Repentance does not require a time period. Look at Alma the Younger, the sons of Mosiah, and the Apostle Paul. Now these were encounters with God, but so were the conversions of many of the Lamanites. (Alma 18: 40-42; 22: 18, among others.)
The Lord tells you to repent. If you do, He remembers your sins no longer. Confess and forsake them, and you will be forgiven. (D&C 58: 42-43.) Or, in other words, change. Turn away from your sins and face God instead.
All those labors performed by Alma the Younger, the sons of Mosiah, and the Apostle Paul, after repentance, were not to obtain forgiveness. They were the "fruit" of repentance, or the result of the new direction that they were heading. (See Matt. 3: 8; Luke 3: 8; Alma 5: 62; 13: 13; Moroni 8: 24-26.)
God alone forgives. His forgiveness is not dependent on your good works; your good works are proof of His forgiveness. (Helaman 12: 24; Gal. 5: 22-25.)
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
A Few Details
The following excerpt comes from an article by Susan Easton Black, published in BYU Studies:
After the death of Emma Smith in 1879 and the demolition of the bee house that had once sheltered the graves, conjecture arose over the exact location of the martyrs' burial site. Family members could not point with confidence to where the bodies were laid. Joseph Smith III reported, "I didn't see the bodies buried. I saw them dig them up. I saw them take a knife and cut a lock of hair off of Joseph and give to Emma, but I didn't follow over and watch them bury them." David Hyrum Smith, youngest son of Joseph Smith Jr., composed "The Unknown Grave":
On 21 January 1928 Samuel O. Bennion, president of the Central States Mission, wrote to President Heber J. Grant and his counselors about the "exhuming of the bodies of the Prophet and his brother Hyrum." In his letter he reported asking Frederick M. Smith, president of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, "Why didn't you let the bodies of these men rest where they were?" In response, he was told, "[I] wanted to find out if the graves of these men were down by what was once called the Spring House." President Bennion wrote, "It is my impression brethren that he had heard reports that Brigham Young took the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum to Utah and that he wanted to prove it untrue." Bennion stated, "I could hardly keep the tears back."
In 1991, under the joint direction of leaders from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, new tombstones marking their remains became the focus of a gardenlike cemetery near the Homestead in Nauvoo. On 4 August 1991 the newly renovated cemetery was dedicated by Wallace B. Smith, great-grandson of Joseph Smith and president of the RLDS Church. Elder M. Russell Ballard, a great-great-grandson of Hyrum Smith, represented the LDS Church.
If Joseph was resurrected in 1886, his body could not have been relocated in 1928.
__________________________________________________
Lorin C. Woolley spoke throughout as an interloper. He was spying and overhearing, but wasn't invited into the events. Therefore, his statements should be viewed from that vantage point. On the Mount of Transfiguration Peter, James and John were invited by the Lord precisely so they would witness what took place. They saw and heard as invited participants, not interlopers. If Lorin C. Woolley was invited to witness the events, the description would have been otherwise and read much differently.
When Philo saw Joseph "in the midst of a magnificant glory" that was Joseph experiencing the glory, not Philo. Joseph was in the midst of this experience, seeing the Father and Son at the Throne of God. But that description is of Joseph's being in the "midst" of the experience. Others understood what Joseph was undergoing from the words being spoken.
When he states he "saw the glory and felt the power, but did not witness the vision" he is referring to the same thing any of us witness when reading Section 76. It was this section which got me serious about considering Mormonism. It is glorious. It radiated power to me the instant I first read it. But seeing the glory of that great vision as I read it, like Philo Dibble's experience hearing it dictated by Joseph, did not involve blinding light--nor seeing light from under a doorway. It was and still is a glorious document and vision. You can still feel the power of it today.
_________________________________________________
Brigham Young was a necessary preserver of the faith. Without him the church would have stumbled. Sidney Rigdon was impaired, and we would not have done as well, and may have done much worse, with him at the helm. The point is that the church was faced with a dilemma with the loss of BOTH Joseph and Hyrum. We had no good alternative. We took the one which was probably the most practical. We have to live with it.
But that does not mean we should avoid understanding the full implications of the choice. Every choice has consequences. Until we gather together our best understanding of what happened, and sort out what was going on, we can't know much of God's dealing in our day.
We should not just bury our heads and trust happy stories. WE are responsible for our own salvation or damnation.
__________________________________________________
I am the best kind of church member: I willingly accept full responsibility for the eternal outcome. As God is my witness, I will never point to Brigham Young, or Spencer W. Kimball, or Bruce R. McConkie, or Boyd K.Packer, or Thomas S. Monson in the afterlife and blame them for my own condition. I will accept sole responsibility for my eternal state. No man is my leader. No man is responsible for my understanding. I alone will blame myself for any failure, and accept no credit for what I got right. I trust only in the grace and mercy of Christ and rely utterly on His power to save me. The general authorities and local leaders ought to want every church member to be like that.
_______________________________________________
If a Fundamentalist were to return to church, they would not be welcomed by the institution. They wouldn't have membership records, nor receive callings, nor be able to pay tithing. But they could worship there, and in many wards would be fellowshipped by the members even if the institution excluded them. They would be "visitors" and not members. But that shouldn't deter them. In fact, if enough of them began this practice, the institution would not be oblivious to their presence. When a significant number of people were doing this, policies would be adapted to allow sincere people to repent and return. The leadership of the church would respond. But faithful return will have to precede that even being possible. It would require humility, to be sure.
After the death of Emma Smith in 1879 and the demolition of the bee house that had once sheltered the graves, conjecture arose over the exact location of the martyrs' burial site. Family members could not point with confidence to where the bodies were laid. Joseph Smith III reported, "I didn't see the bodies buried. I saw them dig them up. I saw them take a knife and cut a lock of hair off of Joseph and give to Emma, but I didn't follow over and watch them bury them." David Hyrum Smith, youngest son of Joseph Smith Jr., composed "The Unknown Grave":
There's an unknown grave in a green lowly spot,When the waters of Lake Cooper threatened to flood the area where the graves were thought to be, leaders of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints decided to locate the bodies and remove them to higher ground and to place an appropriate monument over their graves. W. O. Hands was appointed to direct a small group of surveyors and engineers to search for the missing graves. They began digging on 9 January 1928, and on 16 January they found them. The remains of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum, as well as those of Emma, were exhumed from their resting place. The remains were arranged in silk-lined wood boxes that were placed side-by-side seventeen feet north of where the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum had been exhumed. Then the bodies were reburied on Friday, 20 January 1928, and the graves were marked.
The form that it covers will ne'er be forgot.
Where haven trees spread and the wild locusts wave
Their fragrant white blooms over the unknown grave,
Over the unknown grave.
* * *
The prophet whose life was destroyed by his foes
Sleeps now where no hand may disturb his repose,
Till trumpets of God drown the notes of the wave
And we see him arise from his unknown grave,
God bless that unknown grave.
On 21 January 1928 Samuel O. Bennion, president of the Central States Mission, wrote to President Heber J. Grant and his counselors about the "exhuming of the bodies of the Prophet and his brother Hyrum." In his letter he reported asking Frederick M. Smith, president of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, "Why didn't you let the bodies of these men rest where they were?" In response, he was told, "[I] wanted to find out if the graves of these men were down by what was once called the Spring House." President Bennion wrote, "It is my impression brethren that he had heard reports that Brigham Young took the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum to Utah and that he wanted to prove it untrue." Bennion stated, "I could hardly keep the tears back."
In 1991, under the joint direction of leaders from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, new tombstones marking their remains became the focus of a gardenlike cemetery near the Homestead in Nauvoo. On 4 August 1991 the newly renovated cemetery was dedicated by Wallace B. Smith, great-grandson of Joseph Smith and president of the RLDS Church. Elder M. Russell Ballard, a great-great-grandson of Hyrum Smith, represented the LDS Church.
If Joseph was resurrected in 1886, his body could not have been relocated in 1928.
__________________________________________________
Lorin C. Woolley spoke throughout as an interloper. He was spying and overhearing, but wasn't invited into the events. Therefore, his statements should be viewed from that vantage point. On the Mount of Transfiguration Peter, James and John were invited by the Lord precisely so they would witness what took place. They saw and heard as invited participants, not interlopers. If Lorin C. Woolley was invited to witness the events, the description would have been otherwise and read much differently.
When Philo saw Joseph "in the midst of a magnificant glory" that was Joseph experiencing the glory, not Philo. Joseph was in the midst of this experience, seeing the Father and Son at the Throne of God. But that description is of Joseph's being in the "midst" of the experience. Others understood what Joseph was undergoing from the words being spoken.
When he states he "saw the glory and felt the power, but did not witness the vision" he is referring to the same thing any of us witness when reading Section 76. It was this section which got me serious about considering Mormonism. It is glorious. It radiated power to me the instant I first read it. But seeing the glory of that great vision as I read it, like Philo Dibble's experience hearing it dictated by Joseph, did not involve blinding light--nor seeing light from under a doorway. It was and still is a glorious document and vision. You can still feel the power of it today.
_________________________________________________
Brigham Young was a necessary preserver of the faith. Without him the church would have stumbled. Sidney Rigdon was impaired, and we would not have done as well, and may have done much worse, with him at the helm. The point is that the church was faced with a dilemma with the loss of BOTH Joseph and Hyrum. We had no good alternative. We took the one which was probably the most practical. We have to live with it.
But that does not mean we should avoid understanding the full implications of the choice. Every choice has consequences. Until we gather together our best understanding of what happened, and sort out what was going on, we can't know much of God's dealing in our day.
We should not just bury our heads and trust happy stories. WE are responsible for our own salvation or damnation.
__________________________________________________
I am the best kind of church member: I willingly accept full responsibility for the eternal outcome. As God is my witness, I will never point to Brigham Young, or Spencer W. Kimball, or Bruce R. McConkie, or Boyd K.Packer, or Thomas S. Monson in the afterlife and blame them for my own condition. I will accept sole responsibility for my eternal state. No man is my leader. No man is responsible for my understanding. I alone will blame myself for any failure, and accept no credit for what I got right. I trust only in the grace and mercy of Christ and rely utterly on His power to save me. The general authorities and local leaders ought to want every church member to be like that.
_______________________________________________
If a Fundamentalist were to return to church, they would not be welcomed by the institution. They wouldn't have membership records, nor receive callings, nor be able to pay tithing. But they could worship there, and in many wards would be fellowshipped by the members even if the institution excluded them. They would be "visitors" and not members. But that shouldn't deter them. In fact, if enough of them began this practice, the institution would not be oblivious to their presence. When a significant number of people were doing this, policies would be adapted to allow sincere people to repent and return. The leadership of the church would respond. But faithful return will have to precede that even being possible. It would require humility, to be sure.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Brigham Young's Telestial Kingdom
I have completed an essay about Brigham Young and his Telestial Kingdom. The paper is available for download on Scribd. You do not need a Facebook account to access Scribd, but you do need a Scribd account. They are free and easy to set up.
As always, I suggest you read the footnotes.
Brigham Young's Telestial Kingdom.
We have received some comments regarding inability to download the Brigham Young essay on Scribd. I have spent some time looking into this. I can access it from all computers, multiple browsers and an iPad. I can read it from the site, I can download it. the only thing I didn't try is printing it. However, on the Scribd website there is a possibility that it will show an occasional blank page. If you close Scribd and and open it up again the pages will be there.
As always, I suggest you read the footnotes.
Brigham Young's Telestial Kingdom.
We have received some comments regarding inability to download the Brigham Young essay on Scribd. I have spent some time looking into this. I can access it from all computers, multiple browsers and an iPad. I can read it from the site, I can download it. the only thing I didn't try is printing it. However, on the Scribd website there is a possibility that it will show an occasional blank page. If you close Scribd and and open it up again the pages will be there.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Sorting Things Out, Part 5
The reason this whole topic of plural marriage has assumed cosmic meaning in the minds of our Fundamentalist brothers and sisters is because of Brigham Young's advocacy of this while leading the church. Brigham Young is a pretty thin reed to lean upon when it comes to doctrine, and I mean any doctrine. His utility to the Lord did not include his ability to teach, but his ability to lead, colonize and organize. He was a genius in these areas. Doctrinally, however, he has proven to be problematic.
Inside the church, he has been referred to as a man whose statements were "made in the absence of revelation." His position on priesthood ban for those of African blood has been denounced and abandoned. His teachings on plural marriage have been abandoned. His doctrine of Adam-God has been called a "false theory." His doctrine of annihilation of the spirits of evil beings has been renounced. However, Fundamentalists do not respect the same tradition as those who are faithful LDS members. Therefore, for those who stake their salvation on his teachings, I want to use Brigham Young's own words to help them see how thin a reed they lean on for establishing the central importance of plural marriage for exaltation.
Brigham Young's ordination to the apostleship was "not complete" according to those who ordained him, "till God has laid His hands upon [him]. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid His hands upon His disciples, why not in the latter days?" (DHC 2: 196.) Twenty-four years later he informed the saints this had not happened. He thought that perhaps "when [he] had lived to be as old as was Moses when the Lord appeared to him, that perhaps I then may hold communion with the Lord." (JD 7: 243.) In 1863 he reaffirmed that no such visit had taken place, but he still hoped if he lived to be eighty it might. (JD 10: 23.) So, although he held the apostleship as an office in the church, his ordination to that office was conditioned on an event he explained had not been consummated by the Lord's confirming ordination. How much confidence should that give you when considering his teachings?
He hesitated to call himself a "prophet, seer and revelator," but allowed others to associate those titles with him: "[After putting the motion for himself to be sustained as 'Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,' the President remarked:] I will say that I never dictated the latter part of that sentence. I will make the remark, because those words in that connection always made feel as though I am called more than I am deserving of. I am Brigham Young, an Apostle of Joseph Smith, and also of Jesus Christ. If I have been profitable to these people, I am glad of it. The brethren call me so; and if it be so, I am glad." (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 1347.)
He explained he was not a visionary man: " I am not going to interpret dreams; for I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser[.]" (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 1306.) He considered himself "called of Joseph" and not of the Lord: "I do not want to skip Joseph, Peter, Jesus, Moses and go to my Father in Heaven. All I ask for is to be guided by the spirit of Joseph, then let others be governed by their head, or priesthood. Joseph enjoyed the priviliges which I never thought I had. Joseph was called of God. I was called of Joseph." (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 2, p. 1108.) Is being "called of Joseph" a sufficient basis for you to trust the man with your eternal salvation?
Even when Joseph gave him the assignment to finish the Temple rites, he remained uncertain about how this would be accomplished. Ultimately, he concluded that whatever he did would be fixed by the resurrected Joseph Smith during the Millennium: "AfterJoseph comes to us in his resurrected body he will more fully instruct us concerning the Baptism for the dead and the sealing ordinances. He will say be baptized for this man and that man and that man be sealed to that man and such a man to such a man, and connect the Priesthood together. I tell you their [sic] will not be much of this done until Joseph comes. He is our spiritual Father. Our hearts are already turned to him and his to us. This [is] the order of the Holy Priesthood and we shall continue to administer in the ordinances of the kingdom of God here on Earth." (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 2, p. 1034.) Temple rites would require Joseph, not President Young, to fix the seals.
On matters affecting eternal salvation, I would not rely on a "Yankee guesser" who considered himself "called of Joseph" and not called of Christ, to give you what you need for salvation. As I have explained in Passing the Heavenly Gift and this blog, his insistence on plural marriage as a condition of being saved is not warranted by the language of Section 132.
Brigham Young explained how church leadership was not affected by who held office. His theory was that anyone could be elected, and as long as the followers prayed for them things would go perfectly: "Take any man in this kingdom, and if the people say that they will make him a President, or a Bishop, or elect him to fill any other office, and the faith of the people is concentrated to receive light through that officer or pipe laid by the power of the Priesthood from the throne of God, you might as well try to move the heavens as to receive anything wrong through that conductor. No matter whom you elect for an officer, if your faith is concentrated in him through whom to receive the things which he is appointed to administer in, light will come to you. Let a presiding officer or a Bishop turn away from righteousness, and the Lord Almighty would give him the lock-jaw, if he could not stop his mouth in any other way, or send a fit of numb palsy on him, so that he could not act, as sure as the people over whom he presided were right, that they might not be led astray." (Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 1379, November 29, 1857; the talk can also found at JD Vol. 6 beginning on p. 93.) Of course, this theory did not work. As an example, Bishop Warren Snow was elected to be Bishop in Manti, but was involved in stealing tithing. Brigham Young sent traveling Bishop A. Milton Musser, then also Orson Hyde, to review records. They found between $5,000 and $8,000 of tithing missing, a substantial sum in those times.
