Professor Welch’s speech was inspired by Joseph Smith’s words penned at Liberty Jail, “Thy mind, o man, must stretch,” and structured around the principles of BYU’s Mission Statement (which you can read here).  The speech gave some very poignant examples of how BYU,  and, more broadly, how Mormonism itself, encourages and facilitates this vision of ever-expanding our mind — our knowledge, experiences, and capacities.

Before I begin, I’d like to share links to his speech so that you can see it for yourself here: http://www.byutv.org/watch/158-173, or listen to it in .mp3 format here: http://speeches.byu.edu/download.php/Welch_John_2011_05_17.mp3.

John Welch began his speech, after brief introductory comments and thank-yous, encouraging faculty and students to familiarize themselves with and follow the BYU Mission Statement.  He remarked,  “Take any line in it, and it will bless your intellectual life with perspective and purpose.” Various points of this statement would continue to inform his remarks.  He continued by citing Joseph Smith at Liberty Jail:

“The things of God are of deep import, and time and experience and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O Man [and we may add O Woman as well], if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost Heavens, and search into and contemplate the lowest considerations of the darkest abyss, and expand upon the broad considerations of eternal expanse; he must commune with God. How much more dignified and noble are the thoughts of God, than the vain imaginations of the human heart, none but fools, will trifle, with the souls of men.”

Welch finds great inspiration and vision in these words, emphasizing that they are a prophetic mandate “for a broad BYU education and a lifetime of learning.”  While the world may see “believers” as narrow-minded, naive, or as isolating themselves from rational thought, Welch explained that these characteristics were not part of Joseph Smith’s religion.

“There is nothing closed-minded about being a true Latter-day Saint. With the Holy Ghost, you will never get a ‘disk full’ warning. Every year, there have been new and amazing discoveries.”

Welch encouraged us to seek for more such discoveries, which often come as “flashes of inspiration, or as the Doctrine & Covenants says, ‘as moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’” How do we prepare ourselves for such discoveries?

“The first thing is to be looking, purposefully and constructively for something of value. The mind expands by recognition, or re-cognizing. Seeing in one thing something that is faintly reminiscent of something else, that is higher, deeper, or of greater substance, is the beginning of knowing and not just observing. Connecting, and seeing recurring patterns, such as those with which the gospel is replete, is the beginning of discernment and the development of potentially meaningful relationships.”

He illustrated this state of readiness to make deep connections with a great story about the different perspectives of Charlie Brown and Linus as they both lie on a hillside looking up at the clouds.

Lucy asks, “What do you see in these formations?” Linus says, “Well, those look like the map of British Honduras. That up there looks like the artist Thomas Eakins. And those clouds give the impression of the stoning of Stephen. Why, I can see the Apostle Paul standing there to one side.” Lucy says, “Very good,” and asks Charlie Brown, “What do you see?” He answers, “Well, I was going to say a ducky and a horsie, but I changed my mind.”

(For those of us who more often find ourselves in the position of Charlie Brown, Welch later returns, consolingly, to his plight, remarking that: “by the way, it’s alright, like Charlie Brown, to see a ducky and a horsie, if that’s what you honestly see”)

But this initial ray of light, the spark of illumining insight that comes to us, is “just the beginning of the discovery process.” Welch proceeds to explain that further “extensive reading, pondering, and lots of work” are required to reap further insights. “Indeed, most academic discoveries come after pouring over materials again and again. The mind expands by hard work over sustained stretches.” “There are no shortcuts to good scholarship.” As Joseph Smith stated, true knowledge comes from “time, experience, careful and ponderous thoughts.” We learn best by “strenuous effort.”

Welch commented that this is the Mormon way: “We do hard things.” Hard work, determination, diligence — these are necessary pre-requisites to the “a-ha moment.”

Exerting “endless energy spinning one’s wheels” is not the type of hard work that Welch envisions — we need to be asking the right type of questions and looking “outside the box” for the answers. We have to expect that the answer is out there and trust God that he will guide us in the right direction.  He explains:

To expand our understanding, we must formulate more precise, potentially answerable questions, and then keep searching, believing that an answer is out there somewhere, giving the scriptures credence, suspending judgment, giving God the benefit of the doubt, praying every day for his guidance, trusting that he knows the answer, that it can somehow make sense, and not presuming that the answer must necessarily come out “your way.” What we are looking for is frequently going to be found outside of the box. Sometimes the answer is “none of the above,” or “all of the above.”

An important aspect of this search for truth is believing that the truth exists. “How can one logically pursue something that one assumes does not exist?” He cites former BYU Academic Vice President Robert K. Thomas as saying, “Skeptics, by definition, cannot affirm anything—even their own skepticism.” Welch, therefore, believes that it is preferable to begin your search by “assuming the correctness of a text, the truthfulness of a proposition, or the wisdom of an instruction given by one in authority.”

But isn’t this approach contrary to the basic principles of the scientific method? Don’t we propose a hypothesis and then attempt to falsify it? Yes, but, as Welch rightly points out,  “the hypothesis is not considered false before it has been found to have failed. There is something wrong—as much in academic halls as in courtrooms—about assuming something or someone to be guilty until proven innocent.”

This was a key insight that I drew from Welch’s speech: we don’t need to approach our research, including (and especially, I would say) religious scholarship, from the assumption of its falsehood (which seems to be the norm for many fields, including biblical studies, today).  He suggested that “the astonishing momentum that has developed in Mormon studies” in recent times can be seen to have received its impetus from Hugh Nibley’s willingness to search through historical evidence with the assumption that LDS claims were true, rather than commencing from the assumption of their falsehood. “It was Leibniz who insisted that one cannot adequately understand the meaning of a proposition without assuming its truth,” he added, quoting BYU philosophy professor Terry Warner.

When confronted with difficult questions regarding Mormonism, or “interesting anomalies” as he referred to them, Welch’s instinct is to expect that these are “often clues of something going on below the surface” and expect that a helpful answer will be found. He gave examples of how he has been guided, often to unexpected places, to find amazing answers to questions that have come up during, for instance, his reading of the Book of Mormon.  If we are attentive to the Spirit and have an open and searching mind, we will be guided to the answers.

