Answer: Reading Scripture

I received a question this morning about the first two verses of Section 132. The questioner presumes the first two verses frame everything that follows. According to his manner of reading the first two verses the language dealing with eternal marriage requires plural wives.

Here's my response:

God gives "liberally." (James 1: 5.) This means something. The word "liberally" is illustrated frequently in scripture. For example, Joseph Smith inquired which church to join. (JS-H 1: 18.) The answer to the specific question was to "join none of them." (Id., v. 19.) But the answer was not limited to the question posed. It also explained that:

-Their creeds were an abomination.
-The professors were corrupt.
-The practitioners draw near with their lips, but
-Their hearts were far from God.
-They possess only a form of godliness.
-Their form of faith is powerless.
-Their doctrines are merely commandments from men. (Id.)
Then the Lord added "many other things did he say unto [Joseph]. which [he] could not write at this time." (JS-H 1: 20.)

This information, beyond which church to join is the Lord giving liberally.

When Joseph sought to know what his standing was before God four years later, he prayed to have his sins forgiven. (JS-H 1: 29.) In response to this inquiry, the angel Moroni appeared and gave him information about coming judgments, the future revelations to be poured out as promised in Joel, the restoration of priesthood, and a book buried nearby giving a history of the ancient inhabitants of the American continent. (JS-H 1: 33-43.) The answer was far beyond the scope of the inquiry. This was God giving "liberally."

When the Brother of Jared tried to solve the problem of interior lighting in eight barges, the Lord's answer had very little to do with the lighting problem. (Ether 3: 1.) The Lord's answer redeemed this prophet from the fall (Ether 3: 13), included ministering to him as the Lord administered to the Nephites at a later time (Ether 3: 17-18), and the Lord "ministered to him," which would have included a great deal more than solving lighting issues (Ether 3: 20.) This is what "liberally" means.

The question asked by Joseph concerned plural wives and created the circumstance where the Lord could then "give liberally" to Joseph. The question is posed in verses 1-2. The Lord gives liberally, and explains the eternal marriage covenant (not responsive to the question asked). Then he also answers the question, beginning at about verse 34 and going through verse 44. Moreover Joseph receives his calling and election, and is given the sealing authority in verses 45 through 50. This, once again, has nothing to do with the question in verses 1 and 2. This is the Lord "giving liberally."

Revelations from the Lord go well beyond the question asked. Oftentimes the issue which brings a prophet before God has nothing to do with the reason we later learn of the Lord's answer. The highly local question (which church to join, how to light a barge, where to hunt food, why some ancients had plural wives, what repentance is required, etc.) is largely irrelevant to us. The "liberally" given material addresses matters of universal concern:

-Apostasy and restoration.
-Priesthood restoration to Joseph.
-The fullness of God's revelations to mankind, including from the beginning to the end.
-Calling and election.
-Sealing authority.
-Visions of eternity.
-etc., etc.

It is the "liberally given" material which shows what the Lord really intends to bestow on mankind.

Therefore, although the question is posed in verses 1 and 2, the answer goes well beyond, giving liberally, and reveals for the first time the eternity of marriage. You can have plural wives without having an eternal marriage. That is what happens today in the various powerless cults. But the conditions for having an eternal marriage, bound by someone who has been into the Lord's presence and received from Him that authority (as Joseph did), is another matter.

Therefore I do not think verses 1 or 2 frame what follows any more than I think the ministry of Jesus to the Brother of Jared is confined exclusively to lighting interior of barges; or any more than Moroni's visit was confined exclusively to whether Joseph had good standing before the Lord.

Plural Wives

Section 132 speaks to two issues: As to entering into an eternal marriage covenant between a man and a woman in this life, before death, and having that occur by God's will and word, sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, the revelation is clear: It is mandatory. As to taking multiple wives, the revelation states conditions, making it clearly NOT mandatory.

The problem with this whole sideshow is that the argument we have going on between devout people over the necessity for plural wives distracts from the real issue. Instead of seeking to have God, by His word, establish a union that will endure into eternity by sealing it through the Holy Spirit of Promise, the debate is over the non-mandatory issue of taking multiple wives.

This sideshow is, of course, a tool of the adversary designed to move focus away from what is required for exaltation onto an issue that will never save a man or woman. Stop being deceived. Stop being distracted. Stop being preoccupied by the second issue, and recognize you will fail in your desire to preserve yourself and your marriage if you neglect to fully comply with the first.

That having been said, the revelation is rather clear about the conditions for taking plural wives. The first requirement is that the Lord must command it in order to raise up seed. This requirement is not found in Section 132, but is in Jacob 2: 30. This is where the underlying reason is stated for the Lord to give the command. Before you presume you understand this underlying doctrine, I would like to pose a few questions to consider:

-If the foundation for giving the command is found in the Lord wanting to "raise up seed unto Himself" then what is to "raise up seed unto the Lord"?
-Are you certain this is childbearing alone?
-Does having children ever "raise up seed unto the Lord?"
-Was Joseph Smith commanded?
-Did Joseph Smith "raise up seed to the Lord?"
-Why did Joseph Smith only father children with Emma Smith?
-Does the commandment to Joseph mean something other than breeding children with multiple women?
-Can a man "raise up seed unto the Lord" as Joseph Smith did, never fathering a child with any other woman than his wife, Emma?
-Who are the "seed" which Joseph "raised up unto the Lord?"
-How were they made Joseph's seed?

Section 132 gives two conditions for taking plural wives:

-If the Lord commands. (As in 132: 35 where Abraham was commanded.)
-If a man having the correct authority asks and obtains permission. (As in 132: 39 where David asked and the Lord, through Nathan, gave him these wives.)
-If additional wives are taken without the Lord wanting to "raise up seed unto Himself" thereby opening the way, and one of the two foregoing conditions being met, then taking additional wives is an abomination. (As in 132: 38.)

Further, in order to take an additional wife, someone (either the recipient or an officiator) must have the necessary keys to seal the marriage. This is complicated by the fact that there is never but "one man at a time" who holds this authority. (132: 7.) So if Warren Jeffs has these keys, Thomas Monson cannot. But if Owen Allred has the keys, then neither Warren Jeffs nor Thomas Monson can have them. And, of course, if Alex Joseph has them, then that deprives Allred, Jeffs and Thomas Monson.

The problem is, that if you are wrong in guessing which of the groups actually have the keys (because there's only one, mind you), then you are guilty of an abominable practice and you are condemned. You not only will fail to preserve your marriage, you forfeit your exaltation and condemn yourself.

Though I do not often make disclosures of this sort, one of the reasons I am writing this series is because I have asked, and the Lord has told me Warren Jeffs does not hold these keys. Those who follow him thinking he is leading to a better condition in the afterlife have been deceived. I would advise them to abandon that group and repent. Has not his recent behavior taught you he is in error? Has not his last declaration about who can father children made plain the man does not speak for God? Have you not eaten husks long enough? Is it not yet time to return and repent?

Now, if you are of the view that you need to live polygamy, then you need to take every precaution to first know:

-The Lord has, in fact, commanded you; or
-You are in possession of the correct authority and you have asked God and been given His permission; and
-You are capable of "raising up seed unto the Lord" (which means that in the resurrection, you have the ability to take them with you in the ascent through the heavens, passing the sentinels who stand guard along the way, leading your company by the knowledge you have to endure that fiery ascent back to the Throne of God.)

If there is any part of that you do not understand, then you are utterly incapable of satisfying the conditions and you should run from this idea because you are not capable of living the conditions. If you understand and think you have authority to go forward, then I would further caution you that this is not something men take on themselves, but something which God or His ministering angels alone supervise. Do not trust some sentimental feeling, or "burning in the loins." These are serious matters, not to be trifled with by the foolish and aspiring - and NEVER an invitation to the carnal.

Discussion continues

This current topic will continue with two more posts. I don't normally post on weekends of late, but there will be more on this through Sunday, so I can finish the material.

Donald: I do not think you are guilty of adultery.

Cursing and Abominations

Before proceeding further, it is important to recognize that this is not an inconsequential matter. If someone guesses they can have plural wives and they are wrong, they have gone too far. They are taking a dangerous step. They risk eternity. Therefore this topic should not be approached casually, or because someone "thinks" this is proper. Either they know because God has instructed them by commandment, exclusively for the limited reasons it is allowed to be practiced, or they are involved in a serious, grievous sin.