Though he explained this theory, I do not think Brigham Young believed it at all. Had he believed it, he would not have challenged Sidney Rigdon's claims to lead following the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum. If "any man in this kingdom" could lead, then why not Sidney? If "light will come to you" through any such man, then why not Sidney? The argument was between Sidney (who claimed revelation) and Brigham Young (who claimed to have "keys"). As a result, the debate required the church to choose between Sidney's claims based on revelation and accept Brigham Young's administrative "keys" as the source. Brigham Young's leadership theory (that anyone could lead if prayed for by the membership) would have allowed the church to have both if Sidney were sustained. But Brigham Young's insistence on having control in his quorum forced a vote by the Nauvoo Saints. The vote resulted in abandoning revelation in favor of administrative "keys" --a choice which has affected church history ever since.
This initial vote established power in the Twelve, but within three years Brigham Young found it cumbersome. He had trouble getting consensus, and John Taylor and Parley Pratt opposed him on many issues. On December 1849 he got another vote making him church president and allowing him to organize the First Presidency, an easier administrative group to control.
Once Hyrum and Joseph died, and Brigham Young succeeded in getting elected as church President, the church operated under his leadership for nearly three decades. President Taylor's entire presidency was in exile, avoiding Federal prosecution. Wilford Woodruff compromised on the plural marriage teaching for statehood, and his presidency was thereafter affected by debate about the propriety of that decision and what it meant for the church.
It was not until the 1900's that the church was not in the grip of a conflict brought about by Brigham Young's presidency and teachings. By that time the mold had been set, and the form put into that mold had hardened. It doesn't matter whether you consider yourself "Fundamentalist" or mainstream, we are all caught inside the pattern established by the Yankee guesser and the immediate aftermath. Do you want to trust your eternal welfare to him? Do you trust that man so much that you will allow his pattern to control your belief in the restoration?
I think the church has reacted poorly to the dilemma created by this man's teachings. They have denounced his major contributions, and have cast aside many other of his teachings and practices. Those who have remained devoted to these doctrines believe what they hold dear came from a reliable source. But remember, even he rejected the idea he was a "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" because he was only an apostle of Joseph's. The church was right to say recently that he spoke "in the absence of revelation" because that is what he did.
The mistake Fundamentalists have made is not in believing in the system, but in trusting a man. He is no more worthy of your confidence than Lorin C. Woolley. The revelation you trust is carefully composed, and defines "the eternal marriage covenant" as between one man and one wife. That is all you need for exaltation. Brigham Young's excesses on this matter are no more trustworthy than the value of another Yankee guesser. He did what he understood. But his understanding is and was flawed. This is why the church has rejected his teachings on the core of his beliefs: plural marriage, Adam-God, priesthood ban, potential annihilation of damned souls, blood atonement, kingdom of God as earthly institution, etc. There are good reasons for the doctrinal disfavor between him and the same church he led for three decades. Turning to Lorin C. Woolley to preserve Brigham Young's legacy is not improving your state. It is modeling a flawed model.
Despite this, to his credit, Brigham Young never invented visitations, claimed more for himself than that he was a "good hand to have around" and denied he was visited by the Lord. These statements reflect a great deal more credit on Brigham Young than the embellishments made by Brother Woolley reflect on him.
I do not fault Fundamentalists for these problems. They were created by the elected President successor to Joseph and Hyrum. He held the office, and he taught what he taught. But that does not make him right before God. Members of the LDS church should be the first to have charity for this circumstance. We should be willing to forgive this devotion to Brigham Young's teachings because they originated with a man who was, after all, elected to lead the church for three decades. The church refused to abandon wives when it abandoned plural marriage, and Fundamentalists who would return should not be required to tear apart their families. They should reject the doctrine, and stop teaching it to their children. But the church is so very sensitive about this issue that we don't share the same attitude.
I personally believe this problem is cured by ceasing the practice, but leaving existing families intact. I believe those who do this will be welcomed in Zion., but those who continue to advocate and insist this is fundamental to salvation itself, I don't think will be welcomed. The conditions that are required to allow it are not met, and cannot be met by the Fundamentalists. They should recognize this and repent.
Inside the church, he has been referred to as a man whose statements were "made in the absence of revelation." His position on priesthood ban for those of African blood has been denounced and abandoned. His teachings on plural marriage have been abandoned. His doctrine of Adam-God has been called a "false theory." His doctrine of annihilation of the spirits of evil beings has been renounced. However, Fundamentalists do not respect the same tradition as those who are faithful LDS members. Therefore, for those who stake their salvation on his teachings, I want to use Brigham Young's own words to help them see how thin a reed they lean on for establishing the central importance of plural marriage for exaltation.
Brigham Young's ordination to the apostleship was "not complete" according to those who ordained him, "till God has laid His hands upon [him]. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid His hands upon His disciples, why not in the latter days?" (DHC 2: 196.) Twenty-four years later he informed the saints this had not happened. He thought that perhaps "when [he] had lived to be as old as was Moses when the Lord appeared to him, that perhaps I then may hold communion with the Lord." (JD 7: 243.) In 1863 he reaffirmed that no such visit had taken place, but he still hoped if he lived to be eighty it might. (JD 10: 23.) So, although he held the apostleship as an office in the church, his ordination to that office was conditioned on an event he explained had not been consummated by the Lord's confirming ordination. How much confidence should that give you when considering his teachings?
He hesitated to call himself a "prophet, seer and revelator," but allowed others to associate those titles with him: "[After putting the motion for himself to be sustained as 'Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,' the President remarked:] I will say that I never dictated the latter part of that sentence. I will make the remark, because those words in that connection always made feel as though I am called more than I am deserving of. I am Brigham Young, an Apostle of Joseph Smith, and also of Jesus Christ. If I have been profitable to these people, I am glad of it. The brethren call me so; and if it be so, I am glad." (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 1347.)
He explained he was not a visionary man: " I am not going to interpret dreams; for I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser[.]" (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 1306.) He considered himself "called of Joseph" and not of the Lord: "I do not want to skip Joseph, Peter, Jesus, Moses and go to my Father in Heaven. All I ask for is to be guided by the spirit of Joseph, then let others be governed by their head, or priesthood. Joseph enjoyed the priviliges which I never thought I had. Joseph was called of God. I was called of Joseph." (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 2, p. 1108.) Is being "called of Joseph" a sufficient basis for you to trust the man with your eternal salvation?
Even when Joseph gave him the assignment to finish the Temple rites, he remained uncertain about how this would be accomplished. Ultimately, he concluded that whatever he did would be fixed by the resurrected Joseph Smith during the Millennium: "AfterJoseph comes to us in his resurrected body he will more fully instruct us concerning the Baptism for the dead and the sealing ordinances. He will say be baptized for this man and that man and that man be sealed to that man and such a man to such a man, and connect the Priesthood together. I tell you their [sic] will not be much of this done until Joseph comes. He is our spiritual Father. Our hearts are already turned to him and his to us. This [is] the order of the Holy Priesthood and we shall continue to administer in the ordinances of the kingdom of God here on Earth." (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 2, p. 1034.) Temple rites would require Joseph, not President Young, to fix the seals.
On matters affecting eternal salvation, I would not rely on a "Yankee guesser" who considered himself "called of Joseph" and not called of Christ, to give you what you need for salvation. As I have explained in Passing the Heavenly Gift and this blog, his insistence on plural marriage as a condition of being saved is not warranted by the language of Section 132.
Brigham Young explained how church leadership was not affected by who held office. His theory was that anyone could be elected, and as long as the followers prayed for them things would go perfectly: "Take any man in this kingdom, and if the people say that they will make him a President, or a Bishop, or elect him to fill any other office, and the faith of the people is concentrated to receive light through that officer or pipe laid by the power of the Priesthood from the throne of God, you might as well try to move the heavens as to receive anything wrong through that conductor. No matter whom you elect for an officer, if your faith is concentrated in him through whom to receive the things which he is appointed to administer in, light will come to you. Let a presiding officer or a Bishop turn away from righteousness, and the Lord Almighty would give him the lock-jaw, if he could not stop his mouth in any other way, or send a fit of numb palsy on him, so that he could not act, as sure as the people over whom he presided were right, that they might not be led astray." (Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 1379, November 29, 1857; the talk can also found at JD Vol. 6 beginning on p. 93.) Of course, this theory did not work. As an example, Bishop Warren Snow was elected to be Bishop in Manti, but was involved in stealing tithing. Brigham Young sent traveling Bishop A. Milton Musser, then also Orson Hyde, to review records. They found between $5,000 and $8,000 of tithing missing, a substantial sum in those times.
Though he explained this theory, I do not think Brigham Young believed it at all. Had he believed it, he would not have challenged Sidney Rigdon's claims to lead following the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum. If "any man in this kingdom" could lead, then why not Sidney? If "light will come to you" through any such man, then why not Sidney? The argument was between Sidney (who claimed revelation) and Brigham Young (who claimed to have "keys"). As a result, the debate required the church to choose between Sidney's claims based on revelation and accept Brigham Young's administrative "keys" as the source. Brigham Young's leadership theory (that anyone could lead if prayed for by the membership) would have allowed the church to have both if Sidney were sustained. But Brigham Young's insistence on having control in his quorum forced a vote by the Nauvoo Saints. The vote resulted in abandoning revelation in favor of administrative "keys" --a choice which has affected church history ever since.
This initial vote established power in the Twelve, but within three years Brigham Young found it cumbersome. He had trouble getting consensus, and John Taylor and Parley Pratt opposed him on many issues. On December 1849 he got another vote making him church president and allowing him to organize the First Presidency, an easier administrative group to control.
Once Hyrum and Joseph died, and Brigham Young succeeded in getting elected as church President, the church operated under his leadership for nearly three decades. President Taylor's entire presidency was in exile, avoiding Federal prosecution. Wilford Woodruff compromised on the plural marriage teaching for statehood, and his presidency was thereafter affected by debate about the propriety of that decision and what it meant for the church.
It was not until the 1900's that the church was not in the grip of a conflict brought about by Brigham Young's presidency and teachings. By that time the mold had been set, and the form put into that mold had hardened. It doesn't matter whether you consider yourself "Fundamentalist" or mainstream, we are all caught inside the pattern established by the Yankee guesser and the immediate aftermath. Do you want to trust your eternal welfare to him? Do you trust that man so much that you will allow his pattern to control your belief in the restoration?
I think the church has reacted poorly to the dilemma created by this man's teachings. They have denounced his major contributions, and have cast aside many other of his teachings and practices. Those who have remained devoted to these doctrines believe what they hold dear came from a reliable source. But remember, even he rejected the idea he was a "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" because he was only an apostle of Joseph's. The church was right to say recently that he spoke "in the absence of revelation" because that is what he did.
The mistake Fundamentalists have made is not in believing in the system, but in trusting a man. He is no more worthy of your confidence than Lorin C. Woolley. The revelation you trust is carefully composed, and defines "the eternal marriage covenant" as between one man and one wife. That is all you need for exaltation. Brigham Young's excesses on this matter are no more trustworthy than the value of another Yankee guesser. He did what he understood. But his understanding is and was flawed. This is why the church has rejected his teachings on the core of his beliefs: plural marriage, Adam-God, priesthood ban, potential annihilation of damned souls, blood atonement, kingdom of God as earthly institution, etc. There are good reasons for the doctrinal disfavor between him and the same church he led for three decades. Turning to Lorin C. Woolley to preserve Brigham Young's legacy is not improving your state. It is modeling a flawed model.
Despite this, to his credit, Brigham Young never invented visitations, claimed more for himself than that he was a "good hand to have around" and denied he was visited by the Lord. These statements reflect a great deal more credit on Brigham Young than the embellishments made by Brother Woolley reflect on him.
I do not fault Fundamentalists for these problems. They were created by the elected President successor to Joseph and Hyrum. He held the office, and he taught what he taught. But that does not make him right before God. Members of the LDS church should be the first to have charity for this circumstance. We should be willing to forgive this devotion to Brigham Young's teachings because they originated with a man who was, after all, elected to lead the church for three decades. The church refused to abandon wives when it abandoned plural marriage, and Fundamentalists who would return should not be required to tear apart their families. They should reject the doctrine, and stop teaching it to their children. But the church is so very sensitive about this issue that we don't share the same attitude.
I personally believe this problem is cured by ceasing the practice, but leaving existing families intact. I believe those who do this will be welcomed in Zion., but those who continue to advocate and insist this is fundamental to salvation itself, I don't think will be welcomed. The conditions that are required to allow it are not met, and cannot be met by the Fundamentalists. They should recognize this and repent.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Sorting Things Out, Part 4
The part of the account where President Taylor puts those who were present under covenant to obey the principle of plural marriage seems authentic. That was why he was in hiding, after all. He left public view and presided over the church in exile, risking arrest if found.
He sacrificed a great deal to retain the principle of plural marriage. I think that did happen, or could have happened because it is entirely consistent with the events underway at the time.
His denunciation of the "manifesto" also seems authentic to me. His motto was "the kingdom of God or nothing" and he proved himself willing to suffer for a cause he believed to be true. He refused to compromise with the Federal Government, and his refusal was known, public and held to his core. So putting people under a covenant to recommit them to resist, as he was doing by example, seems authentic. It requires no embellishment.
But there is a part of the story I left out of the account. I will mention it only in general terms, as I consider the specifics sacrilege. Those who are Fundamentalist are familiar with it. It involves President Taylor, while denouncing the manifesto, rising from the floor, levitating in the air about a foot off the ground, making certain gestures, and reciting an oath very similar in content to the first Temple covenant penalty in place in 1886.
This addition is designed to add terrible significance to the denounciation. It is to inspire awe and terror in the mind of the listener/reader, but it is entirely out of place. The idea that you needed to add a Temple sign and penalty component to the denounciation of the manifesto is too strange to attribute to President Taylor. It doesn't fit. It seems to me altogether as an embellishment put into the account in order to make the event seem more holy, more sacred and therefore more trustworthy. It does the opposite. Details like these do not belong in the account. They detract. They suggest someone is afraid they won't be believed if they tell the story the way it was. It falls apart to my mind because it takes far too much upon itself.
This leads in turn to another addition to supplement the account which also lacks scriptural support: The appearance of Joseph Smith as the slain, hand-shaking, disembodied Prophet. This detail is added, I assume, because there was concern that unless the event was tied directly to Joseph Smith some people would resist acknowledging the authority.
However, disembodied spirits do not "shake hands." (D&C 129: 6-7.) Joseph's presence and hand-shaking, like the other added embellishments, are necessary to put the whole thrust of the story over. The purpose is to put into the hands of five men the ability to freelance in sealing plural marriages.
Here, then, is the nub of the whole story: "John Taylor set five apart and gave them authority to perform marriage ceremonies, and also to set others apart to do the same thing as long as they remained on the earth[.]" This is critical for what the Fundamentalists want to justify. They must have this in order to be able to claim post-John Taylor and post-Manifesto marriage sealings were authorized and authoritative.
First, to be clear: I think John Taylor did give authority to these five men to seal other plural marriages. In the time and setting, it makes absolute sense. They were sealing outside of the Temples, and this was being done by the highest church authorities. There is every reason to believe the difficulties of avoiding Federal prosecution tipped in favor of giving authority for others to move plural marriage sealings forward. Just like today there are others who seal marriages in addition to the church President.
HOWEVER, --and this is the problem in the account which nagged the telling of this tale and required its embellishment-- this kind of delegation won't work to perpetuate the practice indefinately. Even if President Taylor wanted to extend his reach and allow other men to be sealers during his underground days, it won't work once President Taylor died. Their commission is entirely dependent upon the delegation by President Taylor, and cannot run independent from him. When he died, their commission needed to be renewed by President Woodruff. When it wasn't, then their commission ended.
