I've just finished a conversation with a daughter who is in college in another state. Some doctrinal issues were on the agenda stemming from interpretations of the Book of Revelation. She had an encounter with a Relief Society teacher who introduced her to some ideas which are largely borrowed from Evangelical sources, adopted by Mormon writers, and now being repeated as if they were true. That conversation provokes this post.
We should be careful about importing doctrine and interpretations from other traditional Christian sources. The reason "the professors [of traditional Christianity] are all corrupt" is not because they are bad people. (JS-H 1: 19.) It is because their doctrine is wrong. They do not have the truth. They entertain ideas which are not informed by heaven, and rely upon men to speculate about meaning, without knowing a thing about heaven.
Joseph remarked that "A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world." (TPJS p. 217.) The meaning of "knowledge" is, of course, the key to that statement. For the only "knowledge" which can save it to "know God" for yourself. (See, John 17: 3; D&C 132: 24.) The means of knowing this God is, of course, revelation and His personal ministry. His personal ministry will bring the faithful to the Father, as well. Both the Son and the Father will take their abode with you. (John 14: 18, 23.) This is the knowledge that saves.
The Christian world cannot save, their doctrines are corrupt, because they do not have the required knowledge to be able to teach. Therefore, they are "all corrupt" because their minds are corrupt. They cannot save themselves, much less inform us of anything which will aid us in knowing God.
Even reading Joseph's teachings will not save us. His knowledge and his covenant is not ours. We must find the required knowledge for ourselves. "Reading the experience of others, or the revelations given to them, can never give us a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God." (TPJS p. 324.) Even Joseph's revelations, and Joseph's scriptures are inadequate. They must be obtained by each individual or they will be left without saving knowledge.
How do we get good doctrine, good information and a valid covenant with God for ourselves? It is through knowledge from Him. "could you gaze into heaven five minutes you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject." (TPJS p. 324.) This is true because we then gain knowledge that saves us. We know God.
I don't give a fig for lengthy quotes of man's speculation about the "truth" as they understand it. I care only for the revelations from heaven. Men who have never gazed into heaven simply do not know the truth. Good men, honest men, and men of the highest intent who know nothing about the heavens cannot help anyone to find their way to God.
There are, of course, disappointments along the way when you gain knowledge. You find that you learn things you do not want to know. You become disconnected with this world as you attach to the higher world. I read the Doctrines of Salvation from Joseph Fielding Smith as a convert to the church, believing it to be filled with truth. I accepted the notion he advances that "Christ has himself declared that the manifestations we might have of the Spirit of Christ, or from a visitation from an angel, a tangible resurrected being, would not leave the impression and would not convince us and place within us that something which we cannot get away from which we receive through a manifestation of the Holy Ghost. Personal visitations might become dim as time goes on, but this guidance of the Holy Ghost is renewed and continued, day after day, year after year, if we live to be worthy of it." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol 1, p. 44.) I believed that at one point. I thought it good doctrine. I was troubled and disappointed to learn this was wrong. I did not want to know Joseph Fielding Smith was in error. But I learned it. Visitations are more, not less, powerful than the Holy Ghost.The scriptures prove it. For an angel will not come to visit you without being fully armed by the power of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, they speak by the power of the Holy Ghost when they visit. (2 Nephi 32: 2-3.) I wish I did not know Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong. I wish I did not realize he had never been visited by an angel, for only by lacking such an experience could he make this error. But we seek "knowledge" to be saved, and therefore we should find ourselves informed by heaven alone, and not men, even very good men, trying to tell us about things they can only guess to be true.
There is a great deal of difference between saving knowledge, which comes from heaven, and error, speculation and man's own doctrine, which cannot help us. We should never find ourselves among those who "teach for doctrine the commandments of men." (JS-H 1: 19.) Get connected to heaven and you needn't be dependent upon any MAN for your salvation. Not even Joseph Smith wanted you to do that by depending on him. Such things make you darkened in your mind, because you neglect the duty which God has imposed upon you. (TPJS p. 238.)
I do not point to me, or to another man, or to any group of men, no matter how well intentioned. I point to Christ, who alone can save you. You will not be rescued by another. No office can do it. No ordinance can do it. Only Christ has the power to save. (Mosiah 3: 17; Mosiah 5: 8.)
