Disgusting Too

That same email makes this observation: 

"Here in Utah it seems many people who read your blog go to classes and gifted people will DIVINE God and repeat the message to these people. Some have claimed to receive their calling and election this way and have been told through these arm’s of flesh that they were certain people of significance to Christ in probations past."

This too is distressing. Think about this process, if it is taking place: Someone goes to a soothsayer to receive revelation about God's will for themselves through another mortal. They do not appeal to the Lord. They bypass Him. They do not learn to fast, pray, approach Him and become capable of receiving light and truth by revelation from He alone who can save us.  They are turning over the "voice of God" to an individual. They rely on another person in place of the one with the absolute right to speak to them (God).

I have never asked another person to receive revelation for me. The only thing that approximates such a thing is the Patriarchal Blessing I received as a church ordinance. Thereafter, all revelation I've received to govern and guide my life has come directly to me from the Lord as a result of prayer.

You will never grow to receive angels if you instead rely on others to tell you God's will for you. They will weaken you, not strengthen you. As the trials of these final days mature, you must have the required oil in your own lamp, and cannot borrow it from another.

The idea of past lives has intoxicated those who preach it. If it were important, it would be set out plainly. If Joseph spoke of it in hushed tones among select few, it was for a good reason. He denounced reincarnation publicly, calling it a "doctrine of the devil" and this was not the "way of eternal life." (See TPJS p. 105.)  That is the public standard. We would be wise to follow it. The many foolish speculations and arrogant assumptions about pre-mortal experiences are extremely unwise. 

Speculation about what happened before your birth here will not rescue you from the challenges you face here, now, today. The way back is to live as if all eternity was at risk by what you do now (because it literally is). (See 1 Cor. 15: 30.) We are in a battle to survive. There is more than enough evil to be overcome without distracting us from the present challenges by directing our attention to somewhere and sometime other than now. Be here. Be present. Be engaged now. This is the day of the battle.

As King Benjamin lamented, "I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them." (Mosiah 4: 29.) The possible ways we can fail are endless. But the way to succeed is singular. There is only one of them and it requires you to follow Christ in the here and now. 

King Benjamin added, "But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not." (Mosiah 4: 30.) There is enough challenge to do what is right. So much so there is no time remaining to spend speculating upon what past experiences you had before entering into this mortal probation now underway.

Errors are plenty. Truth is narrow, confined, singular and solitary. You find it between yourself and the Lord. Looking elsewhere for someone else to lead you will only cripple your development and bring to you darkness. (That darkness comes just as readily from foolish reliance upon presumably inerrant "church authorities" as it does from "spiritually gifted" men and women when they become the source of your faith, devotion and trust.) Trust no man. Look to God and live.

A true messenger will point you to Christ and seek to strengthen you in your independence from man.  A false one will seek to make you dependent upon them, so they may exploit you for their own ends.  I do not ask nor want your devotion. I want all of you to become my equal or, better still, my better. I want you strengthened in the Lord. We will never have Zion if we are not equal in all things, both spiritual and temporal. I am too weak a reed for you to rest your weight upon; as is every other man or woman. Trust only God. He alone has the strength to support us all.

Disgusting

I received an email which contained, in part, this alarming information:

"To the homes we have been to, your name is spoken in hushed reverent tones, no jokes are allowed to be made about you in a fun teasing way without people glaring. I have noticed a huge amount of people calling themselves ‘Snufferites’ and welcoming us into the ‘Snufferites group’ .... I can see that You are becoming to people a man with ‘God awe’ not of your own doing but of our own love of men and wanting a man to lead us instead of trusting in God. I notice how there are off shoort groups and group leaders that have cult following. There is so much going on with the mystical aspect of different sorts of healings and controlling elements, that I hardly hear Christ mentioned. I hear people well known in these groups dropping your name as to give themselves more credentials because they had a conversation with you, or a phone call or went out to lunch with you."

I assume this email information is based on actual events and not merely a put-on. It disgusts me to read of such things.

Worship of anyone or anything other than the Lord will damn all those who participate. (D&C 76: 99-103.)  Anyone who listens to what I say or reads what I write knows I believe these scriptures. How utterly foolish to think that changing from one idol to another will bring any advantage in the world to come.

Looking to others for answers instead of looking to and asking the Lord for answers is idolatry which will end in disappointment.

I have no respect for anyone who calls him/herself a "Snufferite." They have no support or encouragement from me. When have I asked anyone to follow me? When have I asked anyone to believe in me? I point only to belief in Christ and following Him. If you are following me, stop it. Follow Him alone who can save you. (John 14: 6.)

I have repeatedly declared that alleged private communications from me should not be trusted. I've written, spoken and published the things that I believe. Anyone who "name drops" to achieve credibility should be the last one you trust. 

All of us should be willing to confine what we believe, teach and accept to the scriptures. I have accepted that burden, limitation and obligation and have expounded the scriptures in all I have taught. The only additional text I have accepted as authoritative has been Joseph Smith's teachings. Apart from these, I advocate nothing.

If someone is trying to gather their own following they are welcome to acquire whomever they can mislead. They should lead them away, because such people and their followers would be destructive to a Zion community. They need to be "picked off" into these strange paths so they cannot prevent Zion from coming.

We have had too many errors creep into the faith restored through Joseph already. Adding to it new, novel and self-aggrandizing errors compounds the mistakes of the past.


In his day, Joseph was confronted with the dilemma of how to keep order and establish a new faith. He did what then had to be done. The result was an organization which itself is a testimony of Joseph's prophetic status. The church organization is a miracle and a gift from God to man.

The problem is that any organization, no matter how Divinely inspired, can become corrupted. Without the same Spirit that accompanied its founding, it will invariably become corrupted. This is as true of our government as it is of the church. 

In the meantime, I want it understood that those who follow others and fail to obtain a relationship with the Lord by going to Him for answers, will not be invited to the wedding feast. They, like the foolish virgins, will have no oil in their lamps. Therefore, they will be unable to continue to borrow from others what they believe to be oil, but which is instead merely dross and error which expands the darkness and dims the light.

Zion is the Lord's. He will decide who to gather. I am satisfied, however, that both the soothsayers and their idolaters will neither be invited to the gathering, nor will they be able to endure the glory there.

Foundation of Destruction

"And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges." (Alma 10: 27.)

Polygamy

I do not find the discussion of polygamy interesting. But it is clear by the comments and emails I've received that a number of you do. Without putting the questions I've received into this post I'll explain:

The significance of Joseph's failure to father other children with plural wives is nothing other than a data point in a much larger picture. Fanny Alger was later married to another man and had, as I recall, eight children from that marriage. She was therefore clearly fertile. Joseph fathered children with Emma. He was clearly potent. But between them, Joseph and Fanny had no children although both were clearly capable of doing so had they been determined to bring children to their union.

The many historical candidates and continuing suspicions resulted in an attempt to identify those who may have been a child of Joseph Smith's. There was a decades long search, using DNA testing, to try and prove he fathered someone (anyone) other than Emma's children. None of the suspected children were his. They finished the list about two years ago, as I recall.

This is only significant in one, narrow regard: Joseph's purpose with plural wives was not primarily to produce offspring.