This is because of the very revelation upon which Fundamentalist doctrine is grounded: Section 132. In Section 132 the power to seal is consolidated in but one man at a time, "and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred" according to the revelation establishing the very doctrine they defend. (D&C 132: 7.) If this was John Taylor when the sealing authority was given, then the one man who could authorize it was John Taylor. When he died, the one man would have been Wilford Woodruff. You can't, in any event, have "five set apart and given authority" who would later rival Wilford Woodruff's claim to the position. That alone is contrary to the order in Section 132. This has been discussed in Beloved Enos. The claims are unscriptural and indefensible.
This scriptural impediment to the claim is the very reason we see added the light under the door, the three voices, the levitating and sacreligious oath pronouncing President Taylor, and the disembodied Joseph Smith shaking hands and presiding over the affair. They are added, though they could not possibly have happened in that way, precisely to overcome the scriptural impediment to the authority claimed by Fundamentalists to be able to continue to seal plural marriages.
I disbelieve the account, though I do not question whether President Taylor gave the ability to seal to other men in order to overcome Federal harrassment at the time he was president. But that delegation ended with his death.
To now have various pretenders all claiming they can track back to John Taylor and one of these five men their "line of authority" to seal plural marriages is a deception. There is only one man at a time who can do this. Even the church now disclaims they can perform such rites.
He sacrificed a great deal to retain the principle of plural marriage. I think that did happen, or could have happened because it is entirely consistent with the events underway at the time.
His denunciation of the "manifesto" also seems authentic to me. His motto was "the kingdom of God or nothing" and he proved himself willing to suffer for a cause he believed to be true. He refused to compromise with the Federal Government, and his refusal was known, public and held to his core. So putting people under a covenant to recommit them to resist, as he was doing by example, seems authentic. It requires no embellishment.
But there is a part of the story I left out of the account. I will mention it only in general terms, as I consider the specifics sacrilege. Those who are Fundamentalist are familiar with it. It involves President Taylor, while denouncing the manifesto, rising from the floor, levitating in the air about a foot off the ground, making certain gestures, and reciting an oath very similar in content to the first Temple covenant penalty in place in 1886.
This addition is designed to add terrible significance to the denounciation. It is to inspire awe and terror in the mind of the listener/reader, but it is entirely out of place. The idea that you needed to add a Temple sign and penalty component to the denounciation of the manifesto is too strange to attribute to President Taylor. It doesn't fit. It seems to me altogether as an embellishment put into the account in order to make the event seem more holy, more sacred and therefore more trustworthy. It does the opposite. Details like these do not belong in the account. They detract. They suggest someone is afraid they won't be believed if they tell the story the way it was. It falls apart to my mind because it takes far too much upon itself.
This leads in turn to another addition to supplement the account which also lacks scriptural support: The appearance of Joseph Smith as the slain, hand-shaking, disembodied Prophet. This detail is added, I assume, because there was concern that unless the event was tied directly to Joseph Smith some people would resist acknowledging the authority.
However, disembodied spirits do not "shake hands." (D&C 129: 6-7.) Joseph's presence and hand-shaking, like the other added embellishments, are necessary to put the whole thrust of the story over. The purpose is to put into the hands of five men the ability to freelance in sealing plural marriages.
Here, then, is the nub of the whole story: "John Taylor set five apart and gave them authority to perform marriage ceremonies, and also to set others apart to do the same thing as long as they remained on the earth[.]" This is critical for what the Fundamentalists want to justify. They must have this in order to be able to claim post-John Taylor and post-Manifesto marriage sealings were authorized and authoritative.
First, to be clear: I think John Taylor did give authority to these five men to seal other plural marriages. In the time and setting, it makes absolute sense. They were sealing outside of the Temples, and this was being done by the highest church authorities. There is every reason to believe the difficulties of avoiding Federal prosecution tipped in favor of giving authority for others to move plural marriage sealings forward. Just like today there are others who seal marriages in addition to the church President.
HOWEVER, --and this is the problem in the account which nagged the telling of this tale and required its embellishment-- this kind of delegation won't work to perpetuate the practice indefinately. Even if President Taylor wanted to extend his reach and allow other men to be sealers during his underground days, it won't work once President Taylor died. Their commission is entirely dependent upon the delegation by President Taylor, and cannot run independent from him. When he died, their commission needed to be renewed by President Woodruff. When it wasn't, then their commission ended.
This is because of the very revelation upon which Fundamentalist doctrine is grounded: Section 132. In Section 132 the power to seal is consolidated in but one man at a time, "and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred" according to the revelation establishing the very doctrine they defend. (D&C 132: 7.) If this was John Taylor when the sealing authority was given, then the one man who could authorize it was John Taylor. When he died, the one man would have been Wilford Woodruff. You can't, in any event, have "five set apart and given authority" who would later rival Wilford Woodruff's claim to the position. That alone is contrary to the order in Section 132. This has been discussed in Beloved Enos. The claims are unscriptural and indefensible.
This scriptural impediment to the claim is the very reason we see added the light under the door, the three voices, the levitating and sacreligious oath pronouncing President Taylor, and the disembodied Joseph Smith shaking hands and presiding over the affair. They are added, though they could not possibly have happened in that way, precisely to overcome the scriptural impediment to the authority claimed by Fundamentalists to be able to continue to seal plural marriages.
I disbelieve the account, though I do not question whether President Taylor gave the ability to seal to other men in order to overcome Federal harrassment at the time he was president. But that delegation ended with his death.
To now have various pretenders all claiming they can track back to John Taylor and one of these five men their "line of authority" to seal plural marriages is a deception. There is only one man at a time who can do this. Even the church now disclaims they can perform such rites.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Sorting Things Out, Part 3
In addition to the "light" there is the problem of the "three voices." The fact is that angels do not vibrate the air with vocal chords in order to communicate. They "speak" into the mind of the person they address. This is why there are two different quotes of the John the Baptist by Joseph and Oliver. Both of them "heard" him speak. But the "speaking" was into the mind of these two individuals. The communication "spoken" by John the Baptist was of intelligence, conveyed from the mind to the mind.
Joseph quoted John the Baptist as saying: "Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness." (JS-H 1: 69.)
Oliver quoted John the Baptist as saying: "Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon the earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness." (JS-H footnote.)
For Joseph it was "the Priesthood of Aaron" and for Oliver it was "this Priesthood." The concept is identical, the words, however, are not.
For Joseph it was "which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for remission of sins" and for Oliver it was "this authority." Again, these are the words they used to convey the communication which came into their minds. Identical in substance, different in language. It is one of the evidences they were telling about an authentic event.
For Joseph it was "this shall never be taken from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness" and for Oliver it was "which shall remain on the earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."
These differences are the result of each converting into our language the thoughts or intelligence which came from the angel. Angels do not vibrate the air. They "speak" otherwise, in thought - mind to mind.
Similarly, none of those who occupied the same room, even the same bed as Joseph the night of the Angel Moroni's visit heard anything. No one was awakened during the all-night repetitious lectures to Joseph by the Angel. No one else in the room heard anything. Only silence.
So in the embellished and untrue account of Lorin Woolley he adds a detail about the "voices of three men" coming from inside the room in an attempt to add credibility to the account. It doesn't. It shows something has been added that did not happen. Details matter. From this I can say he lacks knowledge and experience in contact with angelic ministers.
Putting Joseph Smith into this setting as one of the "three voices" is additionally problematic.
It is also a questionable detail that the guard placed for the inside door would abandon his post and go outside to inspect the window screens. I assume he added this detail to insure the "credibility" of the appearance inside the room through miraculous means. Apparently the creator(s) of the account did not want to trust the lighting effect alone, but wanted to add a miraculous component to the arrival of Christ and Joseph Smith as well. Because as any skeptic would conclude, if they had broken open the exterior window screens to enter, I suppose we would not believe it was Christ or Joseph Smith.
I also note the morning-time glow of president Taylor in the account. This brightness which was difficult to look upon is akin to Moses' descent from the mount, and designed to furnish that same sense of awe and holiness to the affair. I would think if that were the case, we would have something in the George Q. Cannon or L. John Nuttal diaries about the incident.
Joseph quoted John the Baptist as saying: "Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness." (JS-H 1: 69.)
Oliver quoted John the Baptist as saying: "Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon the earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness." (JS-H footnote.)
For Joseph it was "the Priesthood of Aaron" and for Oliver it was "this Priesthood." The concept is identical, the words, however, are not.
For Joseph it was "which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for remission of sins" and for Oliver it was "this authority." Again, these are the words they used to convey the communication which came into their minds. Identical in substance, different in language. It is one of the evidences they were telling about an authentic event.
For Joseph it was "this shall never be taken from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness" and for Oliver it was "which shall remain on the earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."
These differences are the result of each converting into our language the thoughts or intelligence which came from the angel. Angels do not vibrate the air. They "speak" otherwise, in thought - mind to mind.
Similarly, none of those who occupied the same room, even the same bed as Joseph the night of the Angel Moroni's visit heard anything. No one was awakened during the all-night repetitious lectures to Joseph by the Angel. No one else in the room heard anything. Only silence.
So in the embellished and untrue account of Lorin Woolley he adds a detail about the "voices of three men" coming from inside the room in an attempt to add credibility to the account. It doesn't. It shows something has been added that did not happen. Details matter. From this I can say he lacks knowledge and experience in contact with angelic ministers.
Putting Joseph Smith into this setting as one of the "three voices" is additionally problematic.
It is also a questionable detail that the guard placed for the inside door would abandon his post and go outside to inspect the window screens. I assume he added this detail to insure the "credibility" of the appearance inside the room through miraculous means. Apparently the creator(s) of the account did not want to trust the lighting effect alone, but wanted to add a miraculous component to the arrival of Christ and Joseph Smith as well. Because as any skeptic would conclude, if they had broken open the exterior window screens to enter, I suppose we would not believe it was Christ or Joseph Smith.
I also note the morning-time glow of president Taylor in the account. This brightness which was difficult to look upon is akin to Moses' descent from the mount, and designed to furnish that same sense of awe and holiness to the affair. I would think if that were the case, we would have something in the George Q. Cannon or L. John Nuttal diaries about the incident.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Sorting Things Out, Part 2
This incident was to have occurred on September 27th of 1886, and L. John Nuttal was in attendance. He was the Secretary to the First Presidency at the time. His journal records the following for that date:
President Cannon still improving in his health. The rest of the party all well.
President Taylor signed several recommends. A letter was received from Elder F. D. Richards, enclosing one from Bro. E. W. Davis of the 17th Ward, in regard to his call as a missionary and needing help.
A letter was received from Bro. A. Miner dated Sept. 20th stating that he had perfected the reincorporation of Toole Stake Corporation.
A letter was received from Bro. Wm. M. Palmer at Council Bluffs September 22, 1886, giving an account of his labors to that time.
A letter was received from Sister Ellen Norwood Billingsley of Orderville.
A letter was written to Elder Enoch Farr, President, Sandwich Islands Mission, in answer to his letter received September 7th.
A letter was also sent to Bro. Thos. G. Webber of Z.C.M.I.
A leter was written to President W. Woodruff in reply to his letter received September 25th.
President Taylor pitched quoits a while this morning, also in the afternoon.
President Cannon in the home most all day; he sat out of doors awhile in the after part of the day.
Brother S. Bateman carried in our mail matter.
The reference to "pitching quoits" means a game. The game was much like horseshoes, where you throw a ring made of rope or metal trying to ring it around a stake. In other words, the purported meeting on this day, if it happened at the times reported in the Woolley interview, would have been outdoors, and would have included both morning and afternoon games played by president Taylor. There is no real harmony between the account retold in the Woolley interview and the Nuttal record for that date. The hours' long meeting in the one and the morning and afternoon games in the other are not describing the same day.
George Q. Cannon's diary for the same day likewise makes no mention of the purported meeting which Lorin Woolley describes.
On the chance the meeting occurred the day before and was misremembered, again, the diary of L. John Nuttal is void of any reference. The meeting that day is referred to as "our usual meeting" and did not begin until 2:30 in the afternoon. Thus the dating cannot be correct. Both George Q. Cannon and L. John Nuttal were faithful reporters, and would have taken note of anything like the incident which is described by Lorin Woolley.
What that means is the account in the interview has at least one error. When relying on something for so important a matter as holding "authority" to proceed with plural marriages, these details matter a great deal. So, it appears to me the memory of Lorin Woolley is not altogether reliable, but that is a small matter. An event absent from the records of the faithful recorders (First Presidency Secretary and Councilor) does not prove that nothing happened. To be clear, I do think something happened, but what happened was far less than the event as reported by Lorin C. Woolley.
The next matter I think inaccurate in the account is the "light appearing under the door leading to president Taylor's room." This is contrary to the way these things happen.
First, from scripture, the presence of a heavenly light is not visible to unintended third-parties. An audience with one man will leave another man standing right next to him without any notice or visible exposure to the heavenly light. This is true of Daniel, who alone saw the vision and his companions did not: Daniel 10: 7. It is true of the vision in Joseph Smith's childhood bedroom, where others were also sleeping when the angel Moroni appeared. See JS-H 1: 30.
Second, this is not how the Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory was received. Section 76 was an open vision to Joseph and Sidney Rigdon, seen in the same room where about a dozen visitors were present. They did not see any light, or any portion of what Joseph and Sidney saw. The best account was given by Philo Dibble, reproduced in the Juvenile Instructor 27 (May 15, 1892) 303-04, which states in relevant part:
If Woolley was not invited into the vision (and his account makes clear he was not invited to participate), then this detail of seeing the heavenly light does not belong in an authentic narrative. It is a detail that, in my view, has been added to embellish the account and make it seem more believable. However, to me it makes the account less believable.
My own experience also tells me it is not trustworthy. The Lord was with me in the Draper Temple recently, and no one present had any idea what transpired nor beheld a thing of what happened there. An interloper does not behold glory, nor participate in such things. The retelling by Woolley, however, makes the mistake of embellishing with the very kind of detail that is incorrect.
This detail, therefore, makes the account less authentic to me, not more. Whatever happened with president Taylor involving the claim he gave the power to seal plural marriages to the "five men" did not, could not, have involved an interloper beholding a heavenly light shining under a closed door. The light of heaven is not natural, coarse or physical. To behold it you must be invited in, and if not invited in you are left without any vision, or knowledge of its presence.
Be careful what tales you trust. There are more problems with Lorin Woolley's account, which we will continue to discuss...
President Cannon still improving in his health. The rest of the party all well.
President Taylor signed several recommends. A letter was received from Elder F. D. Richards, enclosing one from Bro. E. W. Davis of the 17th Ward, in regard to his call as a missionary and needing help.
A letter was received from Bro. A. Miner dated Sept. 20th stating that he had perfected the reincorporation of Toole Stake Corporation.
A letter was received from Bro. Wm. M. Palmer at Council Bluffs September 22, 1886, giving an account of his labors to that time.
A letter was received from Sister Ellen Norwood Billingsley of Orderville.
A letter was written to Elder Enoch Farr, President, Sandwich Islands Mission, in answer to his letter received September 7th.
A letter was also sent to Bro. Thos. G. Webber of Z.C.M.I.
A leter was written to President W. Woodruff in reply to his letter received September 25th.
President Taylor pitched quoits a while this morning, also in the afternoon.
President Cannon in the home most all day; he sat out of doors awhile in the after part of the day.
Brother S. Bateman carried in our mail matter.
The reference to "pitching quoits" means a game. The game was much like horseshoes, where you throw a ring made of rope or metal trying to ring it around a stake. In other words, the purported meeting on this day, if it happened at the times reported in the Woolley interview, would have been outdoors, and would have included both morning and afternoon games played by president Taylor. There is no real harmony between the account retold in the Woolley interview and the Nuttal record for that date. The hours' long meeting in the one and the morning and afternoon games in the other are not describing the same day.
George Q. Cannon's diary for the same day likewise makes no mention of the purported meeting which Lorin Woolley describes.