The most dogmatic and well studied Mormons are often the furthest away from heaven. Proud, confident, insistent they possess great knowledge, all the while little more than a child of hell, bound in darkness, and unable to recognize the truth. They will, as Joseph put it, "be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world," (TPJS p. 217.) because they are already captive by a spirit of contention, which Christ told us all is of the devil. (3 Nephi 11: 29.)
We should declare the truth, point to Christ, and say what we know to be true from our knowledge. It is up to others to accept or reject what is true. We cannot be saved; NONE of us can be saved unless we have saving knowledge which comes from Christ. You would know this if the heavens were opened to you and angels ministered to you. This is why the Book of Mormon authors so often confirmed their message did not originate from them, but came as a result of the Lord or His angels requiring the message to be delivered.
I do not care if anyone believes a thing I have ever said or written. But I do care if someone decides they will close the gate of heaven by the false things they preach, all the while declaring they are Christ's. How can they know the Master when they oppose knowledge of Him? It is more than an enigma. It is a tragedy.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The Power of God's Word
I've been reflecting on the power of God's word. It is so
remarkable a source of power that Christ was called the Word of God,
because He embodies the Father's will so completely. (John 1:1.)
God's word alone is what ordains to Melchizedek Priesthood. See JST Genesis 14:27-29. "It was delivered unto men by the calling of his
own voice..."
God's word alone conferred sealing authority upon Nephi. Helaman 10:3, Helaman 10: 5-10.
God's word along conferred the sealing authority upon Joseph Smith. D&C 132:46.
God's word is the only constant, which will never fail, whether He
speaks it or He authorizes someone else to speak it, it is the same. D&C 1:38.
In a very real sense, the power of the priesthood consists in
obtaining God's word. For when He will answer you it is possible to have
His word on all things. D&C 132:45 (for Joseph); D&C 124:95
(for Hyrum); Helaman 10: 5 (for Nephi).
Those who have God's word know how to proceed in all things. Those
who do not are always uncertain what they should do and what their
standing is before Him.
Monday, October 24, 2011
History of Elijah Doctrine
The talk on Elijah given in Spanish Fork and posted on this blog last week is a continuation of the development of information found in Passing the Heavenly Gift. The foundation for why the Elijah issue required further discussion is found in the book. Some people have listened to the talk without first reading the book. Therefore they are unacquainted with the background information which shows the importance of re-examining the Elijah tradition inside the church. I will give a brief explanation here, although you won't really understand the reason for the talk unless you read the book.
Briefly, and without repeating all the historic records, journals and sources from which the history is explained in the book, this is what happened: Elijah came to visit the Kirtland Temple in 1836 according to the third person account written by Warren Cowdery in the back of the 3rd volume of revelations in Kirtland. It is the last entry made, and the source of all the later claims made about Elijah, his purpose and appearance. The account is third-person, (i.e., The Lord appeared to them... said to them...., etc.) but when it was later discovered it was reworded to the first person (i.e., The Lord appeared to us.... said to us..., etc.). You can read the original document, actually see a photostatic reproduction of the original, in the Joseph Smith Papers. I give the cite in Passing the Heavenly Gift.
The record Joseph Smith left makes no mention of Elijah's appearance. The record Oliver Cowdery left makes no mention of Elijah's appearance. Joseph died without every explaining anything about the event, or making any mention of it. Oliver also. Both of them testified about visitations they received, and wrote about who had come to empower them, but neither of them ever mention Elijah.
In talks in Nauvoo, Joseph refers on every occasion he mentions Elijah as a future event. Not as a past event. He explains Elijah "will return," not that he has returned.
Joseph Smith received the sealing power in a revelation given sometime in the early 1830's, which was recorded in 1843. I take some effort to lay out the chronology in the book, and the information can be reviewed there.
When Joseph Smith died, there is no contemporaneous source to verify the appearance of Elijah in 1836, and the appearance was not known at that time.
There is no mention of the Elijah appearance in 1836, nor 1837, nor 1838 nor '39, '40, '41, '42, '43 nor in 1844, though Joseph does say there will be a future return. After Joseph Smith's death, there was nothing said or known in 1844, '45, '46, '47, '48, '49, '50 nor for years thereafter. When the Kirtland Revelation Book was reviewed in the 1850's the first notice resulted in the revelation being published for the first time in November of the year it was found. Along with the publication was an explanation given by Orson Pratt explaining it was quite significant. He garbles the chronology in that article, and the chronology ever since was taken from his first editorial. Since then the chronology has remained the same as Orson declared, even though he erred in attributing the revelation recorded on July 12, 1843 to having been given on that date. The revelation was received much earlier, the first part in 1829. I also walk through that in Passing the Heavenly Gift.
