Archive for February, 2021

Destroying God’s Olive Vineyard for Fame and Prophet (Part 1)

Posted: February 28, 2021 in Book of Mormon, Fred Anson, Mormon Studies, Susan Grape
6
Notes and Thoughts on The Book of Mormon’s Parable of the Olive Tree

An ancient olive grove in Israel. Some of the trees in this grove are over 1,000-years old.

compiled by Susan Grape, Fred W. Anson, and “Team TOYBOM”
For those unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, the Parable of the Olive Tree is an extended allegory recounted in Chapter 5 of the Book of Jacob, the third book of the Book of Mormon. Jacob states the allegory was one of the teachings of the alleged extra-Biblical, Old Testament era prophet, Zenos found in the brass plates, a lost record. The Brass Plates were a set of plates retrieved by Nephi at the direction of his father, Lehi. They contained Jewish records similar to the Old Testament, up to the time of Jeremiah. Latter Day Saints suggest that it is possible that Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (see chapter 11) is referencing a similar parable. (see Wikipedia, “Parable of the Olive Tree”; also see “List of Plates (Latter Day Saints)”, and “Zenos”). Click here to read the parable in its entirety.

An official, correlated Church manual explains the symbolism of the parable as follows:
Vineyard = The world;
Master of the vineyard = Jesus Christ;
Tame olive tree = The house of Israel, the Lord’s covenant people;
Wild olive tree = Gentiles (people not born into the house of Israel);
Branches = Groups of people;
Servants = Prophets and others called to serve;
Fruit = Lives or works of people;
(“Lesson 13: The Allegory of the Olive Trees”, Book of Mormon: Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual (1999), p. 56)

So that’s the backstory. Unfortunately, the parable has a number of issues and problems which we will discuss here in a running commentary type fashion for your consideration.

Verse 3a: An olive tree is planted in a vineyard.

Jacob 5
3a For behold, thus saith the Lord, I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard…”

Commentary: Olive trees are not planted in vineyards because grapevines will choke out young trees. (see The New manners and Customs of Bible Times, p. 43, 1987, Moody Press).

The soil requirements for olive trees and grapevines are very different. Olive trees (or groves) grow best in rocky soil like “chalky marl, with flint, and just mould enough to cover the roots. (see “Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p.224). On the other hand, “Vines (vineyards) like open, loose, soil, so their roots can grow down to the rocks to reach the moisture.” (see Ralph Gower, “The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times”, p. 43). Thus, it makes no sense to plant an olive tree in a vineyard – or for that matter, a grapevine in an olive grove. As one Bible commentator notes, this is something that we see reflected in the text of the bible itself, “Olive groves were placed alongside of vineyards not inside of them, cf. I Sam. 8:14.” (ibid, p. 113)

Verses 3b-6: Zenos’ tree fits the description of a very old olive tree, the heart was decaying, and the main top was beginning to perish:

Jacob 5
3b …and it grew, and waxed old, and began to decay.

4 And it came to pass that the master of the vineyard went forth, and he saw that his olive tree began to decay; and he said: I will prune it, and dig about it, and nourish it, that perhaps it may shoot forth young and tender branches, and it perish not.

5 And it came to pass that he pruned it, and digged about it, and nourished it according to his word.

6 And it came to pass that after many days it began to put forth somewhat a little, young and tender branches; but behold, the main top thereof began to perish.

Commentary: Olive trees are very slow-growing, take years to mature, and then take even longer to decay and die. In fact, there are olive trees – even entire olive groves – in the Mediterranean that are thousands of years old. So to claim that this olive tree grew to full maturity and began to die within the lifetime of the master of the vineyard is simply hard to believe. From the Hunker website:

“In proper growing conditions, olive trees can live a long time—recently on Crete, scientists have been documenting that some olive trees there are as much 1,000 years old. Olive trees in the Garden of Gethsemane, on the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem, may be older than that, though it’s doubtful that they date from the time of Christ.

Growth Pattern. One drawback of olive trees, however, is that they grow to full maturity quite slowly. During the first few years of its life, an olive tree will grow rather quickly, but growth slows thereafter. If your main interest in growing olives is to harvest the fruit, you can speed the growth somewhat by carefully pruning the tree during its first five years, to create a strong, straight central trunk. People who are more interested in the ornamental value of the olive tree may prefer to let the tree grow naturally, so that it will achieve the gnarly, wizened profile so characteristic of the trees growing in Greece and the Middle East.”
(Cathryn Chaney, “How Long Does It Take for an Olive Tree to Produce Fruit?”, July 17, 2017)

Ancient Olive Trees in Lebanon that are at least 2,000 years old but still fruit-bearing. Notice how the core is completely missing from the trunk but the tree is still healthy and thriving.

Further, the decay of an old olive tree isn’t immediately apparent. It can take years to be visible and all the while, the tree will be fruit-bearing and look just fine from outside. So the statement that “the main top thereof began to perish”, which implies that the decay was outside/inside rather than inside/out is flat out wrong.