That is very different from what happened under Brigham Young's administration, and later. The primary reason for the later Mormon practice was to produce offspring.

There is something very different to me between Joseph's practice and the later practice. I am not really interested in elaborating fully about the difference. But there was a definite difference in the orientation and justification.

For Joseph, (as has been criticized, condemned and mocked) the explanation dealt with his assurance that the plural marriage would result in "salvation" for not only the wife, but also for "her family." This was/is regarded by many of the critics and even many faithful Latter-day Saints, as Joseph exploiting women using (or abusing) his claim to priesthood power.

What if there was something more to this idea than we have preserved? What if Joseph understood more about salvation that do we? What if Joseph could offer salvation to these others by "sealing" them to himself (he being a saved soul who had a connection to heaven)? What if Joseph was actually offering something of value to these women and to their families, which had little or even nothing to do with producing offspring?

It may just be that Joseph understood this as something quite different than what later became the teaching of the LDS Church.

To me, the subject is plagued with the Brigham Young version of the practice, which almost all Latter-day Saints believe represented an accurate continuation of what Joseph Smith was teaching. I disagree. I think Brigham Young changed rather dramatically the primary orientation. Under Joseph it was primarily focused on the afterlife, salvation and organizing a family that would endure death itself. Under Brigham Young it was primarily focused on breeding children for this life, and secondarily promised some next-life continuation for the worthy.

To me there is much more to the difference between Joseph Smith's focus and Brigham Young's than has been appreciated by those interested in this subject. I think it is possible to view Joseph's practice in different terms than Brigham's. I think it is possible to think of Joseph as morally superior to Brigham Young. I think it is possible to believe Joseph had a higher code of personal conduct than Brigham Young. I think it is possible to believe Joseph held women in higher regard than did Brigham Young.

But this is not a topic I think I need to spend any time sorting through. It really does not interest me. The advocates of polygamy who think they believe in some higher law are almost invariably thinking that Brigham Young got it right and his model is worth following. I think Brigham Young didn't even understand the subject, nor did he have the power to save anyone, nor did connecting to Brigham Young as a sealed plural wife garner any advantage in the world to come.

Some day I may try to fully explain what I think Joseph Smith was up to. But that's not a current priority for me, and I don't think it should be a priority for anyone. At least not until a good deal more of what the restoration was designed to accomplish is first understood.

Just To Clarify

I assumed it was clear from all I've written before that I am not persuaded polygamy was ever appropriate or understood by the church. Joseph Smith did not father children with any woman other than Emma, his wife. The subsequent advocacy of taking of multiple wives, I believe, was an abomination and offensive to God.

The purpose of the last post was to show how reluctant the church was to abandon the practice, and how dishonest they were about ending it. If the US Government did not force the church to end plural marriage, they never would have. If there was any party that deserves credit for the "inspired" ending of the abominable practice, it was the US Congress.

Plural Wives

The LDS church has issued another press release. This one is on plural wives. The press releases could certainly help combat the "Google Apostasy" and the "Swedish Apostasy." When Elder L. Tom Perry went to Europe recently and said he had answers in his briefcase but couldn't release them, presumably he was referring to the press releases now rolling out onto the LDS.org website.

The historical stories that have been taught within the church are generally in conflict with the outside accounts told by historians. Increasingly, there are LDS historians recounting history in ways which conflict with the church's narrative. The best way to deal with these things is to get it all out.

The church's statement on plural wives in early Utah begins its discussion with the year 1843, ignoring all the history between 1829 (when I date the beginning of the topic) and 1843 (when the revelations on the subject were reduced to writing in what is now Section 132 of the D&C). Although the statement mentions someone (not clearly identifying who) did post-1890 plural marriages, it avoids discussing the deceit  and official involvement at the highest levels of the church in continuing the practice of sealing plural wives from 1890 to 1904, and thereafter.

The church avoids discussing the full history from 1832 (Joseph Smith/Fanny Alger) through 1904, which the fundamentalists make good use of. The problems will not be solved by hiding the unpleasant parts of the history. Fundamentalists and church critics should be able to exploit this lack of complete candor.

The statement by the church says the 1890 Manifesto was "inspired." It reads: "In 1890, the Lord inspired Church President Wilford Woodruff to issue a statement that led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church."  That is not quite true according to actual history. This subject was debated in my High Priests Group a couple of Sundays ago. Some of these fathers and grandfathers have children and grandchildren falling away from the church over the subject of polygamy. Not because the practice existed, but because there is very little candor by the church in its discussion of it. The Manifesto was a political statement. It was a press release to deal with pressure from the Federal Government. It was not "inspired" in the LDS vernacular. Rather it was a desperate attempt to preserve legal rights and church property by making a statement designed to mislead Congress into believing the practice would end.

Heber J. Grant, an apostle at the time, was the publisher and managing editor of the Salt Lake Herald. His paper responded to another newspaper's article that said the Manifesto was a revelation by writing: "[The Tribune] pretends the declaration is a revelation... although no one today has heard anyone except the lying sheet say it was a revelation." (Salt Lake Herald, October 9, 1890.) Heber J. Grant said on September 26, 1890: "I ...feel that it is merely a public announcement of the course which we had already decided in our private councils to adopt. ...Yet I believe greater troubles will follow the prominent Elders in the Church through adoption of this policy." When asked if the Manifesto was a revelation, "President Smith answered emphatically no... he did not believe it to be an emphatic revelation from God abolishing plural marriage." (First Presidency Office Journal, August 20, 1891.) In the trial for the membership of Apostle Matthias Cowley he testified that President Joseph F. Smith informed him the 1890 Manifesto did not "mean anything." Others including George Reynolds, L. John Nuttall, Charles W. Penrose, John Henry Smith and B. H. Roberts all denied the Manifesto was a revelation. To the extent the statement by the church is intended to convey the impression this was an inspired revelation, there is plenty to show that is inaccurate. It would be more correct to say the church reluctantly abandoned the practice as a result of legislation passed by Congress which disincorporated the LDS church, escheated its property, disenfranchised Mormons from voting, disqualified Mormons from serving on juries, and criminalized continued plural marriages. But it was abandoned only as a temporary measure to secure statehood. It was to resume when a state legislature, instead of the US Congress legislating for the Federal Territory of Utah, could pass laws. The United States did not trust Mormons, and required Utah’s state constitution to include the abandonment of plural wives as a condition of statehood. Utah became a state in 1896, but underground plural wives were continued until the Congressional hearings during the Senator Reed Smoot controversy in 1904. President Joseph F. Smith went to Washington, DC and testified under oath about the matter, and subsequently actually ended the practice. The trauma of testifying during these hearings resulted in the "Second Manifesto" written in 1904 by President Joseph F. Smith. This was another attempt to end the underground practice.

Even the 1904 letter didn't actually end it. It just became more secret. Apostles Taylor and Cowley were sacrificed when their continued sealing of plural wives was brought to light by the Salt Lake Tribune. Their trials removed them from the Quorum of the Twelve for failing to discontinue the practice of sealing multiple wives in violation of the 1904 letter (NOT the Manifesto). No one contended in the church court proceedings for Apostles Taylor and Cowley that the Manifesto ended the practice or required them to cease sealing plural wives as early as 1890.

