Third Synod of Carthage

The Synod of Carthage that addressed the formation of the Bible is sometimes called the Third Council of Carthage. It took place in August of 397 AD in what would be today a suburb of Tunis, Tunisia. The The Codex Canonum Ecclesiæ Africanæ records what was decided this way:

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.

As you read this list you will probably notice reference to books not found in the King James Bible. We will address that in our next post.

History of The Bible

Before we address specifically the charge that Latter-day Saints are adding to the Bible, let's review how the Bible came to pass. A Christian website devoted to telling the story of the Bible puts it this way.

The history of the Bible starts with a phenomenal account of history! It's not one book like I always thought -- It's an ancient collection of writings, comprised of 66 separate books, written over approximately 1,600 years, by at least 40 distinct authors. The Old Testament contains 39 books written from approximately 1500 to 400 BC, and the New Testament contains 27 books written from approximately 40 to 90 AD. The Jewish Bible (Tanakh) is the same as the Christian Old Testament, except for its book arrangement. The original Old Testament was written mainly in Hebrew, with some Aramaic, while the original New Testament was written in common Greek.

The New Testament, the second part of the Christian Bible came into being this way according to this same website.

Starting in about 40 AD, and continuing to about 90 AD, the eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus, including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude, wrote the Gospels, letters and books that became the Bible's New Testament. These authors quote from 31 books of the Old Testament, and widely circulate their material so that by about 150 AD, early Christians were referring to the entire set of writings as the "New Covenant." During the 200s AD, the original writings were translated from Greek into Latin, Coptic (Egypt) and Syriac (Syria), and widely disseminated as "inspired scripture" throughout the Roman Empire (and beyond). 5 In 397 AD, in an effort to protect the scriptures from various heresies and offshoot religious movements, the current 27 books of the New Testament were formally and finally confirmed and "canonized" in the Synod of Carthage.

In our next post we will address the Synod of Carthage that authorized the beginnings of the modern Bible.

The Book of Mormon and The Book of Revelation

The next topic I will address involves the Book of Mormon and a scripture out of the Book of Revelation that our critics often use to find fault with our belief in the Book of Mormon. The scripture in question is nearly the last verse of the Bible - Revelation 22:18-19 which reads as follows.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The charge is that the Book of Mormon adds to the Bible. In coming posts I will address whether this is a legitimate criticism or not. Stay tuned!

Hebrew Temple In MesoAmerica?

Critics of the Mormon belief that ancient Hebrews emigrated to Central/South America thousands of years ago will not want to read about recent research that shows that the Temple of Solomon, the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, and the ruins of Izapa in Mexico all have the same dimensions.

The story includes this paragraph:

From the cloth and wood tabernacle, to the stone temple of Solomon, to the huge complex of buildings in Izapa, there was a correlation in size, according to Hauck. "The measurements system used to design Izapa, and the basic architecture in Izapa were copied directly from sacred architecture employed by Moses and Solomon."

Of course none of this is surprising to Latter-day Saints who believe in the Book of Mormon. It is only uncomfortable for our critics. To read the whole story click here.

Reid criticizes LDS Church's Prop. 8 involvement

Hmmm... I wonder where exactly Senator Reid's loyalties lie. Here is the introductory paragraph from the linked article.

Gay-rights activists say that in a private meeting with them, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., criticized the LDS Church for working to ban gay marriage in California.

I am not challenging the Senator's right to disagree with his church leaders. Obviously he retains his agency and is free to believe whatever he chooses to believe. But as all Latter-day Saints know, scriptural history doesn't speak highly of those who oppose a prophet.

You can read the rest of the story here http://mormontimes.com/people_news/newsmakers/?id=11192.

We Don't Know Why

Why Noah cursed Canaan and his descendants is not made clear in the Bible. LDS General Authorities have provided no guidance as well. So we Latter-day Saints are left without an explanation as to why this restriction was put in place in the first place. There has been a lot of speculation by members and nonmembers alike as to the cause. But as far as I know, the Lord has never spoken of His reasons for the restriction. I certainly am not willing to speculate.

The Lifting of the Priesthood Restriction

In a previous post a couple of months ago I addressed the topics of whether Mormons were/are racist. In that post I quoted Harold B. Lee who in answering a question from the press regarding the priesthood restriction against men of African descent said the following:

For those who understand revelation, there is no problem. For those who do not, there is no answer.

That is the point that I have been trying to make in these recent posts covering the religious history of priesthood restrictions. It is a matter of faith, not race.

In 1977 when I was investigating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I was greatly troubled by this priesthood restriction. It bothered me so much that I almost wasn't baptized because of it. I had the same reaction of many people; that it was racist. The young missionary who was teaching me explained it something like this.

If the Mormon Church truly is divine then it has the priesthood, and God who decides who can hold it. However if the Mormon Church is false, then its priesthood is also false, and we are denying those of African descent nothing. If true, then God has His reasons; if false, then we are sparing these men the indignity of ordaining them to a false priesthood.