In Section 132, words like "he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery" are included for those who proceed absent the Lord's command. (D&C 132: 43.) Those who go too far can "fall from his exaltation" when these things are done in violation of God's will. (D&C 132: 39.)

In Jacob, the improper taking of an additional wife is called "whoredoms and an abomination" by the Lord. (Jacob 2: 28.)

Those who proceed in our dispensation in the absence of the Lord's direct command to them are included among those the Lord described as gentiles filled with "whoredoms, and of secret abominations." (3 Ne. 16: 10.) If you are engaged in the practice, and recognize it is an abomination, and you will "repent and return unto [God's ways], saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel." (3 Ne. 16: 13.)

None but fools will trifle with this topic.

Read Section 132 and see if the Lord commands you to either take or be a multiple wife. Don't impose it in the language. Don't force it into the revelation. Instead, read it as if the practice is forbidden, an abomination, adultery, or whoredom. Where do you see it demands you to take or be a multiple wife?

Verses 2 through 28 explain celestial marriage without mentioning anything other than a single wife. This explanation of having a single wife sealed to the man is the law which "must be obeyed" or exaltation is impossible. And "if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory." (D&C 132: 3-4.) The law, however, is for a man and woman to be sealed together for eternity and to have that sealing ratified by "the Holy Spirit of Promise."

But it is a man (singular) and a woman (singular). For example:
"a man" and "a woman" and "he" and "she" and "him" and "her" (132: 15)
"a man" and "a wife" (132: 18)
"a man" and "a wife" (132: 19)
"a man" and "a wife" and "he" and "she" (132: 26)

These verses, from 2 through 28, speak in the singular throughout. One man. One woman. And these verses are the ones that speak of exaltation, thrones, dominions, kindgoms, principalities, all heights and depths. (132: 19.) In fact, the very verse where these things are mentioned is in connection with "a man marry a wife by" the Lord's word. (Id.)

Celestial marriage and the celestial law of inheriting exaltation is set out in the very revelation that mentions for the first time the eternal marriage covenant. This occurs ONLY in those verses which are describing marriage between "a man" and "a woman" and not elsewhere.

The focus of these verses is not on multiple wives. Rather the focus is on the preservation of marriage into eternity by God and by His word (132: 12) which is "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise." (132: 7.)

Therefore, the question is not whether you have multiple wives. The right questions are:
-Are you sealed by God?
-Are you sealed by God's word?
-Are you sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise?
If you do not obtain this promise sealed to you by God, through His word, sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, then it does not matter. "[I]f a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word." (132: 18.)

Your individual hopes, wishes, aspirations and ambitions are nothing. The only thing which will endure is that which is established by God. Or, more completely, by God, through His word, which is then sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

All of this discussion takes place in verses 2 through 28 of the revelation. None of it forces you to read it as referring to multiple wives. You cannot find the multiple wives information anywhere in these verses. If you think it is there, it is because you have put it there by your own interpretation. Multiple wives is NOT included.

The explanation for multiple wives begins after the explanation of what is required for exaltation. These verses permit two exceptions to the prior, mandatory requirement that marriage is limited to a man and a woman who are sealed by God, through His word, by the Holy Spirit of Promise. These two exceptions will be considered next.

To reaffirm the point of this post: If you guess wrong by taking multiple wives, your mistake is called "whoredoms" and "an abomination" and will condemn you. Unless you repent and return to God, you forfeit your exaltation.

Jacob and Section 132

Through Joseph Smith we have two scriptural sources dealing with plural wives. Jacob 2, in the Book of Mormon condemns the practice as "an abomination," but leaves it open to be practiced if the Lord commands. The reason the Lord would command is to "raise up seed unto [Him]."

Section 132, beginning at verse 29, discusses why earlier prophets took more than one wife. It "permits" taking more than one wife under two conditions. But Section 132 should be read in light of what Jacob taught regarding the limitations and purpose of having more than one wife.

Before carefully examining the scriptures, a bit of history is necessary. Joseph first learned about the subject during the translation of Jacob sometime in 1829. Oliver was with him when the answer was first received. Therefore, at least two people knew about the subject as early as 1829.

As the earlier post on William Clayton's Journal shows, Joseph did not put the revelation into writing until July 1843. Between 1829 and 1843, any explanation by Joseph (or Oliver) would have been verbal, private, and not necessarily understood properly, recorded correctly, or practiced openly. In other words, whatever happened between 1829 and 1843 is bound to be extremely difficult to accurately recreate. Those involved were trying to cover it up, and make it difficult and hopefully impossible to know it took place. They did not want it public.

Moreover, not everyone who was taken into confidence by Joseph was trustworthy, or honorable. Some men were predisposed to exploitation of vulnerable women. John C. Bennett, for example, was a sexual predator before coming to Nauvoo. When he became the Mayor and a member of the First Presidency, he learned about these unrecorded teachings and began to behave in a contemptable manner.

John Bennett would later publish salacious details of sexual misconduct in Nauvoo, attributing to Joseph some of his (Bennett's) own conduct. Some of what Bennett wrote was true (i.e., private taking of multiple wives) and some of it was sensational, untrue, and was a reflection of his own behavior projected onto others, most notably Joseph Smith.

The Bennett expose of Nauvoo underground sexual practices acquired increased credibility years later when Brigham Young began to openly practice and advocate taking plural wives. Some people who had not believed Bennett at first, changed their minds and took him as a credible source once the public revelation of plural marriage became international news.

Section 132 was not revealed publicly in 1843. When it was finally made public, it also seemed to vindicate Bennett's accusations about Nauvoo private behavior. The revelation was attributed (I think correctly) to Joseph Smith, and therefore it established a religious basis for the Bennett accusations stemming directly from Joseph.

In addition to Bennett, others also knew of the private taking of additional wives. The most vocal parties with inside information were critics of Joseph Smith who left the church. These disaffected former Mormons had little reason to tell an accurate story. They were trying to discredit the church, not to defend it. Even if they attempted to be "fair" in retelling what they knew, their accounts are colored by:
-Disaffection for Joseph Smith.
-Hostility to the religion.
-Questions about whether or not they fully understood the matter.
-Issues about how "hidden" and "secret" practices were explained.
-Their attempts to make themselves appear more moral than their private conduct actually reflected.

All of this strongly suggests to me that the words of Jacob and Section 132 need to be carefully studied, and the history of how the practice was conducted by the few who knew what was happening must be taken with some careful skepticism about its accuracy.

When characters like John Bennett and William Law were involved in seducing women and claiming there was a secret teaching allowing "spiritual wives" because Joseph Smith had actually discussed the principle with them, it becomes apparent that whatever Section 132 permits or does not permit, the principle can be abused. It was abused by these men, and other insiders. Joseph's public statements condemning adultery, and denouncing polygamy can be reconciled with Section 132. But to reconcile it all requires some knowledge about these events. It also requires recognition that the neat, tidy history that ignores these rather messy interpersonal conflicts and betrayals of trust is inadequate.

Plural wives is as unpleasant a topic as you encounter in our religion. However, its unpleasantness does not detract from the importance of sorting it out. Given the various conflicting charges and countercharges, it is a relief to just accept a superficial account and hope it is true. That applies to BOTH sides. BOTH those who reject the practice, as well as those who welcome it, need to be willing to sort through it and reach the correct conclusion.

Just because the fundamentalists have recognized more of the truth about the history does not mean they have sorted it out aright, nor that they are living a "higher" law. It may mean they are just as wrong about their conclusions as they think the church is for abandoning the practice.

I've taken the topic seriously. I've accorded the advocates' arguments respect. I think they are wrong. As I continue this discussion I'm hoping some of them may be persuaded there is still some of the story they haven't yet sorted out correctly.

Did Joseph Receive A Revelation?

Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants is not universally accepted as a revelation received by Joseph Smith. When the discussion cannot proceed beyond whether this originated from Joseph Smith, by revelation, the discussion goes nowhere. Therefore, the first step must be to resolve whether the revelation came through Joseph Smith, or was a later fabrication of Brigham Young and his inner circle of polygamists.