Interestingly related to this topic is the ruling by Judge Clark Waddoups on the issue of plural wives. The Waddoups’ opinion does not legalize plural wives. Instead it decriminalizes private sexual relations between consenting adults which would otherwise violate a criminal statute adopted by Utah. It also does not prevent criminal prosecution of bigamy. The distinction between what is legal and what is illegal is driven by whether the people engaged in the private consensual relationships bothered to purchase a marriage license and seek governmental authorization for their second (or more) marriage. If they did, and they have more than one legal marriage, they violate Utah's bigamy law and can be prosecuted. If they did not, then they are merely engaging in private conduct which is protected by the penumbra of the First Amendment.

As a result of the decision, a man could have concubines, but not plural wives. Which brings to mind a discussion that took place in a meeting of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on April 5, 1894 (four years after the Manifesto): They discussed concubinage as a means of meeting the technical requirements of the law, while still continuing sexual relationships with multiple women. George Q. Cannon said: "I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married. Thus our surplus of girls can be cared for, and the law of God to multiple and replenish the earth can be fulfilled." President Lorenzo Snow added: "I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced by this Church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines." President Woodruff added: "If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it. The day is near when there will be no difficulty in the way of good men securing noble wives." (Spellings corrected.) If you put the decision of Judge Waddoups together with the discussion on April 5, 1894, a resumption of concubinage seems possible. I'm not expecting it to resume with official sanction. But the fundamentalists are going to be perking up in Utah, I assume.

Sound Doctrine

2 Timothy 4: 3-4:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; [they will be unable to even tolerate it. Unable to "endure" hearing it. They will think what is "sound" or true doctrine is beyond what can be permitted to be spoken, thought or believed.]

...but after their own lusts [that is, they will allow their ambitions, pride and desire to be popular and praised to control what they are willing to believe. They will require the truth to give way to the social attitudes and fashions of the day.]

... shall they heap to themselves teachers, [that is, leadership which will give them what they want. Leaders and presiding authorities whose goal is to deliver on the "lusts" for popularity and acceptance. Leaders whose decisions are driven by focus groups and opinion polling and other social studies to arrive at the place they lust to arrive.]

... having itching ears; [that is, ears tuned to hear the flattery, praise and assurance that comforts them in their false pride: "chosen people" and "royal priesthood" and "all is well" and "cannot be led astray" and such nonsense.]

... and they shall turn their ears away from the truth, [because it is never popular. It does not gather wealth and status, but instead criticism and ostracism. It will cost you something, not pay you something. Indeed, among the false teachers one of the evidences they offer of God's favor toward them will be their wealth, influence and popularity.]

... and shall be turned unto fables. [in which a counterfeit is portrayed as the real Gospel. In which lies are told about history. In which soothing things are provided by wormtongue preachers whose goal is to keep the flock praying, obeying and paying; with no regard for the souls being lost by their false preaching. Fools trifling with the souls of men will offer fables instead of revelation.]

Tolerance

Tolerance requires disagreement. Insisting on agreement is not tolerance, but its opposite.

I've Met Valor

A recent email I sent in response to an on-line conversation about the current state of affairs in the US:


My father landed on Omaha Beach on the morning of June 6, 1944 in the first wave, as a Combat Engineer.  It was his job to clear the beach of tank traps for tanks which would never arrive.  The water was too turbulent that morning and all the tanks sank before reaching the beach.  But destroying the traps was not an option anyway, because they were the only thing to hide behind to shield soldiers from incoming machine-gun fire.

Eventually the surviving few, filled with rage at what was done to their comrades, did the only thing they could do: sacrifice their own lives to kill the bastards who were killing their friends.

So it was that the mines intended for tank traps were diverted to destroying the fencing and barbed wire protecting the cliffs from being scaled by the GI's.  At a cost difficult to comprehend, they overtook the pillboxes and destroyed the German emplacements.

On the morning of June 7th, 1944 my father was the only one in his Company who was not a casualty of the first day's fighting.  He was unhurt.  So they formed another Company made of the remaining remnants and he turned from combat engineer to infantryman.  

He pressed into Paris, then into Germany.  He was involved in the Ardennes, where he suffered his only injury of the war: frostbite to his feet.  He was taken to a surgical tent where they intended to amputate both his feet.  Outside there were barrels of hands, feet, arms, legs and assorted GI parts.  He begged to keep his feet.

There was a nurse from his home state in the surgical prep area.  She took pity on him.  Throughout the night she rubbed his feet to restore circulation, while moving others ahead of him for surgery.  At morning the waiting supply of injured were exhausted, and only my father remained awaiting care.  They carried him into the room to begin the amputation, and the Doctor inspected his feet beforehand to decide how much to remove.  The Doctor said he saw signs of circulation, and thought it might be alright to wait and see a few more hours.  Everyone was exhausted anyway, and my father was in no hurry.

The next day the feet improved a little more.  After a few days he was removed from the list to be amputated, and then allowed to return to fighting.

For the rest of his life his feet hurt him.  But he never complained.  In fact, the pain made him grateful, he said, to have his feet.

He never collected a dime of disability.  Worked till retirement age, then went to work again.  Worked until they retired him again.  Then he worked part time till he was in his late 70's.  

As he was dying he returned to a hospital for the second time in his life.  He was diagnosed with lung cancer on Friday, and died on Sunday.  Saturday night he and I were talking in the hospital sometime in the wee hours of the morning and he remarked:  "I can't figure out why my life was spared when all those others died that morning."

Warriors are not like those who live safely at a distance from the fight.  But they only die once.

The Angel's Identification

I have received many comments to the prior post about Nephi having visited Joseph Smith. That post used the Joseph Smith Papers histories to show Joseph Smith consistently identified the angel who visited him as "Nephi" rather than "Moroni." I'm not going to solve the dilemma for you, but I will point out a few things.

Section 27 of the D&C mentions, "Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon" (D&C 27: 5). However, the original transcript of the revelation did not contain any of these words. You can read the original in Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations: Manuscript Revelation Books, pp. 40-43. These words were added later, probably by Oliver Cowdery. [Oliver thought it was his right to add revelations to the church, as Section 24: 5-6 authorized him to do. He authored a good deal, if not all of Section 20. He also wrote a section on marriage that was contained in the 1835 D&C as Section CI "Marriage" beginning on page 251. It condemned plural marriage and was later deleted.] The addition to Section 27 occurred before the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, and that version can be found in the Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Vol. 2, p. 490 (Section L, verse 2). Joseph Smith reviewed this volume prior to its publication and should have been aware of the mention of "Moroni" as the one who came "to reveal the Book of Mormon."

Section 128 of the D&C is a letter written by Joseph Smith in September 1842. In the letter he wrote: "And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets-- the book to be revealed." (D&C 128: 19.)

So we either have a contradiction in these identities (Nephi vs. Moroni) or we do not. If we do not have a contradiction then these are some possibilities:

The Section 27 and 128 references are not to the visit described in JS-H in verse 33, but to something else.

For those who believe in multiple-mortal probations it is simple: This proves that Nephi and Moroni were the same person, come twice to the earth, once to begin and once to end the Book of Mormon. I'm not at all persuaded of that one.