I found his reasoning to be persuasive. We were denying these men nothing if the Church isn't truly divine. However, if the Church is truly the Kingdom of God on the earth; then the Lord is free to do as He sees fit.

I took comfort in the teaching that the day would come when all men would be eligible to hold the priesthood if they simply met the worthiness requirements. At the time we didn't know that the promised day would come in less than a year. Wikipedia tells of the events leading up to the revelation.

In the early 1970s, LDS Church president Spencer W. Kimball announced the construction of a number of new temples to be built both in the United States and abroad. On March 1, 1975, he announced plans to build a temple in São Paulo, Brazil.

The problem of determining priesthood eligibility in Brazil was thought to be nearly impossible due to the mixing of races in that country. When the temple was announced, church leaders realized the difficulty of restricting persons with black African descent from attending the temple in Brazil.

According to first-person accounts, after much discussion among the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on this matter, they engaged the Lord in prayer. According to the writing of one of those present, Bruce R. McConkie of the Twelve: "It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fullness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord."

Gordon B. Hinckley, a participant in the meetings to reverse the ban, said, "Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same. All of us knew that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens. The answer was clear. There was perfect unity among us in our experience and in our understanding."

Saints throughout the world rejoiced that the final priesthood restriction was finally lifted. None celebrated quite so much as the faithful in Africa.

Restoration of All Things

In our most recent post we commented on the priesthood restrictions that have been in place from the time of Adam (women were excluded) down until the time of Christ (only the sons of Levi could hold the priesthood).

A point that I failed to make in my last post was that after the time of Abraham the priesthood and its availability seems to have been limited to the Hebrews only. I am unaware of any scriptural injunction for this, but since the family of Abraham; and later the children of Israel were the only worshipers of the true God, the priesthood naturally was limited to them. (This is a de facto limitation, not a legal one as far as I know)

At the birth of Christ eligibility for ordination to the priesthood was limited to the male descendants of Levi, the same standard that had existed from the time of Moses. Jesus started to reverse this trend and commenced an expansion of priesthood eligibility that wasn't completed until 1978. While recognizing the legitimacy of the Levitical Priesthood, Jesus expanded priesthood eligibility by ordaining men who were not of the tribe of Levi (apostles, deacons, priests, evangelists, bishops, etc...) . This expanded and restored eligibility for priesthood ordination to a level similar to the time of Abraham.

In quick order Peter received a revelation restoring the gospel (and its priesthood) to the Gentiles, thereby expanding priesthood eligibility to a level that existed from the time of Noah to Moses. Just as the limitations were revealed to prophets (Noah and Moses) so has its reversal been revealed through prophets (Jesus, Peter, and Spencer W. Kimball).

What I find fascinating is that the priesthood restrictions that started with Adam and were gradually put in place until the time of Christ were reversed in exactly the opposite order in which they were applied. A timeline of restrictions and the lifting of those restrictions goes something like this:

1. The priesthood was available to all men for 2000 years (Adam - Noah).
2. The limitation on the descendants of Canaan was the first limitation and that lasted as the only limitation for approximately 1000 years (Noah - Moses).
3. The next limitation was restricting the priesthood to Levites which stayed in place for over 1000 years (Moses to Christ).
4. The priesthood was restored to all men except the sons of Canaan for nearly 2000 years (Peter to Spencer W. Kimball).
5. In 1978 the restriction against the sons of Canaan was lifted (Spencer W. Kimball through the end of time).

It has taken 2000 years for all of the restrictions to be reversed (Christ to 1978) to a point in time where now the priesthood is as widely available as it was at the time of Adam. The only standard at the time of Adam was worthiness among the sons of men; a standard that has been restored in our day. It truly is evidence of the "restoration of all things" predicted by the prophets.

Our next post will address more of the details involving the lifting of the final restriction in 1978. Stay tuned!

Priesthood Restrictions Through the Ages

There have always been restrictions on who could hold the priesthood. For example, women have never been able to hold the priesthood. It is a matter of faith, not sexism, that governs this practice. The belief is that the priesthood is a male responsibility - it is simply a matter of belief (faith).

As Latter-day Saints we believe that in the beginning of this world, Adam was given the priesthood and that all worthy males were eligible to hold the priesthood for centuries. But the world rejected righteousness (and its accompanying priesthood) and the Lord had to cleanse the earth of all but 8 souls; Noah and his family.

The first restriction to the priesthood came when Noah cursed Canaan, the son of Ham, and all of his descendants. This curse is found in the Book of Genesis 9:20-26 which reads as follows in the King James version.

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

At this point in time the priesthood was available to all men, not women (first restriction) except the descendants of Canaan (second restriction).