“The body of the tree dies at the heart.”
(op cit, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p.224)

“The olive tree…often lives to a very, very, great age, and bears fruit till the last, even when the trunk is nothing but a shell.”
(Barbara M. Bowen, “Strange Scriptures That Perplex the Western Mind”, p. 97)

“The old roots, often throw up new stems…The new shoots were grafted into stock.”
(op cit, “The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times”, p. 113)

Verses 6-11: The Lord of the vineyard makes three mistakes trying to save his tree: a) If this description is accurate then the tree was already irrecoverable, it was already a dead loss; b) Grafting from healthy stock – be it domesticated or wild – will do nothing to resuscitate a dying tree, and; c) Digging around the roots is the best way to damage or destroy a tree – any tree, healthy or ailing.

Jacob 5
6 And it came to pass that after many days it began to put forth somewhat a little, young and tender branches; but behold, the main top thereof began to perish.

7 And it came to pass that the master of the vineyard saw it, and he said unto his servant: It grieveth me that I should lose this tree; wherefore, go and pluck the branches from a wild olive tree, and bring them hither unto me; and we will pluck off those main branches which are beginning to wither away, and we will cast them into the fire that they may be burned.

8 And behold, saith the Lord of the vineyard, I take away many of these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will; and it mattereth not that if it so be that the root of this tree will perish, I may preserve the fruit thereof unto myself; wherefore, I will take these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will.

9 Take thou the branches of the wild olive tree, and graft them in, in the stead thereof; and these which I have plucked off I will cast into the fire and burn them, that they may not cumber the ground of my vineyard.

10 And it came to pass that the servant of the Lord of the vineyard did according to the word of the Lord of the vineyard, and grafted in the branches of the wild olive tree.

11 And the Lord of the vineyard caused that it should be digged about, and pruned, and nourished, saying unto his servant: It grieveth me that I should lose this tree; wherefore, that perhaps I might preserve the roots thereof that they perish not, that I might preserve them unto myself, I have done this thing.

Commentary: First, the inside of an old olive tree – that is the core or heart – can be completely gone, and it can still produce fruit as long as the cambium and sap layers are nourishing the branches. If those layers begin to die, so will the branches, and the tree is beyond saving. If the top branches of the Lord of the vineyard’s tree were perishing, then the cambium and sap were also dying. Therefore, It would have made no difference if wild olive branches were grafted onto his tree. (see Funk & Wagnall’s Encyclopedia, Vol. 26, pp. 25-26)

Finally, he dug around the roots not knowing that the young, healthy shoots that are for the tree’s future health and olive output are easily destroyed:

“The fruit is ready for picking…and the branches are beaten to shake the olives onto the cloth…The beating of the branches almost certainly destroyed the tender young shoots, so that there was a poor crop the following year…”
(op cit, New Manners and Customs of Bible Times, p.113)

How much more destruction would there be if someone dug around the roots? For a start, digging around healthy roots can cause disease. Digging around diseased roots will destroy the plant. Therefore, trying to revive a dying plant by digging around the roots is rarely, if ever, a good idea. As an Arborist explains:

“Digging through and cutting tree roots isn’t something to take lightly. Cutting critical roots can interrupt the tree’s water and nutrient uptake, leave permanent damage to the tree’s structure and stability, or, in the worst case, cause the tree to die…

It’s not a good idea to cut the roots of already damaged trees. Also, roots that are more than two inches wide or close to the trunk should not be pruned, cut or dug through because they help anchor the tree.”
(“Is It Safe to Dig Through Tree Roots?” Davey Tree website)

An ancient Greek Olive Grove. Notice the health of the branches despite the hollow trunk cores.

Verses 7-11: Grafting wild branches to save the roots.

Jacob 5
7 And it came to pass that the master of the vineyard saw it, and he said unto his servant: It grieveth me that I should lose this tree; wherefore, go and pluck the branches from a wild olive tree, and bring them hither unto me; and we will pluck off those main branches which are beginning to wither away, and we will cast them into the fire that they may be burned.

8 And behold, saith the Lord of the vineyard, I take away many of these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will; and it mattereth not that if it so be that the root of this tree will perish, I may preserve the fruit thereof unto myself; wherefore, I will take these young and tender branches, and I will graft them whithersoever I will.

9 Take thou the branches of the wild olive tree, and graft them in, in the stead thereof; and these which I have plucked off I will cast into the fire and burn them, that they may not cumber the ground of my vineyard.

10 And it came to pass that the servant of the Lord of the vineyard did according to the word of the Lord of the vineyard, and grafted in the branches of the wild olive tree.

11 And the Lord of the vineyard caused that it should be digged about, and pruned, and nourished, saying unto his servant: It grieveth me that I should lose this tree; wherefore, that perhaps I might preserve the roots thereof that they perish not, that I might preserve them unto myself, I have done this thing.

Commentary: Yet again, branch grafts (wild or tame) do not save a tree as the Lord of the vineyard thought. They only revitalize the produce of a healthy tree.

