As stated earlier, one of Jonathan Neville’s main themes is the supposed influence of the writings of the Christian theologian Jonathan Edwards on the text of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon. He has written a book about it, and given several interviews on the subject, of which the above video is one more example. At 2:10 minutes into the video he begins with the following statement in support of his claims:
“And the examples I give is, if you read the Book of Mormon, it talks about the Book of Moses, right? But it never explains the Book of Moses; you have to have the Bible to understand what the Book of Mormon is talking about. In the Book of Mormon it talks about ‘natural man is an enemy to God’. That is not a biblical phrase. There is a place in the Bible that talks about a ‘natural man,’ another one talks about ‘enemy of God,’ but nowhere it says, ‘natural man is an enemy to God’. But Edwards did an entire sermon on specifically that, ‘natural men are God’s enemies’. And if you read Edwards’ sermon, then King Benjamin’s address makes perfect sense.”
Not quite. I searched online, and was able to find the complete text of Jonathan Edwards’ sermon that he is referring to, which can be seen here. In the heading to the sermon, it makes it clear that it is an exposition on Romans 5:10: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” So the idea of the fallen man being at enmity with God is inherently a biblical concept, which is what Paul was alluding to, and which Jonathan Edwards uses as proof text to base his sermon on. And modern LDS scripture has more to add to it:
Moses 5:
13 And Satan came among them, saying: I am also a son of God; and he commanded them, saying: Believe it not; and they believed it not, and they loved Satan more than God. And men began from that time forth to be carnal, sensual, and devilish.
Moses 6:
49 Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God.
Mosiah 3:
19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
Mosiah 16:
1 And now, it came to pass that after Abinadi had spoken these words he stretched forth his hand and said: The time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord; when every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God that his judgments are just.
2 And then shall the wicked be cast out, and they shall have cause to howl, and weep, and wail, and gnash their teeth; and this because they would not hearken unto the voice of the Lord; therefore the Lord redeemeth them not.
3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.
4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.
5 But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him. Therefore he is as though there was no redemption made, being an enemy to God; and also is the devil an enemy to God.
Alma 42:
9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.
10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.
Doctrine and Covenants 20:
18 And that he created man male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness created he them;
19 And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.
20 But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.
The Nephites had a more complete text of the Old Testament, which would have included the Book of Moses that we have in the Pearl of Great Price today, in which these concepts are fully developed; therefore they had no need of any external sources from which these concepts could be developed. Jonathan Neville then continues as follows:
“But because we didn’t look at Jonathan Edwards—this phrase of from Mosiah, ‘natural man an enemy to God,’ is in the top 10 all-time quoted Book of Mormon phrases in General Conference; there has been books and articles written, trying to speculate about what it means; and it is all—I won’t say it is nonsense—it is all profound, inspirational; but it is not accurate; because they don’t know what Joseph Smith was alluding to when he wrote that—when he translated whatever Mosiah or King Benjamin said—but when he translated it, he put it … into Jonathan Edwards’ terminology.”
Which of course is an entirely incorrect and unjustified conclusion, for two reasons: Firstly, as the above quotes demonstrate, the concept is entirely scriptural, and there was no need of any external sources from which it could be developed. Secondly, the way Jonathan Edwards develops the doctrine, he does so from the point of view of the Protestant, Reformed, Calvinistic doctrines of “faith alone,” “predestination,” “limited atonement” etc, which are heretical and false, and find no place in scripture, ancient or modern. For example commenting on Romans 5:10, Jonathan Edwards begins his sermon as follows (emphasis added):
“The apostle [Paul], from the beginning of the epistle, to the beginning of this chapter, had insisted on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In this chapter he goes on to consider the benefits that are consequent on justification [by faith alone], viz. Peace with God, present happiness, and hope of glory. Peace with God is mentioned in the first verse, ‘Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ In the following verses he speaks of present blessedness, and hope of glory, ‘By whom also we have access by faith into this grace, wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.’ — And concerning this benefit, the hope of glory, the apostle particularly takes notice of two things, viz. the blessed nature of this hope, and the sure ground of it.”