The next restriction came once again as the result of sin as the world rejected the true religion and went after false gods. Moses entered into history and gave the Hebrews the Law of Moses. This law defined a priesthood, a lesser priesthood, the Aaronic Priesthood. The only men eligible to hold this priesthood were Levites, members of the Tribe of Levi. This excluded most of humanity (third restriction), and this exclusivity continued until the time of Christ.

At this point the trend from a very broad priesthood where all men could bear it to a very narrow one (Levites only) started to reverse itself. We will cover the gradual restoration of the priesthood to all worthy men in our next post.

Are Mormons Racist?

The next topic we will address in this blog will be "Blacks and the Priesthood". Mormons have long been charged with being racist. In this era of supersensitivity about issues of race and ethnicity, that is paramount to being called a Nazi. It is the ultimate insult. Are Mormons racists? We will cover that subject in the next series of posts. Stay tuned.

Is the Church to Blame for Mountain Meadows?

As I have written elsewhere, it is impossible for the Church to say that it has nothing to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. We are quick to tell people to judge us by our fruits. Usually that argument works in our favor. If we are to be consistent then we must also accept the argument when it doesn't make us look so good such as in the case of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But how much culpability do we, as a Church, bear for these criminal acts?

The following is an account of what happened when the leaders of this conspiracy presented their plan to a council of civic and church leaders. Isaac Haight referred to in this quote is a Stake President (local leader).

On Sunday, September 6, Haight presented the plan to a council of local leaders who held Church, civic, and military positions. The plan was met with stunned resistance by those hearing it for the first time, sparking heated debate. Finally, council members asked Haight if he had consulted with President [Brigham] Young about the matter. Saying he hadn’t, Haight agreed to send an express rider to Salt Lake City with a letter explaining the situation and asking what should be done.

William Dame, another Stake President and district commander of the militia, advised Haight and others. “Do not notice their threats,” words are but wind—they injure no one." He later convened another council under pressure from Haight and that second council decided that "men should be sent to help the beleaguered emigrants continue on their way in peace." These local councils never authorized the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Haight would not be placated and later cornered Dame, sharing with him additional information, and without the moderating influence of the council, managed to persuade Dame to rescind his earlier order. This was the fatal decision that later left Haight lamenting that "I would give a world if I had it, if we had abided by the deci[s]ion of the council."

An Ensign article of September 2007 describes Brigham Young's reply to the dispatch as follows:

President Young’s express message of reply to Haight, dated September 10, arrived in Cedar City two days after the massacre. ...

“In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements,” Young continued, “we must not interfere with them untill they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of[.] [I]f those who are there will leave let them go in peace. While we should be on the alert, on hand and always ready we should also possess ourselves in patience, preserving ourselves and property ever remembering that God rules.”

When Haight read Young’s words, he sobbed like a child and could manage only the words, “Too late, too late.

In the interest of brevity I have summarized this story but there is no credible critic who denies the events as I have detailed them. While it is true that some local Church leaders were tragically involved, the Church as an institution both in its councils, and by direction of its Church President Brigham Young, were innocent of any involvement in this horrible tragedy. In each instance, the Church as an institution through its councils and its leader counseled against the action and refused to sanction it. As much as they were able, they did their best to prevent this tragedy from ever happening.

Individuals committed this crime. Were some of them also local Church leaders? Yes, they were. Did this series of actions have anything to do with their official church duties? Absolutely not.

Logical Fallacies in the Criticisms of the Mountain Meadows Massacre

Enemies of the LDS Church have tried to paint the Church as somehow being responsible for the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. While it is impossible to deny that these actions are the fruits of the Church, they are an anomaly. Anyone who knew Mormons then, or today for that matter, would agree that cowardly massacring men, women, and children under a flag of truce; and then trying to cover it up by blaming the Indians is not normal behavior taught or endorsed by the Church or its leaders.

My problem with our critics is when they try to blame the whole Church because of the actions of a few. This kind of reasoning is what is called a logical fallacy. A website devoted to the discussion of logical fallacies explains them in this manner:

The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.

I can identify at least four errors in reasoning that our enemies use in regards to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There are probably many more, but this should be sufficient to show the flawed thinking that they employ.

• Correlation Does Not Mean Causation is one of the errors in reasoning mentioned above. Just because all of the conspirators were Latter-day Saints does not mean that being a Latter-day Saint caused this behavior.

• Fallacy of a Single Cause occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause when in reality it may have been caused by a number of things.

• A third logical fallacy used by our enemies in blaming the Church for this tragedy is called the Historian's Fallacy. This occurs when one assumes that decision makers in the past viewed events with the same perspective and information as us in the present.

• Mostly this reasoning is a Fallacy of Composition. This arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true for part. Since some members of the Church did this horrible crime, then the whole Church is smeared by it.

If we discover that the leaders of the Church (Brigham Young et al.) were involved then that would dispute my logical fallacy argument. We will address in our next post the historical facts of whether Brigham or other high ranking leaders were involved, or endorsed the actions at Mountain Meadows.