“Grafting is frequently used to combine advantageous characteristics of scion and stock. For example, branches of buds of trees known to produce good fruit are grafted to stronger trees that produce fruit of indifferent quality.” (Funk & Wagnalls New Enc., Vol.12, p. 90; italics added for emphasis)

There is an expert level form of grafting called, “bridge grafting” that can be performed on the trunk of older trees, but it’s not what’s being described in the text here- and it’s rarely done to stone fruit trees, like olive trees, due to the low rate of success. As this excerpt from the Michigan State University Extension website explains:

“Older trees need more involved “surgical” procedure known as – bridge grafting. As hopeful and good as this procedure is, it is not the answer for all trees. Stone fruits (cherry, peach, plum etc.) are very seldom successfully grafted. The other undesirable effect is in creating the opportunity for many disease (i.e. bacterial canker) and insect invasion (borer complex). Pome fruits (apples and pears) are in much better position. Both, young and old trees are easily grafted without too much trouble. For older trees, bridge grafting is an easy operation with high success rate.”
(Mirjana Bulatovic-Danilovich, “Bridge grafting as a life-saving procedure for trees”, Michigan State University Extension website, May 3, 2011, italics added for emphasis)

Verses 31-33: The Lord of the vineyard was gone so long that he did not know how all sorts of bad fruit (according to their “number”) got on the tree. Domestic trees need regular and on-going tending to.

Jacob 5
31 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard did taste of the fruit, every sort according to its number. And the Lord of the vineyard said: Behold, this long time have we nourished this tree, and I have laid up unto myself against the season much fruit.

32 But behold, this time it hath brought forth much fruit, and there is none of it which is good. And behold, there are all kinds of bad fruit; and it profiteth me nothing, notwithstanding all our labor; and now it grieveth me that I should lose this tree.

33 And the Lord of the vineyard said unto the servant: What shall we do unto the tree, that I may preserve again good fruit thereof unto mine own self?

Commentary: After a domestic tree is planted, the planter’s work has just begun – this is even more the case after a domestic forest (aka “grove” or “plantation”) has been planted. If a domesticated tree or forest decays or perishes, there’s really no secret what the cause was: Human neglect. As the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations explains:

“Maintenance of forest plantations includes protecting the plants from detrimental climatic conditions, fire, insects and fungi, and animals. Maintenance may include measures that are silvicultural (such as well-timed and careful removal of damaged trees and shrubs), chemical (with insecticides or fungicides), biological (with parasites), or mechanical (removing or destroying pests, erecting fences, etc.). Because trespass by man can threaten the success of a planting programme, planning should also include methods of dealing with this potential problem.”
(“Maintenance of the plantation”, FAO website)

Verse 65: Lord of the vineyard had the bitter fruit cut off because that is the bad fruit.

Jacob 5
65 And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard.”

Commentary: There are no sweet olives, they are all bitter. To claim that the fruit is “bad” because it’s bitter, therefore, makes no sense. From the World Book Encyclopedia:

“Fresh olives contain oleuropein, a bitter substance that makes them unpleasant to eat before processing…“Olives processed for eating…by the Spanish process…are placed in lye solution. The lye removes most of the bitter taste…The American process…ripens immature…olives artificially. The fruit is alternately submerged in lye and exposed to the air until no bitterness remains…The Greek process…olives undergo a slow fermentation in brine. During fermentation, the fruit’s bitterness decreases until the brine masks it.”
(The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 14 “Olives”)

One of the world’s oldest olive trees in Italy. It is estimated to be at least 4,000-years old.

Verses 65-66: The roots are too strong for the graft.

Jacob 5
65 And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard.

66 For it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard; wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according as the good shall grow, that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad, and the bad be hewn down and cast into the fire, that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard; and thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard.

Commentary: The roots keep the tree alive and osmosis and photosynthesis, along with the cambium and sap layers is what provides strength to the branches and fruit; therefore it is impossible for a root to be too strong for the branches. (Funk & Wagnall’s New Encyclopedia, 1983, Vol. 26, pp. 25-26; also see, op cit, The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol.14 “osmosis”; and Vol. 15, “photosynthesis”)

Verses 69-76: Bad fruit is turned into good fruit.

Jacob 5
69 And the bad shall be cast away, yea, even out of all the land of my vineyard; for behold, only this once will I prune my vineyard.

70 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard sent his servant; and the servant went and did as the Lord had commanded him, and brought other servants; and they were few.

71 And the Lord of the vineyard said unto them: Go to, and labor in the vineyard, with your might. For behold, this is the last time that I shall nourish my vineyard; for the end is nigh at hand, and the season speedily cometh; and if ye labor with your might with me ye shall have joy in the fruit which I shall lay up unto myself against the time which will soon come.

72 And it came to pass that the servants did go and labor with their mights; and the Lord of the vineyard labored also with them; and they did obey the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard in all things.

73 And there began to be the natural fruit again in the vineyard; and the natural branches began to grow and thrive exceedingly; and the wild branches began to be plucked off and to be cast away; and they did keep the root and the top thereof equal, according to the strength thereof.

74 And thus they labored, with all diligence, according to the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard, even until the bad had been cast away out of the vineyard, and the Lord had preserved unto himself that the trees had become again the natural fruit; and they became like unto one body; and the fruits were equal; and the Lord of the vineyard had preserved unto himself the natural fruit, which was most precious unto him from the beginning.

75 And it came to pass that when the Lord of the vineyard saw that his fruit was good, and that his vineyard was no more corrupt, he called up his servants, and said unto them: Behold, for this last time have we nourished my vineyard; and thou beholdest that I have done according to my will; and I have preserved the natural fruit, that it is good, even like as it was in the beginning. And blessed art thou; for because ye have been diligent in laboring with me in my vineyard, and have kept my commandments, and have brought unto me again the natural fruit, that my vineyard is no more corrupted, and the bad is cast away, behold ye shall have joy with me because of the fruit of my vineyard.