In a similar manner, we can be directed to notice sublime connections that we had never before seen, including in texts that we have read countless times before.  Welch recounted one such experience while reading the “hardly ever mentioned parable” of the two sons in Matthew 21.  I’ll share the story in his own words:

After Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the Chief Priests approached him, in the Temple, and demanded: “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?” Jesus answered by telling a story about a certain man who had two sons. When asked to go down and work in the vineyard, the first son, initially refused, but then he went, while the other initially said yes but then does not go, or so it seems. This parable may be useful in parenting, and it can be read at that level; but remember, that’s not what Jesus was asked about. With the question of authority in mind, as I read this parable in the Greek, something jumped off the page at me. Think about it: When did a certain father have two sons, one who went and the other who did not? When did the first (the firstborn) say, “ou thelo,” which in Greek means “I will it not,” or “I’d rather not” or “it is not my will.” As the Greek continues, that son reconciled himself (not repented himself) and went. In contrast, the “other” (the heteros) son simply said, “Ego,” meaning “I.” But “I what”? Readers must fill in this blank. In this verse, the word “go” in the King James Version is italicized because it has only been implied there. One might as well supply other words: “I . . . will have it my way,” or “I . . . will get the glory.” In any event, this egotistic son did not go. As Latter-day Saints, we can easily but unexpectedly see at this deeper level how this unassuming little parable answers the all-important questions about Jesus’ authority. He received it from the Father in the council in heaven when he was commissioned to go down and do, not his will, but the will of the Father.

Professor Welch noted that our belief that God has revealed and will yet reveal things to his people means that we will likely approach and find things different from the rest of the world.  This is to be expected.  I sympathize with this sentiment and would suggest that this should not be a source of embarrassment for us as Latter-day Saints, but that we should be ready and willing to defend our unique views.  A young person embarking on a course of biblical studies in a non-LDS environment will quickly become aware that the world doesn’t share our interpretation of, for example, the words of Isaiah, Daniel, or the Book of Revelation, to mention only a few.  This contrast in perspectives between what one has been taught to understand and what their new esteemed mentors are presenting can cause feelings of doubt, confusion, or shame.  In light of such situations (he doesn’t use my specific example), Welch explains:

There will always be worldly things that will make it difficult to be a Latter-day Saint, by making some Mormon beliefs objectionable, frustrating, or awkward. And we won’t always have all the answers to these difficulties, certainly not the moment they first arise. But this too invites further stretching and expansion. Our ongoing task as Latter-day Saints is to locate defensible answers that are also consistent with our scriptures, doctrines, and assumptions, and to understand how opposing views often depend principally upon other fundamentally different assumptions.

This is an important lesson for LDS students (whether in formal education or not) to remember.  The world is bound to have different answers because the world is often asking different questions and approaching them from a substantially different paradigm or world-view.  This doesn’t mean that we have to discount or ignore the views of others and the potentially valuable insights that they can teach us.  As Welch notes, the  “BYU Mission Statement speaks of the pursuit of ‘all’ truth,” an endeavor which has been fundamental to Mormonism from its foundation.  He astutely states:

Our desire is for further light and understanding, to circumscribe all truth. To me, Mormonism thrives because it welcomes the idea that the world is fundamentally pluralistic by nature. Over and over, the Mormon world view relishes multiplicity. Words found traditionally only in the singular are boldly spoken of as plurals in Mormon doctrine: we speak of priesthoods, intelligences, noble and great ones, two creations, worlds without number, continuing revelations, scriptures, covenants, degrees of glory, eternal lives, saviors on Mt. Zion, and even gods. Joseph Smith spoke of there being many kingdoms and that “unto every kingdom is given [its own] law,” and “all truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.” To me, such statements of cosmological relativities unleash and transfigure the concepts of natural law and eternal truths.

Joseph was light years ahead of his time with these notions. For Joseph, it was all about the Big Picture.  All truth was part of one big Whole and could be fit together like scattered pieces of a grand puzzle.  Welch noted how the rest of the world took a century to catch up with such expansive ideas.

For example, I am fascinated by the implications of Gödel’s 1931 incompleteness theorem, which demonstrates that a system can be either complete or consistent but not both. Thus, systematic theologies or rational philosophies may well be internally consistent, but they do so at the expense of completeness. Sets and abstractions may be helpful, but they are simply extractions of selected elements of otherwise messy realities. Mormon thought, in contrast, privileges fullness, abundance, completeness, and all that the Father has, even if that means that Mormon life becomes joyously overloaded or torn by competing pressures that pull, stretch, and expand us in many ways. This may produce episodes of cognitive dissonance, social quandaries, mystery and uncertainty, but if forced to choose, Mormon thought will always prefer openness over closedness, boldly inviting further growth, progression, and fortunately for us in academia, further questions…

… Because we know that there must be an opposition in all things, LDS thought often harmonizes traditional paradoxes. The world has fought wars over whether we are saved by faith or works. We peacefully say, “both.” People argue over whether we come to know by study or faith. We confidently say, “both.” “Each of us must accommodate the mixture of reason and revelation in our lives. The gospel not only permits it but requires it,” President Packer has said. In the same way, Mormon thought brings together both rights and duties.

When it comes to the instruction of young minds, abundant blessings of knowledge are inseparably connected to certain academic responsibilities, as well. As Joseph Smith said, “none but fools will trifle with the souls” of others. “Yet, as Stanford President Donald Kennedy wrote in 1997, ‘The responsibility of the professoriate is a difficult subject about which surprisingly little has been said,’ and that serious defect still remains inexcusably unaddressed.”

Dr. Welch explained that BYU Studies, for example, has, in fact, a written code that “draws on scriptural mandates, hoping to encourage among LDS scholars such things as unity (‘if ye are not one, ye are not mine’); charity, (for, if we have not charity, we are nothing); edification (‘the goal is to be spiritually and intellectually upbuilding’), and honesty and integrity (for, accuracy and reliability are the essence of scholarship).”

Furthermore, our duty in teaching others requires us to “charitably putting other people ahead of one’s own self-interests” as President Monson has so often taught us. “Our minds stretch the farthest when they are pure and actively concerned about the welfare of others.” We should be willing to listen to others and learn from them, including gaining insights from those of other belief systems and cultures.  He cites George Handley, an associate editor of BYU Studies, as stating: “My discovery has been ‘that listening carefully to other voices and other cultures doesn’t have to involve sacrificing our values,” but rather helps me to understand better my own Mormonness.  Learning from others does not necessarily entail giving up our own unique beliefs.  As Brigham Young declared to outgoing missionaries: “Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, . . . or the Church of Rome, . . . it is the [duty] of the Elders of this Church . . . to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanism of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found . . . and bring it to Zion.”