On the chance the meeting occurred the day before and was misremembered, again, the diary of L. John Nuttal is void of any reference. The meeting that day is referred to as "our usual meeting" and did not begin until 2:30 in the afternoon. Thus the dating cannot be correct. Both George Q. Cannon and L. John Nuttal were faithful reporters, and would have taken note of anything like the incident which is described by Lorin Woolley.
What that means is the account in the interview has at least one error. When relying on something for so important a matter as holding "authority" to proceed with plural marriages, these details matter a great deal. So, it appears to me the memory of Lorin Woolley is not altogether reliable, but that is a small matter. An event absent from the records of the faithful recorders (First Presidency Secretary and Councilor) does not prove that nothing happened. To be clear, I do think something happened, but what happened was far less than the event as reported by Lorin C. Woolley.
The next matter I think inaccurate in the account is the "light appearing under the door leading to president Taylor's room." This is contrary to the way these things happen.
First, from scripture, the presence of a heavenly light is not visible to unintended third-parties. An audience with one man will leave another man standing right next to him without any notice or visible exposure to the heavenly light. This is true of Daniel, who alone saw the vision and his companions did not: Daniel 10: 7. It is true of the vision in Joseph Smith's childhood bedroom, where others were also sleeping when the angel Moroni appeared. See JS-H 1: 30.
Second, this is not how the Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory was received. Section 76 was an open vision to Joseph and Sidney Rigdon, seen in the same room where about a dozen visitors were present. They did not see any light, or any portion of what Joseph and Sidney saw. The best account was given by Philo Dibble, reproduced in the Juvenile Instructor 27 (May 15, 1892) 303-04, which states in relevant part:
The vision which is recorded in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants [D&C 76] was given at the house of "Father Johnson," in Hiram, Ohio, and during the time that Joseph and Sidney were in the spirit and saw the heavens open, there were other men in the room, perhaps twelve, among whom I was one during a part of the time-- probably two-thirds of the time,--I saw the glory and felt the power, but did not see the vision.
The events and conversation, while they were seeing what is written (and many things were seen and related that are not written,) I will relate as minutely as is necessary.
Joseph would, at intervals, say: "What do I see?" as one might say while looking out the window and beholding what all in the room could not see. Then he would relate what he had seen or what he was looking at. Then Sidney replied, "I see the same." Presently Sidney would say "what do I see?" and would repeat what he had seen or was seeing, and Joseph would reply, "I see the same."
This manner of conversation was repeated at short intervals to the end of the vision, and during the whole time not a word was spoken by any other person. Not a sound nor motion made by anyone but Joseph and Sidney, and it seemed to me that they never moved a joint or limb during the time I was there, which I think was over an hour, and to the end of the vision.
Joseph sat firmly and calmly all the time in the midst of a magnificent glory, but Sidney sat limp and pale, apparently as limber as a rag, observing which, Joseph remarked, smilingly, "Sidney is not used to it as I am."If Woolley was not invited into the vision (and his account makes clear he was not invited to participate), then this detail of seeing the heavenly light does not belong in an authentic narrative. It is a detail that, in my view, has been added to embellish the account and make it seem more believable. However, to me it makes the account less believable.
My own experience also tells me it is not trustworthy. The Lord was with me in the Draper Temple recently, and no one present had any idea what transpired nor beheld a thing of what happened there. An interloper does not behold glory, nor participate in such things. The retelling by Woolley, however, makes the mistake of embellishing with the very kind of detail that is incorrect.
This detail, therefore, makes the account less authentic to me, not more. Whatever happened with president Taylor involving the claim he gave the power to seal plural marriages to the "five men" did not, could not, have involved an interloper beholding a heavenly light shining under a closed door. The light of heaven is not natural, coarse or physical. To behold it you must be invited in, and if not invited in you are left without any vision, or knowledge of its presence.
Be careful what tales you trust. There are more problems with Lorin Woolley's account, which we will continue to discuss...
Monday, July 23, 2012
Sorting Things Out
We should be more interested in the truth than in just inspiring one another with stories that flatter us, or make us feel we are better than others. We cannot afford the luxury of thinking ourselves right when we believe an error. Promoting "faith" in errors is what the Book of Mormon calls "unbelief." When we prize our errors and hold them as true when they are not, we dwindle in unbelief. This is a frequent occurance throughout the Book of Mormon, and results in the inability to understand God's word. (Mosiah 26: 1-3.)
We cannot afford to be popular. The price is too high. We cannot turn away from truth even when it causes us painful and difficult repentance. We must not shrink away from what is required to remove the scales from our eyes.
I thought I had said all I needed on the topic of plural marriage, but a friend has loaned me a copy of the multi-volume work of Arnold Boss on the history of plural marriage. It is apparent more needs to be said to make the matter clear. Therefore, I am going to return to the subject and history to clarify some things.
As far as I can determine, Arnold Boss is an honest man. I do not question his ability to record and report what he has recorded in his account. I accept his account of the interview in 1929 of Lorin C. Woolley, meaning that I trust the interview took place and that Arnold Boss accurately reported the contents of that interview. The defect does not lie with Arnold Boss, but in the account told by Lorin C. Woolley.
Assuming they are interested in the truth, I will lay this matter out in a series of posts that I think will be helpful to the Fundamentalist community. I have been acquainted with this event for over twenty years.
Here is the account given by Woolley in the interview recorded by Arnold Boss on September 22, 1929. I leave the punctuation and spellings as in the original. The "guard" speaking in the narrative is Lorin C. Woolley. He is relating to Arnold Boss the events that took place on the night of September 26-27, 1886 involving church president John Taylor. This is what purportedly occurred during the night of September 26-27, 1886:
That evening I was called to act as guard during the first part of the night, notwithstanding the fact that I was greatly fatigued on account of the three days trip I had just completed.
The brethren retired to bed soon after nine o'clock. The sleeping rooms were inspected by the guard as was the custom. President Taylor's room had no outside door. The windows were heavily screened.
Sometime after the brethren retired and while I was reading the Doctrine and Covenants, I was suddenly attracted to a light appearing under the door leading to President Taylor's room, and was at once startled to hear the voices of men talking there. There were three distince voices. I was bewildered because it was my duty to keep people out of that room and evidently some one had entered without my knowing it. I made a hasty examination and found the door leading to the room bolted as usual. I then examined the outside of the house and found all the window screens were intact. While examining the last window, and feeling greatly agitated, a voice spoke to me, saying, "Can't you feel the spirit? Why should you worry?"
At this I returned to my post and continued to hear the voices in the room. They were so audible that although I did not see the parties I could place their positions in the room from the sound of the voices. The three voices continued until about midnight, when one of them left, and the other two continued. One of them I recognized as President Taylor's voice. I called Charles Birrell and we both sat up until eight o'clock the next morning.
When President Taylor came out of his room about eight o'clock of the morning of September 27, 1886, we could scarcely look at him on account of the brightness of his appearance.
He stated, "brethren, I have had a very pleasant conversation all night with brother Joseph." (Joseph Smith) I said, "Boss, who is the man that was there until midnight?" He asked, "what do you know about it Lorin?" I told him all about my experience. He said, Brother Lorin, that was your Lord."
We had no breakfast, but assembled ourselves in a meeting. I forgot who opened the meeting. I was called to offer benediction. I think, my father John W. Woolley, offered the opening prayer. There were present at this meeting, In addition to President Taylor, George Q. Cannon, L. John Nuttal, John W. Wooley, Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, Charles Birrell, Daniel R. Bateman, bishop Samual Sedden, George Earl, My mother Julia E. Woolley, my sister, Amy Woolley, and myself. The meeting was held from about nine o'clock in the morning until five in the afternoon without intermission, being about eight hours in all.
President Taylor called the meeting to order. He had the manifesto, that had been prepared under direction of George Q. Cannon, read again. Then he put each person under covenant that he or she would defend the principle of Celestial or Plural marriage, and that they would consecrate their lives, liberty and property to this end, and that they personally would sustain and uphold that principle.
[I skip several pages to get to the part most important to the Fundamentalist movement:]
John Taylor set five apart and gave them authority to perform marriage ceremonies, and also to set others apart to do the same thing as long as they remeined on earth; and while doing so the prophet Joseph Smith stoood by directing the proceedings. Two of us had not met the prophet Joseph Smith in theis mortal life, and we, Charles H. Wilkins and myself, were introduce to him and shook hands with him.
Because of what I know and what the scriptures relate, this account, though I believe faithfully recorded by Arnold Boss, is riddled with errors. Lorin C. Woolley has embellished the account, and his additions reveal the fraud. We will go through some of the many errors in a series of posts to show why it is false.
There is a principle important and binding on all of us: The things given us by the Lord should never be overstated. They should be given without embellishment, additions, or interpolations. They are not ours, but the Lord's. When He entrusts us with something (or anything), then it is our duty to faithfully perform and to keep everything within the bounds the Lord set. Our additions detract from the Lord's work. Joseph constantly understated his experiences. This is one of the signs he is telling us truth.
It is in the embellishment that Lorin C. Woolley reveals this is a dishonest account. And this event is critical for those who want to claim they can still practice plural marriage, because the authority has remained in the Fundamentalist groups.
We cannot afford to be popular. The price is too high. We cannot turn away from truth even when it causes us painful and difficult repentance. We must not shrink away from what is required to remove the scales from our eyes.
I thought I had said all I needed on the topic of plural marriage, but a friend has loaned me a copy of the multi-volume work of Arnold Boss on the history of plural marriage. It is apparent more needs to be said to make the matter clear. Therefore, I am going to return to the subject and history to clarify some things.
As far as I can determine, Arnold Boss is an honest man. I do not question his ability to record and report what he has recorded in his account. I accept his account of the interview in 1929 of Lorin C. Woolley, meaning that I trust the interview took place and that Arnold Boss accurately reported the contents of that interview. The defect does not lie with Arnold Boss, but in the account told by Lorin C. Woolley.
Assuming they are interested in the truth, I will lay this matter out in a series of posts that I think will be helpful to the Fundamentalist community. I have been acquainted with this event for over twenty years.
Here is the account given by Woolley in the interview recorded by Arnold Boss on September 22, 1929. I leave the punctuation and spellings as in the original. The "guard" speaking in the narrative is Lorin C. Woolley. He is relating to Arnold Boss the events that took place on the night of September 26-27, 1886 involving church president John Taylor. This is what purportedly occurred during the night of September 26-27, 1886:
That evening I was called to act as guard during the first part of the night, notwithstanding the fact that I was greatly fatigued on account of the three days trip I had just completed.
The brethren retired to bed soon after nine o'clock. The sleeping rooms were inspected by the guard as was the custom. President Taylor's room had no outside door. The windows were heavily screened.
Sometime after the brethren retired and while I was reading the Doctrine and Covenants, I was suddenly attracted to a light appearing under the door leading to President Taylor's room, and was at once startled to hear the voices of men talking there. There were three distince voices. I was bewildered because it was my duty to keep people out of that room and evidently some one had entered without my knowing it. I made a hasty examination and found the door leading to the room bolted as usual. I then examined the outside of the house and found all the window screens were intact. While examining the last window, and feeling greatly agitated, a voice spoke to me, saying, "Can't you feel the spirit? Why should you worry?"
At this I returned to my post and continued to hear the voices in the room. They were so audible that although I did not see the parties I could place their positions in the room from the sound of the voices. The three voices continued until about midnight, when one of them left, and the other two continued. One of them I recognized as President Taylor's voice. I called Charles Birrell and we both sat up until eight o'clock the next morning.
When President Taylor came out of his room about eight o'clock of the morning of September 27, 1886, we could scarcely look at him on account of the brightness of his appearance.
He stated, "brethren, I have had a very pleasant conversation all night with brother Joseph." (Joseph Smith) I said, "Boss, who is the man that was there until midnight?" He asked, "what do you know about it Lorin?" I told him all about my experience. He said, Brother Lorin, that was your Lord."
We had no breakfast, but assembled ourselves in a meeting. I forgot who opened the meeting. I was called to offer benediction. I think, my father John W. Woolley, offered the opening prayer. There were present at this meeting, In addition to President Taylor, George Q. Cannon, L. John Nuttal, John W. Wooley, Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, Charles Birrell, Daniel R. Bateman, bishop Samual Sedden, George Earl, My mother Julia E. Woolley, my sister, Amy Woolley, and myself. The meeting was held from about nine o'clock in the morning until five in the afternoon without intermission, being about eight hours in all.
President Taylor called the meeting to order. He had the manifesto, that had been prepared under direction of George Q. Cannon, read again. Then he put each person under covenant that he or she would defend the principle of Celestial or Plural marriage, and that they would consecrate their lives, liberty and property to this end, and that they personally would sustain and uphold that principle.
[I skip several pages to get to the part most important to the Fundamentalist movement:]
John Taylor set five apart and gave them authority to perform marriage ceremonies, and also to set others apart to do the same thing as long as they remeined on earth; and while doing so the prophet Joseph Smith stoood by directing the proceedings. Two of us had not met the prophet Joseph Smith in theis mortal life, and we, Charles H. Wilkins and myself, were introduce to him and shook hands with him.
Because of what I know and what the scriptures relate, this account, though I believe faithfully recorded by Arnold Boss, is riddled with errors. Lorin C. Woolley has embellished the account, and his additions reveal the fraud. We will go through some of the many errors in a series of posts to show why it is false.
There is a principle important and binding on all of us: The things given us by the Lord should never be overstated. They should be given without embellishment, additions, or interpolations. They are not ours, but the Lord's. When He entrusts us with something (or anything), then it is our duty to faithfully perform and to keep everything within the bounds the Lord set. Our additions detract from the Lord's work. Joseph constantly understated his experiences. This is one of the signs he is telling us truth.
It is in the embellishment that Lorin C. Woolley reveals this is a dishonest account. And this event is critical for those who want to claim they can still practice plural marriage, because the authority has remained in the Fundamentalist groups.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Responses and Response
Just because I respond to a question does not mean I associate importance with the topic. Those who were unaware of the "Davidic king" topic needn't trouble themselves to read about it. For the most part those who claim to understand the topic are not going to help you. I would leave it alone.
__________________________________________
For the woman who has become ostracized because she has "read my books" I would suggest that reading them does not require you to talk about them. No one needs to be told what they aren't willing to hear. I stay on-topic in church meetings and discussions. I teach from the church provided materials, and participate by contributing in the context of lessons being taught by others. I do not impose my views on someone else. They either must search for it independent of the church's programs, or buy the books and read them for themselves. Until asked a question, I leave others alone. Those who want to know more are actively searching and can be assisted. Those who are completely content would not be interested in anything contrary to their understanding, and you invite arguments when you try to "convert" them.
_____________________________________________
As I said, the church IS the current program of the Lord. The broad net is spreading worldwide and gathering all manner of fish. Angels will one day sort through them. But for now, we should all work with this organization to fulfill the Lord's assignment.
____________________________________________
The "awful situation" among us Latter-day Saints IS the primary topic I discuss.
____________________________________________
The specifics of what one person does/did will never apply to what another must do. This is individual. There are no rules. What will break your heart is different from what broke Abraham's, which in turn was different from what broke the Lord's, and what broke Joseph's. Therefore the examples we have in scripture are all you need study.
__________________________________________
For the woman who has become ostracized because she has "read my books" I would suggest that reading them does not require you to talk about them. No one needs to be told what they aren't willing to hear. I stay on-topic in church meetings and discussions. I teach from the church provided materials, and participate by contributing in the context of lessons being taught by others. I do not impose my views on someone else. They either must search for it independent of the church's programs, or buy the books and read them for themselves. Until asked a question, I leave others alone. Those who want to know more are actively searching and can be assisted. Those who are completely content would not be interested in anything contrary to their understanding, and you invite arguments when you try to "convert" them.
_____________________________________________
As I said, the church IS the current program of the Lord. The broad net is spreading worldwide and gathering all manner of fish. Angels will one day sort through them. But for now, we should all work with this organization to fulfill the Lord's assignment.
____________________________________________
The "awful situation" among us Latter-day Saints IS the primary topic I discuss.