76 For behold, for a long time will I lay up of the fruit of my vineyard unto mine own self against the season, which speedily cometh; and for the last time have I nourished my vineyard, and pruned it, and dug about it, and dunged it; wherefore I will lay up unto mine own self of the fruit, for a long time, according to that which I have spoken.

Commentary: Turning bad fruit into good fruit is simply not possible, Christ Himself explained why:

“Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth corrupt fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire”
(Matthew 7; 15-19 KJV)

 

About the Compilation Team
Susan Grape grew up in a non-church going family. When she became engaged, her fiancé (now husband) and she joined a Christian church. As she was learning about the Bible and Jesus, several friends, and relatives who were either Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientist shared their beliefs with her and challenged her to the point that she knew that their doctrine was different enough to question that someone (perhaps herself) had to be wrong. When Mormon missionaries and Jehovah’s Witnesses came to her home, it forced her to study the scriptures to see what the Bible actually taught. That very intense time of studying gave her the evidence for what Biblical truth is. It sparked the desire to reach out to these groups with the Biblical gospel and the Biblical Christ.

Mrs. Grape served as a board member for ten years with Berean Christian Ministries and she currently is in her eleventh year of serving on the board of Christian Research & Counsel. Her husband Brad also is on the board. The Grape’s adult children are professing Christians, and their grandchildren are also being raised in the faith.

Fred W. Anson is the founder and publishing editor of the Beggar’s Bread website, which features a rich potpourri of articles on Christianity with a recurring emphasis on Mormon studies. Fred is also the administrator of several Internet discussion groups and communities, including several Mormon-centric groups, including two Facebook Support Groups for Ex-Mormons (Ex-Mormon Christians, and Ex-Mormon Christians Manhood Quorum).

“Team TOYBOM”
In late 2019 a new group was created on Facebook with the express purpose of encouraging Non-Mormons to read through the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover. It’s called “The One Year BOM: Non-Mormons Reading Through the Book of Mormon in a Year (aka ‘TOYBOM’)” and its mission and goal was to get Non-Mormons reading the Book of Mormon in a year as a group so they could openly and honestly discuss and deconstruct it without any Mormon interference, umbrage, or offense.

Thus no Mormons (members of any Latter Day Saint denomination or splinter group) were allowed in the group so that the group could speak freely and deconstruct the Book the Mormon honestly and openly without having to deal with the typical Latter Day Saint agendas, dogmas, thin-skinned offense, spin-doctoring, and confirmation bias driven apologetics that typically swirl around the Book of Mormon in public whenever Latter Day Saints are present. The goal was to quietly, objectively, civilly and dispassionately consider the Book of Mormon devoid of any of such partisan Latter Day Saint encumbrances.

An ancient Greek Olive Tree that’s at least 2,000 years old, possibly as old as 3,000 years.

Link to Part Two

A Tale of Two Addresses (and Centuries)

Posted: February 14, 2021 in Book of Mormon, Fred Anson, Mormon Studies
0

An artist’s rendering of King Benjamin addressing the Nephite people from the Book of Mormon about 124 B.C.

Parallels between King Benjamin (The Book of Mormon)
and Bishop M’Kendree (19th Century Methodist Leader)

compiled by Fred W. Anson
The similarities between King Benjamin’s (circa 124 B.C.) address that’s recorded in Mosiah 2-5 of the Book of Mormon and Methodist Leader Bishop M’Kendree’s address in Palmyra, New York, on June 7, 1826, which is recorded in American historical archives are remarkable.

As the late Mormon Historian Grant Palmer explains:
“We have not taken Joseph Smith seriously enough when he stated that he had an “intimate acquaintance” with evangelical religion and that he was “somewhat partial” to the Methodists. Protestant concepts appear to abound in his discourses and experiences. For example, a Methodist camp meeting was held one mile from Palmyra, New York, on 7 June 1826— a pivotal time in Joseph Smith’s life. Preparations for a camp meeting included leasing and consecrating the ground. Thus the “ground within the circle of the tents is considered sacred to the worship of God, and is our chapel.” The Methodists referred to these “consecrated grounds” as their “house of God” or temple. The Palmyra camp meeting reportedly attracted over 10,000 people. Families came from all parts of the 100-mile conference district and pitched their tents facing the raised “stand” where the preachers were seated, including one named Benjamin G. Paddock (fig. 20). This large crowd heard the “valedictory” or farewell speech of their beloved “Bishop M’Kendree [who] made his appearance among us for the last time.” He was the Methodist leader who “had presided” over the area for many years. The people had such reverence for this “sainted” man “that all were melted, and … awed in his presence.” In his emaciated and “feeble” condition, he spoke of his love for the people and then delivered a powerful message that covered “the whole process of personal salvation.” Tremendous unity prevailed among the crowd, and “nearly every unconverted person on the ground” committed oneself to Christ. At the close of the meeting, the blessings and newly appointed “Stations of the Preachers” were made for the Ontario district.

This is reminiscent of King Benjamin’s speech to the Zarahemlans in the Book of Mormon, whose chronicler describes the setting:

‘The people gathered themselves together throughout all the land, that they might go up to the temple to hear the [last] words which [their beloved] king Benjamin should speak unto them … [T] hey pitched their tents round about, every man according to his family … every man having his tent with the door thereof towards the temple … the multitude being so great that king Benjamin … caused a tower to be erected … [And he said from the platform,] I am about to go down to my grave … I can no longer be your teacher … For even at this time my whole frame doth tremble exceedingly while attempting to speak unto you’ (Mosiah 2: 1, 5-7, 28-30).