The following information persuades me Section 132 came through Joseph Smith and was reduced to writing on July 12, 1843:

The Nauvoo Diaries of William Clayton were written chronologically and have the following entries (exactly as in original):

July 11, 1843: At noon rode out to farm with Margt. P.M. J & family rode out in the carriage.

July 12, 1843: This A.M. I wrote a Revelation consisting of 10 pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon having many wives & concubines. After it was wrote Prests. Joseph and Hyrum presented it and read it to E. who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious. J told me to Deed all the unincumbered lots to E & the children. He appears much troubled about E.

July 13: 1843: This A.M. J sent for me & when I arrived he called me up into his private room with E. and there stated an agreement they had mutually entered into. they both stated their feelings on many subjects & wept considerable. O may the Lord soften her heart that she may be willing to keep and abide his Holy Law.

July 15, 1843: Made Deed for 1/2 S. B. Iowa from J. to Emma. Also a Deed to E. for over 60 city lots.

July 16, 1843: A.M. at home writing bro. Kimballs lecture. P.M. went to the Grove and heard Pres. J. preach on the law of the priesthood. He stated that Hyrum held the office of prophet to the church by birthright & he was going to have a reformation and the saints must regard Hyrum for he has authority. He showed that a man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife in this world or he will have no claim on her in the next. He said that he could not reveal the fulness of these things untill the Temple is completed &c.

July 17, 1843: A.M. at the Temple & at Prest. J's. conversed with J. & Hyrum on the priesthood.

In addition to the foregoing, I checked surrounding public events, and the diary is consistent with other records of those days. For example, the event on July 16th is recorded as having taken place "At Stand in Grove, West of Temple" and appears in a letter of Willard Richards to Brigham Young, the Joseph Smith diary kept by Willard Richards, the Levi Richards Diary and the Willard Richards Diary. The afternoon of the 16th also records a public meeting on the "Temple Stand" in the Franklin Richards, William Clayton, and Levi Richards diaries and in the Letter of Willard Richards to Brigham Young, as well as in the Joseph Smith diary kept by Willard Richards.

Disputes after Joseph's death also confirm a disagreement between Emma and the church over ownership in the Steamboat the Maid of Iowa.

These entries seem credible, and therefore I believe they show Section 132 was recorded on July 12, 1843 and originated from Joseph Smith. In addition, the August 12, 1843 meeting of the Nauvoo High Council records there was "teaching by Hyrum Smith" which four witnesses later confirmed included reading Section 132. These witnesses were Austin Cowles (who rejected the doctrine and left the church), David Fulmer, Thomas Grover, James Allred and Aaron Johnson. Hosea Stout was absent when Hyrum read the document, but was later told about the revelation. When Section 132 became public, Hosea Stout confirmed it "corresponded to what" he was told about the reading in August 1843.

It is possible to believe it a fabrication of Brigham Young. It was not made public until the 1850's, and the public disclosure was on Brigham Young's watch. But the document came into existence while Joseph was church president, and came through him. As much as a person may wish the document did not originate with Joseph Smith, the evidence appears to be more than adequate to show it did. It came from Joseph and was reduced to written form in July 1843. 

History, Lies, Good Faith and Myths

The topic of Mormonism's past practice/teaching of taking plural wives puts you squarely in the middle of problems in church history. Deliberate deception and public statements which contradict private behavior is a fact of Mormon history. This fact complicates the difficulty of knowing what is true and right, false and wrong, and whether something is a bona fide required part of "real" Mormonism.

The authenticity of the revelation (Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants) is debated. This debate is possible because of these problems with Mormon history.

To understand Mormonism requires a level of tolerance for deceit which some modern Mormons refuse to acknowledge. It is a natural reaction to want to put men on a pedestal. We resist any notion that would reduce them to anything less than completely truthful, honest in their dealings, and trustworthy in every statement they made. Therefore, when you encounter deliberate dis-information campaigns designed to mislead others, it is natural to react with disbelief.

The truth matters more than our reaction to it. Whether we find it troubling or not, the truth is valuable enough to warrant study even if it causes discomfort. The practice of taking plural wives is one of those topics requiring discomfort to wade through it and reach a conclusion.

There are some major themes in the argument advanced by those who claim it is essential to salvation. These include the sometimes inconsistent  arguments that:

-It is required for exaltation.
-Those who live it are living a "higher law" and those who do not are living a lower law.
-Those living a "higher law" cannot submit to authority by those who live a lower law.
-President Taylor foresaw the discontinuance of the practice, and he gave "keys" to allow it to continue, outside the church.
-The Manifesto was merely a public relations document and did not reflect a serious abandonment of the practice.
-Plural marriages were performed by the church, including the president of the church after the 1890 Manifesto.
-The church's final abandonment occurred because of the Smoot Senate Hearings, and the pressure brought through interrogating President Joseph F. Smith.
-The "second manifesto" written in 1904 was the real basis for discontinuing the practice.
-Apostles Cowley and Taylor were forced to resign because of the "second manifesto" and the church never sustained it as binding; therefore it is not binding.
-The "fundamentalists" were allowed to use church Temples, including the Salt Lake Temple, to conduct plural marriages through the administration of David O. McKay.
-Several unpublished revelations, including to John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, show the Lord's insistence on continuing the practice.

Those who utterly reject the practice claim the sometimes inconsistent arguments that:

-Joseph Smith's public declarations are more reliable than a secret revelation.
-Joseph Smith is not responsible for Section 132.
-Brigham Young fabricated the revelation, and pawned if off as an authentic revelation from Joseph Smith, but it was never made public in Joseph's lifetime.
-The church's declaration on marriage was sustained by the church membership and precludes multiple wives.
-The Book of Mormon condemns the practice.
-Taking multiple wives is an "abomination" which the Lord condemns.
-The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 have "keys' and they will never be lost.
-The affidavits from putative plural wives were given long after the fact, and in a time when the practice was being challenged by the RLDS movement.
-Emma Smith denies it was practiced.
-Joseph "repented" and changed his mind; claiming he had been deceived in practicing plural wives.
-There are no children proven to have been Joseph's other than those born through Emma Smith.

This is not exhaustive of the positions, but a reasonable starting point. All of the foregoing arguments have some historical basis to support them. People who make these and other arguments are not ignoring history. They are choosing sources; sometimes between what a single source said in one place and in another.

It is not possible to accept what everyone said in every instance and come out with a single version of the events. Hence the problem of history, lies, good faith and myths which cloud this topic.

I'm going to try this week to explain why the practice is, in my view, not a necessary (or advisable) part of Mormonism. Those who care intensely about this topic can find material to both support and oppose the explanation I give.

Tattoos and Plural Wives

If we convert someone who has a tattoo we do not refuse to baptize them. If a person born in the church leaves and returns again covered with tattoos, we don't refuse them fellowship. Nor do we expect anyone to undergo the painful process of having them burned away using a laser.

When the church finally abandoned the practice of taking plural wives, one of the concessions the church wanted the government to make was to allow all existing plural marriages to become legal. No new ones could be contracted, but the existing ones needed to be tolerated under the law.

Heber J. Grant was the last church president with plural wives. He was church president until his death in May 1945. The church was led by a polygamist well into World War II.

Even though we abandoned the practice publicly in 1890 and privately in 1904, we were led by polygamists at the head until respectively, 55 and 41 years later.

The argument used to persuade the government was that it was absolutely cruel to deprive children born into these plural wife families of both parents. Breaking up families was unkind, unnecessary and would cause more harm than good.

Today there are many people who are in plural marriages who ought to be the target of efforts to reconvert them to the Gospel. We stay away from them because they have relationships we condemn. They are, in a sense, tattooed and we are unwilling to accept them back unless they will undergo the painful ordeal of disengaging from their unapproved relationship. We ask more of them than we were willing to allow the government to ask of us when we abandoned the practice.

If a polygamist family is willing to return, we should welcome them. We should allow them full fellowship, and admit them back to practice faith with us. They should know we condemn the practice and we will preach against it. We will encourage and teach their children to discontinue the practice, but we should accept them back into fellowship.