Welch shared how he has had the opportunity to experience the benefits of this mandate in his own search for truth: “Indeed, it was from a Catholic Jesuit that I first learned about chiasmus; and from a Jewish barrister that I learned about the ancient legal difference between thieves and robbers. And, by the way, both of those scholars were genuinely glad to see in the Book of Mormon these things that they had found in Hebraic settings.”

He explained that our theology and our experiences working in church councils and presidencies help prepare us to reach out and collaborate with others in academic settings as well.  To this point, he shared some interesting thoughts:

Among the best memories of my academic life are many team efforts, such as Macmillans’s Encyclopedia of Mormonism with Dan Ludlow’s team of eight hundred contributors. I am now thrilled to be working on the Legal Team of the vital Joseph Smith Papers project. We now know that Joseph was distracted by over 200 lawsuits in his lifetime, and their documentary records are astonishingly more complex than any one person can sort out. Two or three lawsuits are usually enough to overwhelm most men, but Joseph succeeded by working collaboratively and expansively with numerous associates, including the Holy Ghost as his regular companion.

Welch emphasized the fact that we, as Mormons, are in a wonderful position to be able to contribute to many fields because of our expansive perspective and propensity to cooperate and support.  He made an effective analogy between BYU basketball star Jimmer Fredette and Joseph Smith regarding the ability to hit “intellectual long-shots.”

As mediators between competing views, we can offer alternative solutions. And we need not be reluctant. We have all been electrified this season by Jimmer’s incredible, dramatic long-shots. The sign I liked the best was “Jimmer’s in range when he steps off the bus.” Mormon thought is also capable of hitting a stunning array of intellectual long-shots, doing things that traditional Western thinkers have said cannot be done. Everywhere you turn, Joseph’s words hit the mark. He was in range every time he opened his mouth.

Joseph’s religion has stood the test of time and continues to gain admirers from outside its ranks.  Welch shared:

In a book now at press with Oxford, Stephen Webb, a non-LDS professor of religion, writes of Mormonism: “No other religious movement lies so close to traditional Christianity . . . . Mormon theology is Christology unbound. . . . Of all the branches of Christianity, Mormonism is the most imaginative, and if nothing else, its intellectual audacity should make it the most exciting conversational partner for traditional Christians for the twenty-first century.”

I appreciated Professor Welch’s strong and unwavering testimony.  He is, to me, a shining example of what a Gospel scholar should, and potentially can be. His demeanor, prolific writings, admiration among peers, and faithfulness to the Church demonstrate how one can be both a rigorous scholar and also a sincere believer.  His concluding remarks:

We need not be ashamed of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was truly a prophet. The scriptures are true and in them we find our way. The expansiveness of the truth invites us to venture forward, as high, and as deep, and as broad as our minds may go. Thy mind, O man, must stretch. Indeed, it can and will stretch, if you will lead a soul (including your own) unto salvation and will commune with God, that our joy may be full and abundant, in time and all eternity…

[David] You make some interesting comments in your Preface regarding the opinion of many people in modern society concerning Mormonism, which would presumably apply to the Book of Moses as well. Specifically, that Mormons seem to be a very superstitious people from the perspective of our modern, scientific world, with our beliefs based, as author J. Hannay once charged, on “the absurdity of seeing visions in the age of railways.” The Book of Moses, I would think, would be a prime example of this supposed fault: a book produced in modern times that contains a very traditional view of the Creation, very literal descriptions of Satan and of God’s corporeality, etc. It has a number of visions in which Moses and Enoch actually see God. It contains quite fanciful accounts of the Earth speaking and mourning and even God himself weeping. Do these elements and others in the Book of Moses lend support to a negative perception of Mormonism as outdated and what Mormons say as “mostly nonsense”? What weight should Latter-day Saints place on the Book of Moses as a part of their personal beliefs?

[Dr. Jeff Bradshaw] Our acceptance of the book of Moses as part of the LDS scriptural canon and, more generally, the premise that the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible might contain something more than a naïve personal update on passages that perplexed the Prophet has not only been a source of amusement for many non-Mormons, but also has drawn criticism from some within the tradition of the Restoration. Consider the following quotation from former Community of Christ President W. Grant McMurray who, in a 2006 address to the John Whitmer Historical Association, said:

I grew up being taught that not only did we have the original church restored, but we were also given the Bible in its perfected, pristine form resulting from Joseph Smith’s call to translate it under the influence of the Holy Spirit. We have known for decades that it is not a restoration of the original text. That would be even more compelling a statement if there were such a thing as an original text of the Bible. What we do have is a theological commentary by Joseph Smith, demonstrably incomplete, that got some of the most significant scriptural language, particularly the theology of grace so beautifully expressed in the Pauline letters and butchered in the Inspired Version. It is time to identify it properly as a product of Joseph Smith’s fertile and creative mind. I have not preached from it for decades. There are many fine versions available based on current scholarship and with poetic and literary power. The Inspired Version should have no standing as an authoritative Biblical version for the Church (quoted in Richard G. Moore, Know Your Religions Volume 2: A Comparative Look at Mormonism and the Community of Christ, Orem, UT: Millennial Press, pp. 111-112).

While recognizing that the above statement of President McMurray does not represent the view of all members of the Community of Christ, still it expresses the view of many people today.

[David] What are some of the opinions expressed in current scholarship, both LDS and non-LDS, concerning the Book of Moses and its value?

[Dr. Jeff Bradshaw] In contrast to numerous scholarly analyses of Joseph Smith’s translations of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham that began to appear in the 19th century, explorations of the textual foundations of the JST began in earnest only in the 1960s, with the pioneering work of the RLDS scholar Richard P. Howard and the LDS scholar Robert J. Matthews (R. P. Howard, Restoration Scriptures; R. J. Matthews, Plainer Translation). A facsimile transcription of all the original manuscripts of the JST was at last published in 2004 (S. H. Faulring, et al., Joseph Smith’s New Translation). Among other studies of the Joseph Smith Translation, Brigham Young University Professor Kent P. Jackson, a longtime student of these topics, prepared a detailed study of the text of the portions of the JST relating to the book of Moses in 2005 (K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses).