Since the 1850's when the revelation was found (which is now Section 110) about the Kirtland Temple appearance of Elijah, and then published for the first time in the Deseret News, there have been hundreds of statements which rely upon Orson Pratt's original analysis accompanying the announcement of finding the record.
By the time the words were discovered, Warren Cowdery who wrote it down was dead. He could not explain where it came from because we couldn't ask him. Oliver died shortly before Warren, and he also could not be asked. And, of course, Joseph died before either of them, and so he could not be asked either. Therefore the two witnesses left nothing about it, could not be asked, and the scribe who recorded it could not be asked either.
I walk through all these events using the historical records, scriptures and lengthy explanations. It is a topic which takes a lot of material to set out in full, but has been done in the book.
The talk on Elijah's mission posted on this blog was taking the topic and discussing what the still future mission of Elijah would necessarily involve. Since Joseph expected it to happen in the future when he spoke about it in January and March, 1844, there must be a future mission for him. Because if Joseph, who was present in the Kirtland Temple in 1836 when the Warren Cowdery recorded event took place thought there was still a future mission for Elijah, then it would be important to notice that and give some thought to what it could involve. I've done that. Hence the contents of the talk.
Now, if you disagree with history and you are perfectly content with what Orson Pratt bequeathed us as the accompanying commentary when the account was discovered, then you needn't give this one further thought. There have been generations come and go with that explanation regarded as the absolute truth and the basis for our Temple work. So you'll be in good company. But there are those serious minded individuals who are trying to sort this out right now at high levels of the Church who know these are important issues which are NOT as settled as the past pronouncements make it appear. In fact, I doubt the current explanations will last much longer because the record simply does not support the conclusions we have urged. The place to start is not after the 1850's discovery, when there were conclusions leaped to by Orson Pratt which then became the operative explanation thereafter. The place to start is instead from 1836 to 1844 in the records of that time. What was Joseph saying? What was Oliver saying? Why did both of them leave out mention of Elijah in their testimonies of who had come to visit with them? Where did Section 110 come from? That is, who did Warren Cowdery consult with to learn the material he wrote into the book? I work on that in both the book and the talk.
I think Elijah has a ministry still future. I think it is connected to the very things Joseph Smith was speaking about in January and March, 1844. And I explain what that is in the talk linked on this blog.
Briefly, and without repeating all the historic records, journals and sources from which the history is explained in the book, this is what happened: Elijah came to visit the Kirtland Temple in 1836 according to the third person account written by Warren Cowdery in the back of the 3rd volume of revelations in Kirtland. It is the last entry made, and the source of all the later claims made about Elijah, his purpose and appearance. The account is third-person, (i.e., The Lord appeared to them... said to them...., etc.) but when it was later discovered it was reworded to the first person (i.e., The Lord appeared to us.... said to us..., etc.). You can read the original document, actually see a photostatic reproduction of the original, in the Joseph Smith Papers. I give the cite in Passing the Heavenly Gift.
The record Joseph Smith left makes no mention of Elijah's appearance. The record Oliver Cowdery left makes no mention of Elijah's appearance. Joseph died without every explaining anything about the event, or making any mention of it. Oliver also. Both of them testified about visitations they received, and wrote about who had come to empower them, but neither of them ever mention Elijah.
In talks in Nauvoo, Joseph refers on every occasion he mentions Elijah as a future event. Not as a past event. He explains Elijah "will return," not that he has returned.
Joseph Smith received the sealing power in a revelation given sometime in the early 1830's, which was recorded in 1843. I take some effort to lay out the chronology in the book, and the information can be reviewed there.
When Joseph Smith died, there is no contemporaneous source to verify the appearance of Elijah in 1836, and the appearance was not known at that time.
There is no mention of the Elijah appearance in 1836, nor 1837, nor 1838 nor '39, '40, '41, '42, '43 nor in 1844, though Joseph does say there will be a future return. After Joseph Smith's death, there was nothing said or known in 1844, '45, '46, '47, '48, '49, '50 nor for years thereafter. When the Kirtland Revelation Book was reviewed in the 1850's the first notice resulted in the revelation being published for the first time in November of the year it was found. Along with the publication was an explanation given by Orson Pratt explaining it was quite significant. He garbles the chronology in that article, and the chronology ever since was taken from his first editorial. Since then the chronology has remained the same as Orson declared, even though he erred in attributing the revelation recorded on July 12, 1843 to having been given on that date. The revelation was received much earlier, the first part in 1829. I also walk through that in Passing the Heavenly Gift.