____________________________________________
The specifics of what one person does/did will never apply to what another must do. This is individual. There are no rules. What will break your heart is different from what broke Abraham's, which in turn was different from what broke the Lord's, and what broke Joseph's. Therefore the examples we have in scripture are all you need study.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Miscellaneous
In response to comments:
The deaths of Joseph and Hyrum were necessary. The older brother as prophet-priest died first, and the younger brother as priest-king died second. The prophecies, including many of Jesus' parables about the end times, lay out two incompatible processes that were to happen.
In one, the gospel "net" extends to catch anything it can. This requires an aggressively marketed latter-day church whose sweep is non-exclusive and non-exclusionary. It must gather into itself "all manner of fish," some are good and some are bad.
In the other, the angels will pick through the "net" and gather out of it "the good" fish to be kept. It is exclusive and it is exclusionary. It comes only after the widely cast net has first gathered.
Doesn't matter if you read the parable of the Ten Virgins, or the vineyard, the theme is the same: There are two latter-day processes. If you didn't kill Joseph and Hyrum, and you left intact the process which would have created Zion, then the larger, public outreach seeking to gather anyone into the "net" would have ended. The smaller, more restrictive gathering by the angels of only "the good" would have been confined to so small a sample of humanity that the world could complain there wasn't enough of an opportunity given them.
The world was not ready for Zion. The angels were willing to begin the harvest, but then again, they would have been willing to do that in the New Testament times. (Matt. 13: 28.)
_________________________________
The reason for the "offer" put up yesterday is to disabuse the notion I am an enemy to the church. I am not. I am its greatest friend. But the "Sunday School" educated saints, who long ago surrendered their minds to others to be controlled, find any effort to deal with the depth, height, width and breadth of the gospel to be frightening. These insecure folks want to complain, rather than stretch or stress themselves by searching into the things required to understand our faith and our faith's history. Church leaders are very understanding - until they get alarming reports about people losing faith because of something someone has said or written.
I've thought about publishing a sample of the comments that come to me from those whose faith and church activity have been strengthened by what I've done, but that seems self-serving and offensive even to me; so I won't do that. Far, far more people have been helped than harmed by what I've written. But even if there is one, I'm willing to help to assist them in their crisis of faith. They deserve to be helped, and if I can help I'm willing to do so.
I got several reports about some of the "often in error but never in doubt" crowd of 'Mormon experts' who think I need to be "handled" by the church. At least one with a name you'd all recognize. The offer to meet with others was made to leave no doubt about my sincerity, faithfulness and willingness to do what I can to help keep people active, and inside the church.
_____________________________________
The "awful situation" in Ether 8: 24 certainly has a political, governmental and economic component. But these are all Babylon. They will fail. Fixing them is temporary. Focusing on them can be distracting. What will endure are the souls of men. They need to be reclaimed. That happens through repentance. If they will repent, then as a natural result they will end their involvement with the many political and economic conspiracies presently underway. Attacking them without saving men's souls is an exercise in futility. This is why I do not bother spending any time writing about them.
God sees their doings. Their secrets are not hidden from Him. To the extent that they revel in their great gains and well laid plans, they are destined for disappointment. We should not be trying to join them, nor to become part of their great system of benefits. Too much of that has distracted the church and its members already.
The cure lies in repentance. Not in politics. We aren't going to legislate or regulate salvation. The coming violence and captivity will help save men's souls.
________________________________________
Prophecies are not given to enable us to understand details of the Lord's plans in advance. They are not designed to allow you to parse apart God's plans and know what He plans beforehand. They are only meant to be understood after they have happened. Then, when they have happened, you will understand what God was saying and that He was in control all along.
You should be very careful about settling on a final interpretation of any prophecy because they were not given with that in mind.
_______________________________________
Mortal man is responsible for fulfilling the Gospel. Until they rise up, everything remains unfulfilled. The "Davidic King" is not an identifiable person, nor will he be, until he has accomplished the tasks assigned to the role. Whether anyone will ever rise up to accomplish that is not a matter of destiny, but it is rather a matter of finally accepting and acting consistent with the Lord's will.
Every dispensation of the Gospel is the "last Dispensation" until it fails. Then another is sent and it is the "last" until it fails. This will continue for so long as man continues to fail. God is in no hurry. Apparently we are not either.
The deaths of Joseph and Hyrum were necessary. The older brother as prophet-priest died first, and the younger brother as priest-king died second. The prophecies, including many of Jesus' parables about the end times, lay out two incompatible processes that were to happen.
In one, the gospel "net" extends to catch anything it can. This requires an aggressively marketed latter-day church whose sweep is non-exclusive and non-exclusionary. It must gather into itself "all manner of fish," some are good and some are bad.
In the other, the angels will pick through the "net" and gather out of it "the good" fish to be kept. It is exclusive and it is exclusionary. It comes only after the widely cast net has first gathered.
Doesn't matter if you read the parable of the Ten Virgins, or the vineyard, the theme is the same: There are two latter-day processes. If you didn't kill Joseph and Hyrum, and you left intact the process which would have created Zion, then the larger, public outreach seeking to gather anyone into the "net" would have ended. The smaller, more restrictive gathering by the angels of only "the good" would have been confined to so small a sample of humanity that the world could complain there wasn't enough of an opportunity given them.
The world was not ready for Zion. The angels were willing to begin the harvest, but then again, they would have been willing to do that in the New Testament times. (Matt. 13: 28.)
_________________________________
The reason for the "offer" put up yesterday is to disabuse the notion I am an enemy to the church. I am not. I am its greatest friend. But the "Sunday School" educated saints, who long ago surrendered their minds to others to be controlled, find any effort to deal with the depth, height, width and breadth of the gospel to be frightening. These insecure folks want to complain, rather than stretch or stress themselves by searching into the things required to understand our faith and our faith's history. Church leaders are very understanding - until they get alarming reports about people losing faith because of something someone has said or written.
I've thought about publishing a sample of the comments that come to me from those whose faith and church activity have been strengthened by what I've done, but that seems self-serving and offensive even to me; so I won't do that. Far, far more people have been helped than harmed by what I've written. But even if there is one, I'm willing to help to assist them in their crisis of faith. They deserve to be helped, and if I can help I'm willing to do so.
I got several reports about some of the "often in error but never in doubt" crowd of 'Mormon experts' who think I need to be "handled" by the church. At least one with a name you'd all recognize. The offer to meet with others was made to leave no doubt about my sincerity, faithfulness and willingness to do what I can to help keep people active, and inside the church.
_____________________________________
The "awful situation" in Ether 8: 24 certainly has a political, governmental and economic component. But these are all Babylon. They will fail. Fixing them is temporary. Focusing on them can be distracting. What will endure are the souls of men. They need to be reclaimed. That happens through repentance. If they will repent, then as a natural result they will end their involvement with the many political and economic conspiracies presently underway. Attacking them without saving men's souls is an exercise in futility. This is why I do not bother spending any time writing about them.
God sees their doings. Their secrets are not hidden from Him. To the extent that they revel in their great gains and well laid plans, they are destined for disappointment. We should not be trying to join them, nor to become part of their great system of benefits. Too much of that has distracted the church and its members already.
The cure lies in repentance. Not in politics. We aren't going to legislate or regulate salvation. The coming violence and captivity will help save men's souls.
________________________________________
Prophecies are not given to enable us to understand details of the Lord's plans in advance. They are not designed to allow you to parse apart God's plans and know what He plans beforehand. They are only meant to be understood after they have happened. Then, when they have happened, you will understand what God was saying and that He was in control all along.
You should be very careful about settling on a final interpretation of any prophecy because they were not given with that in mind.
_______________________________________
Mortal man is responsible for fulfilling the Gospel. Until they rise up, everything remains unfulfilled. The "Davidic King" is not an identifiable person, nor will he be, until he has accomplished the tasks assigned to the role. Whether anyone will ever rise up to accomplish that is not a matter of destiny, but it is rather a matter of finally accepting and acting consistent with the Lord's will.
Every dispensation of the Gospel is the "last Dispensation" until it fails. Then another is sent and it is the "last" until it fails. This will continue for so long as man continues to fail. God is in no hurry. Apparently we are not either.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Standing Offer
I have made this offer on several occasions through the church leaders, but will repeat it again here:
If there is someone who claims they have become dissatisfied with the church because of something I have written, I am willing to meet with them to discuss why they should remain faithful and active in the church. I would want to meet with them in the following setting:
First, their Bishop and Stake President would need to be present. If one or the other could not attend, then I would meet with the person and their Bishop or their Stake President, but I would prefer to meet with both present.
Second, I would want it to be in the church office of either the Bishop or the Stake President, and not in a home.
Third, I can only make this offer for those living in Utah, and I could travel within reason. (I will decide what is reasonable.)
Fourth, all arrangements need to be made by email communication through this email address dssnuffer@gmail.com.
This is a matter I mean sincerely. If there is someone you know who would benefit from this offer, talk to the Bishop and Stake President and if they want to have me come and have that discussion I would willingly do so. I can come most any evening of the week and could even meet on Sunday. These local leaders need to be present so they will know what I say, what I stand for, and that any suggestion that I want people leaving the church is exactly opposite of my intention.
The church deserves our gratitude and our faithful service. It is not perfect, but it is the best venue for coming to know God existing in any organized body on the earth today. You will only do yourself a disservice by walking away from the church.
I love my ward. Presently, I help the priests getting ready for their missions prepare for their endowment. This is the same group of priests I used to teach. The work used to be done by a member of the Draper Temple Presidency living in my ward. He and I have spoken several times about this calling. It is a wonderful opportunity. I serve in this capacity with the best efforts I can. I do my best to serve in all my callings. Church service is important and we should all render that service willingly and to the best of our abilities.
We all struggle to understand the restoration. This is a work of patience and devotion. It requires us to carefully study all the revelations, the Book of Mormon, and our history. It should be a labor of love. As we work to find truth while preserving faith, we must have the maturity and patience to allow the truth of our situation to unfold before us in humility and gratitude. The work of God is greater than we can grasp with haste. Time, and patient and ponderous thoughts are required if we are going to obtain the promises offered us. Haste and impatience will cause us only regret.
There are those who are quick to judge. They are fools. Deciding you are discouraged by some of the things men have done or failed to do makes you no better than their worst failure. Even with their shortcomings, men have rendered devoted service. If you think you see a matter more clearly, then rejoice and thank God for that clarity, but do not condemn their failure or mistakes. Studying errors should be with an eye toward avoiding them. We learn to do better, to become better, to reach higher by looking at the mistakes of the past. This should be a journey of discovery solely for the purpose of improving your own relationship with God, not to let you lose faith, become embittered, or harshly judge others.
Recognizing mistakes is only useful if it improves your understanding of, and relationship with God. If you cannot do that, then leave it alone and do something else.
Two quick asides:
First, if Hyrum's letter to the church (posted yesterday) had been followed, Parley Pratt would not have been killed. He never would have given assistance to Eleanor McLean, which motivated her husband Hector to kill Parley.
Second, don't substitute one idol for another. I'm not going to save you. Just like no other man will. That is the role of the Lord, and the Lord alone. Follow Him.
If there is someone who claims they have become dissatisfied with the church because of something I have written, I am willing to meet with them to discuss why they should remain faithful and active in the church. I would want to meet with them in the following setting:
First, their Bishop and Stake President would need to be present. If one or the other could not attend, then I would meet with the person and their Bishop or their Stake President, but I would prefer to meet with both present.
Second, I would want it to be in the church office of either the Bishop or the Stake President, and not in a home.
Third, I can only make this offer for those living in Utah, and I could travel within reason. (I will decide what is reasonable.)
Fourth, all arrangements need to be made by email communication through this email address dssnuffer@gmail.com.
This is a matter I mean sincerely. If there is someone you know who would benefit from this offer, talk to the Bishop and Stake President and if they want to have me come and have that discussion I would willingly do so. I can come most any evening of the week and could even meet on Sunday. These local leaders need to be present so they will know what I say, what I stand for, and that any suggestion that I want people leaving the church is exactly opposite of my intention.
The church deserves our gratitude and our faithful service. It is not perfect, but it is the best venue for coming to know God existing in any organized body on the earth today. You will only do yourself a disservice by walking away from the church.
I love my ward. Presently, I help the priests getting ready for their missions prepare for their endowment. This is the same group of priests I used to teach. The work used to be done by a member of the Draper Temple Presidency living in my ward. He and I have spoken several times about this calling. It is a wonderful opportunity. I serve in this capacity with the best efforts I can. I do my best to serve in all my callings. Church service is important and we should all render that service willingly and to the best of our abilities.
We all struggle to understand the restoration. This is a work of patience and devotion. It requires us to carefully study all the revelations, the Book of Mormon, and our history. It should be a labor of love. As we work to find truth while preserving faith, we must have the maturity and patience to allow the truth of our situation to unfold before us in humility and gratitude. The work of God is greater than we can grasp with haste. Time, and patient and ponderous thoughts are required if we are going to obtain the promises offered us. Haste and impatience will cause us only regret.
There are those who are quick to judge. They are fools. Deciding you are discouraged by some of the things men have done or failed to do makes you no better than their worst failure. Even with their shortcomings, men have rendered devoted service. If you think you see a matter more clearly, then rejoice and thank God for that clarity, but do not condemn their failure or mistakes. Studying errors should be with an eye toward avoiding them. We learn to do better, to become better, to reach higher by looking at the mistakes of the past. This should be a journey of discovery solely for the purpose of improving your own relationship with God, not to let you lose faith, become embittered, or harshly judge others.
Recognizing mistakes is only useful if it improves your understanding of, and relationship with God. If you cannot do that, then leave it alone and do something else.
Two quick asides:
First, if Hyrum's letter to the church (posted yesterday) had been followed, Parley Pratt would not have been killed. He never would have given assistance to Eleanor McLean, which motivated her husband Hector to kill Parley.
Second, don't substitute one idol for another. I'm not going to save you. Just like no other man will. That is the role of the Lord, and the Lord alone. Follow Him.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Posted Essays
We have had continued requests for the essays Denver has written. The requests have increased since he mentioned "The First Three Words of the Endowment" in a recent post. Here are the links:
"The First Three Words"
"Elijah Talk"
These links will take you to the Scribd website. You don't need a Facebook account to access Scribd, but you do need a Scribd account. They are free and registering is simple and doesn't obligate you to anything.
Scribd -The World’s Largest Online Library. Read, Publish, and Share Documents and Written Works.
"The First Three Words"
"Elijah Talk"
These links will take you to the Scribd website. You don't need a Facebook account to access Scribd, but you do need a Scribd account. They are free and registering is simple and doesn't obligate you to anything.
Scribd -The World’s Largest Online Library. Read, Publish, and Share Documents and Written Works.
Hyrum Smith, Part 3
In November 1842, Hyrum Smith wrote the following letter to the church. I reprint it in whole, without comment. Joseph was irritated because the church did not seem to realize Hyrum was entitled to lead the church. William Clayton's Journal records on July 16, 1843 that Joseph said the following: "Hyrum held the office of prophet to the church by birthright... the Saints must regard Hyrum for he has authority."
The letter (reproduced below) probably should have been included in the D&C. It tells a great deal about the kind of leader Hyrum Smith would have made had he survived Joseph's death:
To our well beloved brother Parley P. Pratt, and to the elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in England, and scattered abroad throughout all Europe, and to the Saints—Greeting:
The letter (reproduced below) probably should have been included in the D&C. It tells a great deal about the kind of leader Hyrum Smith would have made had he survived Joseph's death:
To our well beloved brother Parley P. Pratt, and to the elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in England, and scattered abroad throughout all Europe, and to the Saints—Greeting:
Whereas, in times past persons have been permitted to gather with the Saints at Nauvoo, in North America—such as husbands leaving their wives and children behind; also, such as wives leaving their husbands, and such as husbands leaving their wives who have no children, and some because their companions are unbelievers. All this kind of proceedings we consider to be erroneous and for want of proper information. And the same should be taught to all the Saints, and not suffer families to be broken up on any account whatever if it be possible to avoid it. Suffer no man to leave his wife because she is an unbeliever. These things are an evil and must be forbidden by the authorities of the church or they will come under condemnation; for the gathering is not in hast nor by flight, but to prepare all things before you, and you know not but the unbeliever may be converted and the Lord heal him; but let the believers exercise faith in God, and the unbelieving husband shall be sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, and families are preserved and saved from a great evil which we have seen verified before our eyes. Behold this is a wicked generation, full of lyings, and deceit, and craftiness; and the children of the wicked are wiser than the children of light; that is, they are more crafty; and it seems that it has been the case in all ages of the world.