With Warren Jeffs' latest decree limiting all fathering of children to his fifteen chosen inner circle, I suspect there will be a great number willing to abandon his leadership and who would reconsider fellowship with the church. The conditions we have set for reentry are so cruel, so damaging to these families, that we are essentially saying they can never return.

I would like to see polygamy ended. I would like to see those who practice it reconverted. I do not think we can reasonably expect to break apart their families. We should not break up families as a condition of return.

I've written about Section 132 in my last book. This week I'm going to return to that topic and spend a few days discussing plural marriage. I hope it will be a friendly invitation to those who practice it to reconsider whether they can get closer to God by returning to faith among the Latter-day Saints. I, for one, would be willing to fellowship with them. Though I condemn the practice and believe it should never have continued, I am not unrealistic about any existing obligations.

The Trick to Avoiding Apostasy

We began this week with the topic of apostasy. That is where we will end. It is easy to distract and fool people. It is also easy to keep in mind what is essential and will save, and what is distracting and cannot save. Here are a few thoughts that can prevent apostasy:

Never confuse the symbol for the reality.

Never accept a man as your Lord, but reserve worship for Christ alone. Everything and everyone else is idolatry.

Always bear in mind that Christ alone is the keeper of the gate, and He cannot be misled.

Always participate fully in the rites given to you as a gift from God, performed by the priests, and be worthy before God when you do so.

Take every gift from God in gratitude, and recognize His hand in what you receive.

Be grateful for what you are given, and never think yourself better than another because you think you understand more. You are measured against perfection, not your fellow man.

Forgive if you want to be forgiven.

Leaders deserve your best efforts to support them in the heavy burdens they carry. Uphold, rather than criticize them.

Most errors deserve your pity and forgiveness - not your judgment.

It is not criticism to search for truth, even if the truth exposes mistakes and errors of men. Be gracious with failure, and not distracted or preoccupied by it.

Nobody's failure can prevent your success. No other organization or person can bring you along in their success. You are required to connect with God independent of all others. Life eternal is to know Him and His Son.

Love your spouse, because this is your own flesh. There was never a saved man without a woman, nor a saved woman without a man. Adam and Eve are "the image of God" for "in the image of God created He him, male and female created He them."

It is in the private, unobserved moments when you learn the most about yourself. What you think, what you do, how you act when you think you are alone reveals more about your heart than anything else. If you are distant from God, begin to return in those moments alone.

God does live. Never doubt that. Just accept it and move forward to know Him.

It is a thin veil, not a wall, that separates you from God. Do not let it become insurmountable. It was always meant to be parted.

Fear is the opposite of faith.

Do not let borrowed fears become the barrier to your faith.

Men cannot save you, but they can condemn you. You cannot respect men too much without respecting God too little.

Religion has been the source of most of mankind's cruelty, rebellion and apostasy. Never think your own religious observances can or will connect you with God. They are only habits until you reach out and speak with God directly. Ministers, priests, Rabbis, Elders, preachers, Fathers, Presidents, Apostles and even prophets are not God. Nor should any of these roles be allowed to distance you from God.

Saving belief requires you to accept the truth. Saving faith requires you to act in conformity with correct belief. Saving knowledge comes from contact with God.

Salvation and Signs

There are "signs" that show a person is not apostate. Mormon's teachings to his son recount the signs which show God is saving souls. These teachings are in Chapter 7 of Moroni's book. The whole text is worth careful study.

Moroni records that God will let all mankind know with power and great glory at the last day that "the day of miracles" has never ceased. (Moroni 7: 35.) Nor have angels ceased to appear and teach those who are in need of instruction. (Moroni 7: 36.) Nor has the "power" of the Holy Ghost receded. (Id.) This is because these things are required for "one man upon the face [of the earth] to be saved." (Id.)

When there is faith, there are miracles. (Moroni 7: 37.) When there is faith, then angels minister to the faithful. (Id.)

If the time comes when there are no more miracles and there are no more angels ministering to mankind, then it is because of "unbelief, and all is lost." (Id.)

Moroni explains in simplicity and clarity: "For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ, save they shall have faith in his name; wherefore, if these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also; and awful is the state of man, for they are as though there had been no redemption made." (Moroni 7: 38.)

The priestly tradition mentioned here can provide the rites, teach the doctrine and preserve the truth, but the underlying reality must be pursued for salvation. Moroni explains how we must push beyond the mere symbol to the reality.

Rites may teach us about conversing with the Lord through the veil. However, when the rite is over it leaves you with only the idea, the outline, the admonition of how the Gospel operates. Then it is up to you to pursue the practice of the rites by your life, your faithfulness, and calling upon God to know Him.

Signs do not produce faith and never have. Signs do, always, and will forever, follow faith. (D&C 63: 9.) Moroni taught sound doctrine.

For each of us, the priestly tradition is never enough. Ancient Israel had their rites, observances, feasts and rituals. They could acquire ceremonial cleanliness by following the rules for purification. But, as the Lord observed, outward cleanliness can belie the inward filth if they failed to connect with God. (Matt. 23: 25-28.) It is always easier to be ritually clean and religiously pure than it is to be approved of God. It is much easier to rise inside an organization than it is to part the veil.

However, for those who seek God, no amount of praise in this world can tempt them to ignore the path of faith where they encounter the Holy Ghost, angels, the Lord, and the Father. (John 14: 23; D&C 130: 3.)

God's People

When God begins work with people, the group becomes "chosen," and therefore the focus of His continuing efforts to save mankind. Although "chosen people" do not always remain faithful to Him, they do remain the center of His work.

A good illustration of this was during the Second Temple period in ancient Israel. Throughout this time, the people were apostate. Margaret Barker's work reconstructing the era is perhaps as good a job as any scholar has been able to accomplish to date. Israel was led by corrupt and uninspired priests. The nation descended generation by generation until, by the time the New Testament era opened, the nation's "king" was appointed by Rome from a well-connected family having only quasi-Jewish lineage and no real devotion to their  faith. The High Priest was also a political appointment, based on family patronage and bribery.

Into this corrupt society, the dawn of a new Dispensation conformed to the old patterns of the fallen, idolatrous religion. The angel Gabriel came to Zacharias in the place and time that honored the ceremonies established by Moses.

Zacharias was in the Holy Place, before the veil of the Temple, burning incense and offering the morning prayer. The prayer asked for the light of God's presence to return to Israel. As the cloud of incense ascended from the altar upward, symbolizing the ascent of prayers to God, Gabriel appeared on the right side of the altar. (Luke 1: 11.) This is the exact spot a person would stand if they emerged from the Holy of Holies of the Temple, conforming to the then existing religious pattern. The angel announced to Zacharias that "thy prayer is heard" (Luke 1: 13), meaning that the set prayer for God's presence to return to Israel was accepted. The religious pattern was vindicated.

Though Israel had endured hundreds of years of apostate decline, when the time to refresh and restore arrived, the work resumed inside the existing pattern. God honored the religion of His chosen people, even though the religion was at the time fallen, worldly and apostate.

Zacharias lived among this apostate people and yet was unhindered by it. His prayer was heard, the angel was sent, and God's promise to return to Israel was not only vindicated, but Zacharias was told he would have a son who would "go before [the Lord] in the spirit and power of Elias." (Luke 1: 13, 17.)

Similarly, the prophet Simeon and the prophetess Anna lived among a fallen and apostate people, but honored the traditions, kept the faith, and saw beyond the evil of their day. Each received by revelation a promise they would live to see their Lord come into the flesh. (Luke 2: 25-38.) These faithful believers, both male and female, were not hindered by the apostasy then underway.

The Lord follows the same pattern throughout, because He is the same yesterday, today and forever. (Moroni 10: 19.) Therefore, once the work recommenced through Joseph Smith, and there was a "chosen people," the work will always continue, or if necessary begin anew among the same "chosen people." Though the gentiles will fail, as Christ prophesied would eventually occur (3 Ne. 16: 10), the work will not be abandoned.

General apostasy, therefore, cannot prevent individual participation in the fullness of God's promises. Though it may be interrupted for three or four generations when there is rebellion (Ex. 20: 5), when it resumes it will begin among the same people where it left off.

This is the pattern of the Lord. And mankind's failure does nothing to prevent eventual fulfillment of the Lord's promises. (D&C 1: 38.)

