to the nations, they may not wish to go home before they have accomplished a good work. (JD 1:27)

This is, as I read it, very sound counsel that both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals (and others, of course) would do quite well to take to heart. Learn about all things; go to good books to gather knowledge; study things out, reason about them, and trust in God. And that will be useful to equip us all for our task of making disciples of all nations.

13. The final comment I thought was interesting - and I won't make any real comment on this one - was something he said about the United States:

We cannot know anything about the blessings and privileges we have as Americans, without becoming acquainted with the condition of other nations, this is one of the greatest countries in the world, but they (the Americans) do not appreciate their privileges. (JD 1:28)

What do you think of this? (I would be especially interested to hear from Latter-day Saints or Evangelicals who live in other nations.)

On this note, I conclude my initial survey of the third discourse in the Journal of Discourses, and I look forward to feedback. I close with the words with which Elder Taylor concluded his speech:

And I pray that the blessings of God may rest down upon all the Saints [and other disciples of Christ], worlds without end. Amen. (JD 1:28)

JOD 01-02

For the next installment of our series on the Journal of Discourses, we'll be looking at the second discourse in the first volume. This was preached by Parley Parker Pratt (1807-1857), a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Parley Pratt is also the great-great-grandfather of contemporary American politician Mitt Romney.) The discourse in question was delivered on the day of a conference held in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 7 April 1853. The text as we have it was, like the first discourse we looked at, reported by George Darling Watt (1812-1881). The main theme of Elder Pratt's discourse that day was spiritual communication. (I apologize in advance for how philosophical some of my questions are, but in my defense, Elder Pratt started it!)

1. Elder Pratt opens with a discussion of the popularity of paranormal spirituality in his day - things like "visions, trances, clairvoyance, mediums of communication with the spirit world, writing mediums, &c., by which the spirit world is said to have found means to communicate with spirits in the flesh" (JD 1:6-7). I find myself somewhat inclined to wonder whether popular interest in these sorts of things has increased or decreased since Pratt's time.

2. Next, Parley Pratt reviews the beliefs of the Sadducees and how Jesus refuted them in that famed Synoptic pericope (Matthew 22:23-32; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-38). Pratt observes that the view shared in common by the Sadducees and modern atheists about the fate of the dead would render all spiritualistic attempts at contacting the dead pointless, which is clearly true.

3. Pratt next presents what he understands to be Jesus' view of the constitution of the human person:

The outward tabernacle, inhabited by a spirit, returns to the element from which it emanated. But the thinking being, the individual, active agent or identity that inhabited that tabernacle, never ceased to exist, to think, act, live, move, or have a being; never ceased to exercise those sympathies, affections, hopes, and aspirations, which are found in the very nature of intelligences, being the inherent and invaluable principles of their eternal existence. No, they never cease. They live, move, think, act, converse, feel, love, hate, believe, doubt, hope, and desire. (JD 1:7)

Apart from the reference to the eternality of 'intelligences', this strikes me as a very Cartesian picture of the human constitution as body and spirit. That's not necessarily a bad thing, nor does it mean that it derives from Descartes, but it seems to harmonize fairly well with Descartes' strongly dichotomous dualism - at least up to this point. My own view is a somewhat more holistic dualism akin to that propounded by Richard Swinburne in his book The Evolution of the Soul, though I'm less sure about his view that the soul can only function apart from the body if God specially intervenes to allow it to do so.

4. Parley Pratt declares that these thinking beings, these inner selves of the human person, are "organized intelligences" (JD 1:8). My question here is, what does it mean for 'intelligences' to be organized?

5. Parley Pratt goes on to state:

They are made of the element which we call spirit, which is as much an element of material substance, as earth, air, electricity, or any other tangible substance recognized by man; but so subtle, so refined its nature, that it is not tangible to our gross organs. It is invisible to us, unless we are quickened by a portion of the same element; and, like electricity, and several other substances, it is only known or made manifest to our senses by its effects. (JD 1:8)

Needless to say, this one raises a number of questions for me! First of all, I understand that this view of spirit as a sort of material substance is rooted in LDS scripture (D&C 131:7-8), but I'm also wondering if there are any independent arguments for it that don't rely on exclusively LDS sources of authority. (If not, of course, that doesn't invalidate the concept.)