And the man who leaves his wife and travels to a foreign nation, has his mind overpowered with darkness, and Satan deceived him and flatters him with the graces of the harlot, and before he is aware he is disgraced forever; and greater is the danger for the woman that leaves her husband. The evils resulting from such proceedings are of such a nature as to oblige us to cut them off from the church.
And we also forbid that a woman leave her husband because he is an unbeliever. We also forbid that a man shall leave his wife because she is an unbeliever. If he be a bad man (i.e., the believer) there is a law to remedy that evil. And if the law divorce them, then they are at liberty; otherwise they are bound as long as they two shall live, and it is not our prerogative to go beyond this; if we do it, it will be at the expense of our reputation.
These things we have written in plainness and we desire that they should be publicly known, and request this to be published in the STAR.
May the Lord bestow his blessings upon all the Saints richly, and hasten the gathering, and bring about the fullness of the everlasting covenant are the prayers of your brethren.
Written by Hyrum Smith, patriarch.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Hyrum Smith, Part 2
In order to have a meaningful discussion about Hyrum, it is necessary to provide background information that may seem strange to most modern Latter-day Saints. We have a much different story today than the story told in the beginning. To communicate across the barrier of mistaken and incomplete understanding, there are some ideas that seem strange that are required as background to begin to explain why Hyrum was so significant.
Hyrum was given the calling of "Priesthood and Patriarch" in a revelation in January, 1841. (D&C 124: 91.) That seems a curious statement to us, since everyone is presumed to have held the "priesthood" as soon as they were "elders" in the church. In the beginning, however, it was not understood the same way it is now. The offices of "elder," like other offices, (priests, deacons, teachers) were offices in the church. (D&C 20: 38.) They were not coincidental to having priesthood. They were "offices... in the church of Christ." (This was the original name of the church.) These offices were elected, approved by common consent, and then filled by those elected. After Section 107, the two things (church office and priesthood) were conflated to mean the same thing. The office belongs to the church, and whether there is priesthood present or not, the right to preach, teach, expound, exhort, baptize, lay on hands for the Holy Ghost, bless and pass the sacrament, are all things which the Lord commissioned the church to perform. This is also why, at the time Joseph and Oliver received only the Aaronic Priesthood, (JS-H 1: 69) they began to call one another the First and Second "elder of the church." (JS-H 1: 72.) This is also why Joseph and Oliver received the Holy Ghost when baptized (JS-H 1: 73) even though the angel said the priesthood given did not have "the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." (JS-H 1: 70.) They had the right to baptize, they were called the "First and Second elders of the church," but they did not have the "power of laying on hands" for the Holy Ghost. This is not inconsistent, but it is different from what we now overlay onto the idea of priesthood. Today we are more confused than ever even when we think ourselves in possession of the truth.
In any event, when the January 1841 revelation came, Hyrum had already proven valiant. The time arrived when the Lord wanted Hyrum to be ordained to "Priesthood" and "Patriarch" so that he might "hold the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people." (D&C 124: 93.) This same revelation appointed another "prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto [the Lord's] church." (D&C 124: 94.) This was the word of the Lord establishing this status and entitling Hyrum to claim this position.
He was then to "act in concert also with my servant Joseph" as co-president of the church. (D&C 124: 95.) Joseph had restored to him "all things" and could ask and the Lord would "make all things known unto" him (D&C 132: 45). Hyrum was likewise able to "ask and receive" answers from the Lord. (D&C 124: 95.)
Because of this ordination by the word of the Lord, Hyrum was given the power to seal: "Whoever he blesses shall be blessed, and whoever he curses shall be cursed; that whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (D&C 124: 93.) These rights made him co-equal with Joseph, though Hyrum always acted only in concert with Joseph. He was meek, like Moses (Numbers 12: 3) and like Nephi, son of Helaman (Helaman 10: 5). They could be trusted by the Lord because they would do what the Lord wanted, not what they wanted. (See also Alma 14: 10-11.)
This is the kind of man Hyrum was. He was trusted by the Lord, and chose to die with his brother. Had he lived, He would have been Joseph's successor. Brigham Young said this during the debates over who should succeed Joseph as the president: "Did Joseph Smith ordain any man to take his place? He did. Who was it? It was Hyrum..." (Times & Seasons, October 15, 1844, Vol. 5, p. 683.)
This is an interesting fact because Hyrum was not a member of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time he was killed. However, even Brigham Young, who won the initial debate having argued that the twelve should lead, and then ultimately won an election in December 1847 to become the president of the church, acknowledged it was Hyrum's right to succeed Joseph. With Hyrum gone, and without any clear direction to follow, the church elected first the twelve, and then Brigham Young.
Brigham Young was never ordained to be church president. He was elected. The initial offices of Elder, Priest, Teacher, Deacon were elected positions. Brigham Young viewed the office of church president as similarly elected.
He explained how he thought this should operate. Anyone could lead the church. All that was required was an election, then the prayers of the members. Here is the system: "Take any man in this kingdom, and if the people say that they will make him a President, or a Bishop, or elect him to fill any other office, and the faith of the people is concentrated to receive light through that officer or pipe laid by the power of the Priesthood from the throne of God, you might as well try to move the heavens as to receive anything wrong through that conductor. No matter whom you elect for an officer, if your faith is concentrated in him through whom to receive the things which he is appointed to administer in, light will come to you. Let a presiding officer or a Bishop turn away from righteousness, and the Lord Almighty would give him the lock-jaw, if he could not stop his mouth in any other way, or send a fit of numb palsy on him, so that he could not act, as sure as the people over whom he presided were right, that they might not be led astray." (Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 1379, November 29, 1857; the talk can also found at JD Vol. 6 beginning on p. 93.) In this system, the power of being elected coupled with the members' prayers were enough to always insure the answers you got through that leader were exactly perfect.
This was in the early days when church leaders were elected to office. Church authorities may offer names, but the congregation, stake, or church members elected them to office.
With Hyrum's death, we lost something of great value. If he had outlived Joseph, he would have been the unchallenged church president. His succession would have set the pattern for later church presidents. They each would have chosen their own successors before they died. (See D&C 43: 2-5.)
By the time Brigham Young established the twelve as the seat of power, the pattern was set. Instead of the replacement being chosen by the sitting president through revelation, the senior apostle was presumed to be the next in line. Today's legal structure using the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the succession is automatic. The corporation's sole member is the longest tenured apostle. This is in place because Hyrum did not outlive Joseph. So we are all affected by the loss of Joseph's brother.
Hyrum was given the calling of "Priesthood and Patriarch" in a revelation in January, 1841. (D&C 124: 91.) That seems a curious statement to us, since everyone is presumed to have held the "priesthood" as soon as they were "elders" in the church. In the beginning, however, it was not understood the same way it is now. The offices of "elder," like other offices, (priests, deacons, teachers) were offices in the church. (D&C 20: 38.) They were not coincidental to having priesthood. They were "offices... in the church of Christ." (This was the original name of the church.) These offices were elected, approved by common consent, and then filled by those elected. After Section 107, the two things (church office and priesthood) were conflated to mean the same thing. The office belongs to the church, and whether there is priesthood present or not, the right to preach, teach, expound, exhort, baptize, lay on hands for the Holy Ghost, bless and pass the sacrament, are all things which the Lord commissioned the church to perform. This is also why, at the time Joseph and Oliver received only the Aaronic Priesthood, (JS-H 1: 69) they began to call one another the First and Second "elder of the church." (JS-H 1: 72.) This is also why Joseph and Oliver received the Holy Ghost when baptized (JS-H 1: 73) even though the angel said the priesthood given did not have "the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." (JS-H 1: 70.) They had the right to baptize, they were called the "First and Second elders of the church," but they did not have the "power of laying on hands" for the Holy Ghost. This is not inconsistent, but it is different from what we now overlay onto the idea of priesthood. Today we are more confused than ever even when we think ourselves in possession of the truth.
In any event, when the January 1841 revelation came, Hyrum had already proven valiant. The time arrived when the Lord wanted Hyrum to be ordained to "Priesthood" and "Patriarch" so that he might "hold the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people." (D&C 124: 93.) This same revelation appointed another "prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto [the Lord's] church." (D&C 124: 94.) This was the word of the Lord establishing this status and entitling Hyrum to claim this position.
He was then to "act in concert also with my servant Joseph" as co-president of the church. (D&C 124: 95.) Joseph had restored to him "all things" and could ask and the Lord would "make all things known unto" him (D&C 132: 45). Hyrum was likewise able to "ask and receive" answers from the Lord. (D&C 124: 95.)
Because of this ordination by the word of the Lord, Hyrum was given the power to seal: "Whoever he blesses shall be blessed, and whoever he curses shall be cursed; that whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (D&C 124: 93.) These rights made him co-equal with Joseph, though Hyrum always acted only in concert with Joseph. He was meek, like Moses (Numbers 12: 3) and like Nephi, son of Helaman (Helaman 10: 5). They could be trusted by the Lord because they would do what the Lord wanted, not what they wanted. (See also Alma 14: 10-11.)
This is the kind of man Hyrum was. He was trusted by the Lord, and chose to die with his brother. Had he lived, He would have been Joseph's successor. Brigham Young said this during the debates over who should succeed Joseph as the president: "Did Joseph Smith ordain any man to take his place? He did. Who was it? It was Hyrum..." (Times & Seasons, October 15, 1844, Vol. 5, p. 683.)
This is an interesting fact because Hyrum was not a member of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time he was killed. However, even Brigham Young, who won the initial debate having argued that the twelve should lead, and then ultimately won an election in December 1847 to become the president of the church, acknowledged it was Hyrum's right to succeed Joseph. With Hyrum gone, and without any clear direction to follow, the church elected first the twelve, and then Brigham Young.
Brigham Young was never ordained to be church president. He was elected. The initial offices of Elder, Priest, Teacher, Deacon were elected positions. Brigham Young viewed the office of church president as similarly elected.
He explained how he thought this should operate. Anyone could lead the church. All that was required was an election, then the prayers of the members. Here is the system: "Take any man in this kingdom, and if the people say that they will make him a President, or a Bishop, or elect him to fill any other office, and the faith of the people is concentrated to receive light through that officer or pipe laid by the power of the Priesthood from the throne of God, you might as well try to move the heavens as to receive anything wrong through that conductor. No matter whom you elect for an officer, if your faith is concentrated in him through whom to receive the things which he is appointed to administer in, light will come to you. Let a presiding officer or a Bishop turn away from righteousness, and the Lord Almighty would give him the lock-jaw, if he could not stop his mouth in any other way, or send a fit of numb palsy on him, so that he could not act, as sure as the people over whom he presided were right, that they might not be led astray." (Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 1379, November 29, 1857; the talk can also found at JD Vol. 6 beginning on p. 93.) In this system, the power of being elected coupled with the members' prayers were enough to always insure the answers you got through that leader were exactly perfect.
This was in the early days when church leaders were elected to office. Church authorities may offer names, but the congregation, stake, or church members elected them to office.
With Hyrum's death, we lost something of great value. If he had outlived Joseph, he would have been the unchallenged church president. His succession would have set the pattern for later church presidents. They each would have chosen their own successors before they died. (See D&C 43: 2-5.)
By the time Brigham Young established the twelve as the seat of power, the pattern was set. Instead of the replacement being chosen by the sitting president through revelation, the senior apostle was presumed to be the next in line. Today's legal structure using the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the succession is automatic. The corporation's sole member is the longest tenured apostle. This is in place because Hyrum did not outlive Joseph. So we are all affected by the loss of Joseph's brother.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Hyrum Smith
Hyrum Smith would eventually replace Joseph Smith as the prophet of the church. However, in 1829 he was given a revelation through his younger brother, Joseph. This was given before the Book of Mormon was published, before a church was organized, and while the work of the new Dispensation was in its very first stages. The content, however, is important. Not just for Hyrum, but for all of us.
Just like others, Hyrum was reminded of what it took to be called to the work: "whosoever will thrust in his sicle and reap, the same is called of God." (D&C 11: 4, see 3 also.) It wasn't an extensive application and approval process, but it was based on the willingness to do what God wanted that created "the call of God" to the laborer. Without ordination, or setting apart, the relationship was between the individual and God. It is an interesting series of revelations at the beginning of the work which uniformly leave God's calling to the individual, based on their desire. (See, e.g., D&C 4: 3; D&C 12: 4; among others.)
The first stage, however, was limited to crying repentance. Hyrum was to "say nothing but reptentance unto this generation." (D&C 11: 9.) The potential for Hyrum doing more later was certain, provided he would follow the Lord's counsel. (D&C 11: 10.)
Hyrum was instructed on how to know he was proceeding in the right way: "put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good--yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit." (D&C 11: 12.)
Then, despite his desire and the call, Hyrum was told to temporarily stand down. The Lord instructs him: "Behold, I command you that you need not suppose that you are called to preach until you are called. Wait a little longer, until you shall have my word, my rock, my church, and my gospel, that you may know of a surety my doctrine." (D&C 11: 15-16.)
The Lord told Hyrum essentially to 'stand down' and not do anything, even if he were "called" to the work. There was more needed before he could be of use to the Lord. He needed to accomplish one work: "Behold, this is your work, to keep my commandments, yea, with all your might, mind and strength." (D&C 11: 20.)
Then, one of the great voices of the Restoration was told: "Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and they shall your tongue be loosed." (D&C 11: 21.) Hyrum needed to study. He needed to fill himself with information before he began his work. "Hold your peace; study my word which hath gone forth among the children of men, and also study my word which shall come forth among the children of men, or that which is now translating, yea, until you have obtained all which I shall grant unto the children of men in this generation, and then shall all things be added thereto." (D&C 11: 22.) Hyrum had homework to do. He needed to "study" things.
Hyrum would become the church prophet and Patriarch. He would be co-president and co-testator with his younger brother, Joseph. Joseph had several other brothers, but it was Hyrum who followed the forumla given him by the Lord. It was Hyrum who qualified himself to the work by his diligence and heed.
Hyrum was the designated successor to Joseph as the head of the church. But Hyrum fell first, and he and his younger brother died martyrs.
Just like others, Hyrum was reminded of what it took to be called to the work: "whosoever will thrust in his sicle and reap, the same is called of God." (D&C 11: 4, see 3 also.) It wasn't an extensive application and approval process, but it was based on the willingness to do what God wanted that created "the call of God" to the laborer. Without ordination, or setting apart, the relationship was between the individual and God. It is an interesting series of revelations at the beginning of the work which uniformly leave God's calling to the individual, based on their desire. (See, e.g., D&C 4: 3; D&C 12: 4; among others.)
The first stage, however, was limited to crying repentance. Hyrum was to "say nothing but reptentance unto this generation." (D&C 11: 9.) The potential for Hyrum doing more later was certain, provided he would follow the Lord's counsel. (D&C 11: 10.)
Hyrum was instructed on how to know he was proceeding in the right way: "put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good--yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit." (D&C 11: 12.)
Then, despite his desire and the call, Hyrum was told to temporarily stand down. The Lord instructs him: "Behold, I command you that you need not suppose that you are called to preach until you are called. Wait a little longer, until you shall have my word, my rock, my church, and my gospel, that you may know of a surety my doctrine." (D&C 11: 15-16.)
The Lord told Hyrum essentially to 'stand down' and not do anything, even if he were "called" to the work. There was more needed before he could be of use to the Lord. He needed to accomplish one work: "Behold, this is your work, to keep my commandments, yea, with all your might, mind and strength." (D&C 11: 20.)
Then, one of the great voices of the Restoration was told: "Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and they shall your tongue be loosed." (D&C 11: 21.) Hyrum needed to study. He needed to fill himself with information before he began his work. "Hold your peace; study my word which hath gone forth among the children of men, and also study my word which shall come forth among the children of men, or that which is now translating, yea, until you have obtained all which I shall grant unto the children of men in this generation, and then shall all things be added thereto." (D&C 11: 22.) Hyrum had homework to do. He needed to "study" things.
