The "Brothers" of Jesus: A Fresh Look at the Evidence

198 years ago today

 198 years ago today, Joseph Smith first laid his eyes on the gold plates. After 4 years of heavenly instruction, Moroni finally turned over the sacred record on September 22nd, 1827. That was a very special day, more so in fact than many may realize...

You see, September 22nd of that year was Rosh Hashanah...or as the ancient Jews called it, The Feast of Trumpets. Jewish scholars have claimed the Feast of Trumpets signifies four things: The beginning of Israel’s final harvest, The day God had set to remember His ancient promises to re-gather Israel, a time for new revelation that would lead to a new covenant with Israel, and a time to prepare for the Millennium.

On 22 September 1827, Israel’s trumpets sounded throughout the world; it was the day the Prophet Joseph Smith received the golden plates, which would help fulfill God’s promise to remember Israel in the latter days. It is no wonder a statue of Moroni with his trumpet symbolically and beautifully stands upon the top of most temples.

Theories and Assumptions: A Review of William L. Davis’s Visions in a Seer Stone

 (by Brian C. Hales interpreterfoundation.org)

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/theories-and-assumptions-a-review-of-william-l-daviss-visions-in-a-seer-stone/

A review of William L. Davis, Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2020, 264 pp. paperback $29.95, hardcover $90, e-book $22.99, ISBN: 1469655675, 9781469655673.

Abstract: Within the genre of Book of Mormon studies, William L. Davis’s Visions in a Seer Stone presents readers with an innovative message that reports how Joseph Smith was able to produce the words of the Book of Mormon without supernatural assistance. Using oral performance skills that Smith ostensibly gained prior to 1829, his three-month “prodigious flow of verbal art and narrative creation” (7) became the Book of Mormon. Davis’s theory describes a two-part literary pattern in the Book of Mormon where summary outlines (called “heads) in the text are consistently expanded in subsequent sections of the narrative. Termed “laying down heads,” Davis insists that such literary devices are anachronistic to Book of Mormon era and constitute strong evidence that Joseph Smith contributed heavily, if not solely, to the publication. The primary weaknesses of the theory involve the type and quantity of assumptions routinely accepted throughout the book. The assumptions include beliefs that the historical record does not support or even contradicts (e.g. Smith’s 1829 superior intelligence, advanced composition abilities, and exceptional memorization proficiency) and those that describe Smith using oral performance skills beyond those previously demonstrated as humanly possible (e.g. the ability to dictate thousands of first-draft phrases that are also refined final-draft sentences). Visions in a Seer Stone will be most useful to individuals who, like the author, are willing to accept these assumptions. To more skeptical readers, the theory presented regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon will be classified as incomplete or inadequate.

Baptized for the Dead

 (by Kevin L. Barney interpreterfoundation.org)

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/baptized-for-the-dead/

Abstract: This thorough treatment of the mention of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29 gives a meticulous analysis of Paul’s Greek argument, and lays out the dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of theories that have been put forth with respect to its interpretation. Barney concludes that “the most natural reading” and the “majority contemporary scholarly reading” is that of “vicarious baptism.” Therefore, “the Prophet Joseph Smith’s reading of the passage to refer to such a practice was indeed correct.”

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

See Kevin L. Barney, “Baptized for the Dead,” in “To Seek the Law of the Lord”: Essays in Honor of John W. Welch, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson and Daniel C. Peterson (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation, 2017), 9–58. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/to-seek-the-law-of-the-lord-essays-in-honor-of-john-w-welch-2/.]

Elder Holland: What They Heard is Not What He Said

 (by Daniel C. Peterson latterdaysaintmag.com 9-7-21)

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/elder-holland-what-he-said-is-not-what-they-heard/

Between my first arrival on campus in the fall of 1970 and my retirement on 1 July 2021—a span of fifty-one years—all but approximately eight years were spent as a member of either the student body or the faculty of Brigham Young University.  I say this not for nostalgia’s sake, and not even because my now-advanced age and the sheer length of that elapsed period amaze me, though they do.  (Jacob’s words, at the end of his life and of the book that bears his name, in which he writes that “the time passed away with us, and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream” [Jacob 7:26] resonate with me more and more.)  I say it because it suggests how very long it has been since I first fell in love with BYU and with the idea of BYU.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s connections with the school, his undergraduate alma mater as well, are far more impressive than mine:  Now a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he returned to BYU after earning a doctorate from Yale University.  He served as a college dean and then, after a stint as overall Commissioner of Education for the Church, returned yet again as the University’s ninth president.  He is currently a member of the BYU Board of Trustees.

Elder Holland recently addressed the 2021 edition of BYU’s annual University Conference, a gathering to which all of the University’s faculty, staff, and administrators—even retirees—are invited.  He began and ended his remarks with his own story of falling in love with BYU—a story that, again, resonates deeply with me.  