Second of all, Pratt's analysis of material substances seems to be somewhat outdated now in retrospect. For instance, describing electricity as a 'material substance' seems very strange to us today, and I may be wrong about this, but I don't think many Latter-day Saints today would be on board with Pratt's description of electricity as a "spiritual fluid or element" (JD 1:8). 'Air' is simply a variety of gaseous elements, particularly those commonly found in the atmosphere of our planet, and thus most notably refers to oxygen molecules in a gaseous state. 'Earth' is a variety of minerals and compounds as well. So what I'm wondering here is, could 'spirit' in principle be found on a periodic table? Is 'spirit' composed of atomic or subatomic particles - and, if so, are they the same sort of elements/particles that we experience in our physical cosmos, or are they different? And, with the advent of contemporary particle physics, is there a reason why we haven't yet been able to analyze spirit?

A related question - one not directly pertinent to what Pratt said - is, what is the relationship between spirit and 'gross' matter? I know that Latter-day Saints have historically affirmed creatio ex materia, the view that God created out of pre-existing materials. So is the matter of which our physical cosmos is made somehow itself composed of spirit, or was spirit somehow unrefined in order to generate 'grosser' matter? Or, alternatively, was it the case before the creation that some matter had eternally been in a 'subtle' state and other matter had eternally been in a 'gross' state, and that there has always been matter existing at various points on the spectrum of subtlety? And if this is the case, is there a deeper principle underlying the particular distribution of matter along this spectrum, or is it a brute necessary truth?

My third line of question - which may well be pertinent for my previous one - is, what is meant in referring to spirit as an especially 'subtle' form of matter? I know what the words mean, but as a matter of concrete application, what does it mean to describe some matter as 'subtle' compared to other matter that is 'gross', and what prevents 'gross' matter from interacting with 'subtle' matter? I suppose that I so far don't see how this account of spirit can be rendered tenable in light of modern physics, though I'll be very intrigued to hear of any work done by Latter-day Saints in this area.

6. Parley Pratt builds upon this conception of matter to allow us to understand what might be understood as a 'spiritual body':

[Let us refine the elements until] we arrive at a substance so holy, so pure, so endowed with intellectual attributes and sympathetic affections, that it may be said to be on par, or level, in its attributes, with man. Let a given quantity of this element, thus endowed, or capacitated, be organized in the size or form of man, let every organ be developed, formed, and endowed, precisely after the pattern or model of man's outward or fleshly tabernacle - what would we call this individual, organized portion of the spiritual element? We would call it a spiritual body, an individual intelligence, an agent endowed with life, with a degree of independence, or inherent will, with the powers of motion, of thought, and with the attributes of moral, intellectual, and sympathetic affections and emotions. (JD 1:8)

Picking up from before, I have a few further questions here. First of all, why does a particularly refined 'spiritual element' have intellectual attributes? Is there something about the purity of the matter that automatically gives rise to such? And, what's more, if (as per one of my speculations above) gross matter is composed of or derived from this 'spiritual element', does that mean that gross matter also has intellectual attributes - and, if so, would that commit Latter-day Saints to a form of panpsychism?

My second question is, what is the relationship between this 'spiritual element' and intelligences? Here, Pratt says that a spiritual body is formed when (particles of?) spiritual elements are organized into a definite form. Earlier, he said that a spirits (for that, surely, is what he meant by 'thinking beings') are simply organized intelligences. Is an intelligence, then, a particle or hunk of this especially subtle matter? And would that mean that a human person is not just one intelligence, but many? Are intelligences discrete and/or capable of interpersonal relationships; do they have distinct essential identities? Or are intelligences more like drops of water that can split and merge without raising any philosophical quandaries because they have no distinct permanent identities - but, if so, in what sense can they be said to exhibit intellectual attributes? Or, on the other hand, are intelligences perhaps immaterial? To my knowledge, there is no specific statement on the matter in LDS scripture. The Doctrine and Covenants (131:7) states that there is "no such thing as immaterial matter" (which is a rather blatant truism), but it does not clearly say that there are no immaterial things at all (though it may plausibly mean that), nor does it address the issue of how this applies to intelligences.