Hyrum would become the church prophet and Patriarch. He would be co-president and co-testator with his younger brother, Joseph. Joseph had several other brothers, but it was Hyrum who followed the forumla given him by the Lord. It was Hyrum who qualified himself to the work by his diligence and heed.
Hyrum was the designated successor to Joseph as the head of the church. But Hyrum fell first, and he and his younger brother died martyrs.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Another Inquiry About Adam-God
In response to several comments (actually complaints) about my mention of Adam-God doctrine as taught by Brigham Young. Rather than remaining silent and inviting further comment I'll add this and then leave it alone.
Brigham Young is presumed by almost everyone to have been closer to Joseph than he was. He is presumed to have understood Joseph's teachings better than he actually did. He was not with Joseph during most of the years of his Apostleship when Joseph was alive.
The question to me is not what Brigham Young taught. That does not clarify the matter to my understanding. The question is what is true? Whether Brigham Young understood it or not, or whether he was able to explain it or not, what is true?
The answer to that question is best solved by going to the scriptures. I've tried to address the question in the paper: The First Three Words Spoken in the Endowment. You can download it from the blog. In it I go through the scriptures showing that the group called "noble and great" were also called "the Gods" in Chapter 4 of the Book of Abraham. Also, that Joseph referred to this group as "sons of God, who exalted themselves to be gods, even from before the foundation of the world." (TPJS, p. 375.) Joseph mentioned the word-name "Elohim" is plural. "El" is the singular, Elohim is the plural. The identities of the "Elohim" is best understood in Abraham Chapters 3 and 4.
Joseph was excited about this in the last sermons he gave in Nauvoo. That is why the paper focused on Joseph's treatment of the Book of Abraham material.
The problem is not that I haven't studied Brigham Young enough, but that I do not draw my conclusions from him. He is not consistent in his comments. Furthermore, he was trying to repeat what he thought Joseph was teaching. You can by-pass him and go to the scriptures and figure it out for yourself, without straining the truth through Brigham Young's effort to explain something.
There is something to the doctrine. But I'm not persuaded that Brigham Young understood the matter as well as I do. Further, I am quite confident that Brigham Young did not understand Joseph Smith as well as most Latter-day Saints presume.
The question is answered using scripture.
Also, for those who think they are better read on some questions than I am, I've spent decades studying Mormon history and doctrine. Recently, I've been studying Brigham Young's statements now available for the first time in a single comprehensive collection. This five volume collection has become the best single work on the words of Brigham Young. After reading thousands of pages of his talks, I have reached a number of conclusions about Brigham Young that I will eventually write about.
Brigham Young claimed there was only one "Father" of all mankind, both as the first man and again in the pre-existence. There is more to that story than this simple reduction. But the push by the church to be more like other "Christian" faiths, along with the criticism this doctrine has brought to Mormonism, has made it a matter the church would like to leave alone. Once President Kimball denounced the matter as a "false theory," it was over as far as the church was concerned. The greatest interest in this question exists now only among fundamentalists. They have suffered greatly because of the credibility they have given to Brigham Young.
To the extent that I have felt any need to touch on this matter, it is in that paper. As to Brigham Young, however, I intend to write more about him, but not here.
Brigham Young is presumed by almost everyone to have been closer to Joseph than he was. He is presumed to have understood Joseph's teachings better than he actually did. He was not with Joseph during most of the years of his Apostleship when Joseph was alive.
The question to me is not what Brigham Young taught. That does not clarify the matter to my understanding. The question is what is true? Whether Brigham Young understood it or not, or whether he was able to explain it or not, what is true?
The answer to that question is best solved by going to the scriptures. I've tried to address the question in the paper: The First Three Words Spoken in the Endowment. You can download it from the blog. In it I go through the scriptures showing that the group called "noble and great" were also called "the Gods" in Chapter 4 of the Book of Abraham. Also, that Joseph referred to this group as "sons of God, who exalted themselves to be gods, even from before the foundation of the world." (TPJS, p. 375.) Joseph mentioned the word-name "Elohim" is plural. "El" is the singular, Elohim is the plural. The identities of the "Elohim" is best understood in Abraham Chapters 3 and 4.
Joseph was excited about this in the last sermons he gave in Nauvoo. That is why the paper focused on Joseph's treatment of the Book of Abraham material.
The problem is not that I haven't studied Brigham Young enough, but that I do not draw my conclusions from him. He is not consistent in his comments. Furthermore, he was trying to repeat what he thought Joseph was teaching. You can by-pass him and go to the scriptures and figure it out for yourself, without straining the truth through Brigham Young's effort to explain something.
There is something to the doctrine. But I'm not persuaded that Brigham Young understood the matter as well as I do. Further, I am quite confident that Brigham Young did not understand Joseph Smith as well as most Latter-day Saints presume.
The question is answered using scripture.
Also, for those who think they are better read on some questions than I am, I've spent decades studying Mormon history and doctrine. Recently, I've been studying Brigham Young's statements now available for the first time in a single comprehensive collection. This five volume collection has become the best single work on the words of Brigham Young. After reading thousands of pages of his talks, I have reached a number of conclusions about Brigham Young that I will eventually write about.
Brigham Young claimed there was only one "Father" of all mankind, both as the first man and again in the pre-existence. There is more to that story than this simple reduction. But the push by the church to be more like other "Christian" faiths, along with the criticism this doctrine has brought to Mormonism, has made it a matter the church would like to leave alone. Once President Kimball denounced the matter as a "false theory," it was over as far as the church was concerned. The greatest interest in this question exists now only among fundamentalists. They have suffered greatly because of the credibility they have given to Brigham Young.
To the extent that I have felt any need to touch on this matter, it is in that paper. As to Brigham Young, however, I intend to write more about him, but not here.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Clearing Off Some Pending Questions
Do I consider myself "a prophet?"
The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy. (Revelation 19: 10.) I have the testimony of Jesus.
What if someone has prayed and "still not been visited" by the Second Comforter?
The problem is in the word "still." What makes you think you control timing? What makes you think you are prepared? The Lord alone determines timing. And the Lord alone judges preparation. The Lord does not come to cause faith, but in response to existing faith. If your faith would be increased by such a visit, it will not occur. The faith necessary requires the sacrifice of all things. You must develop that. That is why I wrote The Second Comforter.
Which version of the ordinances, 1870's, 1920's, post-1990, or current, would I prefer to see in the Temple?
Brigham Young's effort to "complete" the endowment was entrusted to him by Joseph. I have to admit, there are some things he did that were excessive, but nevertheless he completed the charge. They weren't reduced to writing until the 1870's. There are steps that needed to be taken. Joseph understood what was needed, and Brigham Young likely did not. Nevertheless, Brigham Young was tasked with the job and therefore, he operated under Joseph's charge. Details matter. Not merely in the rites but in how the rites came into being. When the Lord allows something, then what the Lord allows (and only what He allows) is permitted. When we go beyond that mark, we lose the commission and we are on our own. I'm acquainted with all the changes. I have found them all and studied them all. I know all of the many differences. In the context of the previous post, it was not important to distinguish between the original, incomplete rites above the Red Brick Store and the later developments. Nor was it necessary to suggest there were other changes between the final version written in the 1870's and those made most recently. It is the issue of changing, not which changes, that I was responding to in the post. The answer did not attempt to give information beyond the narrow issue. To parse through the history of the temple is a task which I've not attempted in writing, and I have no intention of undertaking such a thankless job. Those who would be most benefitted from it resent the discussion. Others revel in the information and have no benefit from it.
What can you do if you're not acquainted with the pre-1990 endowment?
I don't think that's the issue. The issue is whether you will take your present covenants seriously and live true and faithful to them. Treat them as a matter between you and God, and look to Him for the further light and knowledge which He promises to send to those who are faithful in all things. If you remain true and faithful, then you should expect to receive further light and knowledge by conversing with the Lord through the veil. He employs no servant there. He will meet you and will give you such information as you need to then enter into His presence. The rites are a symbol. Treat them as such. The confirmation of the Lord's intention to preserve you as His will come from Him, not some ordinance worker practicing altered rites. What remains is still enough to inform you of the Lord's ways. Walk in those ways.
You disagree with submitting to authority as I have suggested:
Then don't. See what your rebellion gets you. As for me, I trust the Lord was sincere when He admonished following Annas and Caiphus because "they sit in Moses' seat." But, He added, we are not expected to "do as they do." The tradition has been handed down, and we fit into that tradition. We study the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and we thank the institution which prints and distrubutes them. However, we look to the contents of those for the Lord's word and will. Even the church's authorities tell us consistently the measure of truth is found in the scriptures, and the president of the church cannot contradict them. The church doesn't require much of us. Tithing, fasting, serving, supporting leaders, etc. These are nothing compared with overcoming our hearts and minds and living as a sacrifice to God.
Where do women fit into the Second Comforter?
The first person to receive the risen Lord was a woman. More women saw Him before ANY of His apostles following the resurrection. The apostles were rebuked because they didn't believe the women's testimony. The requirement for priesthood is related to the man. For women, their condition and covenant with the Lord from the time of Eve is different that the condition and covenant of Adam. Male and female relationships with the Lord are not governed by the same terms. It is the partnership of those two different roles which produces the image of God. When viewed from God's perspective, woman completes the man. Without her, his condition is "not good" because he remains incomplete.
Wouldn't membership in an apostate branch of the restoration do more harm than good?
No. The Lord will gather primarily from those who already accept the restoration. Those who accept the restoration as far as it got, who honor Joseph Smith's status as a Dispensation head, who accept the Book of Mormon, D&C, PofGP and the temple rites are far better off and more able to receive what will come before Zion is built than the rest of this world. The Lord's gathering at the last will be composed, primarily (although not exclusively) from among these people.
As to Zion:
Just because you have the idea in front of you doesn't mean you have any concept of what will be required to have the angels gather you into that company. It is like the notion that you're going to be "exalted" without any idea that the eternities are completely isolated from the unworthy. No one will or can be "exalted" who is not adequately prepared. Anyone who attains that status will be required first to suffer what is suffered, minister what is required to be ministered, to prove here their fitness. How could a selfish soul ever provide to their ungrateful and abusive offspring everything necessary for them to develop? Exalted beings sacrifice themselves, and endure punishment on behalf of the guilty. They take upon themselves burdens which they do not deserve. They forgive, they succor, they uplift the unworthy. Pride is incompatible, and selfishness utterly disqualifies a soul from "exaltation." The principles which govern there are hardly understood here. Most of the faithful Latter-day Saints imagine they will able to employ means much like Lucifer's to accomplish their expected outcome. They have no concept of the sacrifices and selflessness required to be trusted by the Lord. He is the prototype of the saved man. He lived His entire existence as a sacrifice. Read 3 Ne. 11: 11 and you will find in His introduction of Himself what a saved man must do. There is no other way. The prideful expectation that someone here is going to attain that status hereafter is based, for the most part, on foolishness and vanity, uninformed by the great things required to become like our Lord. Only those who are exactly like Him will be given that status in the eternities. Zion will be formed from people who are willing to endure His presence. That is no small thing.
If Christ doesn't change why aren't we living the Law of Moses?
Because He fulfilled that law. It was "added" and then fulfilled. It was added because the Dispensation intended to be delivered through Moses was rejected by Israel (D&C 84: 19-24). Much like what happened with us. The Dispensation the Lord wanted to hand us was not received (D&C 124: 28). Therefore, something less was added. We get to partake in what we were willing to receive, but we were not willing to receive what we might have been given (D&C 88: 33). Now that about four generations have passed, at some point the Lord will open the heavens again, and we will see His hand moving to allow another opportunity. When that happens, things will be finished. It will be different from what we got through Joseph. It will reflect what might have been given anciently through Moses, and what was offered and rejected through Joseph Smith. It will make possible the establishment of a city of refuge where the Lord can come and dwell with His people (D&C 101: 16-18). You should note, however, that the Law from Moses till Jesus Christ did not change. Dispensations mark changes, like the great dance in the sky moves from constellation to constellation. The turning shows change, the Dispensations here reflect it, the heavens testify the Lord knew the end from the beginning. This is why the stars testify of the Lord's plan and move to bear that testimony (D&C 88: 45-47). But inside Dispensations, ordinances have traditionally been respected and kept unchanged. The only notable exceptions being the one given through Christ and the one given through Joseph Smith. In the case of Christ, the changes marked the apostasy, not the Lord's approved course of conduct. We claim our changes have been made with the Lord's approval. I would note, however, that the explanation given with the changes NEVER claimed the alterations of the Temple rites were because of revelation. They were made based on the claim that the church leaders "held the keys" which allowed them to make the changes. There has never been any claim made contemporaneous with any of the changes that attributed the altered ordinances to revelation from the Lord.
A general note:
Some issues would require a book to lay out the information. They are unsuitable for a blog post. Never conclude that some brief mention is all that is required to set out a matter. I've avoided some subjects because it is misleading to give a brief comment about them. As I contemplate the subjects which require some explanation, I realize it would take another book. Don't presume a comment is more than an allusion to a subject. I try to be helpful., but there is so much more that needs to be understood. I hope the answers illustrate the need for you to devote years of study. Study and prayer are the only way to unlock the mysteries of God. I cannot substitute for that, and do not attempt to provide a shortcut for you. You must engage the Gospel yourself. If you are unwilling to do that, then you will never profit from what I offer. I only refer to the least part of these matters. I raise topics. These are important. You need to investigate them. They are vast. They are hardly understood anymore. They are no longer taught. If you want to understand God, you will have to accomplish that in the same way as all who went before. Take Enoch and Abraham as examples. They studied everything they could find before asking God to show them more. God refused to move their intelligence upward until after they had first obtained a sound understanding, by study, of what He had previously revealed to the fathers. (See Abr. 1: 28, D&C 107: 57, for example.) These past saved men were not merely simpletons like us, surfing the web and looking to the blogosphere to provide them shortcuts. You will delude yourself if you are not spending hours each day studying the scriptures to see what they contain. Sometimes I think the Lord has me on a fool's errand doing more harm than good. Many of you think that this is a hobby of mine; or that my opinion is just as ill-conceived as your own; or that you can get what you need by what little I post here without the effort of approaching God yourself. I think the harm from that is enough the Lord ought to just let me withdraw from this endeavor and finish the rest of what needs doing in private. He has higher regard for your potential than I have on days like today. But, then again, there are other days when I am filled with hope for all of you. Today is just not one of them.
What is the "Abrahamic test?"
The Lord adapts the test required to prove a person to their unique circumstances. The test given to Abraham was adapted perfectly to him. To understand how great the sacrifice was, the account needed to inform us of the difficulty encountered by him and Sarah to obtain this child of promise. We needed to know the promised future inheritance of a posterity as numerous as the sand or the stars was tied directly to this son's survival. It was, in the context of Abraham's life and promises from God, the sacrifice of everything. All his hopes, all his promises from God, all his joy with Sarah, all his future descendants were to be laid on the altar and sacrificed. His heart could only be proven through this means. The Abrahamic Test, therefore, will ask the same of you. It will be adapted to what you hope to receive, or have been promised to receive from God. It will end the work of years, and will require you to sacrifice all to God. What one person prizes is never the same as another. What would be easy for one will be nearly impossible for another. The test is adapted to each person. But it will be equally painful, equally difficult and equally proving of the person. Until the heart is tried in this manner we can never know we will submit everything to the Lord. If such a test has not been given you, then it is because the Lord knows you are not prepared to face it. As soon as you are prepared, you will encounter it. For most people they will likely be in their 50's, after having spent many years preparing to overcome themselves. There are notable examples who were much younger, namely Samuel or Joseph Smith. Those are exceptions. Abraham was between 70 and 100, depending on how you reconstruct the chronology. Moses was 80. Those are not atypical examples. Until you know your own heart is purified before God, you cannot bear Him nor have the required faith in Him. This is not an avoidable option, but an essential ingredient in knowing Him. This is why there are years of preparation generally required, and warnings given about continuing forward. The recipient must volunteer. And they must be warned beforehand.