It’s what Elder Holland said between his expressions of affection for BYU, however, that has generated controversy in some circles, and even bitter anger.  

He has been called irresponsible, a hater, and a bigot. His speech has been widely portrayed as an angry tirade against gays.  When a BYU student was videotaped muttering an anti-gay slur and pouring water on a sidewalk to erase a chalk rainbow, the headline in one national gay publication said that “The incident comes on top of a former Brigham Young University president urging the use of “muskets” to fight LGBTQ+ equality.”  It cited the explanation given by a national gay organization: “Elder Jeffrey Holland gave license for such conduct, using dangerous and warlike comments against LGBTQ students earlier this week.” 

“It looks like the muskets are out and being used to abuse the LGBTQ community,” said one anonymous critic of the Church on a predominantly atheist message board.  “If there is any justice, there has to be a special place in hell reserved for people like Holland.”

I would like to briefly comment on such curious reactions.

What Elder Holland had to say to the University as a whole on 23 August 2021 was, to my mind, strikingly reminiscent of the bracing message that he delivered to BYU’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship on 10 November 2018—a message that had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.

First of all, of course, he asked that employees of the Church’s flagship school be personally loyal to the standards and doctrines of the Restoration:

“If we are an extension of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” Elder Holland said, “taking a significant amount of sacred tithes and other precious human resources, all of which might well be expended in other worthy causes, surely our integrity demands that our lives be absolutely consistent with and characteristic of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ . . . in harmony with the Lord’s anointed, those whom He has designated to declare Church doctrine and to guide Brigham Young University as its trustees.”

However, he also urged BYU employees to teach, to advocate, and, sometimes, to defend those doctrines and standards.  He cited a 2004 campus speech in which the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell had said that, in a way, Latter-day Saint scholars at BYU “are a little bit like the builders of the temple in Nauvoo, who worked with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other. Today scholars building the temple of learning must also pause on occasion to defend the kingdom. I personally think this is one of the reasons the Lord established and maintains this university. The dual role of builder and defender is unique and ongoing. I am grateful we have scholars today who can handle, as it were, both trowels and muskets.”

Like other faithful Latter-day Saints, Elder Maxwell recognized the accuracy of Susan Evans McCloud’s hymn lyrics, that

“The truths and values we embrace
Are mocked on every hand.”

He also understood the need to defend them.

I was in the audience for those 2004 remarks, in which Elder Maxwell expressed his appreciation for scholars at BYU who defended the claims, scriptures, and teachings of the Restoration against attack.  (As far as I recall, he didn’t refer in any way to homosexuality or homosexuals.)  The illustration that he used clearly drew upon an account given in Nehemiah 4 (especially verses 16-18).  In it, the Jews who have returned from the Babylonian captivity to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple are obliged, because of threats and attacks from their neighbors, to work with one hand while holding a sword in the other—a defensive measure, not an aggressive one, that plainly has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Elder Maxwell’s modified biblical metaphor was adopted by then-Elder Dallin Oaks in 2017, when he exhorted members of the BYU faculty to increase their defense of the Church and its teachings: “I would like,” he said, “to hear a little more musket fire from this temple of learning.” 

Referring to Elder Oaks’s appropriation of the imagery, Elder Holland importantly observed that “He said this in a way that could have applied to a host of topics in various departments”—just as, in fact, Elder Maxwell had applied the musket metaphor more generally.

“But,” Elder Holland continued, “the one he specifically mentioned was the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”

This is easily understandable:  Issues of gender, sexuality, and the nature of families loom very large today in our culture, law, and politics, and societal trends related to them clearly and increasingly clash with the standards and teachings of the Church.  Accordingly, Elder Holland’s own speech alluded fairly prominently to such matters—in, by my quick estimate, four of forty-four paragraphs of the published text:

“I have focused on this same-sex topic this morning more than I would have liked,” he said, adding that “I pray you will see it as emblematic of a lot of issues our students and community face in this complex, contemporary world of ours.”

In other words, the speech was not, as many have claimed, primarily devoted to issues of same-sex attraction.  He simply chose gender issues to represent the other areas in which the teachings of the Church come under attack, areas in which some members of the BYU faculty might be well situated to help.  And, I add, the speech was neither hateful nor angry; as anyone can learn by simply watching it online:

“My Brethren,” said Elder Holland, “have made the case for the metaphor of musket fire  which I have endorsed yet again today. There will continue to be those who oppose our teachings and with that will continue the need to define, document, and defend the faith. But we do all look forward to the day when we can “beat our swords into plowshares, and [our] spears into pruning hooks,” and at least on this subject, “learn war [no] more.””

Specifically referring to those who experience same-sex attraction, Elder Holland said,

“Let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters.”

But, he also said, “we have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people. As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, “Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.” We are tasked with trying to strike that same sensitive, demanding balance in our lives.”