That is the theology that runs throughout his sermon, which is a theology that Latter-day Saints completely reject, and which has no support in the Book of Mormon—or in the Bible for that matter. Further down in Section VIII of his sermon, Edwards then says the following:
“God may justly withhold mercy
“IF natural men are God’s enemies, hence we may learn, how justly God may refuse to show you mercy. For is God obliged to show mercy to his enemies? Is God bound to set his love on them that have no love to him; but hate him with perfect hatred? Is he bound to come and dwell with them that have an aversion to him, and choose to keep at a distance from him, and fly from him as one that is hateful to them? Even should you desire the salvation of your soul, is God bound to comply with your desires, when you always resist and oppose his will? Is God bound to put honor upon you, and to advance you to such dignity as to be a child of the King of kings, and the heir of glory, while at the same time you set him too low to have even the lowest place in your heart?
“This doctrine affords a strong argument for the absolute sovereignty of God, with respect to the salvation of sinners. If God is pleased to show mercy to his haters, it is certainly fit that he should do it in a sovereign way, without acting as any way obliged. God will show mercy to his mortal enemies; but then he will not be bound, he will have his liberty to choose the objects of his mercy; to show mercy to what enemy he pleases, and to punish and destroy which of his haters he pleases. And certainly this is a fit and reasonable thing. It is fit that God should distribute saving blessings in this way, and in no other, viz. in a sovereign and arbitrary way. And that ever anybody thought of or devised any other way for God to show mercy, than to have mercy on whom he will have mercy, must arise from ignorance of their own hearts, whereby they were insensible what enemies they naturally are to God.”
Which again alludes to the false, Reformed, and Calvinistic doctrines of predestination, and God’s arbitrary election of who will be saved and who will be damned (and by extension, also of “limited atonement”), which are entirely heretical and false, and find no place modern LDS scripture or the Bible. What he means by “sovereignty of God” is just that—the complete predestination and predetermination of all things by God from the beginning; and the complete rejection and denial of the free agency and freewill of man—which are anathema to LDS theology and doctrine. Joseph Smith did not borrow his ideas, his theology, or his terminology from the abominable heresies of Calvinism that Jonathan Edwards is advocating. Jonathan Neville then continues as follows:
“And at that time people familiar with Jonathan Edwards knew exactly what he was talking about. If you look at it, King Benjamin doesn’t say, doesn’t explain how the ‘national man is an enemy God;’ he explains how you overcome it. And Edwards wrote a lot about how the ‘national man is an enemy to God,’ but he didn’t give a good explanation of how to overcome it. So you need Edwards, the Bible, and the Book of Mormon together, all three together. And then it is unbelievably beautiful and profound doctrine; I mean, it has just opened up the Book of Mormon like a whole new thing to me.”
Which of course is entirely incorrect. It proves that Jonathan Neville has a very shallow understanding of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon does not teach or advocate the damnable heresies of “justification by faith alone without works,” or of “unconditional election,” or of “predestination to salvation or damnation,” or of “limited atonement” etc. that Jonathan Edwards is advocating. And the Book of Mormon does explain how the “natural man” became an “enemy to God”. It came about as a result of the “fall of Adam” (Mosiah 3:19, and other quotes given above). Neville then continues:
“And even now, when I hear someone in General Conference or in church quotes a Book of Mormon phrase, I think, oh yeah, I know Edwards wrote that, and here is how it works out. I mean, it is, I am telling you, it is a total mind-blowing experience almost, just to see it this way. And I analyzed it, if you are someone in China, and you read the Book of Mormon, and you don’t know whether they are talking about king Josiah, or you know the Jews, the Law of Moses, you have no idea what it is; and then you read the Bible, and you go, ‘Oh, that is what that means, that is it’. That is how this is. When you read the Book of Mormon, and then you read Jonathan Edwards, you go, ‘Ah, that is what that refers to’.”
Wrong! That is not what it refers to! See above. He then continues:
“So that is why when I read in the Book of Mormon about chariots, or steel, or horses, or whatever—that is Joseph Smith’s interpretation of whatever the original record said; and I’m just like, I don’t believe that king Benjamin and in his Nephite language—whatever it was, because they had multiple languages—whatever his language was, I don’t think he literally said, ‘natural man is an enemy to God;’ but whatever he said, Joseph Smith transliterated into Jonathan Edwards terminology, and then it makes beautiful sense, and that is why it resonates with people.”
Sorry, that makes no sense. The Book of Mormon is not advocating the heretical doctrines of Calvinism and Reformed theology etc. that Jonathan Edwards is committed to and is promoting. Jonathan Edwards’ sermons may have historical interest; but they cannot be used to elucidate the teachings of the Book of Mormon, or to justify or explain Joseph Smith’s translation or phraseology, or in support of LDS theology and doctrine.
No comments:
Post a Comment