What was the difference between Korihor's claims and Lehi's?
Lehi followed Christ. Korihor did not. Lehi was a disciple of the Lord's. Korihor was an enemy of His. Lehi propounded a true message, Korihor a false one. Lehi was Christ-like. Korihor was an anti-Christ. Lehi spoke the truth. Korihor was a liar. They were polar opposites. But the question illustrates that the god of this world is imitative. The difference between truth and error does not lie in the difference between religion and irreligion, but instead between true religion which will save, and false religion which cannot save. If it were any less a test, the very elect would not be deceived in the last days. Unless there are false prophets claiming they are authorized by God to preach false and idle messages, God cannot send true ones to declare the truth. The opposition of the one is required for the other. The enemy of your soul does not create a new religion, but imitates the true one. The Lord's messenger will be mirrored by the adversary's, but the reflected image will be reversed. Those who follow the image will find themselves descending, while they think they are ascending to God. Hence the name: "the Deceiver." He deceives, and even mirrors God's angels by the claim to be an "angel of light" while spreading darkness. The Deceiver's false prophets will point you to themselves, to their great works, wonderful accomplishments, and the pride you should take in following them. The Lord's will point you to Him and preach repentance. The false prophets will speak of riches here, and suggest God's favor can be measured by success in this world. The Lord will speak only of riches in another world which are only obtained through the sacrifice of all things here.
One comment said I don't know what I'm talking about, because all the temple ordinance changes have been through revelation. The people in charge are prophets, seers and revelators, and therefore they invariably operate through revelation. So I'm misleading people because I'm not well informed.
When the changes were made, for at least a week, sometimes longer, a letter was read to temple patrons explaining there had been changes made. Those letters invariably referred to the "keys" held by church leaders as the source to justify the changes. I listened closely. There was never any mention made of a revelation requiring the change. Further, there are obligations imposed by Acts, the Book of Mormon, and the D&C which require church leaders to provide testimony to the church of any visit from Christ, or from an angel, or declaration from God to them. That is the role of the "prophet" and the "seer" and the "revelator." Therefore when a change is made because of an angelic visit, they should testify or witness of it (Moroni 7: 29-32). They should also testify if the Lord visited (Acts 1: 22, D&C 107: 23). Given the absence of that explanation in the letters read to Temple patrons, and the clear statement in the letters from the First Presidency when changes were made, that holding "keys" entitled them to make the change, it is curious to me that a revelation from God would be ignored in the statement. It seems unlikely that in a Temple setting involving changes to Temple rites the fact it was changed because God revealed the change would be something "too sacred" to be stated. Accordingly, unless you impose something which those responsible never put into their statement, they have never received a revelation requiring the changes. If they wanted me to conclude the Lord revealed the change, all they needed to do was to state that. The difference between your view and mine is that I trust these leaders are fully able to say exactly what they mean. Therefore I take them at their word. You, on the other hand, think they lie incessantly and conceal some of the most important information required for their callings. I do not think they are liars.
The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy. (Revelation 19: 10.) I have the testimony of Jesus.
What if someone has prayed and "still not been visited" by the Second Comforter?
The problem is in the word "still." What makes you think you control timing? What makes you think you are prepared? The Lord alone determines timing. And the Lord alone judges preparation. The Lord does not come to cause faith, but in response to existing faith. If your faith would be increased by such a visit, it will not occur. The faith necessary requires the sacrifice of all things. You must develop that. That is why I wrote The Second Comforter.
Which version of the ordinances, 1870's, 1920's, post-1990, or current, would I prefer to see in the Temple?
Brigham Young's effort to "complete" the endowment was entrusted to him by Joseph. I have to admit, there are some things he did that were excessive, but nevertheless he completed the charge. They weren't reduced to writing until the 1870's. There are steps that needed to be taken. Joseph understood what was needed, and Brigham Young likely did not. Nevertheless, Brigham Young was tasked with the job and therefore, he operated under Joseph's charge. Details matter. Not merely in the rites but in how the rites came into being. When the Lord allows something, then what the Lord allows (and only what He allows) is permitted. When we go beyond that mark, we lose the commission and we are on our own. I'm acquainted with all the changes. I have found them all and studied them all. I know all of the many differences. In the context of the previous post, it was not important to distinguish between the original, incomplete rites above the Red Brick Store and the later developments. Nor was it necessary to suggest there were other changes between the final version written in the 1870's and those made most recently. It is the issue of changing, not which changes, that I was responding to in the post. The answer did not attempt to give information beyond the narrow issue. To parse through the history of the temple is a task which I've not attempted in writing, and I have no intention of undertaking such a thankless job. Those who would be most benefitted from it resent the discussion. Others revel in the information and have no benefit from it.
What can you do if you're not acquainted with the pre-1990 endowment?
I don't think that's the issue. The issue is whether you will take your present covenants seriously and live true and faithful to them. Treat them as a matter between you and God, and look to Him for the further light and knowledge which He promises to send to those who are faithful in all things. If you remain true and faithful, then you should expect to receive further light and knowledge by conversing with the Lord through the veil. He employs no servant there. He will meet you and will give you such information as you need to then enter into His presence. The rites are a symbol. Treat them as such. The confirmation of the Lord's intention to preserve you as His will come from Him, not some ordinance worker practicing altered rites. What remains is still enough to inform you of the Lord's ways. Walk in those ways.
You disagree with submitting to authority as I have suggested:
Then don't. See what your rebellion gets you. As for me, I trust the Lord was sincere when He admonished following Annas and Caiphus because "they sit in Moses' seat." But, He added, we are not expected to "do as they do." The tradition has been handed down, and we fit into that tradition. We study the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and we thank the institution which prints and distrubutes them. However, we look to the contents of those for the Lord's word and will. Even the church's authorities tell us consistently the measure of truth is found in the scriptures, and the president of the church cannot contradict them. The church doesn't require much of us. Tithing, fasting, serving, supporting leaders, etc. These are nothing compared with overcoming our hearts and minds and living as a sacrifice to God.
Where do women fit into the Second Comforter?
The first person to receive the risen Lord was a woman. More women saw Him before ANY of His apostles following the resurrection. The apostles were rebuked because they didn't believe the women's testimony. The requirement for priesthood is related to the man. For women, their condition and covenant with the Lord from the time of Eve is different that the condition and covenant of Adam. Male and female relationships with the Lord are not governed by the same terms. It is the partnership of those two different roles which produces the image of God. When viewed from God's perspective, woman completes the man. Without her, his condition is "not good" because he remains incomplete.
Wouldn't membership in an apostate branch of the restoration do more harm than good?
No. The Lord will gather primarily from those who already accept the restoration. Those who accept the restoration as far as it got, who honor Joseph Smith's status as a Dispensation head, who accept the Book of Mormon, D&C, PofGP and the temple rites are far better off and more able to receive what will come before Zion is built than the rest of this world. The Lord's gathering at the last will be composed, primarily (although not exclusively) from among these people.
As to Zion:
Just because you have the idea in front of you doesn't mean you have any concept of what will be required to have the angels gather you into that company. It is like the notion that you're going to be "exalted" without any idea that the eternities are completely isolated from the unworthy. No one will or can be "exalted" who is not adequately prepared. Anyone who attains that status will be required first to suffer what is suffered, minister what is required to be ministered, to prove here their fitness. How could a selfish soul ever provide to their ungrateful and abusive offspring everything necessary for them to develop? Exalted beings sacrifice themselves, and endure punishment on behalf of the guilty. They take upon themselves burdens which they do not deserve. They forgive, they succor, they uplift the unworthy. Pride is incompatible, and selfishness utterly disqualifies a soul from "exaltation." The principles which govern there are hardly understood here. Most of the faithful Latter-day Saints imagine they will able to employ means much like Lucifer's to accomplish their expected outcome. They have no concept of the sacrifices and selflessness required to be trusted by the Lord. He is the prototype of the saved man. He lived His entire existence as a sacrifice. Read 3 Ne. 11: 11 and you will find in His introduction of Himself what a saved man must do. There is no other way. The prideful expectation that someone here is going to attain that status hereafter is based, for the most part, on foolishness and vanity, uninformed by the great things required to become like our Lord. Only those who are exactly like Him will be given that status in the eternities. Zion will be formed from people who are willing to endure His presence. That is no small thing.
If Christ doesn't change why aren't we living the Law of Moses?
Because He fulfilled that law. It was "added" and then fulfilled. It was added because the Dispensation intended to be delivered through Moses was rejected by Israel (D&C 84: 19-24). Much like what happened with us. The Dispensation the Lord wanted to hand us was not received (D&C 124: 28). Therefore, something less was added. We get to partake in what we were willing to receive, but we were not willing to receive what we might have been given (D&C 88: 33). Now that about four generations have passed, at some point the Lord will open the heavens again, and we will see His hand moving to allow another opportunity. When that happens, things will be finished. It will be different from what we got through Joseph. It will reflect what might have been given anciently through Moses, and what was offered and rejected through Joseph Smith. It will make possible the establishment of a city of refuge where the Lord can come and dwell with His people (D&C 101: 16-18). You should note, however, that the Law from Moses till Jesus Christ did not change. Dispensations mark changes, like the great dance in the sky moves from constellation to constellation. The turning shows change, the Dispensations here reflect it, the heavens testify the Lord knew the end from the beginning. This is why the stars testify of the Lord's plan and move to bear that testimony (D&C 88: 45-47). But inside Dispensations, ordinances have traditionally been respected and kept unchanged. The only notable exceptions being the one given through Christ and the one given through Joseph Smith. In the case of Christ, the changes marked the apostasy, not the Lord's approved course of conduct. We claim our changes have been made with the Lord's approval. I would note, however, that the explanation given with the changes NEVER claimed the alterations of the Temple rites were because of revelation. They were made based on the claim that the church leaders "held the keys" which allowed them to make the changes. There has never been any claim made contemporaneous with any of the changes that attributed the altered ordinances to revelation from the Lord.
A general note:
Some issues would require a book to lay out the information. They are unsuitable for a blog post. Never conclude that some brief mention is all that is required to set out a matter. I've avoided some subjects because it is misleading to give a brief comment about them. As I contemplate the subjects which require some explanation, I realize it would take another book. Don't presume a comment is more than an allusion to a subject. I try to be helpful., but there is so much more that needs to be understood. I hope the answers illustrate the need for you to devote years of study. Study and prayer are the only way to unlock the mysteries of God. I cannot substitute for that, and do not attempt to provide a shortcut for you. You must engage the Gospel yourself. If you are unwilling to do that, then you will never profit from what I offer. I only refer to the least part of these matters. I raise topics. These are important. You need to investigate them. They are vast. They are hardly understood anymore. They are no longer taught. If you want to understand God, you will have to accomplish that in the same way as all who went before. Take Enoch and Abraham as examples. They studied everything they could find before asking God to show them more. God refused to move their intelligence upward until after they had first obtained a sound understanding, by study, of what He had previously revealed to the fathers. (See Abr. 1: 28, D&C 107: 57, for example.) These past saved men were not merely simpletons like us, surfing the web and looking to the blogosphere to provide them shortcuts. You will delude yourself if you are not spending hours each day studying the scriptures to see what they contain. Sometimes I think the Lord has me on a fool's errand doing more harm than good. Many of you think that this is a hobby of mine; or that my opinion is just as ill-conceived as your own; or that you can get what you need by what little I post here without the effort of approaching God yourself. I think the harm from that is enough the Lord ought to just let me withdraw from this endeavor and finish the rest of what needs doing in private. He has higher regard for your potential than I have on days like today. But, then again, there are other days when I am filled with hope for all of you. Today is just not one of them.
What is the "Abrahamic test?"
The Lord adapts the test required to prove a person to their unique circumstances. The test given to Abraham was adapted perfectly to him. To understand how great the sacrifice was, the account needed to inform us of the difficulty encountered by him and Sarah to obtain this child of promise. We needed to know the promised future inheritance of a posterity as numerous as the sand or the stars was tied directly to this son's survival. It was, in the context of Abraham's life and promises from God, the sacrifice of everything. All his hopes, all his promises from God, all his joy with Sarah, all his future descendants were to be laid on the altar and sacrificed. His heart could only be proven through this means. The Abrahamic Test, therefore, will ask the same of you. It will be adapted to what you hope to receive, or have been promised to receive from God. It will end the work of years, and will require you to sacrifice all to God. What one person prizes is never the same as another. What would be easy for one will be nearly impossible for another. The test is adapted to each person. But it will be equally painful, equally difficult and equally proving of the person. Until the heart is tried in this manner we can never know we will submit everything to the Lord. If such a test has not been given you, then it is because the Lord knows you are not prepared to face it. As soon as you are prepared, you will encounter it. For most people they will likely be in their 50's, after having spent many years preparing to overcome themselves. There are notable examples who were much younger, namely Samuel or Joseph Smith. Those are exceptions. Abraham was between 70 and 100, depending on how you reconstruct the chronology. Moses was 80. Those are not atypical examples. Until you know your own heart is purified before God, you cannot bear Him nor have the required faith in Him. This is not an avoidable option, but an essential ingredient in knowing Him. This is why there are years of preparation generally required, and warnings given about continuing forward. The recipient must volunteer. And they must be warned beforehand.
What was the difference between Korihor's claims and Lehi's?
Lehi followed Christ. Korihor did not. Lehi was a disciple of the Lord's. Korihor was an enemy of His. Lehi propounded a true message, Korihor a false one. Lehi was Christ-like. Korihor was an anti-Christ. Lehi spoke the truth. Korihor was a liar. They were polar opposites. But the question illustrates that the god of this world is imitative. The difference between truth and error does not lie in the difference between religion and irreligion, but instead between true religion which will save, and false religion which cannot save. If it were any less a test, the very elect would not be deceived in the last days. Unless there are false prophets claiming they are authorized by God to preach false and idle messages, God cannot send true ones to declare the truth. The opposition of the one is required for the other. The enemy of your soul does not create a new religion, but imitates the true one. The Lord's messenger will be mirrored by the adversary's, but the reflected image will be reversed. Those who follow the image will find themselves descending, while they think they are ascending to God. Hence the name: "the Deceiver." He deceives, and even mirrors God's angels by the claim to be an "angel of light" while spreading darkness. The Deceiver's false prophets will point you to themselves, to their great works, wonderful accomplishments, and the pride you should take in following them. The Lord's will point you to Him and preach repentance. The false prophets will speak of riches here, and suggest God's favor can be measured by success in this world. The Lord will speak only of riches in another world which are only obtained through the sacrifice of all things here.
One comment said I don't know what I'm talking about, because all the temple ordinance changes have been through revelation. The people in charge are prophets, seers and revelators, and therefore they invariably operate through revelation. So I'm misleading people because I'm not well informed.
When the changes were made, for at least a week, sometimes longer, a letter was read to temple patrons explaining there had been changes made. Those letters invariably referred to the "keys" held by church leaders as the source to justify the changes. I listened closely. There was never any mention made of a revelation requiring the change. Further, there are obligations imposed by Acts, the Book of Mormon, and the D&C which require church leaders to provide testimony to the church of any visit from Christ, or from an angel, or declaration from God to them. That is the role of the "prophet" and the "seer" and the "revelator." Therefore when a change is made because of an angelic visit, they should testify or witness of it (Moroni 7: 29-32). They should also testify if the Lord visited (Acts 1: 22, D&C 107: 23). Given the absence of that explanation in the letters read to Temple patrons, and the clear statement in the letters from the First Presidency when changes were made, that holding "keys" entitled them to make the change, it is curious to me that a revelation from God would be ignored in the statement. It seems unlikely that in a Temple setting involving changes to Temple rites the fact it was changed because God revealed the change would be something "too sacred" to be stated. Accordingly, unless you impose something which those responsible never put into their statement, they have never received a revelation requiring the changes. If they wanted me to conclude the Lord revealed the change, all they needed to do was to state that. The difference between your view and mine is that I trust these leaders are fully able to say exactly what they mean. Therefore I take them at their word. You, on the other hand, think they lie incessantly and conceal some of the most important information required for their callings. I do not think they are liars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)