Plainly, just as with Elder Maxwell’s 2004 use of the musketry image and Elder Oaks’s 2017 reappropriation of it, the reference is not to military combat, let alone to hateful prejudice or violent bigotry, but to intellectual contestation and reasoned argument—which are, after all, at or near the very core of scholarship and higher education.  And what they said was completely consistent with the exhortation of 1 Peter 3:15:  “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear”—or, in the more contemporary language of the English Standard Version, “with gentleness and respect.”

The Kingdom of God is, always has been, and must always be at odds with the world.  And BYU, an integral part of the developing Kingdom, must also be, as Elder Holland said, “unique” and “special.”  That—not homosexuality—was what his speech was about.  It wasn’t angry or hateful.  It has been grievously misrepresented.

I close with heartfelt appeal from an unidentified Latter-day Saint (I came across it at second hand) with which I heartily agree:

“I hate that this topic gets so much attention when there are so many bigger life and death issues going on right now…but the bandwagon keeps making loops. . . .  As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would like to make one thing very clear. I am not anti gay. I am pro family. There is a difference. Do not assume I won’t love you as you are. Do not assume all church members are the same ignorant individuals. Do not assume I am “brain washed” into believing old traditions. Do not assume you know how I feel, or what I think. Do not assume I would be “disappointed and ashamed” of my child if they were gay. This is not a “with or against me” topic. I believe in supporting perfect doctrine. But, heaven knows I am not even close to perfect. If I can’t even live up to my own idea of perfection, what makes you think I’d ever try to live up to yours? Just because I don’t wave your flag, doesn’t mean I want you to hide who you are in the shadows. Stop turning sincere words spoken by pure souls into some kind of hate speech. Stop trying to brain wash members of the church into believing it’s us against you. Because some of us just ain’t playing the polarization game this time. So, I’ll say it again. I’m not anti gay. I am pro family, pro Mom, Dad and kids in one LOVING home whenever possible. So, please, from one discriminated against group to another, stop polarizing.”

The complete text and video of Elder Holland’s remarks to the 2021 University Conference are available at https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-jeffrey-r-holland-2021-byu-university-conference.

For the text of his 2018 speech, see “The Maxwell Legacy in the 21st Century,” on pages 8-21 of the “2018 Annual Report” of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship (https://byumiuploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2019/06/2018-Maxwell-Institute-Annual-Report-small.pdf). 

For something of my reaction to it, see “The Interpreter Foundation
and an Apostolic Charge” (https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-interpreter-foundation-and-an-apostolic-charge/).

Lessons from Oliver Cowdery for Today

 (by Andrew Miller fairlatterdaysaints.org)

In the summer of 1830, while The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was yet in its infancy, Oliver Cowdery, “the second elder of [the] church” (D&C 20:3), wrote Joseph Smith, saying, “I command you in the name of God to erase those words, that no priestcraft be amongst us.” Oliver Cowdery was referring to words Joseph Smith added to Doctrine and Covenants 20:37. Oliver disapproved of a phrase included in the list of requirements for baptism: “And truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins.”

Joseph, the Prophet, was astonished and saddened. He knew that this baptismal requirement had come by revelation from the Lord. Joseph “immediately wrote to [Oliver] in reply, in which [Joseph] asked him by what authority [Oliver,] took upon him to command [him] to alter or erase…a revelation…from Almighty God.”

Shortly after, Joseph traveled to see Oliver at the Peter Whitmer home where he was living.  Unfortunately, Oliver not only had become angry with Joseph, but he had negatively influenced the Whitmers so that the entire household had become agitated in their feelings. Joseph’s history records, “I found the [Whitmer] family in [favor] of [Oliver’s] opinion … and it was not without both labor and [persistence] that I could prevail with any of them to reason calmly on the subject.” In the end, Joseph “succeeded in bringing not only the Whitmer family, but also Oliver Cowdery to acknowledge that they had been in error”  (The proceeding account and quotations are from History of the Church 1:104-105).

Although it is easy to condemn Oliver Cowdery’s actions from our vantage point today, that isn’t my intent; we are all prone to sin and mistakes. Regardless, there is a lot we can learn from this relatively unknown event in church history.

First, Oliver Cowdery should have humbled himself and withheld judgement until he could better understand the will of the Lord. Instead of accusing the prophet of priestcraft, he would have been better served to resist the urge to jump to judgement. Rather than presume that the Lord’s prophet was wrong, he should have done some prayerful, humble introspection. Pride allowed Oliver to not only jump to judgement, but to feel a false sense of righteous indignation. He was utterly convinced he was right!