For those who want Moroni to have credit for his vast contribution then give it to him, even if it was Nephi who came as the angel to visit Joseph. Moroni gets the credit because:
1. He completed his father's work in preserving the book.
2. He was the author who completed the Book of Mormon (the one attributed to his father beginning on page 469 and going to page 487) within the larger Book of Mormon.
3. He added a translation and commentary known as the Book of Ether.
4. He added the Small Plates of Nephi to the text "for a wise purpose."
5. He added his own Book of Moroni to complete the volume.
6. He buried the book, along with other sacred artifacts, to preserve it and the means to translate it.
7. He wrote the cover page to the Book of Mormon.
For these reasons, even if it was Nephi who came, we ought to give credit to Moroni because he deserves mention for his overarching responsibility in preserving, completing and bringing forth the book.

The problem with these proposed alternatives is the language used in the September 1842 letter which calls Moroni "an angel from heaven, declaring..." which suggests it was Moroni who was the one visiting with Joseph. The letter describes a visit, not merely an attribution.

Because of these issues, those who think there is a contradiction are left to wonder:

Did Oliver Cowdery not know the identity of the angel? After all, the testimony of the Three Witnesses in the beginning of the Book of Mormon never mentions the angel's name. It refers only to an "angel from heaven." So if Oliver was confused, it would support the notion that the addition to Section 27 was his. But that doesn't explain why Joseph would approve the addition in the 1835 D&C.

On the other hand, the histories written by Joseph Smith naming the angel "Nephi" came after the 1835 version of the D&C. He wrote these histories naming Nephi in 1838, 1839 and 1841. So was the later naming of Nephi a correction of the earlier addition by Oliver Cowdery naming Moroni? Given the timing, it is possible this may be the case.

This line of reasoning, however, gets interrupted by the 1842 letter calling "Moroni" an "angel from heaven" and associates him with the "Hill Cumorah." So if understanding the timing is how to solve the contradiction, why would Joseph make this later reference? And why call Moroni "an angel from heaven" in the 1842 letter if he didn't at least visit the Hill Cumorah? It is rather a stretch to think that visit was when he first buried the plates, and not when Joseph Smith recovered it as part of the "glad news" discussed in the 1842 letter (Section 128).

Is it possible that Joseph wasn't careful about the name when dictating the letter, but was more careful when compiling his history? Why, if he had worked on the history earlier and got it right, would he then err in the letter?

Most of the references made to the visitor throughout the writings and talks of Joseph Smith refer to a "messenger" or to an "angel" and leave identity unresolved.

What is most interesting is that the controversy resulted in the church editing the Joseph Smith-History in the Pearl of Great Price. They didn't disclose the contradiction, but covered it up until the Joseph Smith Papers project brings it to light. Then we learned it was resolved in favor of Moroni, without any effort to explain there is another possible identity. I commend the church for now allowing it to become public in an official document.

You should know there is an uncertainty about this. You should be allowed to decide for yourself which you want to believe.

I've always called the visitor "Moroni" and intend to continue doing so because it is somewhat annoying at this point to give the angel another name. They won't know what I'm talking about if I change the name, or they will think I'm too dumb to read what is in the Joseph Smith-History. So I will continue to use "Moroni" as the visiting angel. However, I think it was actually Nephi who visited. That is my view. You ought to study it out for yourself and reach your own conclusion.

The question of resurrection is mentioned in my earlier post as a result of the angel actually having handled objects (plates, sword, directors, breastplate) during the visits and in the presence of two of the three witnesses. Physical contact with tangible things is the province of physical beings. (See, e.g., Section 129: 2-7.) Nephi is the more likely to have been resurrected considering when he was born and when he died. Post-Christ era resurrection is normally confined to the Second Coming. (See, e.g., D&C 133: 56.) There are exceptions, but they are for highly specific reasons, based on individual covenants. Unless Moroni had such an individual covenant with Christ he would not have been resurrected, and therefore could not have handled the physical objects involved in the history of this angel's mission to Joseph and the three witnesses. If Moroni had the covenant, I would expect it to be mentioned in his book. Of course not everything is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but the absence of proof leans in favor of concluding it was Nephi, rather than Moroni, who would have been resurrected at the time of the visits.

New, Improved Mormonism

Lots of excitement arises from the statement by the church denouncing past practices and teachings in its editorial on its website titled “Race and the Priesthood.” Lots of buzz on the Internet and in news outlets. The thesis of the editorial is that the church, which today is headquartered in a nation with a black president, has overcome racism, which was a sin, and now can denounce it (and past president's of the church) with passion, like others in modern society.

The LDS position is that the church leaders can never lead its members astray, except in the past - and then it can correct it - in the here and now. When corrected, the LDS church can then consign its past leaders to condemnation for their sins. Sort of ex post facto “we’re still not going to lead you astray” as long as you are living when we fix it... or something like that. It’s really hard to keep up with the “we’re not going to lead you astray” component of modern Mormonism with all the dramatic changes and strong denouncements of past errors and sins and mistakes by racist, sexist, polygamous church presidents. But, trust them, they’re somehow not going to lead you astray.

The minions in the faceless editorial composition unit (I envision them as little yellow chaps who are constantly engaged in slapstick shenanigans) need to move forward now to continue their fix of the LDS position. I’d like to point out for their revisionism some more editing now needed:

The new editorial explained: “According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s ‘curse’ on Cain was the mark of a dark skin.” This view was based on a verse in Genesis. But they can leave Genesis 4: 15 alone, because the “mark” put upon Cain is not defined there. It is only in LDS scripture the mark is clarified. It was blackness: “And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.” (Moses 7: 22.) This uniquely LDS scripture clarifies what Genesis does not make clear. For the Christians “in the United States from at least 1730's” this idea of blacks descending from Cain was merely a theory. But for Latter-day Saints it was a matter of actual canonized scripture. So the purging of the LDS sins is only partial. They need to condemn Enoch as yet another past, false leader who subscribed to a now discredited view.

The editorial continues, describing “Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.” This is derived from the account in Genesis 9 where Noah curses Canaan with these words: “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” (Moses 7: 22.) These Biblical words have been used to justify slavery. This raises two issues: first, slavery, and second, a cursed lineage. These are two altogether different topics.

As to the first, slavery was practiced throughout the Old and New Testaments. Further, if you look at the specific curse of Noah’s, it did not relate to Ham. Nor to all of Ham’s descendants. Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain. However, the curse of servitude Noah pronounced did not target Ham, nor Ham’s sons Cush, Mizraim, or Phut. (Gen. 10: 6.) The curse of servitude was only on his grandson Canaan, the youngest son of Ham. Examples of servitude in scripture are too numerous to list, but the Law of Moses adopted rules governing how to treat slaves because slavery was permitted. Even Christ presumed slavery, using slaves in His parables. Most telling of all, however, is the unique future LDS heaven which envisions servitude for the unworthy. (See, e.g., D&C 132: 16-17.) So there’s some work left to do for the editorialists in conforming LDS scripture to the newly enlightened position. We will need for them to condemn past leaders like Moses, Christ, Joseph Smith and the God of the future LDS heaven for their errant positions if they expect to make full recompense for LDS past errors.

On the second idea of a cursed lineage, there’s more work to be done with LDS scriptures as well. In Abraham we read of the “Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry.” (Abr. 1: 27.) This makes it plain enough there was a “cursed lineage”– an idea which survives in LDS scripture despite the editorial.