However, here Pratt seems to say that a 'spiritual body' is the same as an 'individual intelligence'. This doesn't quite answer the questions, since it doesn't rule out smaller chunks also being 'individual intelligences' with similar attributes; if a 'spiritual body' were split cleanly down the middle, would each half be an intelligence? Furthermore, if an intelligence is just an organized spiritual body, then is it not redundant for Pratt to early refer to them as 'organized intelligences'? And on that note, how does this relate to the common LDS view that we personally pre-existed, not merely this mortal life, but also our pre-mortal existence as Heavenly Father's spirit-children? It seems that we would only acquire a 'spiritual body' when begotten in time by Heavenly Father, so what were we before that? But if we were disorganized and not yet an 'individual intelligence', how then can Joseph Smith be correct when he preached, in his famed King Follett Discourse [7 April 1844] as reported by all sources (and particularly by Wilford Woodruff) that "man exhisted in spirit & mind coequal with God himself"?

7. Parley Pratt adds that, underneath our tangible bodies of flesh and bone, made of gross matter, we are in fact beings with bodies made of subtle matter. My question here is, how does our body of subtle matter (spirit) interact with our body of grosser matter? And - although this question is no doubt excessively pedantic - if our spirit is itself a body, why does the LDS scripture state that "the spirit and the body are the soul of man" (D&C 88:15), rather than, e.g., "the spiritual body and the natural body are the soul of man"?

8. From here, Parley Pratt goes on to discuss the destination of the spirit after the death of the body. In keeping with LDS scripture, he denies that it goes to any kingdom of glory immediately, because the three kingdoms of glory can only be inhabited by resurrected and thus glorified beings. On this I have several more questions to ask. First, Pratt says that the spirit "passes on to the next sphere of human existence, called the world of spirits, a veil being drawn between us in the flesh, and that world of spirits" (JD 1:9). Given that the spirit is a material thing, is the world of spirits also a material place? In what way is it separated from our material world? Is this separation in some way spatial? (And yes, I realize that many of these questions in particular are perhaps unanswerable, just as analogous questions for traditional Christian views might be; but it does the mind good to seriously contemplate them and consider options.) Could a body made of grosser matter exist in the world of spirits? Also, if we had a pre-mortal existence, was that in the world of spirits or in the Father's celestial kingdom? If the former, then how were we in the presence of Heavenly Father in a way that permitted us to personally behold his embodied state - or, for that matter, to be organized/begotten? If the latter, though, what are we to make of Pratt's claim that a mere spirit-body cannot exist in a kingdom of glory? And how are we to relate that to the view that the Holy Ghost does not have a body of grosser matter, only of spirit? Can the Holy Ghost be in the Father's bodily presence where the Father resides?

9. Parley Pratt then goes on to discuss the situation of the repentant insurrectionist who was crucified next to Jesus. This man (whom I will call Dismas, following Christian tradition, for the sake of ease) went to the part of the world of spirits called 'paradise', which is where Jesus met him to teach him the Gospel between the crucifixion and resurrection. However, after the resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven to the Father, and thus is in a place that Dismas cannot access until after the general resurrection, and then only if Dismas "continued to improve" (JD 1:9). Here I have no questions.