The Prophetic and the Priestly

There are two approaches to preserving a belief system. Scholars refer to these as "sophic" and "mantic," but the scriptural language would be "the priestly" and "the prophetic."

Priests deal with rites, ordinances, commandments and procedures. This durable approach to preserving a belief system allows a dispensation of the Gospel to continue to have a presence, long after a founder has died. Moses, for example, established a system of rites and observances which then became the religious fare of priests who perpetuated the system from the time of Moses until the coming of Christ.

Prophets deal with God and angels. They receive new insight, promises and covenants. Their conduct can even appear to violate the traditions of the religion they follow, but that is only because they are not bound to the tradition as practiced by the priests. Instead they have penetrated into the underlying meaning, the original power, the purpose of the rites.

Dispensations are founded by those who combine both traditions. Moses was a prophet, and established priestly rites. Christ was a prophet and more, and He also established priestly rites. Similarly, Joseph Smith was an authentic Dispensation Head who was both a prophet and established priestly rites.

The reason an apostasy can be concealed from the view of religious believers is because they confuse the presence of continuing priestly tradition with both. They do not notice the prophetic presence has left. Concealing the fact that the prophetic presence is gone is possible because priests focus on authority and make that idea the central, even controlling issue for salvation.

Catholics held a monopoly for a thousand years using the idea of "keys from St. Peter" as the foundation upon which the religion was built. Not until the eastern Orthodox faith departed was there any choice to be made between "keys" in Rome and "keys" in Constantinople. It took Martin Luther to finally peel away the fraud of "keys" independent from righteousness. His expositions on the "priesthood of faith" allowed a divorce between claims of priestly "keys" and faith in God.

It took Martin Luther's revolution in thinking several hundred years to create a religious landscape where Joseph Smith and a new Dispensation of the Gospel could be introduced. These things move slowly because mankind is generally imprisoned by their traditions and are incapable of seeing the difference between the priestly and the prophetic traditions. This blindness becomes the tool through which the priestly tradition controls mankind.

Priestly tradition is stable, authoritarian, controlling, focused on outward conduct, amasses wealth, power and prestige. Priestly tradition can continue in the absence of spirit, revelation or even godliness. Priestly tradition can become the friend of government, business and empires, and can work hand-in-hand with the powers of this world.

Prophetic tradition is unruly, unpredictable, and challenges the god of this world. It cannot work with the powers of this world, but strikes at its authority. It cannot exist without the direct involvement of God and angels and it cannot be divorced from continuing revelation.

You can have both without an apostasy. You can have the prophetic without an apostasy. You can have a priestly tradition exist without an apostasy, but that is much less likely. In any complete apostasy, the presence of the priestly tradition is essential to be able to accomplish the "trick" referred to in the post yesterday.

The Trick to Apostasy

The trick to successfully pulling off an apostasy is to distract people into thinking there hasn't been one. The "believers" need to think everything remains intact.

So the issue of "apostasy" becomes a discussion about individuals and individual conformity to the expectations of the group. The subject can then be a topic that polite, fellow-believers can discuss without ever searching into the overall condition of a fallen people.

The Jews mocked efforts to tell them they were apostate. They thought it was humorous when Lehi preached the idea. (1 Ne. 1: 19.) Because they were so very religious, so devout, so unassailably active in following God, the idea was absolutely laughable that they were apostate.

The Apostle Paul said the problem would begin at the top with the shepherds, who would teach them falsehoods as truth. (Acts 20: 29-30.) These new leaders would have only a form of godliness, without any real power to save. (2 Tim. 3: 5.)

The Christian world adopted another, false replacement of the original church. It became so universal it was hailed as the Universal, or Catholic Church. It ruled from the rivers to the ends of the earth as the only official form of the faith established by Christ.

To pull this off Satan must be concerned with the "macro" institutional failure, not just individuals falling away. It is the small, minor spirits who follow Lucifer who engage in petty tempting of individuals to sin. Success for the Adversary is not accomplished in petty enterprises. He wants failure for the whole, so none can be saved. For that, apostasy must be universal.

He has never succeeded by admitting there has been a failure. The trick is always to have the apostasy come unnoticed, unacknowledged and from within. (See 3 Ne. 16: 10.)

The topic is worth studying. When apostasy is noticed, acknowledged and exposed, then it is possible to repent and return. Until then, it progresses apace, discarding and rejecting what might have been given. All the while being happily ignored by "believers" whose devotion will not save.

Since Christ predicted that at some point the latter-day gentiles would reject the fullness (Id.), we probably should consider what the Book of Mormon has to say about the subject.

To finish the thought about the "trick to apostasy" the D&C has a remarkable statement. Lucifer succeeds when he manages to get us NOT to reject ordinances, but to change them. As soon as they are changed, they are broken. (D&C 1: 15.) That is an important step. Because then religious people can continue to claim they follow a true religion, while practicing one that has been broken. These practitioners become like the ancient Jews, who mocked Lehi because they knew they were still righteous. They knew Lehi was foolish, even fraudulent. They still had the truth, the ordinances, the temple, and the priesthood. Lehi was just a mistaken crank.

Mosiah 3: 26-27

Mosiah 3: 26-27

"Therefore, they have drunk out of the cup of the wrath of God, which justice could no more deny unto them than it could deny that Adam should fall because of his partaking of the forbidden fruit; therefore, mercy could have claim on then no more forever.


And their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever. Thus has the Lord commanded me. Amen."

The strong, direful, terrible warnings continue from the angel:

Those who ignore the obligation will, in the afterlife, have:
"drank out of the cup of the wrath of God..."

Notice this is phrased in almost identical language to Christ's terrible suffering in the atonement. (See 3 Ne. 11: 11; D&C 19: 18.) This is so awful an experience the Lord cannot capture adequately in revelation the words to describe it. (D&C 19: 15.)

"mercy could have claim on them no more forever."
Meaning that if they choose this path, they will suffer. There will be nothing to mitigate what they will endure. Mercy will not intervene and lessen the ordeal.

How often has the Lord used such terrible phrases to describe the damned as:

"torment as a lake of fire and brimstone"--because we all know the pain of having our skin burned. It quickly conveys the idea of torment into our minds,

"whose flames are unquenchable"--because it will burn away until nothing impure remains,

"whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever"--because this process is eternal and will be the experience of anyone and everyone, worlds without end, who merit this purging and refining fire.

These words from the angel were delivered to a king, to be taught to his people, in a gathering in which all those who attended then covenanted with God. The audience would "have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually." (Mosiah 5: 2.)

Why does it require this message from the angel to produce this result?
Could they be saved by praising them, telling them they were chosen and the elect of God?
Could they be saved by telling them they were a royal priesthood?
Could they be saved by telling them that all was well with them, they prosper in the land because God is with them?

Why is it necessary to tell them of hell?
Of damnation?
Of eternal suffering and unquenchable fire?

In The Second Comforter I remarked "there is no veil to our feelings." That is true, but the feelings one experiences by coming into the presence of God are almost universally fear and dread. The scriptures confirm how fearful this has been to mankind:

To Abraham, it was a "horror" to draw near the Lord. (Gen. 15: 12-13.)
To Isaiah it was woeful, and terrible. (Isa. 6: 5.)
To Daniel and his companions, quaking fell upon them, many fled, leaving Daniel alone. (Dan. 10: 7-8.)
Mormon explains how men react to God's presence as being "racked with a consciousness of guilt." (Mormon 9: 3-4.)

When popular mythology constructs fantasies of coming before the Lord, they make it happy - not dreadful. They despise the call to repent because it disagrees with their happy myths. The angel is not overstating the case. He is explaining the great gulf that exists between fallen man and God. (See Moses 1: 10.) The unrepentant and foolish are completely unprepared for God's presence. (Mormon 9: 2-6.) The words of the angel are attempting to give some indication to the faithful of how deeply, how completely, and how great the scope of repentance must be to avoid the similar pains of death and hell the Lord suffered on our behalf.

We delude ourselves when we think the angel's message was not meant for all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If the King Benjamin's audience acquired their salvation by coming down in the depths of humility and repentance (Mosiah 4: 2), then we fool ourselves if we think anything less will be expected of us.