The editorial continues: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse,” Stopping just there, we need to have the following language taken from the Book of Mormon: “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” (2 Ne. 5: 21. There’s also mention in 2 Ne. 26: 33 and 3 Ne. 2: 15) This was designed by God to prevent intermarriage (“that they might not be enticing unto my people”). In the LDS scriptures the word “enticing” is footnoted to the Topical Guide subject “Marriage, Temporal.”

Then there is the editorial remark denouncing “that mixed-race marriages are a sin.” This brushes up against the verse in 2 Ne. 5: 21 as well as Abraham’s commandment concerning his chosen son, Isaac. For that son and the chosen lineage Abraham commanded: “I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.” (Gen. 24: 3.) Strong, even racist language from father Abraham. He refused intermarriage for his son. The editorialists announce that “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” The word “unequivocally” means without any hesitation or limit. So we now have the editorialists speaking for the “Church leaders today” denouncing Abraham. It was a racist demand imposed by Abraham, while swearing by the God of heaven and earth, that his son must not marry a Canaanite.

I’m impressed with the LDS leader’s bold, historic, revolutionary break with their past, their scriptures and their future heaven as well. This is courage and drama on a scale seldom seen in religion. We are witnessing revolutionaries in the very act of overthrowing their past beliefs.

There’s a lot of the LDS past now denounced, unequivocally, by the “Church leaders today.” They’ve judged and dismissed God, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Joseph Smith, along with past church presidents Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Councilor J. Reuben Clark, and even President Spencer W. Kimball who made the change in 1978 (because he denounced interracial marriage).

I was excommunicated after being accused of among other things "denigrating every church president since Joseph Smith." I don't think the accusation was true. In fact, I merely quoted them or their diaries. But even if you accept the accusation against me, I managed to stop short of denigrating Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Christ and Joseph Smith along with "every church president since Joseph Smith." The "Church leaders today" have raised their game to a whole new level. I know when I've been outdone. I'm an underachiever by comparison. These "Church leaders today" will even take on God in their denigration of past leaders!

The trouble I see the LDS church editorial writers now making for the church is conflating racism (which everyone should recognize as bad) with priesthood. They ought to have stopped short of this overreaching effort to fix their public reputation. One (racism) is decidedly bad. The other (priesthood) is not at all related to racism. Racism which results in afflictions visited by one group upon another merely based upon their racial status is invidious. That should be something all mankind can overcome at some point.

But priesthood is something quite different. It is so narrowly distributed that even the lesser priesthood was limited to one tribe (Levi) and even then could not be given to a man with a withered limb, or some other physical defect. Higher priesthood was yet more restrictive, almost never given to anyone, in any age. It is extraordinarily limited in numbers. God controls that Himself, directly.

For mankind to complain about God's control over His own power is beyond arrogant. The LDS church asserts it has some control over God's priesthood (a position that is increasingly dubious with each act of rebellion against God, and usurping power and control over the conscience of its members). On the assumption the LDS' claim is true, then they are merely stewards. They have no right to tinker with something God alone controls.

Fortunately, the highest form of priesthood requires a visit from God, who alone confers it. Therefore, no policy change, or enlightened new political position, will ever have an effect on who receives such an ordination. When (if) it reappears on the earth, it will have only one purpose: To bring about Zion and enable God's promises to be fulfilled. It won't be for empowering priestcraft and enabling multi-billion dollar purchases of land and buildings by an elite group who fare sumptuously while the poor are left begging

This is a great moment - and another example of the LDS church’s “continuing revelation,” because it surely is revealing.

Nephi

As part of the assignment given Him, the Lord added to and corrected the Nephite scriptures. He had them bring their records to Him, and noted they omitted mention of Samuel the Lamanite's prophecy about some rising from the dead at the time of His resurrection. He got them to confirm Samuel prophesied it, some of the dead did arise, and they had neglected to include it in their scriptures. (3 Ne. 23: 7-13.)

Among those who would have risen would have been Nephi, son of Lehi, after whom the Nephites were named.

Moroni would not live for another 400 years. Moroni would have missed the resurrection at the time of Christ, and therefore would await the Second Coming for his resurrection.

This is perhaps the reason Joseph Smith identified the angel who visited him, taught him, and gave him possession of the gold plates, as "Nephi" and not Moroni.

In the Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Vol. 1, we learn Joseph read and corrected his history: "...it suggests that JS [Joseph Smith] read aloud from Draft 2 in the large manuscript volume, directing editorial changes as he read." (Id. at p. 201.) Here is how Draft 2 reads, describing the visit of the angel to him in his bedroom on the night of September 21, 1823:

"When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me and that his name was Nephi." (Id. p. 222.)

Under Joseph's direction, a Draft 3 was prepared by Howard Coray. This version reads as follows:

"When I first looked upon (him) it I was afraid; but the far soon left me: calling me by name, (he) said, that he was a messenger, sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi--" (Id. p. 223.)

There is a footnote that explains someone, unidentified as to who or when, changed the name from "Nephi" to "Moroni" because of a "clerical error." The same footnote explains that throughout Joseph Smith's lifetime, in any history he supervised, the name was always "Nephi". Here is an excerpt from footnote 56 on page 223 of Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Vol. 1:

"A later redaction in an unidentified hand changed 'Nephi' to 'Moroni' and noted that the original attribution was a 'clerical error.' Early sources often did not name the angelic visitor, but sources naming Moroni include Oliver Cowdery's historical letter published in the April 1835 LDS Messenger and Advocate, an expanded version of a circa August 1830 revelation, as published in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants; and a JS editorial published in the Elders' Journal in July 1838. The present history is the earliest extant source to name Nephi as the messenger, and subsequent publications based on this history perpetuated the attribution during JS's lifetime." (Id. p. 223.)

The footnote prefers Oliver Cowdery's account to Joseph's. Oliver was not present September 21, 1823. Nor was he present for any of the other visits by the angel over the next four years. Therefore, enbracing Oliver's statement above Joseph's seems to me to be an odd preference.

I'm persuaded Joseph would not have mistaken who it was that visited him on September 21, 1823 and again each year for four years thereafter. If it was a resurrected personage, it is more likely Nephi, who died before the Lord's resurrection, than Moroni, who lived after.

I Want To See You Be Brave

I want to see you be brave, and so do others, including Sara.

Mormon History

Just because you "know" something, it doesn't mean it is true.

Just because you don't know something, it doesn't make it false.

LDS history is riddled with lies: Some told to protect lives. Some told to conceal truths. Some told to escape prosecution. Some told to keep the government from taking property away from the church. Some told to promote faith. But LDS history is riddled with lies.

The historic reality of institutional lying does not render our faith itself a lie. But perpetuating the lies today is increasingly perilous.

You tell the truth. Faith cannot be based on anything other than the truth. Everything else is not faith.

Drat

It is always best when you get bad news from someone you love. The news remains terrible, but hearing it from my daughter eases my pain. My daughter called from Wyoming to break the news that Jacoby Ellsbury is going to the Yankees. Now we must face him in the AL East.