10. Parley Pratt next discusses the issue of whether all in the world of spirits are taught the gospel immediately. His answer is no, on the grounds that the same is true in this world. He states:

I have not the least doubt but there are spirits there who have dwelt there a thousand years, who, if we could converse with them face to face, would be found as ignorant of the truths, the ordinances, powers, keys, Priesthood, resurrection, and eternal life of the body, in short, as ignorant of the fullness of the Gospel, with its hopes and consolations, as is the Pope of Rome, or the Bishop of Canterbury, or as are the Chiefs of the Indian tribes of Utah. And why this ignorance in the spirit world? Because a portion of the inhabitants thereof are found unworthy of the consolations of the Gospel, until the fullness of time, until they have suffered in hell, in the dungeons of darkness, or the prisons of the condemned, amid the buffetings of fiends, and malicious and lying spirits. (JD 1:10-11)

We'll set aside, for the moment, the accusation that the heads of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches are 'ignorant of the fullness of the Gospel'. The basic answer given here is that some folks in the spirit world don't get taught the gospel because they're being punished by the withholding of the word of God. After further consideration, I suppose I have no real major objection to that - though, on my non-LDS view of the afterlife, I suspect that this idea does not actually hold. Nor am I confused, so far as I know, so I have no questions.

11. Rather shortly thereafter, Parley Pratt makes a comment referring to the apostasy:

Between the commission and ministry of the Former and Latter-day Saints, and Apostles, there has been a long and dreary night of darkness. Some fifteen to seventeen centuries have passed away, in which the generations of man have lived without the keys of the Gospel. (JD 1:11)

First of all, note that this seems to be a fairly dark description of the alleged time of the apostasy. Virtually all of the great saints and spiritual fathers and mothers looked to by orthodox Christians - whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant - were not luminaries but rather were trapped in 'a long and dreary night of darkness'. Does this really sound plausible to those who are familiar with some of the deep and vibrant Christian piety that existed during many of these eras? For me, personally, some of the eras seem like a mixed bag, but certainly not 'a long and dreary night of darkness'. That's my perspective, though I respect the reasons for which Latter-day Saints are inclined to disagree. Second, given the figures estimated by Pratt, the loss of the 'keys of the Gospel' appears to have happened sometime roughly between the years 130 and 330. Does this sound like a reasonable account of the date of the apostasy to those of you who believe in it? Beyond that, Pratt states that:

Such apostates seek, in all dispensations, to bring destruction on the innocent, and to shed innocent blood, or consent thereto. For such, I again repeat, I know no forgiveness. Their children, who, by the conduct of such fathers, have been plunged into ignorance and misery for so many ages, and have lived without the privileges of the Gospel, will look down upon such a parentage with mingled feelings of horror, contempt, reproach, and pity, as the agents who plunged their posterity into the depths of misery and woe. (JD 1:11)

Harsh! Very harsh language, in fact. But, in the interests of polite and civil dialogue, we'll set that aside. I find it interesting to compare this to the model of the apostasy that has been presented to me by some other Latter-day Saints. On such a model, the apostasy was inevitable once the priesthood authority was lost, and it could not be sustained without the existence of a quorum of apostles on the earth. During the persecutions, the original quorum of the apostles was unable to reconvene and appoint new apostles, which eventually led to the survival of only one apostle, John, who in LDS belief was granted the privilege of living until Jesus' return (D&C 7:1-3). (Random thought: if John is still alive and thus still an apostle, then why is there not reserved for him a place in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, since he seemingly never left that position?) Hence, the apostolate was empty and... well, I don't really see a reason why the priesthood would have been lost (even assuming an LDS view of what 'priesthood' means), unless the loss of the apostles was somehow blamed on the other Christians and God decreed that all their priesthood authority was henceforth invalid. Or, the Christians are being blamed for accepting false teachings, perhaps... but the task then would be in establishing from the record any significant break between the central teachings of New Testament Christianity and the central teachings of the Early Church Fathers. If I may interject my personal views for a moment, there doesn't seem to be one, and certainly not the sort that would justify claims of apostasy - but I don't want to belabor my views here, just note them. Anyway, as for the actual text from Pratt - my apologies for exploring a bit of a tangent there - I really have no more to say.