Was the angel bitter? Angry? Harsh? Unkind? Of the wrong "spirit?" Not the kind of messenger we should expect would be sent from God?

Was his message not kind enough? Not inspiring? Not faith promoting?

Can an angel or a prophet ever save anyone if they do not focus on the great burden left for mankind to repent and return to God? Will flattery ever save a man?

Samuel the Lamanite was sent to cry repentance. He put the case clearly to them and to us, but his words are no more comforting than the angel's words were to King Benjamin and his people:

"Behold ye are worse than they; for as the Lord liveth, if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil.

But behold, if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet.

Yea, ye will lift him up, and ye will give unto him of your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is well, then ye will not find fault with him.

O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?" (Hel. 13: 26-29.)

The Apostle Paul described such folks as having "itching ears." (2 Tim. 4: 3-4.) It is a fairly apt description. These folks think themselves righteous, but they are unrepentant, unforgiven, and unsaved. They follow a religion which cannot save them, because it has become nothing more than a false idol, appealing to their vanity.

Mosiah 3: 25

Mosiah 3:25


"And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of misery and endless torment, from whence they can no more return; therefore they have drunk damnation to their own souls."

The angel now transitions the message to King Benjamin forward to the time of the final judgment. In that setting he suggests a scene to the unrepentant. Before looking at the words, however, why do you suppose the description is from the vantage point of the damned? Why not from the vantage point of the saved? The final three verses of the message are all viewed from failure, rather than from success. Why?

Is this "negative?"

Does this make you think the angel is offensive? He doesn't "have the Spirit" with him? That you "don't get a good feeling" when you listen to his words?

Do you think the angel should be ignored because he makes you "feel bad" by the things he speaks? Would you prefer to hear a "more positive message" Things like this just "can't be from God" because of how they make you "feel?"

If this is an angel from God speaking, and the above questions reflect your attitude about a message warning you to repent, then perhaps it is your attitude that is wrong - not the angel or his message. Perhaps the annoyance of being awakened from your deep sleep is worth the angel telling you in unmistakable and harsh terms that you are about to be lost if you do not repent. Perhaps the angel would prefer to deliver a hopeful, even lighthearted message, but the words orignate from God. God's efforts are to bring you to immortality and eternal life. (Moses 1: 39.) Maybe God has a better view of our awful state than do we.

The angel speaks in terms of:
-"consigned to an awful view"
What does this suggest? What would be "awful" about failing to repent? Why is it a "view?" What will we "see" in that day?

-"own guilt and abominations"
Why guilt? What "abominations" attach to every soul who does not repent? Why is religious error, pride in believing falsehoods, and failure to repent always an "abomination?"

-"doth cause them to shrink"
Isn't this the same agony Christ experience in Gethsemane? (D&C 19: 18.) Why would you "shrink" from the presence of God? What does "shrink" mean?

-"into a state of misery"
Why would you want to withdraw into a state of misery? What is it about failing to repent that causes you to behave this way when judged by God?

-"endless torment from which there can be no return"
Why is this the formula to describe the reaction? (D&C 19: 6-12.) What is it about this experience that will last forever in the mind of anyone who suffers it? (D&C 19: 15-18.) Why would this haunt the person forevermore? Even if it came to an end at some point, why are you "unable to return" from that experience? What trauma is caused by this that can be avoided by repenting?

-"drunk damnation to their souls"
Why this graphic description? What is it about this experience that makes the very soul be damned by the ordeal?

Is the angel overreacting? Is this terrible assortment of adjectives necesssary? Why would God send an angel with this message to King Benjamin (and to us)?

Mosiah 3: 24

Words from God, delivered by someone who is authorized to speak them, "stand as a bright testimony against this people." (Mosiah 3: 24.) It is a "bright testimony" because it illuminates the wickedness and hard hearts of the people when they reject it. Or, alternatively, it is "bright" because it opens the mind of those who will receive it, and they become enlightened by receiving truth from God. Either way, it is a "bright testimony" and will cut against all who fail to respond by repenting.

The purpose of the message is to make everyone aware of their duty to follow God. That purpose becomes most fully understood "in the judgment day" when the Lord's messengers stand beside Him. (Moroni 10: 34; 2 Ne. 33: 11.) It will then be obvious who He sent and who pretended to be sent. (Deut. 18: 20.)

The angel then says "every man shall be judged according to his works." (Mosiah 3: 24.) This means what you "do" in response to the warning to repent is what determines your final fate. Your "works" matter because if you respond by repenting, then you will "work out your salvation." (Philippians. 2: 12.) If not, then you have procrastinated and will be damned for your failure to work. (Alma 34: 33.)

The symmetry and simplicity of the message is astonishing. Everyone can understand it, but that is never the challenge. The challenge is always whether or not to take it seriously enough to act on it.

Acting on it does not involve a public display. It only involves what goes on inside your heart. You repent before God, and come to Him with a broken heart and contrite spirit and beg for forgiveness. When the Lord forgives, then you change from the inside out. The only real change that matters comes from within. Outward display first is artificial. When a new heart is inside a man, then the outward behavior, and eventually even countenance, will change to reflect what lies within the man.

Given the seriousness of the message, you would think all who hear it would at least consult with God before turning away. However, it has always been the most religious who will not listen to a message of repentance.

Traditions and social reinforcement from others who think alike, all prevent the message to repent from getting through. Instead of a message of repentance, mankind prefers a prophet who tells them they are good. They are justified. They are righteous! They are chosen! God loves them in their sins! They need only pray, pay and obey and all will be well with them! Then people do pay, so that such characters become rich and powerful. (Helaman 13: 26-28.)

There is perhaps no greater revelation of the plan of salvation ever composed than the Book of Mormon. Beginning with Mosiah the text is abridged by Mormon. I think, however, this chapter from Mosiah was left as in the original. What Mormon did here was keep intact the transcript of the angel's message. I can almost hear it echoing still. Can't you?

Mosiah 3: 23

"And now I have spoken the words which the Lord God hath commanded me." (Mosiah 3: 23.)

The angel added nothing. He hid nothing. He delivered what the Lord told him to deliver.

These are not merely the words of an angel. Becuase the angel certifies they originated from God, they are the words of God. (D&C 1: 38.)

When anyone, man or angel, is entrusted with a message from God, the message is God's. God makes no distinction between the messenger and Himself. The words "shall all be fulfilled." (Id.)

This system of empowering a messenger with a message, and then holding mankind to account may seem too slender a thread to have power. The truth is that the power is in the words, not in who speaks them. It does not matter that they come from a frail, elderly King from another time who has no authority over us today. It does not matter that he was alone at night with an unnamed angel without a second witness to vindicate the words. It is true and binding because:

1. It agrees with and does not contradict any other message from God.
2. It preaches repentance and warns us of consequences.
3. The words are independently corrobrated by the Spirit, if we read with the Spirit.
4. The words have been certified to us by our own inquiry (Moroni 10: 4-5.)

This is how the Lord sends His message. Through a solitary figure like John the Baptist, or Samuel the Lamanite, or Abinadi, or Jonah, or Amos, or Isaiah, or so many others. The message is the credential. It puts us to the obligation of then seeking to know if it is true or not. For that we must turn to God.

The message originates with God, and the message drives us to Him to determine if it is true.

The Lord's ways are ever the same. We get no less a challenge in our own day.

As you reflect on this you can see why Zion will be a "city" and not an intercontinental, multi-million member organization spread throughout the world. It will be small. It will be local. (D&C 133: 12.) The Saints will be gathered from all the world into Zion. (1 Ne. 14: 14.) This is because once a messenger has delivered "the words which the Lord God hath commanded me," then we are responsible for how we react and whether or not we repent. If we repent, angels will gather us. (D&C 77: 11.) If we do not, they will not gather us.

Mosiah 3: 20-22

The angel foretells of a time when "knowledge of a Savior shall spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue, and people." (Mosiah 3: 20.) This raises a question about the word "knowledge" and its meaning in the context of this verse:
-Does it mean "awareness," or that people have heard of Christ?
-Does it mean to "know," or to have met Him?

Almost always in the Book of Mormon the term "knowledge" involving Christ involves the second meaning of having met Him. In this verse, however, the context raises the possibility it is in fact the first. That is, once people are put on notice that there is a Savior, they have a duty to investigate. The burden is on them to inquire and learn what the Savior can save them from, and on what conditions He will save.