On the bright side, apparently Robinson Cano will be leaving the Yankees. With Jeter injured, ARod likely not returning to the game again (ever), and Youklis disabled, they need Jacoby at the top of the lineup to compete. I guess $20 million a year was just too much to resist.

Oh well, he is injury prone.

Scripture Interpretations

In answer to a question about differences between something Joseph Smith said about a scripture and something another prophet said about the same scripture, here is my response:

When Peter referred to the fulfillment of Joel Chapter 2, he declared: “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” (Acts 2:14-20.)

Referring to the same prophecy of Joel, Moroni declared, and Joseph Smith reported: “He also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be.” (JS-H 1: 41.) This was immediately after Moroni quoted from Acts Chapter 3, and therefore Moroni would have been familiar with Peter’s statement in the preceding chapter, Acts Chapter 2.

Both spoke the truth.

What one prophet, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, speaks about a passage of scripture may vary from what another prophet, under the influence of Holy Spirit, may say about the very same scripture. Speaking in different times, under different circumstances, to a different audience, with a different objective in generations separated by considerable amounts of time, allows them both to speak the truth.

How many times have Isaiah's words “beautiful upon the mountains” been fulfilled? (Isaiah’s prophecy is in Isa. 52: 7. It was discussed by later prophets in different settings. In 1 Ne. 13: 37: Nephi speaking about those who will seek to establish Zion in the last days. In Mosiah 15: 13-17: Abinadi speaking of those who testified about Christ in every generation, past, then and in the future. In 3 Ne. 20: 40: Christ speaking of the future generation when Zion will be established.) Do not think that because one prophet has declared a matter to be fulfillment of scripture that the Lord cannot declare through another prophet another fulfillment of the same scripture. As the Lord stated, “Because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.” 2 Ne. 29: 9.

Tyranny

Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion upholding Obamacare reasoned that this burdensome and unpopular law was legal because the Constitution, as amended, allows Congress to assess taxes. This regulatory construct was appropriate use of government authority because Congress can levy taxes.

Before concluding Congress had the authority to impose this burdensome law, he acknowledged "the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder." Explaining the limits of Federal Governmental authority, he wrote, "rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government's powers." 

Although the U.S. argued that Congress had authority to impose Obamacare under the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Roberts concluded no such power existed. "If the power to 'regulate' something included the power to create it, many of the provisions in the Constitution would be superfluous." He explained, "the individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce." This was too vast a grant of authority, and clearly exceeded the limited purpose of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

This naked grab for power to control the citizens was rejected by Roberts. The argument advanced by the U.S. would carry the nation far away from a government of limited powers. "Indeed, the Government's logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem."

And yet, Justice Roberts upheld the law! The foolish are often blinded by their power to reason through a problem, reaching carefully constructed errors while thinking themselves wise. 

In deciding this was a Constitutionally permissible law, Justice Roberts reasoned, “The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many re­spects. The ‘[s]hared responsibility payment,’ as the statute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “tax­payer[s]” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the pay­ment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assess and collect it ‘in the same manner as taxes.’ Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax: it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, 28, n. 4 (1953). Indeed, the payment is expected to raise about $4 billion per year by 2017. Congressional Budget Office, Payments of Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Patient Pro­tection and Affordable Care Act (Apr. 30, 2010), in Selected CBO Publications Related to Health Care Legislation,2009–2010, p. 71 (rev. 2010). It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a ‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax.’ But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. It is up to Con­gress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Con­gress’s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Con­gress’s constitutional power to tax.”

In my view, this reasoning is deeply flawed. Any number of things may "look like a tax in many respects." But taxing is merely incidental to the real and primary objective to control behavior. Roberts is saying the abuses and expansive control over the citizens which is not authorized through the Commerce Clause may be usurped through the power to tax. In other words, the Federal Government can achieve in two steps what it cannot achieve in one. Directly, it cannot regulate commerce in such an oppressive and expansive way; but indirectly, under the guise of a tax, it may utterly control and subjugate the citizens without regard to limits on Federal power.

This reasoning allows an oppressive intrusion into every individual and family’s healthcare choices because there is merely an incidental effect that can be viewed as a tax. Does that mean other, similarly intrusive government regulation can now be adopted by an increasingly out-of-touch Federal Government over an unwilling population because the regulatory scheme has an incidental tax? The reasoning justifies continuing intrusions, regulations, and mandating behavior by citizens which the citizens themselves oppose, so long as the Federal Government is shrewd enough to include even an incidental component which relies upon the power to tax. Hospital costs alone in 2011 were $387.3 billion. Total healthcare is estimated at 17.9% of the US GDP, or a total of approximately $2.8 trillion (assuming today's GDP of $15.6 trillion--which will likely increase by the 2017 date used by Roberts). That makes the tax component of this regulatory scheme less than 2/100^ths of 1% of overall healthcare spending. As a consequence of that tiny, de minimus component of this part of the economy, the Federal Government now gets to assume 100% control over 17.9% of the entire economy, impose unwanted control over individual choices, dramatically alter relationships between citizens and their doctors, control doctors income, decide who can receive what treatment, increase scarcity of supply, remove religious choices, require me to pay for maternity care even though there is no rational connection between requiring me to make that purchase and my need for the coverage, and allow non-physician regulators to impose health-care decisions, even deciding to restrict access to life saving treatment? An incidental tax permits these things to be imposed by an imperial, distant and unresponsive Federal Government? This is Constitutional? This is an appropriate use of the power to tax? It does not impermissibly expand limited powers in a way which threatens rights of privacy, right to contract, right to property, nor involve improper taking? 

Chief Justice Roberts will be remembered as the intellectual architect of the totalitarian state which the Constitution was designed to prevent. He has managed to undo, by his flawed reasoning, all the limits which the enumerated powers were designed to prevent. He joins a chorus of those in government, business and religion who seek to destroy man's agency. 

As we learned through the Declaration of Independence, when the rights of citizens are abused, there comes a point at which they properly decide they are no longer willing to submit. A decent regard for liberty by a citizenry who consent to be governed requires them to constantly consider whether their government has become destructive, rather than conducive, of liberty. When a long train of abuses and usurpations lead citizens to conclude the end in sight is absolute despotism, then it is the right, even the duty, to throw off such government. We are now being regarded as the property of a government entitled to control our choices, rather than free citizens whose consent is first required before any control is permitted. When citizens consented to be taxed, they did not consent forever after to permit the Federal Government to exercise control over lives based on the thinnest of connections to taxing. This law is not a revenue bill. It is an improper usurpation imposed by an imperial, aloof and usurping band of overlords who have lost regard for the will of the governed.

Chief Justice Roberts was wrong. His decision reflects a trend in tyranny which, unless repudiated, will end in the destruction of either individual rights or the union of this nation. This scheme was the product primarily of a Senator, Harry Reid of Nevada, who controlled the Senate, got the required votes by dispensing favorable treatment to several individual states to acquire votes, and got the required support for the 1,900 page bill without most Senators having read it beforehand. The current national leadership's view of the proper role of government is repugnant to me. If our liberties are lost, or the union ultimately destroyed, it will long be remembered that a Latter-day Saint was directing the legislative muscle to adopt this invidious scheme. 

We have a limited form of government. Unless the limited Federal Government returns to abide within those limits, it will destroy itself or the liberty of its citizens. We are at a tipping point. I hope there remains enough wisdom in our country to avert what will follow from the present, ill-advised course if it is allowed to continue.