12. After discussing the rather limited knowledge possessed by most in the world of spirits, as well as the importance of genealogical study in order to be able to help them further, Parley Pratt says:

God has condescended so far to our capacity, as to speak of our fathers as if they were dead, though they are all living spirits, and will live forever. We have no dead! Only think of it! Our fathers are all living, thinking, active agents; we have only been taught that they are dead! (JD 1:13-14)

This accords rather well with Jesus' response to the Sadducees, although as a caveat I must add that, if I remember correctly, it was only rather special individuals who were held in Jewish tradition of the time to be especially alive in that state. But I hold no real objection to what Pratt says right here.

13. Pratt then goes on to tell that, when the cornerstone of the Salt Lake City Temple was laid, he perceived - not with his five external senses, but with his inner faculties - that the spirits of many departed Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith himself, were present and eagerly watching because this was the beginning of the care that people in this world would take for those in the world of spirits. I simply found that interesting. As Pratt goes on to explain:

It is here, that the spirit world would look with an intense interest, it is here that the nations of the dead, if I may so call them, would concentrate their hopes of ministration on the earth in their behalf. It is here that the countless millions of the spirit world would look for the ordinances of redemption, so far as they have been enlightened by the preaching of the Gospel, since the keys of the former dispensation were taken away from the earth. (JD 1:14)

14. The remainder of Pratt's message appears to be focused on the importance of the work that would thenceforth take place in the Salt Lake City Temple (and, of course, in all other temples to be built), and I found interest in the concluding paragraphs of Pratt's talk:

Ye Elders of Israel! You will find that there is a spirit upon you which will urge you to continued exertion, and will never suffer you to feel at ease in Zion while a work remains unfinished in the great plan of redemption of our race. It will inspire the Saints to build, plant, improve, cultivate, make the desert fruitful, in short, to use the elements, send missions abroad, build up states and kingdoms and temples at home, and send abroad the light of a never-ending day to every people and nation of the globe. You have been baptized, you have had the laying on of hands, and some have been ordained, and some anointed with a holy anointing. A spirit has been given you. And you will find, if you undertake to rest, it will be the hardest work you ever performed. I came home here from a foreign mission. I presented myself to our President, and inquired what I should do next. "Rest," said he. If I had been set to turn the world over, to dig down a mountain, to go to the ends of the earth, or traverse the deserts of Arabia, it would have been easier than to have undertaken to rest, while the Priesthood was upon me. I have received the holy anointing, and I can never rest till the last enemy is conquered, death destroyed, and truth remains triumphant. May God bless you all. Amen. (JD 1:15)

My concluding question is mainly directed towards Latter-day Saints. How do you react to what Pratt said here? Do you similarly find it very difficult to rest? Why or why not?

On that note, so concludes this initial survey of the second discourse in the Journal of Discourses, and now I'll wait for the input of others.

JOD 01-01

For the very first installment of our series on the Journal of Discourses, we'll be looking at the first discourse in the first volume. This was preached by Brigham Young (1801-1877), the second president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The discourse in question was delivered in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 16 January 1853. The text as we have it was reported by George Darling Watt (1812-1881), the principal editor of the Journal of Discourses (and who was later disfellowshipped and excommunicated after casting his lot with the LDS splinter group led by William Godbe (1833-1902)). The main theme of President Young's discourse that day was salvation.

1. As I begin my way through the text, one of the first things that catches my eye is that Brigham Young says that he dislikes referring to us as "fallen beings" but prefers to say "subjected intelligence", and clarifies that this is subjection to "law, order, rule, and government" (JD 1:1). My first question here is, what objection does Young have to the notion of us as "fallen beings"? While it is true that the Bible itself never refers to our state as 'fallen', Alma 42:6 says that after Adam's sin, "man became lost forever, yea, they became fallen men"; Alma 42:12 refers to "this fallen state, which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience"; and Alma 42:14 plainly states that "we see that all mankind were fallen". It seems that describing humans as 'fallen beings' is not simply permissible but is in fact a description countenanced by the LDS scriptural canon, and so I'm not certain what to make of Brigham Young's dislike of the term here. As for my second question, it seemed initially that "subjected intelligence" would be a term serving the same function, more or less, as 'fallen beings'. But is Young saying that we would not be subject to any law or government if there had been no sin? This doesn't seem to be the case, because if memory serves me rightly, in LDS thought there are eternal laws and principles that are necessarily true, even independently of the will, character, and nature of our God. And so it seems that 'subjected intelligence' as a description cannot have any negative connotations, nor a postlapsarian sense. Am I reading Young rightly here?