Although several brief studies of the teachings of the book of Moses had previously appeared as part of apologetic and doctrinally-focused LDS commentaries on the Pearl of Great Price, the first detailed verse-by-verse commentary—and the first to incorporate significant amounts of modern non-LDS Bible scholarship—was published by Richard D. Draper, S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes in 2005 (R. D. Draper, et al., Pearl of Great Price). All the LDS scholars mentioned above, and many more, take the book of Moses seriously as an inspired work of scripture, with echoes of ancient traditions readily apparent in many places.

A few non-Mormon scholars have also courageously signaled their appreciation of the significance of the Joseph Smith’s translation efforts in light of ancient documents. For example, Margaret Barker cited relevant passages from the Book of Mormon and the Joseph Smith Translation in her 2007 Society of Biblical of Literature presentation on Jewish and early Christian perspectives on Melchizedek (M. Barker, Who was Melchizedek?). Noted Yale critic of secular and sacred literature Harold Bloom, who in 2005 classed these the book of Moses and the book of Abraham among the “more surprising” and “neglected” works of LDS scripture (H. Bloom, Names Divine, p. 25), is intrigued by the fact that many of their themes are “strikingly akin to ancient suggestions” that essentially restate “the archaic or original Jewish religion, a Judaism that preceded even the Yahwist.” While expressing “no judgment, one way or the other, upon the authenticity” of LDS scripture, he finds “enormous validity” in the way these writings “recapture… crucial elements in the archaic Jewish religion.… that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched [Joseph] Smith directly” (H. Bloom, American Religion, pp. 98, 99, 101).

[David] What do you feel that you, personally, have gained from your extensive studies of the Book of Moses?

Although I have always felt a special spiritual affinity to the book of Moses, my study has given me additional “reason[s] for the hope that is within [me]” (1 Peter 3:15). The way in which my “intellectual conversion” to the book of Moses was added to my spiritual witness recalled for me Elder B. H. Roberts’ description of the greater appreciation he experienced of the Atonement as he finished the writing of a manual on that subject for the Seventy:

[W]hile religion must appeal to and satisfy the emotional nature, it must also appeal to and satisfy the intellect… [T]his late inquiry into that subject has had a wonderful effect upon my own thought and state of mind… It has been a matter of faith with me and knowledge, by the testimony of the Spirit of God to my soul; but upon close inquiry, by deeper delving into the subject, my intellect also gives its full and complete assent… I account it for myself a new conversion, an intellectual conversion, … and I have been rejoicing in it of late exceedingly. (B. H. Roberts, 8 April 1911, p. 59)

Having spent more than three years in focused study of the book of Moses, I have been astonished with the extent to which its words reverberate with the echoes of antiquity—and, no less significantly, with the deepest truths of my personal experience. Indeed, I would not merely assert that the book of Moses holds up well under close examination, but rather that, like a fractal whose self-similar patterns become more wondrous upon ever closer inspection, the brilliance of its inspiration shines most impressively under bright light and high magnification: there is glory in the details.

To Be Continued…

Post author’s note: Since I began this series, I have received a significant number of inquiries regarding international orders of Jeffrey Bradshaw’s book. We have been assured that Eborn Bookstore, the publisher, is very happy to take international orders directly.
If you don’t mind making an international call, you can reach Eborn Bookstore directly during the day or evening MST at +1 (801) 965-9410. Also, their email address is: ebornbk@hotmail.com

I know of a number of individuals who have been successful in placing an order for the book from outside the USA.

This is the third installment of a multi-part interview between myself and Dr. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, author of the recently released In God’s Image and Likeness: Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses. For previous posts in this series, see Part I here and Part II here.

Please see the official website for the book for more details: http://www.imageandlikeness.net

Questions for Jeffrey M. Bradshaw on In God’s Image and Likeness (cont.)

[David] In the book, you give us the text of Moses 1-6 along with analysis and commentary. Is this text taken directly from our current version of the Pearl of Great Price or is it derived from other sources?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] I’ve taken the version from the published Pearl of Great Price as my base text, while making a point to discuss significant textual variations.

Two recent studies have been particularly helpful. With painstaking effort over a period of eight years, and with the generous cooperation of the Community of Christ, a facsimile transcription of all the original manuscripts of the JST was at last published in 2004 (S. H. Faulring, et al., Original Manuscripts). A detailed study of the text of the portions of the JST relating to the book of Moses appeared in 2005 (K. P. Jackson, Book of Moses). Taken together, these studies allow us to see the process and results of translation with greater clarity than ever before.

[David]In your introduction, you give some words of advice or caution to your readers when using the various extra-canonical (apocryphal, pseudepigraphic, midrashic, etc.) texts that are available to us and that you use in your book. How do you think readers should approach these texts and what caution should be used in weighing their possible authenticity, legitimacy, or level of “inspiration”?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] Such sources present a special problem because in so many cases the age and provenance of these writings are uncertain. Moreover, the motivations of the (frequently anonymous) authors, and the historical and prophetic basis of their compositions usually remain in doubt. Stephen E. Robinson, for one, has noted the difficulties in distinguishing between inspired literature (i.e., historical or revelatory writings akin to canonical scripture), inspired fiction (i.e., stories designed to teach doctrinal principles such as Elder Boyd K. Packer’s parable The Mediator), and outright “lying for the Lord” (i.e., pseudonymous forgeries that deceitfully present themselves as authoritative in order to promulgate self-serving interpretations). All that being said, it is always possible that documents of even very doubtful provenance may contain fragments of authentic accounts transmitted from ancient times.

Nickelsburg wisely phrased the careful stance of scholarly ambivalence that must be maintained: “One should not simply posit what is convenient with the claim that later texts reflected earlier tradition. At the same time, thoroughgoing skepticism is inconsonant with the facts as we know them and as new discoveries continue to reveal them: extant texts represent only a fragment of the written and oral tradition that once existed. Caution, honest scholarly tentativeness, and careful methodology remain the best approach to the data” (G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Judaism, pp. 25-26).