Since the 1850's when the revelation was found (which is now Section 110) about the Kirtland Temple appearance of Elijah, and then published for the first time in the Deseret News, there have been hundreds of statements which rely upon Orson Pratt's original analysis accompanying the announcement of finding the record.
By the time the words were discovered, Warren Cowdery who wrote it down was dead. He could not explain where it came from because we couldn't ask him. Oliver died shortly before Warren, and he also could not be asked. And, of course, Joseph died before either of them, and so he could not be asked either. Therefore the two witnesses left nothing about it, could not be asked, and the scribe who recorded it could not be asked either.
I walk through all these events using the historical records, scriptures and lengthy explanations. It is a topic which takes a lot of material to set out in full, but has been done in the book.
The talk on Elijah's mission posted on this blog was taking the topic and discussing what the still future mission of Elijah would necessarily involve. Since Joseph expected it to happen in the future when he spoke about it in January and March, 1844, there must be a future mission for him. Because if Joseph, who was present in the Kirtland Temple in 1836 when the Warren Cowdery recorded event took place thought there was still a future mission for Elijah, then it would be important to notice that and give some thought to what it could involve. I've done that. Hence the contents of the talk.
Now, if you disagree with history and you are perfectly content with what Orson Pratt bequeathed us as the accompanying commentary when the account was discovered, then you needn't give this one further thought. There have been generations come and go with that explanation regarded as the absolute truth and the basis for our Temple work. So you'll be in good company. But there are those serious minded individuals who are trying to sort this out right now at high levels of the Church who know these are important issues which are NOT as settled as the past pronouncements make it appear. In fact, I doubt the current explanations will last much longer because the record simply does not support the conclusions we have urged. The place to start is not after the 1850's discovery, when there were conclusions leaped to by Orson Pratt which then became the operative explanation thereafter. The place to start is instead from 1836 to 1844 in the records of that time. What was Joseph saying? What was Oliver saying? Why did both of them leave out mention of Elijah in their testimonies of who had come to visit with them? Where did Section 110 come from? That is, who did Warren Cowdery consult with to learn the material he wrote into the book? I work on that in both the book and the talk.
I think Elijah has a ministry still future. I think it is connected to the very things Joseph Smith was speaking about in January and March, 1844. And I explain what that is in the talk linked on this blog.
Friday, October 21, 2011
An Email Response
I got another email inquiry which I responded to yesterday I thought I ought to put up here: This inquiry related to Passing the Heavenly Gift:
[The email linked to several conversations of some length.] Well, that's a lot to read. I did scan some of it, but not all. I do not mind being criticized, nor people disagreeing with me. They're free to do so. And I mean both criticize me and disagree. The problem is that criticizing me is sort of a misadventure, because doing that detracts from the underlying real questions. Who cares a fig about me? I hope no-one. But the stuff I write about-- meaning an attempt to discuss the Gospel --that is important and certainly worth spending some time thinking about and discussing.
[The email linked to several conversations of some length.] Well, that's a lot to read. I did scan some of it, but not all. I do not mind being criticized, nor people disagreeing with me. They're free to do so. And I mean both criticize me and disagree. The problem is that criticizing me is sort of a misadventure, because doing that detracts from the underlying real questions. Who cares a fig about me? I hope no-one. But the stuff I write about-- meaning an attempt to discuss the Gospel --that is important and certainly worth spending some time thinking about and discussing.
Without the benefit of reading all those posts (I stopped reading when it got noxious), I'll respond as follows:
First, I've explained in what I've written (some approximate one million words now) what I think and why. There's no reason to re-write it again to answer questions. If they'd read what I wrote they'd know the answers. They'd even know the reasons for the answers. It's lazy to try to shortcut things and just interpose questions based on false assumptions and interpretations that are, in many cases, so off kilter that even answering is distorting. I think every one of these questions are answered in what I've written far better than in the responses below.