2. Brigham Young quickly goes on to say:

There is not a person in this world, who is endowed with a common share of intellect, but is laboring with all his power for salvation. Men vary in their efforts to obtain that object, still their individual conclusions are, that they will ultimately secure it. (JD 1:1)

At first, this seemed rather shocking to me, until I read a bit further and got a better sense of what Young means. It seems that, as an initial sense of the word 'salvation', President Young is using a rather broad conception that includes even temporal prosperity, security, peace, etc. And it is then in this sense that all humans seek 'salvation'.

3. After describing people in many walks of life and their respective searches for salvation as enduring happiness and fulfillment, Brigham Young notes:

The Latter-day Saint, who is far from the bosom of the Church, whose home is in distant climes, sighs, and earnestly prays each day of his life for the Lord to open his way, that he may mingle with the brethren in Zion, for he supposes that his happiness would then be complete, but in this his expectations will be in a measure vain, for happiness that is real and lasting in its nature cannot be enjoyed by mortals, for it is altogether out of keeping with this transitory state. (JD 1:2)

My first observation here is that Young powerfully captures an aspect of the early LDS experience. In this time, many Latter-day Saints were concentrated in the Utah Territory, but quite a few were in distant lands as a result of ongoing missions elsewhere in the world. I can imagine that those Latter-day Saints longed to be among their fellow believers (hence the creation of the Perpetual Emigration Fund). But already, President Young warns that even dwelling in the new promised land is not enough to secure lasting happiness, because that cannot be achieved in this mortal life; the reason is that this life is marked by fleeting pleasures and continued tribulations, and we await a permanent state to come. Here, I think that Brigham Young is quite on the mark.

4. The next block of text that stuck out to me is this:

How difficult it is to teach the natural man, who comprehends nothing more than that which he sees with the natural eye! How hard it is for him to believe! How difficult would be the task to make the philosopher, who, for many years, has argued himself into the belief that his spirit is no more after his body sleeps in the grave, believe that his intelligence came from eternity, and is eternal, in its nature, as the elements, or as the Gods. Such doctrine by him would be considered vanity and foolishness, it would be entirely beyond his comprehension. (JD 1:2)

The first thing I want to note is that this 'philosopher' is not merely any non-LDS person, but is someone who limits his understanding to what can be directly perceived. In short, the man seems to be an atheist and perhaps materialist precisely because he is a strict empiricist. Second, note that this person is specifically said to have persuaded himself over many years that there is no afterlife, no enduring spirit, nothing more to life than the biological; what seems to be perhaps implied in President Young's rhetoric is that a humble and intelligent person seeking wisdom and open to God's guidance would most naturally conclude the opposite, which is the truth. My third note is that the contrast presented here is between the atheistic naturalist on the one hand and an adherent of the LDS view of human nature on the other, in which there is a wholly uncreated, unoriginated element that forms the core of intelligent life, and that this inner 'intelligence' is co-eternal with God himself. (This quote also implies the doctrine of the plurality of gods, which Joseph Smith taught in his King Follett Discourse [7 April 1844] and even moreso in his Sermon in the Grove [16 July 1844]. But as it's only tangentially implied, I won't go into it now here.) I wish to raise, simply as a theoretical third alternative, the position that there is such a thing as a created spirit that has a beginning but, because of the sustaining power of God, will not have an end. Discussion of the early LDS critique of created intelligence must wait until a more pertinent discourse.