In my introduction, I freely admit that I deliberately erred on the side of inclusion in considering these texts for use in the commentary. This was done to make these documents available to a wider set of readers for discussion, and I’m hoping that these evaluations will lead to many improvements in future editions of the book.

[David] A related question: To what extent should we feel comfortable comparing some of these texts, e.g. The Apocalypse of Abraham, The Testament of Moses, 1 Enoch, or The Life of Adam and Eve, to the Moses (or Abraham) material revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith? At first look, these texts would seem to cover similar ground, but from your experience, is there much compatibility between them?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] LDS scholars have long noted many similarities between the revelations and translations of Joseph Smith and ancient Jewish and Christian documents. Most of the more difficult work needed to transform these “parallels” into “bridges” demonstrating how related ideas from widely-scattered cultures and diverse eras could have been shared and transmitted has yet to be done.

In assembling this volume, I have also been interested in ancient texts from outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. Note that the Lord pointedly told Nephi: “I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it” (2 Nephi 29:12). In light of this fact, it should not be at all surprising if genuinely revealed teachings, promulgated at one time but subsequently lost or distorted, sometimes appear to have survived in heterodox strands of religious traditions the world over. Many of these teachings have served, in the words of the First Presidency, to “enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals” (S. W. Kimball, et al., God’s Love). Nor, it seems, could the Lord’s purposes have been achieved in any other way. As Elder Orson F. Whitney once said: “God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous, for any one people” (O. F. Whitney, Discourse (April 1928), p. 59). Thus, in our search for truth, we must, as Charlesworth expressed, “be attuned critically to all possible sources of revelation,” including “the word from God that has been heard by the great thinkers, inspired poets, and musicians” (J. H. Charlesworth, Protestant View, p. 84).

[David] What are some of the dangers we must be aware of when comparing modern LDS Scripture to ancient documents?

I like what Gary Gillum writes about the dangers of the two extremes of those who either eschew such writings or else develop an unhealthy obsession with them (G. P. Gillum, Bibliography). While recognizing the ease with which any of us can be led astray when our enthusiasm outstrips our understanding, he also argues that “even as we should be prepared and open to personal revelation, so should we be ready and eager to learn from additional truths which may confirm our fundamental beliefs. Perhaps these apocryphal discoveries are mere preparations for more divine writings to be given us later.” Revealing the principle governing his own stance, he writes that “whatever I read as apocrypha, in the very general sense, must not lead me farther afield, but back to the divine word of God.”

[David] This question is purely to satisfy my own curiosity. You mention in an endnote that we do not have all of what Joseph Smith translated for the Book of Abraham. While what we have in the Pearl of Great Price can be read in about a half hour, what Joseph originally translated took about two hours to read. Do you know what happened to the rest of the manuscript Joseph produced?

[Dr. Jeffrey Bradshaw] I’m also very curious about this question. I am hopeful that there may be additional portions of the book of Abraham that may come to light once the relevant volume from the Joseph Smith Papers project is published.

Post Author’s Note: Since conducting this interview, I have spoken to some of the individuals involved in the above project and it does appear that this is indeed the case.  We should have more of the Book of Abraham available to us soon.

To Be Continued…

[David] In your introduction, you spend some good time addressing the fact that although Joseph spent three years working on his inspired translation of the Bible, a disproportionate amount of time was spent translating the first half of the Book of Genesis, including the chapters we know as the Book of Moses. Why do you feel this was the case? Was there something especially important to be learned from these chapters?

[Dr Jeffrey Bradshaw] While there are a variety of circumstantial factors that had their part to play in the fact that Genesis 1-24 received such a disproportionate amount of Joseph Smith’s time and attention as he translated the Bible, my own study and reflection on the matter led me to consider the content of the chapters themselves. For example, here Joseph would be introduced to the story of Enoch’s Zion, so relevant to the Saints’ upcoming efforts to establish a Zion in Missouri. Perhaps more importantly, however, he would have an opportunity to receive revelation relating to the Creation, the Fall, and the successive unfolding of the doctrines and ordinances of the New and Everlasting Covenant to Adam and Eve. In the first half of Genesis, he would also learn more about Noah, Abraham, and Melchizedek. One day it dawned upon me that, perhaps, the most important result of this translation process at the time was not the scripture itself, but the process of divine tutoring in temple-related themes that Joseph Smith may have received as an immediate follow-up to his translation of the Book of Mormon. Otherwise, assuming one believes that the Prophet was divinely directed in this work, as I do, how can one reconcile the fact that he was so urgently enjoined by the Lord to engage in the Bible translation so early in his ministry with the fact that so very little of the translation was eventually published during his lifetime?

If, indeed, the sequence of the JST translation was largely determined by its tutorial value, one might begin to ask interesting questions about why it was that as soon as the Prophet finished the translation of Genesis 1-24, the Lord asked him to jump to the New Testament—incidentally, a command that he obediently followed the very next day. As an aside, it is both striking and characteristic of the Prophet that he so quickly followed the instructions given in the revelation by abruptly changing his translation priorities. I like the way Bushman characterizes the faith that Joseph Smith had in his own revelations: “Judging by his actions, Joseph believed in the revelations more than anyone. From the beginning, he was his own best follower. Having the word of God at his back gave him enormous confidence” (R. L. Bushman, Rough Stone, p. 173; see also R. L. Bushman, Creation of the Sacred, p. 98).

One of many eye-opening experiences that I had that convinced me that Joseph Smith knew much more about temple covenants in the early 1830s than I had previously imagined was my study of D&C 84, in particular the verses relating to the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. As I argue in Excursus 3 of the commentary, this revelation, received on 22-23 September 1832, succinctly describes a definite sequence of promised blessings that were not fully bestowed upon the Saints until more than ten years later in Nauvoo.

[David] If most of the translation was finished by 1833, why did it take Joseph until 1843 to have the first chapter of the Book of Moses published?