The venerated King Benjamin, like Bishop M’Kendree, expresses his love for his people and gives a powerful farewell discourse on personal salvation. The response and unity are such “that there was not one soul, except it were little children, but who had entered into the covenant and had taken upon them the name of Christ.” At meeting’s end, Mosiah, Benjamin’s son, “appointed priests to teach the people” (Mosiah 6: 2-3). In Alma 17: 18, Methodist phrasing is used: “Now Ammon being the chief among them, [blessed and appointed the sons of Mosiah] … to their several stations.” Alma 17-26 then gives a detailed recital of the sons’ preaching with the following summary: “And they had been teaching the word of God for the space of fourteen years among the Lamanites, having had much success in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, by the power of their words many were brought before the altar of God, to call on his name and confess their sins before him” (17: 4).

In evangelical meetings it was common for those who were moved by the preaching to break out in tears and fall to the ground. This was considered to be a state of “conviction.” When a preacher looked up and saw those in the audience under “conviction” or “awakened to their awful state,” he would invite them up to a bench in front of the pulpit, called the “altar” of God (fig. 21). There the penitents would pray and confess their sins, “crying aloud for mercy,” seeking forgiveness from God.”
(Grant Palmer, “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”, Kindle Locations 2123-2156)

A Methodist camp meeting in 1819 (hand colored)

And for your reference here’s an extended excerpt from the account from Rev. Benjamin G. Paddock’s memoirs that Mr. Palmer cites from above:
THE Genesee Conference for 1826 was held at Palmyra, Wayne County, N. Y., commencing on the 7th of June, Bishop Hedding presiding. On several accounts it was a rather remarkable session. The venerable Bishop M’Kendree then visited us for the last time. He was too feeble to preside, and occupied the chair only once or twice, and then only for a few minutes at a time. Still, however, at the urgent request of Bishop Hedding and leading members of the Conference, he signed the Journals at the close of the session as one of its presiding officers. Brethren were anxious to secure at least his signature as a memorial of his visit. He had been familiar with the entire history of the Conference, and stated with tearful emotion that he still had great affection for its members, and that to take his final leave of them, so far, at least, as earth was concerned, was the special object of his visit. His whole bearing was at once so lovely, so dignified, and so impressive, that all were melted, and, in a pleasant sense, awed in his presence. Dr. Nathan Bangs was his traveling companion, having come on with him from New York, and watched over him with the greatest tenderness and care. Their respectful, nay, even deferential, treatment of each other was a most lovely sight. The Bishop always spoke of his companion as “the Doctor,” and addressed him as if he were a man of superior rank ; while the doctor’s reciprocal bearing was still more reverential and promptly obedient. But then neither bishops nor doctors of divinity were quite as numerous at that early day as they now are ; and for this reason, perhaps, as well as others, they were possibly both more noticed and more revered.

I have ever regarded it as one of the most memorable privileges of my early ministry that I was allowed to journey with these now sainted men from Palmyra to Utica,«at which latter place I had just been stationed for the second year. The Conference adjourned on Wednesday, and Dr. Bangs agreed to preach for me on the following Sabbath. Finding the captain of a canal boat, who said he would see us into Utica by Saturday afternoon or evening, we concluded to take passage with him. That was before the day of canal packets, so that a small cabin and slow progress were necessarily incidental to our homeward journey. The stage-coach would have given us a speedier transit, but would have been far less friendly to the good Bishop’s age and feebleness. It will be readily admitted, that the difference between such a conveyance and Pullman’s railroad palace-car is considerable. But forty-six years since even the cabin of a freight-boat was quite a .luxury ; while now to put a bishop into such a place would seem much like sending him “to prison and to death.” Our momentum was much less than had been promised, so that we were very late in reaching Utica. But, with such company, the considerable number of junior preachers on board could hardly complain that time hung heavy on their hands. Brief lectures from the Bishop and Dr. Bangs, with spiritual songs and prayers by the younger brotherhood, made our mimic cabin a little Bethel. The school was a rare one ; and, homesick as the students were, they could hardly have complained had the journey been still more protracted.

But to return to the Conference. On another account the session was remarkable. A great camp-meeting was held in connection with it. The ground was only about a mile from the village, so that members of the Conference not immediately and specially employed could take part in its services. At that early day, and previously, meetings of the kind were not unfrequently held in the neighborhood of our Annual Conferences ; but the present one was exceptionally large. There were more than one hundred tents on the ground, and these were occupied by our people from almost all parts of the country, many of them coming from a distance of one hundred miles or more. The. spirit of the meeting was admirable. Conversions were numerous and powerful ; while ministers and people seemed to vie with each other in their efforts to promote the work of God. But the Sabbath was the great day of the feast. Beginning in the morning at eight o’clock, five sermons were preached before the services closed in the evening. Bishop Heddig and Dr. Bangs took the two appointments nearest the meridian of the day, and preached with even more than their ordinary freedom and power. At about five in the afternoon the stand was assigned to the Rev. Glezen Fillmore, then in the vigor of mature manhood, now — for he still lives, a blessing to the Church and the world — trembling on the extreme verge of time. The sermon was in his best style — more carefully prepared and more effectively delivered than were his discourses generally. The latter part of it contemplated the whole process of personal salvation, from its incipiency to its consummation in the world of light. Having traced the track of the believer, all along from the dawn of spiritual life till he had entered the land of Beulah, and was about to plume himself for his flight to the celestial city, the speaker paused as if struggling with irrepressible emotion, and, looking upward, exclaimed, ” O God, hold thy servant together while for a moment he looks through the gates ajar into the New Jerusalem ! ” To describe the effect would be quite impossible. A tide of emotion swept over the congregation that seemed to carry all before it.