5. Brigham Young goes on to say that no man can offer "words of eternal life" apart from the influence of God's Spirit, but rather "when the Lord gives His Spirit to a person, or to a people, they can then hear, believe, and be instructed" (JD 1:3). This sounds to me rather reminiscent of the Wesleyan teaching of prevenient grace, at least in a certain respect. (I'm quite confident that, given the LDS commitment to free agency, a comparison with a more Calvinistic viewpoint would be misleading here.) Left to our own devices, and without the activity of God's Spirit, none of us would be capable of responding to his summons to accept the good news; only the activity of God's Spirit can enable the reception of this word.

6. Brigham Young goes on to point out that a community in which everyone wholly devoted themselves to the gospel would be one with "a resting place for the Holy Ghost" and "a habitation of the Father and the Son" (JD 1:3). And Young goes on to lament:

Let me ask, what is there to prevent any person in this congregation from being so blessed, and becoming a holy temple fit for the indwelling of the Holy Ghost? Has any being in heaven or on earth done aught to prevent you from becoming so blessed? No, but why the people are not so privileged I will leave you to judge. I would to God that every soul who professes to be a Latter-day Saint was of that character, a holy temple for the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. (JD 1:3)

In other words, there are only two truly relevant parties to this: the human party, and the divine party (the Godhead). And there's no problem with the divine party, because Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are perfectly willing to indwell the believer. So the only one who can stop you from experiencing this blessing is you; you are your sole potential obstacle in this matter. And that seems perfectly consonant with what Paul says in Romans 8:38-39. Furthermore, I pray Brigham Young's prayer, not only for Latter-day Saints, but for Latter-day Saints and for my own Evangelical brothers and sisters, that they may receive that blessing by yielding to God's abundant grace.

7. Brigham Young later goes on to deliver a denunciation of some 'Elders of Israel' who exhibited an attitude that can unfortunately affect people in all sorts of positions:

If Elders of Israel use language which is not proper for the lips of a Saint, such Elders are under condemnation, and the wrath of God abides upon them, those who do it have not the love of truth in their hearts, they do not love and honor the truth because it is the truth, but because it is powerful, and they wish to join with the strongest party. (JD 1:4)

In light of what preceded it, by "language which is not proper for the lips of a Saint" Brigham Young appears to mean things such as backbiting, gossip, and curses (as opposed to blessings, which he says should fill the mouths of the members of a truly Christian society such as Zion is intended to be). Thus, 'Elders of Israel' who do such things are under God's wrath and condemnation because they show that they don't really love truth. Brigham Young's analysis of their situation is interesting. They profess to love the truth, but underneath the mask don't actually love or honor the truth. They love it on the surface, not in their hearts. Why? They love the truth for the sake of power. In short, these people are loving the truth as an instrumental good, not as an intrinsic good. For them, power is the real intrinsic good. But Brigham Young says - and here I must agree - that truth must be regarded as good for its own sake; the mere seeking after power is not the Christian way. Think how many there are who try to treat truth and righteousness as instrumental goods in order to gain power or some other self-seeking 'intrinsic' good; is this not the very fault of Simon Magus?

8. Brigham Young later links the principle of judgment by works to the urgent quality of progression. As he says:

You will find that this probation is the place to increase upon every little we receive, for the Lord gives line upon line to the children of men. When He reveals the plan of salvation, then is the time to fill up our days with good works. (JD 1:5)