Enemies In Control Of The Vineyard

The Lord foretold the failure of the Saints to acquire the fullness as early as December 1833. He explained that the Saints would plant “the twelve olive trees” (or restore the covenant) and would build a wall and place watchmen (or restore the church), but would unwisely fail to build the required watchtower (Nauvoo Temple) to protect the restoration. Therefore, they would be overthrown. (D&C 101: 43-51.) This was eight years before the Lord warned them they were on the cusp of failing and being rejected as a church. (D&C 124: 31-32.) But the Saints ignored the warning where they were told they would become “very slothful, and [hearken] not unto the commandments of their lord” (D&C 101: 50) given to them eight years earlier. They failed to complete the Nauvoo Temple before Joseph and Hyrum were slain. The brothers' deaths were plainly avoidable by paying attention to the warning given eleven years beforehand in the parable.

The effect of the Saints’ sloth, as foretold in the 1833 parable, was to leave the Lord’s vineyard in the possession of His enemies who would own the vineyard, have the walls and be able to set their own watchmen, and erect their own tower atop His property. That destruction and scattering left the Lord's enemies in possession of His vineyard. 

The circumstances following the scattering of the Saints (D&C 101: 51) reminds me of Joseph Smith’s last dream:

JOSEPH SMITH’S LAST DREAM:

I was back in Kirtland, Ohio, and thought I would take a walk out by myself, and view my old farm, which I found grown up with weeds and brambles, and altogether bearing evidence of neglect and want of culture. I went into the barn, which I found without floor or doors, with the weather-boarding off, and was altogether in keeping with the farm.

While I viewed the desolation around me, and was contemplating how it might be recovered from the curse upon it, there came rushing into the barn a company of furious men, who commenced to pick a quarrel with me.

The leader of the party ordered me to leave the barn and farm, stating it was none of mine, and that I must give up all hope of ever possessing it.

I told him the farm was given me by the Church, and although I had not had any use of it for some time back, still I had not sold it, and according to righteous principles it belonged to me or the Church.

He then grew furious and began to rail upon me, and threaten me, and said it never did belong to me nor to the Church.

I then told him that I did not think it worth contending about, that I had no desire to live upon it in its present state, and if he thought he had a better right I would not quarrel with him about it but leave; but my assurance that I would not trouble him at present did not seem to satisfy him, as he seemed determined to quarrel with me, and threatened me with the destruction of my body.

While he was thus engaged, pouring out his bitter words upon me, a rabble rushed in and nearly filled the barn, drew out their knives, and began to quarrel among themselves for the premises, and for a moment forgot me, at which time I took the opportunity to walk out of the barn about up to my ankles in mud.

When I was a little distance from the barn, I heard them screeching and screaming in a very distressed manner, as it appeared they had engaged in a general fight with their knives. While they were thus engaged, the dream or vision ended." (TPJS, pp. 393-4, Recorded 27 June 1844, also DHC Vol. 6, pp. 608-611.)

A great work remains undone to prepare for the Lord's return. It cannot happen by continuing in the same slothfulness that got us driven into the wilderness. More is required than conceit and contentment as we squander the time remaining. Unless we awaken, we will be utterly wasted at the Lord's return.

Idolatry is not the Gospel. 

Cursings Instead of Blessings

Passing the Heavenly Gift is not an historic analysis of Mormonism. It is primarily a doctrinal analysis and only incidentally related to history. The many different historic sources allow different stories to be told and supported by selecting from among them. There are some undeniable events foretold by prophecy. It is prophecy which should allow us to make a correct choice between a false and a true narrative. In Passing the Heavenly Gift, I tried to see if there was another possible narrative conforming to the prophecies to replace the traditions we all know. The book explored this possibility.

In the January 1841 revelation to Joseph Smith the Lord stated "the fulness of the priesthood" had been "lost unto you, or which [The Lord] hath taken away." (D&C 124: 28.) To "restore" it the Lord needed to personally come to a Temple that He was required to be built within a limited time frame. The length of the time given to accomplish the building was not specified by a date certain. Instead the Lord said He would give to the Saints "sufficient time to build a house unto me." (D&C 124: 31.) In the time between January 1841 and the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in June 1844, the Nauvoo Temple was not completed. The walls were only complete to the second floor.

The absence of any date for "sufficient time" to build the Temple leaves that an open question. Traditionally, we believe that extended until sometime following the departure of the Saints in February 1846. A small group remained behind and eventually the Temple was dedicated. But these are undisputed facts:

1. When the endowments were performed between November 1845 and February 1846, the attic was used, but even it was not finished. Canvas was used to separate different areas.

2. At the time the endowments were performed, the rest of the Temple was incomplete.

3. When the endowments were performed, the attic was the only place temporarily dedicated for that limited purpose.

4. The day before departing Nauvoo, the Apostles prayed they would be able to finish the incomplete Temple.

5. The next day, the attic caught fire and the area used for the endowments was badly damaged. Although it was subsequently re-shingled, the charred attic space, which had not been finished before the endowments were performed, was never re-finished to the condition it was in with the canvas dividers. They re-roofed the outside top and left the charred interior alone.

6. When it was finally dedicated, it was only "considered complete enough to dedicate" and not actually a finished structure.

It does not matter which historic source you use there is no diary, letter, journal or talk which says that Christ came to the Nauvoo Temple and "restored again the fulness of the priesthood" which He had previously taken away from the church. Most importantly, there are no claims made by any of the leaders of the church that the "fulness of the priesthood" was bestowed upon them by Christ in the Nauvoo Temple. There are multiple explanations of how "the keys" (which the typical LDS apologist claims to be the same as "the fulness") were passed to the church’s leaders. None of these involve Christ coming to the Nauvoo Temple to restore again that which was lost. These accounts of "passing the keys" to the Apostles include the following:

1. By virtue of the Apostleship, which is the highest office in the church, keys are automatically passed.

2. By the rituals Joseph performed in the Red Brick Store.

3. By Joseph's declaration about the "keys of the kingdom" made in a meeting of the Council of Fifty in May 1844.

4. By reason of the equivalencies (Twelve "equal in authority" to the First Presidency, etc.) set out in D&C 107 (an argument never raised during the election in August 1844).

Never has there been a claim that the "fulness" was "restored" to the church by the visit of Christ in the Nauvoo Temple after it had been completed.

The argument that the Lord didn’t need to come because the "fulness" was dispensed by the Apostles in the Nauvoo Endowments in November 1845-February 1846 ignores the language of the revelation. The language of the revelation required the Lord to come and restore again what was lost: "For there is not a place found on earth that he [Christ, personally as I read it] may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you." (D&C 124: 28, emphasis added.) I take these words at their plain meaning. Therefore. I view the complete absence of any record or claim that the Lord came to the Nauvoo Temple and restored again the "fulness of the priesthood" as an important point to be accepted. The traditional narrative is that the endowments were sufficient to restore the removed "fulness" to the Saints.

History also reflects the Saints were chased out of Nauvoo by an armed mob. They left with considerable hardship in the dead of winter, leaving for the most part in February 1846.