I was seated near Bishop Hedding, who, from fatigue, was reclining upon a bed under and a little in the rear of the stand. It had been noticed before that he was much affected by the sermon ; but when the sentence given above was uttered, the- tears almost literally spurted from his eyes, and his noble form shook as if under the resistless control of a galvanic battery. The Rev. Goodwin Stoddard exhorted, and invited seekers within the circle of prayer in front of the stand. Hundreds came forward ; some said nearly every unconverted person on the ground. In the spring of 1828, when I was pastor in Rochester, delegates from New England, on their way to the General Conference in Pittsburgh, called and spent the Sabbath with me. Almost ,the first thing they said after we met was, ” Where is that brother that wanted God to hold him together while he looked into heaven a moment?” It seems that the good Bishop had reported the sermon in more circles than one, for others from the east made a similar inquiry. But though a volume might be written about that Conference, it seems proper now simply to add, that, at the close of it, B. G. Paddock and Hiram May were appointed to the Potsdam Circuit, in St. Lawrence County. The charge was a very large one, including not only the town that gave name to it, but Stockholm, Parishville, Pierrepont, Canton, Russell, Edwards, Fowler, Rossie, Gouverneur, “and De Kalb. The territory was so ample, and my brother’s health so much broken, that it was thought best to divide the work between the two preachers. Accordingly, having the consent of all concerned, he took Potsdam and the four townships lying nearest to it ; and the rest of the circuit, embracing six townships, was placed under the care of his excellent colleague. Let the reader imagine the state of things as it existed in that section of country fifty years since, and he will readily conclude that there was plenty of work for two men. My brother had traveled over most of the same territory some twelve or thirteen years previously, so that he entered upon his work with some special advantages. The cordiality with which he was received was a source of much comfort to him, and really seemed to lighten his toil. The Rev. Hiram May, in a letter to me dated October, 1872, says, “Your brother was not only a dear, good colleague, but was very popular among the people.”

Both divisions of the circuit were greatly prospered. – It was, indeed, a year of jubilee. Revivals swept over the entire field, bearing down all opposition. Such a season of holy triumph had never before been witnessed in the northern wing of the State. Not far from five hundred communicants were admitted to the Church ; so that it was found at the end of the year that the membership had increased from three hundred and eighty-nine to eight hundred and nine, and this notwithstanding a considerable number had removed or withdrawn,” or had been excluded, dropped, or set aside. The circuit remained intact, however, save only in so far as finances and pastoral care were concerned. Hence, at quarterly meetings, all came together ; thus giving the greatest imaginable interest to those occasions. Speaking of them in the letter before referred to, brother May says, ” 0 they were blessed meetings ! God gave efficiency to his word, and great’was the preachers’ crowd.” * Those, and those only, who have attended these great country quarterly meetings can have any adequate conception of the spirit that animated them, or the good that followed them. They were, indeed, especially in olden times, a power in the Church.

I think it proper to say a word further respecting the venerable man from whose letter quotations have just been made. The writer first became acquainted with him in 1817. He had then just commenced the Christian life, was a lovely young man, full of zeal to do good, possessed ,a remarkably fine tenor voice, and, every way, promised much usefulness to the Church and the world. Five years thereafter he was received on trial in the Genesee Conference, and for forty years has performed effective service as a member of that body. He has always aimed at the salvation of souls, and has everywhere been recognized as a good revivalist. Though he is now on the superannuated list, he seems still to burn with zeal both to be and to do good. The closing part of his letter is so characteristic and so excellent, that the transcription of it will, doubtless, both please and profit the reader. Referring to my brother, he says: “We labored together in love, and parted in peace, and now, while ‘ he sleeps his last sleep,’ having ‘fought his last battle,’ I, a poor creature, as I always have been, am still living, and trying, as when you first knew me, to ‘ sound the alarm in God’s holy mountain,’ to ‘ blow the trumpet in Tekoa,’ and* especially to pray, as did David, ‘ Now also, when I am old and gray-headed, O God, forsake me not ; until I have showed thy strength unto this generation, and thy power to every one that is to come.’ ”
(Benjamn G. Paddock, “Memoir of of Rev. Benjamin G. Paddock”, pp.177-184)

So here’s the question for our Mormon friends: Can you explain the remarkable similarities between King Benjamin’s circa 124 B.C. address that’s recorded in Mosiah 2-5 of The Book of Mormon and Methodist Leader Bishop M’Kendree’s address in Palmyra, New York, on June 7, 1826, that’s preserved for us in the American historical archives?

A summary comparison of the two addresses.