[Dr Jeffrey Bradshaw] Again, while one could quite appropriately cite all the circumstantial factors that led to delays in the publication of the Joseph Smith Translation, I have also been intrigued by evidence that seems to indicate that the Prophet regarded at least some portions of his work on the Bible to be of such a sacred nature that they were not to be immediately shared. Taking the example you mention of Moses 1, he was specifically commanded not to show it “unto any except them that believe until I command you” (Moses 1:42), and this may have had something to do with the fact that it was not printed until years after other selected excerpts from our book of Moses had appeared in church publications. As another example, in Bachman’s groundbreaking studies on the origins of D&C 132, which has not only to do with celestial marriage but also the whole context of temple work, he convincingly argued that nearly all of that section was revealed to the Prophet as he worked on the JST. This was more than a decade previous to 1843, when the revelation was first recorded (D. W. Bachman, New Light).

Even more striking is the following statement, which seems to indicate that Joseph Smith initially believed that, in sharp contrast to the incredible efforts that had recently been made to promulgate the Book of Mormon, the Lord did not even intend the JST to be published: “I would inform you that [the Bible translation] will not go from under my hand during my natural life for correction, revisal, or printing and the will of the Lord be done” (JS to WW Phelps, July 31, 1832, Jessee, PWJS, 287). Some of what the Prophet learned as he worked on the JST and other translation projects (e.g., the Book of Abraham) may have never been put to writing. Brigham Young is remembered as stating “that the Prophet before his death [spoke] about going through the translation of the scriptures again and perfecting it upon points of doctrine which the Lord had restrained him from giving in plainness and fulness at the time” (Cited in G. Q. Cannon, Life, pp. 147-148). As other examples in which the Prophet only gave very abbreviated summaries of what, from historical and circumstantial evidence, are clearly much more extensive revelations, we have D&C 87 and D&C 110.

[David] Why do you think that the Book of Moses is the only section of the Old Testament that we have from the Inspired Version preserved in our Pearl of Great Price?

[Dr Jeffrey Bradshaw] The Book of Moses is itself a pearl of great price—it is nothing less than a prophetic exposition of the entire plan of salvation from start to finish, all packed into eight chapters. Hugh Nibley says it far more eloquently than I ever could:

“After all these years it comes as a surprise for me to learn that the Book of Moses appeared in the same year as the publication of the Book of Mormon, the first chapter being delivered in the very month of its publication. And it is a totally different kind of book, in another style, from another world. It puts to rest the silly arguments about who really wrote the Book of Mormon, for whoever produced the Book of Moses would have been even a greater genius.…

Was the great last dispensation to be brought on with old shopworn forms and ceremonies? A dispensation is a period of the world’s history during which the church of God with its covenants and ordinances is upon the earth; in the apocalyptic scheme of things it is a comparatively brief period of light following a long period of darkness. What would be an appropriate ensign to announce and inaugurate such a happy time? The single civilization that embraces the world today, whichever way it turns, sees only itself, a great all-confining cliché in which one can think only of what is being thought and do only what is being done. It cannot even imagine a new dispensation, let alone supply one. Like a heavy galleon it labors on into ever deepening gloom, prodded on its way from time to time by promising puffs of a New Order, New Method, New Education, New Deal, New Life, New Cure, New Light, New Way, etc., but ever and again losing momentum as the fleeting winds quickly blow themselves out, leaving the old scow to wallow on as best it may towards the dawn of nothing… From what source can we look for comfort? From none on this distracted globe.

It came from the outside, the Mormons said: The long, long silence was broken by an angel from on high. At once the whole world exploded in one long hoot of derision—adequate witness to the total novelty of the thing; here was something utterly alien and retrograde to everything the world taught and believed… [No one could] be asked to take him seriously were it not that he came before an unbelieving world with boundless riches in his hands.” (H. W. Nibley, To Open, http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=71).

TO BE CONTINUED…

For the first of this series of posts from my interview with author Jeffrey Bradshaw, see here.

I have previously written on St. Seraphim and the fruits of the Spirit (see here). Please refer to that post for a more complete account of Seraphim’s discussion on recognizing the presence of the Holy Spirit. In this post, I will present the main points that he makes, similar themes from the Patristic period, and then modern similarities from Mormon teaching and experience.  I have cut out several parts from the original paper for the sake of brevity, but have tried to preserve the parts of most interest to LDS readers.

Saint Seraphim of Sarov and the Recognition of the Holy Spirit

            The spirituality of St. Seraphim of Sarov has become well-recognized in modern Christian mystical literature for its stunning portrayal of the tangible effects of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In his highly circulated conversation with Nicholas Motovilov, “Concerning the Aim of the Christian Life,” Seraphim attempts to instruct his friend regarding the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. After attempting to express the process using a number of different explanations, Seraphim directs Motovilov’s attention to the intense spiritual manifestation they were experiencing as a recognizable outpouring of the Holy Spirit. St. Seraphim teaches his disciple that one can know when the Third Person of the Trinity is present by certain signs and feelings or emotions that accompany the Spirit. 

            In the above-mentioned conversation with Motovilov, likely recorded around 1830, Motovilov expresses to the saintly monk his inability to fully understand how an individual can know that he has the Spirit with him; how he can “dwell” in the Holy Spirit and “apprehend his appearance” in him. “My need,” he exclaimed, “is to understand this well.” Instead of offering further explanations or scriptural illustrations, as he had previously done, St. Seraphim turns to a more practical and tangible demonstration of his point by asking his friend to simply recognize what he is seeing and feeling at the moment -his final and greatest proof for how one is to know that the Holy Spirit is present. According to Motovilov’s account, the following were described as recognizable manifestations of the Holy Spirit:

• Transfigured appearance

Father Seraphim grabs Motovilov by the shoulders and says “We are both together, son, in the Spirit of God! Why lookest thou not on me?” To which Motovilov replies:

“I cannot look, father, because lightning flashes from your eyes. Your face is brighter than the sun and my eyes ache in pain!” Father Seraphim says: “Fear not, my son; you too have become as bright as I. You too are now in the fulness of God’s Spirit; otherwise you would not be able to look on me as I am.”

• Calmness and peace

St. Seraphim then asks, “How do you feel now?” “Unwontedly well!” Motovilov exclaims. The staretz then probes deeper, looking for his friend to sincerely evaluate and recognize exactly what he is feeling. “But well in what way? How in particular?” Motovilov  answers: “I feel a calmness and peace in my soul that I cannot express in words!”

• Sweetness

Seraphim encourages him to further express the specific feelings that he is experiencing. “An unwonted sweetness!” is the reply.

• Joy

“An unwonted joy in all my heart!”