If you are being cautious, then you would use the first meaning and assume the angel is saying that as soon as you become aware of a Savior, you need to then seek for salvation through Him.

If you are reckless and willing to take a great, eternal risk, then you will confine the angel's meaning to the second, and will assume the burden is not imposed until the Lord has appeared to you. That, however, seems self-defeating. The Lord will not appear to you until you have met the conditions. Those conditions involve obedience.

The angel explains that once one is aware of the existence of a Savior for mankind because this information has been spread throughout the world, then "none shall be found blameless." (Mosiah 3: 21.) Or, in other words, the Lord will hold every person to account for how they responded to the news of a Savior. Once they know of Him, they must pursue Him. Like the wise men who embarked on a two-year journey from the east to come and worship Him, we are also obligated to seek after Him. (Matt. 2: 1-11.)

This burden on man is imposed as a reasonable responsibility for anyone who has learned of a Savior. When we have that news, we have that duty.

The duty is to come before God "through repentance and faith on the Lord God Omnipotent." (Mosiah 3: 21.) Here the angel uses three titles for Christ:
"Lord" because we are to obey Him.
"God" because we are to worship Him.
"Omnipotent" because we are assured He has the power to save.

And so the obligation remains for us to "repent" to be saved. This is why, of course, any true prophet will always preach repentance. Men can only be saved through repentance. Anything which does not alert mankind they must repent is foolish and vain. Therefore, if a prophet is saying anything other than repentance they are failing in their obligation to God and to their fellow man.

Even if we never meet a prophet of God we have the words of an angel before us. We do not need to have another person declare the conditions for our salvation to us, because we have the words warning us of the duty we bear.

The words of the angel impose upon the people of King Benjamin the duty to repent and "they [are] found no more blameless" because of the words of the angel. (Mosiah 3: 22.) You also have them before you. Therefore you are no longer blameless. You must repent, or you will be cast off because you are judged on the basis of the words given you. You have the words of an angel before you.

There are conditions for salvation, and the Lord can impose those conditions immediately after sending an angel to warn people. It does not matter if you take the warning seriously. The Lord has done what is required to make you accountable. You are left without any excuse.

One of the signs of authenticity in the Book of Mormon is the existence of passages like this one. It is an authentic ancient form that goes back to the beginning. The Lord delivers the message and immediately men are accountable.

King Benjamin, alone and at night, receives instructions from an angel. We have never met King Benjamin, don't have a duty to sustain him, nor reason to respect him, but we receive a written transcript of the audience between one man and an angel sent from God. We are accountable for what is contained in the warning.

How oft would the Lord have gathered us, but we will not see what stares us plainly in the face! The Lord does the same thing generation after generation. So few ever notice, however, even when it is as plain as words can be. (2 Ne. 32: 7-8.)

The Perfect Example

The answer yesterday was the perfect example. It was chosen because it fit the issue exactly.

The answer did not attempt to explain whether "Adam-God" was right or wrong, true or false, or to side Brigham Young, Orson Pratt or President Kimball. The point is that "doctrine" becomes "false doctrine" depending on who you listen to and when you tune into the teachings.

Which is the point of the answer. YOU must sort it out, because the church will ebb and flow, and cannot be relied upon to have stable doctrine. Indeed, the reason Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is now out of print is because of shifting positions.

Yesterday's post did not explain my view on Adam as God, nor have I ever explained what I think on the topic or why.

I appreciate the many comments. Clearly there is a lot of interest and strongly held opinion on the subject.

Response to a Comment

In response to a comment, perhaps the most easily shown "mistake" is President Brigham Young's claim of Adam as our God. This teaching was opposed by Orson Pratt from the time it was introduced. After hearing the doctrine advanced by President Young as a revelation from God, the following took place on March 11, 1856:

"A very serious conversation took place between President B. Young and Orson Pratt upon doctrine. O.P. was directly opposed to the President's views and freely expressed his entire disbelief in them after being told by the President that things were so and so in the name of the Lord. He was firm in the position that the President's word in the name of the Lord was not the word of the Lord to him." The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Volume 2, p. 1061.

President Brigham Young was opposed by Orson Pratt. Brigham Young was the church president at the time, and for decades after. Later his "doctrine" that he claimed God revealed to him was denounced by President Spencer Kimball in general conference.

President Kimball in October 1976 general conference stated the following: "We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Our Own Liahona, Ensign, November 1976.

This "doctrine" was taught by President Young, opposed when taught by one of the Twelve, and later denounced by President Kimball. This is the same as the church's teachings on priesthood being abandoned, and earlier teachings, when taught by earlier church leaders, were claimed to have been made "in the absence of revelation."

This is not a problem for me, and should not be a problem for you. The errors of men and the doctrinal mistakes which get advanced cannot, do not, and will not alter the truth. Orson Pratt was ultimately vindicated for disbelieving in "Adam-God." Anyone who today holds correct views will ultimately be vindicated. It is the prerogative of the church leaders to claim priority in teaching. When they are mistaken or wrong, that will eventually be discovered, abandoned, and their errors will be made known. In the meantime, it is your right to search for and believe in truth, even if the church does not presently recognize it. As long as you do not make it a practice of publicly opposing the church leaders, there is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with them. It is your duty to study and find the truth, and that duty exists independent of faithfully supporting the leaders.

Notice that Orson Pratt did not leave the church. He disagreed, but served in the Twelve. He did not start a splinter group, nor attempt to unseat President Young. They disagreed and they worked together. This is what believers do.

You do not need to surrender your own independent search for truth, even when you disagree with others who are also Mormon. We share far more in common, even with doctrinal differences, than we will ever share with Historic Christianity. You belong in the church, even if you are not in complete agreement with some of its current teachings.

Mosiah 3: 19

The angel asserts that "the natural man is an enemy to God." (Mosiah 3: 19.) Why is that so?

What is it about the natural state of man that, when a little child he is saved and anyone who thinks otherwise is in the gall of bitterness and offending God, but when grown is "an enemy to God?" How can these two statements at the opposite ends of the spectrum come from the same angel in the same message?

How does man become, in his "natural" state an enemy to God? What is it about this environment and the natural progression into adulthood that, as man becomes tempted he also becomes alienated from God? What forces contribute to this alienation?
-Hunger?
-Fatigue?
-Boredom?
-Puberty?
-Emotional insecurities?
-Abuse by others?
-Ignorance?

Is it inevitable that all develop into a condition where they are not only distant from God, but an "enemy to God?" How does that happen? What is going on here that you fall to this state? Is it "natural" for you to go through that?

If you are going to become by nature alienated from God, then how can you be certain you are not in your "natural" state as you go about practicing your religion? What is there about religion itself which appeals to the "natural" man? How does religion contribute to:
-Pride?
-Anger?
-Judgment?
-Hatred?
-Abuse of others?
-Calling that which is good evil?
-Arrogance?
-Killing the messengers, and even the Son of God?

It is inevitable that the "natural" man who is religious is no better than the "natural" man who is irreligious? Can a man be both "an enemy to God" and devoted to some religion? Are not all the prophets of the past killed by those who were religous? Even the mob that killed Joseph was led by lay ministers. How can you ever be certain your own "devotion" is not, in fact, the faith of an "enemy to God?"

How can any person avoid this catastrophe? What does the angel recommend to King Benjamin?

-"yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit" (Mosiah 3: 19.)
The word "yield" seems weak. The force of the Spirit is to invite, to request or to petition you. You are free to reject, to resist, and to refuse.

-"become a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord" (Id.)
The idea of "becoming" something suggests change. And how does one go about changing "through the atonement of Christ?" What does one have to do to acquire this change? How is the Holy Spirit and taking advantage of the atonement of Christ related to one another?

-"becometh as a little child"
How is this done? I'll not repeat the chapter on this from The Second Comforter, but will only remind you that it requires something more than passivity. It requires the relentless search, as children do, for undertsanding and knowledge. It requires curiosity and pursuit of truth, as little children do.

-"submissive"
To who? Men? Your peers? Your political, social, cultural, religious, or educational leaders? Or submissive to "the Holy Spirit" which only "entices" and never controls? If you submit to the arm of flesh, even the arm of a good man, are you really "submissive" in the sense spoken of here by the angel?