In other words, 'to him who has, more will be given; to him who has not, more will be taken away' (cf. Matthew 13:12). And Young applies this to good works, it seems. Those who do good works will, at the judgment, have even greater rewards bestowed upon them; but those who neglect to be active in doing good in the present time will lose out at the judgment and not make any progress. And because it is the goal of our kind to forever make progress, that is all the more reason to become involved in doing good now, because such is the gateway to our future realization of our potential, which is our great goal. And here I think Brigham Young hits on an important theme. While I can't accept certain specifics of the LDS view of eternal progression that rely on distinctive LDS views of the nature of God and man that I as an orthodox Christian must reject, there is nevertheless certainly a sense in which the believer will continue to grow in the love of God forever, and thus to become increasingly glorified without end, for the reflection of God's infinite glory is our telos. But in order to make the most of the age to come, we must make the most of our opportunities in the present age as well. Discipleship is not for the lazy; it's for those who are serious about living by a faith that obeys God's guidance and trusts in his promises. We aren't to trust in our works - our trust is in the faithful grace of God - but nevertheless our faith must become vibrantly alive in the grace-enabled works it naturally bursts forth in, if we don't stifle it. And it is by doing this and beginning to reshape our characters after the imitatio Christi that we take steps on a joyous (though oft-painful in this life) and never-ending process that, in some sense, may eventually be termed 'exaltation'.

9. Brigham Young finally returns to the issue of "the eternal existence of the soul" (JD 1:5). First he says:

The philosophers of this world will concede that the elements of which you and I are composed are eternal, yet they believe that there was a time when there was no God. They cannot comprehend how it is that God can be eternal. (JD 1:5)

It's not immediately clear to me what sort of 'philosophers' Young has in mind here. Perhaps someone else can fill in some of the background. I know of those who would contend that there is no God and that the basic material elements are eternal - such philosophers have indeed lived - but I confess my unfamiliarity with those who hold that matter pre-existed God, that God has a beginning. At any rate, some of what Brigham Young stresses in this section is unobjectionable because his emphasis is on the future-directed eternity of the soul, and most Christians (LDS or otherwise) generally hold that we ourselves will never cease to exist now that we do in fact presently exist. (The real matter of controversy is whether or not this or any other true relevant consideration implies that we never began to exist either.) Further along, Brigham Young makes a reference in what he says next to the notion that faithful Latter-day Saints have in this life been "laying the foundation to become Gods" (JD 1:5), and with this I as an Evangelical must quibble. If by this Brigham Young means - as I'm sure he does - that we have the hope of becoming naturally divine in the same way that the Father or the Son are now divine, then this must be rejected; the divinity of the Father and the Son (and of the Holy Ghost) is a matter of ontology and identity that is incommunicable, and there is a great ontological gult between ourselves and the Godhead because we are of different essential kinds. So in this sense, I must from my perspective within the historic Christian tradition judge Brigham Young's statement to be false. However, nevertheless there is a truth in what he says, because we do have the hope of being invited by grace to share in the unfathomable love that characterizes the inner divine life of the Godhead, and to be glorified by our communion by grace with that Eternal Community to which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit belong by nature. In this sense, one may perhaps indeed dare to say, with a touch of hyperbole and a different manner of speaking, that believers do lay the foundation to become 'gods' - or, rather, that God lays the foundation for us to become 'gods' by participation, and invites us to labor with him. It is Brigham Young's primary contention that, if we could clearly see all of this, we would at last grasp the reasons why we "receive the truth in the love of it, live in it, and continue in it" (JD 1:5).

10. Brigham Young concludes on the note that arbitrarily and uncompassionately passing condemnation on one another is "the height of folly" because, as he says:

I find that I have enough to do to watch myself. It is as much as I can do to get right, deal right, and act right. If we should all do this, there would be no difficulty, but in every man's mouth would be "May the Lord bless you." (JD 1:6)

And here, too, it seems that Brigham Young got it right. Our priority when it comes to fault-finding is quite clearly ourselves - not in the interest of building up an unhealthy sense of guilt or of poor self-worth, but in recognizing that if we are not seeking after righteousness, we are in very little position to help others, and certainly in no position to set up our own personal scruples as the absolute moral law to which all others must kowtow.

On that note, I conclude my initial survey of the first discourse in the Journal of Discourses, and eagerly await the input of others. And so, in Brigham Young's own closing words:

Light cleaves to light, and truth to truth.
May God bless you. Amen. (JD 1:6)