The January 1841 revelation states: "ye shall build [the required Temple] on the place where you have contemplated building it, for that is the spot which I have chosen for you to build [the Temple which Christ was to visit to restore again the fulness]. If ye labor with all your might, I will consecrate that spot that it shall be made holy. And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place. But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them. And it shall come to pass that if you build a house unto my name, and do not do the things that I say, I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfil the promises which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord. For instead of blessings, ye, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own heads, by your follies, and by all your abominations, which you practise before me, saith the Lord." (D&C 124: 43-48.) If you accept these words as a guide to knowing the truth, then answer for yourself the following questions about what happened:

Was the Nauvoo Temple consecrated by the Lord?

Was the Nauvoo Temple made holy by the Lord?

Did the Lord visit it?

Did the Lord restore the fulness to the church within it by coming to bestow it again? How? To whom? When? What was involved?

Did the Saints hearken to the voices of their leaders, Joseph and Hyrum, who had been called by the Lord?

Why did Joseph complain that the church failed to listen to Hyrum? Was there some greater risk to the church if it did not hearken to Hyrum?

Were the Saints moved out of Nauvoo?

Did the "sufficient time" begin in January 1841and last until a date we can now deduce?

What date did the Lord take Joseph and Hyrum from us?

Was three-and-a-half years sufficient to complete the Nauvoo Temple construction?

Were there other projects completed in that time frame, including houses for the church leaders, and Seventies’ Hall, the Masonic Lodge?

If the effort given to these other building projects had instead been spent on completing the Nauvoo Temple, could it have been finished earlier?

Could it have been completed by June 1844?

Was the Nauvoo Temple ever completed?

Were there "blessings" or "cursings" suffered by the Saints immediately following the three-and-a-half years between January 1841 and June 1844?

The effort to build the traditional narrative taught by the LDS church using other source material than I have used can only persuade me I am in error if:

1. There is proof the Lord came to the Nauvoo Temple. (Never claimed by anyone.)

2. There is proof that while in the Nauvoo Temple the Lord restored again the fulness of the priesthood. (Never claimed other than to say the Nauvoo Endowments were the same thing as. But if this were true why did the Lord say He needed to come? I assume the Lord said what He meant and therefore we could only reobtain "the fulness" if He gave it to us, personally, as the revelation promised.)

3. There is proof the Saints were not moved out of their place in Nauvoo because it had become "holy" to the Lord and He defended it. (Which cannot be proven because the opposite happened.)

4. There must be proof the Saints were not cursed, did not suffer wrath, and did not have the judgments of God poured down upon their heads following Nauvoo. (The suffering and wrath of God is apparent from all the contemporaneous accounts of the terrible suffering, privation and death suffered by the Saints in the western trek.)

I have allowed the prophecies to inform the story. I readily admit anyone can build another story that ignores the prophecies, and  tells us "all is (and was) well." But there is no source you can appeal to that conforms to the prophesied events as well as the story proposed in Passing the Heavenly Gift.

The book was written to explore and introduce an idea. That idea is to let the prophecies, instead of our pride, speak to us about us. I want to see our failures, if we have any. I do not want to substitute a happy account based on arrogance to deprive me of the truth. If the warnings are talking to me about me, then I want to face up to that no matter how painful it might be. In the book, in addition to the January 1841 revelation to Joseph Smith, I also use Christ's prophecies, and Nephi's warnings to us from the Book of Mormon to inform my effort to reconstruct what has happened in this dispensation. In the end I think it is faith promoting to see ourselves stripped of our vanity and fulfilling the prophetic warnings by our failure. It it a false faith, only pseudo-faith, to ignore the truth and substitute a false narrative about unmitigated success. It was foretold by Christ that we would reject the fullness.

So far the most critical review of the book assumes I am writing history and it proceeds to gather other historic sources to contradict me and to reinforce the traditional narrative. It damns my book and proclaims again that "all is well." My book isn't history. It is doctrine. It focuses on prophecy to see if the subsequent events can be shown to fulfill the prophecy. This is how we should always try to understand our condition. Not through the tools of the apologist historian, but instead through the lens of prophecy. What God has said matters a good deal more than what we think of ourselves.

Appeal Letter

President Hunt called and read me a very short letter from the First Presidency denying my appeal. Because the appeal was denied, I have no reason to withhold a copy of the appeal letter. See below. The letter denying the appeal was approximately 2 sentences long, the second sentence told President Hunt that he could read it to me, but that President Hunt could not give me a copy of the denial.

Marriage

Marriage is the perfect opportunity for learning to live the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount is the blueprint for being like Christ.

Wives have claim on their husbands for their support. (D&C 83: 2.)

Neither man nor woman alone can be exalted. (1 Cor. 11: 11; D&C 132: 16-17.)

Divorce was tolerated because of the hardness of the Israelites, but Christ denounced divorce, teaching what God joined no man should set aside. (Mark 10: 4-9.)

If your spouse does not believe as you do, it is your obligation to bear with them in patience, and by your godly walk convert them to the truth. Only a fool will ignore the obligations set out so clearly in scripture and choose to abandon their marriage. Worse still are those who imagine themselves justified in such conduct by claiming they are following God's will.

The Scriptures

As I have pointed out in recent talks, if you were to be taught by an angel of God it would be a lesson in the scriptures. (See, e.g., JS-H 1: 36-41.) The day the Lord was resurrected He spent the better part of the day expounding the scriptures to two of His followers. (Luke 24: 13-32.)

I teach from the scriptures because they contain everything needed to support, explain, justify and make clear those doctrines which are needed for your salvation. Even the deepest of material I've given to you is anchored in the scriptures.

If angels and our Lord all found the scriptures a sufficient text to use in teaching truths, then we should look there, searching deeply for any truths we want to learn. We shouldn't move our attention away from the scriptures to learn what is needed for salvation and exaltation. No matter how much a topic glitters and begs you to notice it, the scriptures should form a shield to keep away what is unnecessary and save you from unreliable error.

The more exotic the "spiritual" information, the more important it is to find a home in the scriptures. This is because if it cannot be found there, then it does not belong to Christ's Gospel.

In the traditions of the church, we have added speculation to conjecture, and contradiction to supposition, until the present array of approved topics through the correlation process has been adopted to try to bring an end to the chaos of opinions. Earlier teachings that were thought to be critical to salvation have been abandoned. Earlier practices that were taught as necessary for exaltation are now condemned. Earlier positions on practices and church government are now renounced. It has become an embarrassment to the institution to allow this foolishness to continue. They have resorted to correlation and the current practice of saying "only the living mouthpiece is reliable." This is anti-historical and renders each leader almost entirely irrelevant as soon as he dies. Mormonism has been reduced to the medieval shout: "The king is dead! Long live the king!" each time a church president dies. Through this means, the church is attempting to bring stability to a reed so thin it cannot be leaned upon at all for your salvation. It will break because it cannot support the weight of your salvation.

Look to the scriptures. They testify of Christ. They were given by Him to teach you of Him. Because if you are to be saved at all, it will be through the knowledge which can be found in the scriptures.

Anyone attempting to save souls who neglects to anchor their teaching in the scriptures offends common sense, and is attempting the impossible. Angels and the risen Lord used them. You should therefore find them sufficient for your own study unto salvation.