How to Discredit Your Own Religion Without Even Trying

Posted: February 13, 2021 in Mormon Studies
0
How the D&C 10:37 Apologetic For the Hofmann Case Destroys Mormonism

The original Book of Commandments and Revelations and the corresponding section of the Doctrine and Covenants are shown. (credit: Jason Olson, Deseret News)

A common, recurring, Mormon apologetic for why if Mormon Leaders were true prophets of God, they couldn’t discern the real nature of the Hofmann forgeries goes like this:

“The Lord made it clear to Joseph Smith that a prophet is not granted to know all the designs of those who seek to destroy the Church:

‘But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter.’ (DC 10:37)

The LDS doctrine of agency requires that those who plot evil be allowed a certain latitude, though (as President Hinckley prophetically noted) permanent harm to the Lord’s work will not be permitted.”
(FAIRMormon website, “Forgeries Related to Mormonism/Mark Hofmann”)

Here is my response to this argument:
1) In the Hofmann case, Mormon Leaders (up and including the LdS First Presidency) did NOT “hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter”.
Putting out Press Releases so the news of Hofmann’s “finds” can be blasted out around the world and publishing articles about Mark Hofmann manuscripts in the Church produced, “The Church News” (see the “Week Ending May 3, 1980” edition, for example) is anything but “holding your peace”, isn’t it? So this premise is simply false, they not only didn’t hold their peace, they shouted it from the rooftops, didn’t they?

The article regarding the Mark Hofmann “Anthon Transcript” find in the Week Ending May 3, 1980 edition of The Church New insert to the Deseret News, the Church-owned newspaper.

2) The folks who have claimed that Mormon Prophets have extraordinary powers of discernment and who have set the bar, high, higher, even highest, aren’t Mormon Critics it’s the Mormon Leaders themselves.
The expectation that a prophet has the type of unique type of discernment required to know all the designs of those who seek to destroy the Church so that it can’t be lead astray HAS been set by Mormon Leaders in general, and Mormon Prophets in particular. It has not, been set by Mormon Critics. Consider the words of these official, correlated LdS Church manuals and publications:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place.”
(“Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff”, p.199, “Gospel Principles”, p.41, and “Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual”, p.20)

“President Wilford Woodruff (1807–98) declared that we can have full confidence in the direction the prophet is leading the Church:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration 1, “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”; emphasis added).

President Harold B. Lee (1899–1973) taught this same principle:

“You keep your eye upon him whom the Lord called, and I say to you now, knowing that I stand in this position, you don’t need to worry about the President of the Church ever leading people astray, because the Lord would remove him out of his place before He would ever allow that to happen” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 533).

President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) gave similar assurance to Church members:

“The Church is true. Those who lead it have only one desire, and that is to do the will of the Lord. They seek his direction in all things. There is not a decision of significance affecting the Church and its people that is made without prayerful consideration, going to the fount of all wisdom for direction. Follow the leadership of the Church. God will not let his work be led astray” (“Be Not Deceived,” Ensign, Nov. 1983, 46; emphasis added).”
(LdS Church, “Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual”, Chapter 2: The Living Prophet: The President of the Church)

Friends, these aren’t the claims of Mormon Critics, are they? They are the word of Mormon Prophets in official, LdS Church publications aren’t they? So tell me, who is setting this extremely high “we have the highest level of spiritual discernment that’s so unique and special that we can never lead you astray” expectation? Is it Mormon Critics or is it the Mormon Prophets themselves?

3) As a result of #2, the unstated, implied argument that D&C 10:37 is arguing against (again, “a prophet IS granted to know all the designs of those who seek to destroy the Church”) is, in reality, a Strawman Argument, isn’t it? Thus, Mormon Apologist’s REAL debate opponent when they use the D&C 10:37 apologetic is their own Church’s Prophets, isn’t it?
Again, and in actual fact, Mormon Critics are simply holding Mormon Prophets to the standard that THEY have set for THEMSELVES, nothing more. Mormons Leaders, you have met the enemy and he is you, not your critics! Once again, the critics are only holding you to YOUR own publicly (and repeatedly) stated standard, aren’t they?

This is REALLY the biggest enemy of the LdS Church, isn’t it?

4) D&C 10:37 is in direct contradiction with the oft-cited Latter-day Saint application of the bible proof text that, “The Lord will do nothing without revealing His secret to the prophets” (Amos 3:7).
The practical, real-world, application that Mormonism gives this text is that the current living Mormon Prophet possesses some kind of special discernment that the rest of us lack. Thus, if they truly possess the type of highly tuned and refined Amos 3:7 spiritual discernment that they claim they do, then the Lord should have revealed to the prophet the secret that Hofmann and his manuscripts were fraudulent and about to lead the LdS Church astray, correct?

After all, “The Lord will do nothing without revealing His secret to the prophets”, right? Again, this isn’t the Amos 3:7 application standard established by Mormon Critics, is it? However, it IS the standard that Mormon Prophets have set for themselves, isn’t it? So if it ain’t true, then why are Mormon Prophets saying it?

5) Since D&C 10:37 absolves Mormon Prophets of, in reality, possessing the type of special and unique, highly tuned spiritual discernment that they so often claim they do elsewhere, then in reality Mormon Prophets are simply nothing special.
They are, in fact, just as common and ordinary as you and I, aren’t they? That’s because ANYONE “can hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter”, can’t they? Stated plainly “holding your peace” and saying nothing until after all the facts about the matter are known, doesn’t require any kind of special gifting at all, does it? In fact, it’s just good old common sense, isn’t it? Anyone can do it, it doesn’t require any type of special divine anointing or gifting at all, does it?