Despite this, and really even anticipating that these answers don't contribute anything to the discussion, here's a brief reply:
Does he actually claim in the first quote that all the keys of the priesthood are not held by Thomas S. Monson?No. I don't take a position on that. In one chapter I entertain the possibility of that and discuss how important the church remains anyway. As to whether he has them all, that is a matter between him and the Lord. When he became President, I prayed and was told to sustain him and I do. That's enough for me. The Book of Mormon clearly identifies us (the Latter-day Saints) as gentiles. Joseph Smith said we were "identified with the gentiles" in the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple (D&C 109: 60). Book of Mormon prophecies clearly indicate there will be an apostasy or sorts by the gentile church (us). We either have (in the past) or will (in the future) reject the fullness. I show how a reasonable interpretation of our history could reach the conclusion it was in the past. If it isn't then it is in our future. But if the Book of Mormon can be trusted on the point, and I think it can, then we'll reject the fullness of the Gospel at some point. But that's a quick and altogether distorted treatment of a topic worthy of so much attention and so much care that I've written a 170,000 word book on the subject which will do a better job than a snapshot.
Does Bro. Snuffer actually believe that the sealing power is not with the Church and was lost?No. Don't take a position on that, either. The sealing power is conferred in one way and that way is described in the scriptures. I take some lengths to explain, using scripture, the matter. Beyond laying out the process I never say anything about what the church has. I do explain the church's claims. And I also use the church's explanations to show where the church's authority comes from.
That the GAs over the Church’s curriculum are not teaching what God has instructed them to include in our Church manuals?I'm not sure I understand this question. Where has God instructed someone to do something about curriculum? There are committees that do this stuff. In the fourth phase everything is attributed to the president, and that process is laid out in the book. This question is a product of that process. But I really don't understand the question. So far as I've seen, there is nowhere a claim made that God was involved in writing or developing the church's curriculum.
We have a ‘devalued gospel’ in the LDS Church?There are a list of 72 approved subjects allowed to be taught, as a result of the Correlation process. The Gospel allows everyone to learn all the mysteries of God. It is, you know, given unto many to know the mysteries of God. And those who will give more heed to the matter learn more, those who give less heed learn less. (Alma 12: 9-11.) By the Spirit we can know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10: 5.) Limiting the scope of discussion to the list of approved topics is removing some of the great, even important topics from our permitted discussions. Therefore the most important subjects have now gravitated away from Sacrament, Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society and into the Internet. I have seen unapproved subjects on your blog's index.
I have also shown that David O. McKay was not the champion of Correlation, but was instead concerned it would lead to the church's apostasy. Now Correlation claims he was the one who was inspired to bring it forward, even that it was revealed to him by God and is proof of revelation to the church's President on the matter. These claims are opposite to President McKay's concern that it was both wrong and would endanger the church of apostasy by consolidating power in the hands of the top, when people were always intended to be free to learn, discuss, believe and act consistent with what they understood. That's all laid out in the book as well. And giving a cryptic response is really more misleading than helpful. Read the book and you'll have the answer. And answers to many other things about which we should be open and free to discuss among friendly, believing Saints.
------------------------
That is the end of the email response. I should note also that in the first 7 books I wrote I presumed the church's traditional narrative is true and accurate. I wrote them in contemplation of the church's traditional claims about history, and therefore anyone who reads those will not have their understanding challenged on the matter.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Reply to Questions
I was asked in an email to clarify some topics. I am posting this in response:
The appearance in 1836 in the Kirtland Temple does not appear to have fulfilled the return of Elijah. This is a topic the church is grappling with at the moment. Not at the bottom, where I live and write, but at the top. Though there are continuing statements made in public, behind the scenes there is a debate going on over the meaning of Elijah's appearance, when Joseph Smith received the sealing power, how he received it and whether the history should be revisited and clarified. I am setting out what I believe. It is for others to decide for themselves what they believe. But this is not as settled a subject as some public statements made for generations by the church make it appear.
Why does Joseph Smith omit mention of Elijah in his letter to the saints in September, 1842 (Section 128) if Elijah's return was completed in Kirtland in 1836?
Why does Oliver Cowdery never mention Elijah in his testimony about the restoration, though he does mention Moroni, the voice of God, John the Baptist and Peter, James and John?
Why does Joseph Smith speak of the return of Elijah as a future event in both January and March of 1844 if the Kirtland appearance satisfied the promise made in Malachi?
These are serious questions. There are people trying to answer them right now. I've provided my answer. Anyone is free to disagree with it. Anyone is free to decide it for themselves.