• Warmth

“An unwonted warmth!” When Seraphim hears this from his disciple, he probes him further in order to see if he understands the significance of this manifestation. “But why warmth, my son? See, we sit in the forest, the winter is out and about, the snow

is underfoot, there is more than an inch of snow on us and still the snowflakes fall. What warmth can there be?” Motovilov answeres: “Such as there is in the bath-house, when they pour the water on the stone and the steam rises in a cloud.”

• Aid to Memory

As this powerful experience with the Spirit of God would clearly be an important lesson to remember, Father Seraphim asks his disciple: “Will you remember this manifestation of God’s ineffable mercy which has visited us?” “I know not, father,” he replies, “whether the Lord will grant me always to remember this mercy of God as vividly and clearly as now I feel it.” “I think,” Father Seraphim answers, “that the Lord will help you always to retain it in your memory…”

            This process of questioning by St. Seraphim can be seen as a tool-even the principal tool-used by the saint to help his friend recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit and know when he had acquired it in his life. For St. Seraphim, the acquisition of the Holy Spirit is the most important goal of mortal life.  It is essential for priest, monk, and layman alike. When one’s heart is open to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that heart becomes “the throne whereon [the Lord] loves to sit and whereon He appears in the fulness of His heavenly glory.” (p. 56) Without this acquisition of the Holy Spirit, “there is not and cannot be any salvation” (p. 51). Seraphim wants his disciple to know when he has the Spirit and his conversation serves as an outline for what one should be able to see and feel when he does.

The Tradition

            That all these properties should be linked to the presence of the Holy Spirit was an idea that was perpetuated in the early Church and in the Christian tradition over the centuries.  Over time, these principles were preserved more strongly in the more ascetic or mystical strains of Christianity, and in the Eastern Orthodox churches.  Because space is limited, I will only highlight a few examples of the preservation of each of the spiritual manifestations.

Transfigured Appearance

            As mentioned above, the “lightning” from the eyes and face “shining like the sun” motifs, for the uninitiated, can be the most familiar and startling parts of Seraphim’s explanation. While such descriptions are uncommon among most Christians today, talk of such visions of light was surprisingly frequent and emphatic for centuries. Out of all the elements referred to in this essay, there was likely more ink spent on this topic by the ancients than any of the others.  The brilliant appearance of a person as the result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was often referred to as a transfiguration or transformation into an angelic or divine state.

            Tertullian was well aware of the importance of this motif in the Scriptures:

Even the Holy Scriptures give us instances of this form of change…For example, the face of Moses was changed, with a brightness that the eyes could not bear…So also Stephen had already put on the appearance of an angel-even though it was still his human knees that bent beneath the stoning. The Lord, again, in the retirement of the mountain, had changed His clothing for a robe of light…In that same scene, Moses also and Elijah gave proof that the same condition of bodily existence may continue even in glory.

For Origen, this transformation, including the shining face, was a step in the process of the glorification or deification of the human. Citing the example of Moses’ radiant countenance, Origen explained that it was a result of his vision of Deity, for which he had been purified; he then “transcended all material things” and was “deified by what [he] contemplate[d].” He continued by stating:

Such a state may be said to be the glorification of the face of him who has contemplated God and conversed with him and spent time in such a vision, since this is represented figuratively by the glorified face of Moses, when his intellect had been deified by God.

            A few centuries later, in the so-called Macarian writings, Macarius emphasized the central role of the Holy Spirit in monastic life. His exegesis of Ezekiel’s vision of the throne-chariot portrays a view of the indwelling of the Spirit very similar to that of St. Seraphim:

For the prophet was contemplating a mystery of the soul that was to receive its own Lord and become a throne of glory to him. For a soul that is counted worthy to participate in the Spirit of his light and is illuminated by the beauty of his ineffable glory, seeing that he has prepared it for himself as a throne and dwelling, becomes wholly light…That is to say, no part of it is in darkness, but has been turned entirely and completely into light and spirit…seeing that the ineffable beauty of the glory of the light of the face of Christ has mounted it and sat upon it…Thus the soul is illuminated perfectly by the ineffable beauty of the glory of the face of Christ and has participated perfectly in the Holy Spirit, and has been counted worthy to become a throne and dwelling of God.

            Gregory Palamas, a central figure of the hesychast movement of the fourteenth century, strongly emphasized the importance of the vision of divine light and how it transforms both body and soul. He states:      

So, when the saints contemplate this divine light within themselves, seeing it by the divinizing communion of the Spirit, through the mysterious visitation of perfecting illuminations-then they behold the garment of their deification, their mind being glorified and filled by the grace of the Word, beautiful beyond measure in his splendour; just as the divinity of the Word on the mountain glorified with divine light the body conjoined to it.

Other Manifestations

             The sublime peace afforded by the Holy Spirit was the goal of every monk. Diadochus, in the fifth century, indicated that when a person turns to the Lord, grace makes itself felt in the heart as a “sensible warmth.” Isaac of Ninevah proclaimed that “sweeter than honey and the honeycomb is the awareness of God whence love is born.” 

            Eastern theologian John Cassian explained:

It is not easy to know how and in what respects spiritual tenderness overwhelms the soul. Often it is by an ineffable joy and by vehement aspirations that its presence is revealed. So much so that the joy is rendered unbearable by its very intensity, and breaks out into cries that carry tidings of your inebriation as far as a neighbouring cell. Sometimes οn the contrary the whole soul descends and lies hidden in abysses of silence. The suddenness of the light stupefies it and robs it of speech. All its senses remain withdrawn in its inmost depths or completely suspended. And it is by inarticulate groans that it tells God of its desire. Sometimes, finally, it is so swollen with a sorrowful tenderness that οnly tears can give it consolation. 

 

Mormonism

            The spiritual revivals that helped spread the influence of Methodism also opened the way for new spiritual movements such as Alexander Campbell’s “restorationist” movement and Joseph Smith, Jr.’s The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith (1805-1844), roughly a contemporary of St. Seraphim, held to a view of the fruits of the Holy Spirit very similar to that of the Russian Orthodox monk.