-"meek"
In the sense explained in Beloved Enos.

-"humble"
As between you and heaven, not as between you and the world. Indeed, since conflict with the world is inevitable if you follow the Lord, then humility is reckoned from a different vantage point. You will appear to the world to be rebellious, discordant, unruly, and difficult. That is because a citizen of heaven is not well fitted to this fallen world. Humility is directed toward the Lord, not your fellow man.

-"patient"
Because this world has little use for the truth, and will test and try you at every turn. It will fight you long enough to prove whether you are faithful in all things. Then some few will join in the struggle and also become a fellow citizen of a higher world.

-"full of love"
Not because of your own capacity, but because by submitting to the Holy Spirit you are able to borrow this as a gift through the atonement of Christ. Just like the angel explained.

-"willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him"
It is the Lord's work to bring about salvation and exaltation. (Moses 1: 39.) To refine you, the Lord will "inflict" a great deal upon you. He knows when you are ready, when you are proven. You have no idea. You submit, and in the process you learn what you are capable of. Until you submit to all He sees, in His wisdom alone to inflict upon you, you remain an unfinished son or daughter. When you cry out from agony and uncertainty and you hear nothing but the patient silence of heaven, you must endure it, just as Joseph in Liberty Jail. (D&C 121: 1-3.) When your cup is filled and you think you cannot endure more, He will decide if the ordeal continues. He will remind you of His suffering. (D&C 122: 8.) You will learn from your own suffering to appreciate His.

-"even as a child doeth submit to his father."
If you want to be His child, you allow Him to act the role of your Father. It is His right to punish, instruct, inflict you. It is acceptance of His Fatherhood over you to submit and not question His right to do what you cannot see any need for you to endure. He is preparing you for something so much greater than what you are now, that you cannot recieve the blessings unless you are enlarged. How can He "add upon" you without stretching, even breaking you? How can you grow without pain?

How foolish is our impatience? How small our irritations! How unequal His blessings to our gratitude! When He works with us, we resent Him. When He corrects us, we resist Him. When He tries us, we cry out: It is unfair!

The Son of Man hath descended below it all, art thou greater than He?

The "natural man is an enemy to God" and you must overcome that. You proud, arrogant, weak, insecure, devoted and pretentious "Saints." You must change. Or you remain God's enemy. ...At least if the angel who spoke with King Benjamin knew what he was talking about.

Mosiah 3: 18

The angel declares unequivocally that Christ "judges." Not men, not authorities. Christ "judges." Men who fancy themselves empowered to judge others deceive themselves. Judgment of others is not permitted. (Matt. 7: 1.) Even the Lord's twelve disciples were told they were not to judge others, but would be trusted to announce Christ's judgment. (3 Ne. 27: 27.) Christ is the only judge. He is the only keeper of the gate. (2 Ne. 9: 41.) When men substitute their own judgment for Christ's, they condemn themselves and do nothing to alter the one they judge before Christ. (Matt. 7: 2.) When men act as if they are Christ, substituting their own judgment for His, they govern others by their own light and not the Lord's. These things are condemned. (2 Ne. 26: 29.)

The Lord alone is judge. Hence the angel saying to King Benjamin: "For behold he judgeth," and adding quickly "and his judgement is just." (Mosiah 3: 18.) You don't need to fear an unjust judge, nor a partial and imperious man who is looking to magnify his ego or vain ambition (D&C 121: 37.) Their judgments can never displace Christ "For behold He judgeth," according to the words of the angel to King Benjamin.

Because He alone can judge, those who condemn little children who He has redeemed are substituting their own judgment for His. They are calling His great work of redemption incomplete and inadequate to accomplish the redemption of children. Such men "drink damnation to their own souls" because they will be judged by the standard they have established. (Matt. 7: 2.) They must not only retract their unjust judgment, but must also become like those whom they condemn. "Except they humble themselves and become as little children" they will be lost. (Mosiah 3: 18.)

The angel reminds King Benjamin (and us) there is only one source for salvation. It "was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent." (Id.) If you lack salvation, it is because you looked elsewhere to find it, and if you receive it, then you necessarily have come to Christ.

All the judgments of men, all the plans and schemes of men, all the pretenses and arrogance of men will not secure salvation for any soul. Salvation comes from Christ alone.

If you or I were ever to judge another man, the standard to apply is singular: It is Christ's standard. Either He reveals His judgment to you, and you announce what His judgment, or He does not. If He does not, then the choice is to either refrain from judging (which is safe), or to show mercy and forgiveness (which is safer still), but never condemn. The Lord alone has the right to condemn. For us to condemn anyone the Lord has forgiven is a mockery of His atonement, no less than condemning little children whom the Lord also has forgiven.

This lecture by the angel to King Benjamin is filled with wisdom and light. We are so much the better for having it available for us to study.

Mosiah 3: 16-17

Half a millennium following the angel's visit to King Benjamin, Mormon wrote a letter to his son Moroni addressing the topic of child baptism. The angel condemned it (Mosiah 3: 16). Mormon condemned it (Moroni 8: 11-14). If anything, Mormon's statements are more emphatic, and condemn those who believe in such rites for children. Mormon explains that little children "cannot repent" (Moroni 8: 19), and the angel explains it is not possible for children to sin (Mosiah 3: 16). Little children are not accountable before God, and therefore their mistakes, offenses and errors are covered by their innocence, and the atonement of Christ on the other. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand God (Moroni 8: 17-20).

Mankind are all subject to sin. Over a lifetime we are all corroded by this environment. To preserve this creation, death has been introduced so that no matter how far men may fall from God's grace, their lives will end. In their place, children who are innocent before God come into this world. It is by and through children that hope returns, innocence is renewed and creation continues. Little children are where God's great renewal of mankind takes place. If not for them, this world would have ripened in iniquity long ago.

The angel draws a parallel between Adam's fall and Christ's atonement. (Mosiah 3: 16.) The one brought death to all, the other brings life to all. Even those who will squander their opportunity for more are still redeemed from death through Christ.

Then the angel declares where salvation (something more than rising from the grave) is obtained. It is completely in Christ. "[T]here shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent." (Mosiah 3: 17.) It is not a church. It is not an ordinance. It is not an organization, initiation, family, relationship with, or promise from a man or men, nor any other means. It will be Christ, or it will not happen.

What, then, does it mean to be saved "in and through the name of Christ?"

What is His name? Or, more correctly, what are His names? How does one become saved through His name?

King Benjamin will later have his people take upon them the actual name of Christ. (Mosiah 5: 6-7.) How are you "called by the name of Christ?" Do you, literally need to become "Christ?" That is, do you literally need to become a "Messiah" or a "Christ" or an "anointed one?" Because the name "Christ" is akin to the word "christened" or "christening," meaning you have become anointed.

How do you become anointed? Is it through application of physical oil to the physical skin? Is that an anointing in the sense that Christ was anointed? Or, is the physical anointing a symbol of another kind of anointing, another kind of christening? If so, what does that entail?

When the angel marks a man "in the forehead" (Rev. 7: 3; D&C 77: 9) is that literal? What kind of anointing, or christening, or seal is involved?

Did Christ set the pattern? Does it mean to "take upon you His name" that you, in like manner, are christened, anointed or sealed? Can you be His without this? Can you take His name upon you without conforming to the same pattern as Christ, who is the "prototype of the saved man." (Lectures on Faith, 7: 15-16.)

"It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to obtain eternal life, unless they, in like manner, offer unto him the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted of him. ...But those who have not made this sacrifice to God do not know that the course which they pursue is well pleasing in his sight; for ...where doubt and uncertainty are there faith is not, nor can it be. For doubt and faith do not exist in the same person at the same time; so that persons whose minds are under doubts and fears cannot have unshaken confidence; ...and where faith is weak the persons will not be able to contend against all the opposition, tribulations, and afflictions which they will have to encounter in order to be heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ Jesus; and they will grow weary in their minds, and the adversary will have power over them and destroy them." (Lecture 6: 8, 12.)

How does one lay hold on the salvation that comes through the name of Christ spoken of to King Benjamin by the angel in Mosiah 3: 17?