6) Due to #5, D&C 10:37 is really saying that there is really nothing special about Mormon Prophets at all. They are, in reality, no different than any other Religious Leader on the planet, are they?
Latter-day Saint, Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, LDS Prophet of some other Mormon Denomination, or that independent Pentecostal guy running the church downtown out of the converted movie theatre, they are that they are what they: Just ordinary men running churches, aren’t they? And the LdS Church leaders are just one of the boys, aren’t they? They have absolutely no special or unique spiritual discernment that the other guys in this scrum, do, do they? Yes, they have said they do since the inception of Mormonism, but no, in reality, they clearly don’t. The Hofmann case proved it.

7) The LdS Prophet was clearly leading the LdS Church astray by starting to change doctrine based on being deceived by Hofmann.
I mention this one because this is an apologetic argument that Mormons like to use regarding the Hofmann case which is another false premise when it’s examined against the evidence. Specifically, in addition to leading the Church astray in regard to the authenticity of the forgeries (see above, #1 in particular), the LdS Church leaders WERE also changing Church origin doctrine (see above) based on Hofmann’s deceit. This is an easily documented fact.

The most blatant example of this is Dallin H. Oaks’, “Reading Church History” 16 August 1985, CES Symposium on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History, which was given at BYU and is now being suppressed by the LdS Church on its official Church website, in which he said this:

“Another source of differences in the accounts of different witnesses is the different meanings that different persons attach to words. We have a vivid illustration of this in the recent media excitement about the word salamander in a letter Martin Harris is supposed to have sent to W. W. Phelps over 150 years ago. All of the scores of media stories on that subject apparently assume that the author of that letter used the word salamander in the modern sense of a “tailed amphibian.”

One wonders why so many writers neglected to reveal to their readers that there is another meaning of salamander, which may even have been the primary meaning in this context in the 1820s. That meaning, which is listed second in a current edition of Webster’s New World Dictionary, is “a spirit supposed to live in fire” (2d College ed. 1982, s.v. “salamander”). Modern and ancient literature contain many examples of this usage.

A spirit that is able to live in fire is a good approximation of the description Joseph Smith gave of the angel Moroni: a personage in the midst of a light, whose countenance was “truly like lightning” and whose overall appearance “was glorious beyond description” (Joseph Smith-History 1:32). As Joseph Smith wrote later, “The first sight [of this personage] was as though the house was filled with consuming fire” (History of the Church, 4:536). Since the letter purports only to be Martin Harris’s interpretation of what he had heard about Joseph’s experience, the use of the words white salamander and old spirit seem understandable.

In view of all this, and as a matter of intellectual evaluation, why all the excitement in the media, and why the apparent hand-wringing among those who profess friendship with or membership in the Church? The media should make more complete disclosures, but Latter-day Saint readers should also be more sophisticated in their evaluation of what they read.

For Latter-day Saints, evaluation also has a spiritual dimension. This is because of our belief in Moroni’s declaration that “by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5). That promise assures spiritually sensitive readers a power of discernment that will help them evaluate the meaning of what they learn.”
(Dallin H. Oaks, “Reading Church History”, 16 August 1985, CES Symposium on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History, BYU also click here to access a restricted link on official LdS Church website to this address)

And as the Ostlings said so well in Mormon America in regard to the Mormon Church origin story, if you change Mormon History then Mormon Theology must shifts too in order to accommodate it.

“History, for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is more than pageants, parades, trail markers, monuments, and restored homesteads. There is a very real sense in which the church’s history is its theology, and that not merely the supernatural events surrounding the church’s beginnings with the Angel Moroni and the golden plates at Hill Cumorah. In a body that believes itself the recipient and expression of continuing revelation, it is everything that has happened to the church ever since. And just as creedal churches have official statements of faith, the Mormon Church tends to have official versions of sacred history.”
(Richard & Joan Ostling, “Mormon American (Rev. Ed.)”; Nook Edition position 638.8-640.0/1200)

8) Therefore, and as a result of all of the above, D&C 10:37 is REALLY the complete undoing of Mormonism, isn’t it?
Isn’t it, in fact, telling us that at the end of the day, the LdS Church in general and its Prophets in particular, have nothing special or unique to offer that you can’t get from any other human institution when it comes to special insight, spiritual discernment, or revelation? D&C 10:37 is REALLY telling us that Mormon Leaders CAN lead the LdS Church astray, isn’t it? Further, and that said, the Hofmann case also shows us that they HAVE led the Church astray in the past, haven’t they?

So, once you fully analyze and deconstruct this Mormon Apologist D&C 10:37 argument it not only doesn’t vindicate or absolve Latter-day Saint Prophets from performing to the extremely high standards and expectations that they have set for themself, does it? Rather, it exposes, indicts, and condemns them and their religion, doesn’t it? Neither are what they claim to be, are they?

Spencer W. Kimball, the LdS President at the time, examines the Mark Hofmann forgery known as “The Anthon Transcript” with a magnifying glass. Surrounding him (left to right) are Mark Hofmann, Eldon Tanner, Marion Romney, Boyd Packer, and Gordon Hinckley.