            The early Mormon Church was recognized for its powerful and dramatic spiritual manifestations. A contemporary religious periodical, The Spiritual Magazine [May 1, 1871], attempted to account for the success of early Mormon missionaries to the British Isles:

In Great Britain the Mormons were Spiritualists. Their churches were established, converts made, and success wrought out by spiritual manifestations and the “influences.” This was recognized by the various denominations whose disciples the Elders (Mormon missionaries) drew away by their spiritual fascinations…The possession of this “power” gave the Elders such a decided advantage over the learned clergy that in many cases they have annihilated whole churches, and Mormonism has swept some of the districts of England and Wales like a whirlwind, literally to the consternation of other religious bodies.

            While perhaps not as recognized, this emphasis on manifestations of the Spirit continues in modern Mormon proselytizing efforts. In the Missionary Guide, a manual printed in 1988 by the Church and issued to all missionaries until only recently, missionaries are instructed that the “most important process in conversion is for people to feel the Spirit of the Lord… It is your privilege to act as a servant of the Lord and help people feel and recognize the influence of the Spirit.” In order to help others “feel and recognize” the Holy Spirit, a technique is employed that is remarkably similar to that of St. Seraphim in his conversation with Nicholas Motovilov-the missionary is to ask the person how he or she feels. The missionary teaches scriptural principles, and then encourages listeners to express how they feel; when the missionary is convinced that the listener has felt the Spirit of the Lord (by listening to their answers to such questions), the missionary is to identify that they are, indeed, feeling the Spirit.

            The precedent for spiritual manifestations in the Mormon Church was set by Joseph Smith himself, who was considered by his followers to be a prophet. Many of Smith’s contemporaries give descriptions of his appearance and demeanor when under the influence of the Holy Spirit that are very similar in nature to Motovilov’s account of St. Seraphim. Mormon scholar Hyrum Andrus comments that the “visions and revelations given to Joseph Smith were also accompanied by an overshadowing power and glory visible to those present-not merely a change of facial expression resulting from a given mood or attitude of mind, but a thrilling, intelligent power both felt and seen by others.”

            Orson Pratt testified that he saw the Smith’s “countenance light up as the inspiration of the Holy Ghost rested upon him…” And Brigham Young said:

Those who were acquainted with him knew when the Spirit of revelation was upon him for his countenance wore an expression peculiar to himself while under that influence. He preached by the Spirit of revelation, and taught in his council by it, and those who were acquainted with him could discover it at once, for at such times there was a peculiar clearness and transparency in his face.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, an early convert to the Church, witnessed a similar transfiguration in Joseph Smith at a small meeting at Smith’s home in Kirtland, Ohio. She related:

After prayer and singing, Joseph began talking. He began very solemnly and very earnestly. Suddenly, his countenance changed and he stood mute; he seemed almost transfixed. He was looking ahead and his face outshone the candle which was on a shelf just behind him. I thought I could almost see the cheek bones. He looked as though a searchlight was inside his face. I never saw anything like it on earth. I could not take my eyes away from him. I shall remember him as he looked then as long as I live.

            Smith’s revelations on the topic of the influence of the Spirit also parallel the elements expressed in Seraphim’s conversation. He taught that the Holy Spirit brings feelings of peace, joy, warmth, intelligence, and love. Dr. Victor Ludlow of Brigham Young University, outlines some of the ways in which Mormons are taught to recognize the presence of the Spirit:

Some people feel a burning sensation in the body when the Spirit is present. (See D&C 9:8.) Some feel a sense of peace or joy, making them feel like praising or even singing God’s glory and blessings. Others experience a tingling sensation or a quickening of the mind…One common manifestation of the spirit…is when a sudden idea or insight comes into our minds after we have been pondering over a question or problem…The ideas and insights we receive from the Spirit are also confirmed by feelings of peace…God reminded him [Oliver Cowdery, Joseph's scribe] again how to recognize the manifestation of his Spirit: “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart” (D&C 8:2).

George Q. Cannon, an early leader of the Church, offered a description of how one can recognize the influence of the Holy Ghost:

I will tell you a rule by which you may know the Spirit of God from the spirit of evil. The Spirit of God always produces joy and satisfaction of mind. When you have that Spirit you are happy; when you have another spirit you are not happy. The spirit of doubt is the spirit of the evil one; it produces uneasiness and other feelings that interfere with happiness and peace.”

The preceding explanations of the effects of the Holy Spirit are but a few examples from the vast Mormon discourse on the subject. These principles are still very much a part of the Mormon belief system, and while seemingly not as prevalent today, or perhaps not as acknowledged publicly as in the past, tangible manifestations of the Spirit are still a common phenomenon among Mormons, especially in the mission field.

Conclusion

            While Nicholas Motovilov’s account of his conversation with St. Seraphim of Sarov and its attending spiritual manifestations may sound fantastical and foreign to many, such elements have been central to the beliefs of some Christians since New Testament times.  In this essay, I have endeavored to show how these fruits of the Spirit discussed by Seraphim are securely rooted in Scripture, were known and understood by the early Church Fathers and subsequently carried on in the thought of many important theologians over time. While this type of spirituality is readily recognized as part of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, it is found in remarkably similar form in many modern Christian denominations, including Wesleyan thought, as well as Mormon doctrine and experience.  The words of Diadοchus of Photike express the significance of this experience with the Spirit: “One who knows God by the feeling of the heart has been known by him.”

Origen, Commentary on John, 32. 27. 338-9, GCS iv. 472. 24-34, as cited in Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 143-144.

Coll. II, Homilies, 1.2, as cited in Russell, 245.

Gregory Palamas, Triad 1.3.5, as cited in Russell, 306.

As cited in Russell, 247.

Isaac of Ninevah, Ascetic Treatises, 38.

Jοhn Cassian, Conferences, ΙX, 27 (SC 54, p. 63)

T. Shorter, “On Mormonism,” in The Spiritual Magazine, vol. VI, May 1871 (London: Thomas Scott), 194.

From the Missionary Guide, p. 9, published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Hyrum L. Andrus, Joseph Smith, the Man and the Seer (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1960), 136.

As cited in Ibid.

As cited in Ibid.

Ludlow is referring to the book of Doctrine and Covenants, published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is a collection of revelations given through Joseph Smith and some of his successors.

Victor L. Ludlow, Principles and Practices of the Restored Gospel (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992), 97.

George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1855-86), 15:375.

Diadοchus of Photike, Gnostic Chapters, 14 (SC 5 bis, p. 91)