Ego and the Holy Ghost cannot reside in the same heart at the same time. We can’t be full of the Holy Ghost while we’re full of ourselves. We must remember the Lord’s command and promise: “Be thou humble, and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand…” (D&C 112:10). Oliver’s pride problem was not unique then, and it certainly isn’t unique now.  As famously taught by President Ezra Taft Benson, “Pride is the universal sin.” There continue to be many today who see themselves as always being right while believing their divinely appointed leaders are always liable to be wrong.  

Oliver’s mistake was greatly magnified by persuading the Whitmers to join him in his rebellion. The proud always seek validation and converts. Oliver should have avoided saying or doing anything that weakened others’ trust in the Lord’s servant. President Dallin H. Oaks taught:

Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local…. Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God.  It does not matter that the criticism is true…. “When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.”

(Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, February 1987)

If Oliver had withheld judgement and held his tongue, he would have not damaged the faith of those around him. It is sobering to consider that the Lord may hold us accountable for the sins of others when those sins are caused by our influence or even only our negligence (See Jacob 1:19).

Perhaps Oliver would have next benefited from searching the scriptures for understanding. Had he done so, he may have discovered that the baptismal requirement the prophet added to Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 was already found almost word for word in 3 Nephi 7:25. And, Oliver, of all people, knew the Book of Mormon was true; he had seen the plates and heard the voice of God declare the translation was correct! So, finding this same requirement in the Book of Mormon undoubtedly would have satisfied any concerns he had about the correctness of the doctrine. 

Finally, Oliver had forgotten what the Lord said in the first revelation to the church after it was formally organized only a few months earlier, on April 6, 1830: 

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

(Doctrine and Covenants 21:4-6)

Oliver Cowdery, though a powerful and gifted servant of God, struggled at times with following this commandment of the Lord. Perhaps because of their long and close relationship, it was especially easy for him to see the flaws and human foibles of Joseph Smith. He struggled with submitting to the prophet’s authority. Consequently, the Lord rebuked Oliver, saying, “thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church” (D&C 28:6).

In 1970, President Harold B. Lee taught:

Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church on that day when the Church was organized.  We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, ‘As he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me… as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.’ 

There will be some things that take patience and faith.  You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church.  It may contradict your political views.  It may contradict your social views.  It may interfere with some of your social life.  But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory’ (D&C 21:6).

(Harold B. Lee, Improvement Era, December 1970, p. 126)

Giving heed to the word of God given through his prophet can be especially difficult when what he asks us to do is contrary to our strongly held personal views. But, remember that God doesn’t give commandments because we are already inclined to keep them. God gives us commandments to help us do, or not do, things contrary to our nature. “For the natural man is an enemy to God… unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit…” (Mosiah 3:19). God tells us what we need to hear, not necessarily what we want to hear. 

Because God’s commandments can be contrary to our own thinking, we may be inclined to resist them. However, as taught by the prophet Joseph Smith, “the moment we revolt at anything which comes from God, the devil takes power” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 181). If what we think, believe, or do is contrary to what the living prophets are teaching, we can be certain that our thoughts, beliefs, or actions are being influenced by our inner “natural man.”

Of special concern is following the living prophets who are led by the living Lord for the benefit of his living Church (See D&C 1:30, 38). President Dallin H. Oaks once received a “seven-page single-spaced letter that essentially disagree[d] with a talk” he had given. The writer quoted many previous church leaders “to justify his [contrary] position.” President Oaks responded, inviting the writer “to be more sensitive to the promptings of the Holy Spirit about the meaning of the words of living prophets” (Turley, R. In the Hands of the Lord. pp. 333-334). As taught by President Ezra Taft Benson, “Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet“) 

In these turbulent times with so many conflicting voices and information, each of us is liable to be misled or confused (See D&C 50:2-9). Perhaps we have fallen into some of the same errors Oliver Cowdery grappled with and have found ourselves at times criticizing or rejecting the inspired direction given through the Lord’s living prophet and other leaders. Thankfully, “if any [person] sin and repent, we have an advocate with the Father” (JST 1 John 2:1)

Oliver’s struggles with pride and obstinance eventually led him into apostasy and bitterness. In 1838, he and most of the Whitmers lost their membership in the church. To their credit, none of them ever denied their witness of the Book of Mormon in spite of being estranged from Joseph Smith and the Church. Many years later, Oliver repented of his sins, was rebaptized, and died in full fellowship of the Church. We honor and revere him for his essential role as scribe for the Book of Mormon, as a witness of the Book of Mormon plates, for standing with Joseph Smith when priesthood and priesthood keys were restored by angelic messengers, and assisting in the establishment of the Church. Because of his amazing contributions and his sincere repentance, very few people today remember the controversy over Doctrine and Covenants 20:37. 

Importantly, the Lord has said, “He who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more” (D&C 58:42).  I rejoice in the assurance that we can become free from the guilt of our mistakes and sins. I am also grateful that although the Lord may “remember them no more,” we are able to retain the important lessons learned from our mistakes and sins.