I don't think I am Elijah, and that's so stupid a proposition that I have a hard time even dignifying it with an answer. I want to say: "Are you serious???!!" But I'll leave it with, "no."
The sealing keys came to Joseph, like they came and were conferred upon Melchizedek and Nephi the same way. I explained it in Passing the Heavenly Gift. I'm not going to repeat it again here. It comes in only one way, that is by the Voice of God.
I've never said any church leader was "evil" or "of the devil." On the contrary, I've continually said they are the only ones entitled to lead the church, and no one has a right to interfere with their leading. No one has the right to call someone to any office in the church, collect tithing, or lead people away from the church. But EVERYONE has a duty to testify of the truth and to teach one another the doctrines of the kingdom. Therefore we are all under some obligation to declare what we believe, explain why, and defend it using the scriptures and declarations of the prophets. As to the analogy of church presidents to "Popes" that is J. Reuben Clark's terminology, as you can see in the book, and is not mine. I defer to him for that characterization. It is relevant to see how a member of the First Presidency viewed the role of the President and for that reason was included. I do not say whether I agree or disagree with his characterization, I only provide it. In fact, I do very little evaluating or concluding in Passing the Heavenly Gift. I merely set out what was said, done or written with the exception of one chapter which presumes, for purposes of that chapter, that the things promised in Section 124 were not delivered. Then, in light of that presumption, I explain what would then be the case. The book is an alternative view of history, which people are free to consider and reject. It is proposed as a way to grapple with inconsistencies and glaring problems which are not adequately reconcilable with the current stories we tell one another. I believe it is faith promoting. Particularly for those who are aware of the problems with our history. But, it is only faith promoting if you read the entire book. Reading only the first part will not be faith promoting, because it acknowledges the many problems and acquaints readers with the reasons why there is a crisis of faith among some of the most serious students of our history. I do not try to hide anything. It is or should be clear I'm not trying to shirk from difficulties. After setting it out, I then explain why I believe God's hand still lingers over the church and the saints. What is amusing to me is that one apostate reader thought it was too much an apologetic work (i.e. a defense of the church) for him to finish reading it. In other words, he thought it TOO faith promoting.
I do think the words of a dispensation head, in any dispensation, are binding upon all who follow. I do not think any prophet subsequent to Moses had the right to change Moses' teachings, for they were binding upon them. Until the Lord makes a change and opens a New Dispensation (which I expect Him to do personally), what Joseph Smith brought us is binding upon everyone, including all following prophets. We are told to be obedient to what we have received from him. (D&C 28: 2-3.) I believe that is still true. Meaning that no one, regardless of position or rank, can ignore what came through Joseph Smith except to their peril. Until a New Dispensation arrives, what Joseph Smith launched is supposed to remain intact.
"Elias" for our day is, I believe, Joseph Smith.
I expect Elijah to return the same way he departed. That's one of the great assignments to him. He must return because he will reopen the way through which others will follow. It will be, I believe, the same person as departed and not someone who self-proclaims or self-identifies as being "Elijah." It will be him. Not another. Anyone making that claim would (to me at least) be someone who does not understand the scriptures and is not to be take seriously.
I think that covers it. But I have to say the mischief comes from speculating, interpreting or emotionally reacting to the words I've written or spoken. Not in the words themselves. I try to be clear. The words are not attempting to "suggest" anything. Only to explain what I believe and why I believe as I do. They are the result of a great deal of work, which is set out in the text or footnotes, or bibliography.
The appearance in 1836 in the Kirtland Temple does not appear to have fulfilled the return of Elijah. This is a topic the church is grappling with at the moment. Not at the bottom, where I live and write, but at the top. Though there are continuing statements made in public, behind the scenes there is a debate going on over the meaning of Elijah's appearance, when Joseph Smith received the sealing power, how he received it and whether the history should be revisited and clarified. I am setting out what I believe. It is for others to decide for themselves what they believe. But this is not as settled a subject as some public statements made for generations by the church make it appear.
Why does Joseph Smith omit mention of Elijah in his letter to the saints in September, 1842 (Section 128) if Elijah's return was completed in Kirtland in 1836?
Why does Oliver Cowdery never mention Elijah in his testimony about the restoration, though he does mention Moroni, the voice of God, John the Baptist and Peter, James and John?
Why does Joseph Smith speak of the return of Elijah as a future event in both January and March of 1844 if the Kirtland appearance satisfied the promise made in Malachi?
These are serious questions. There are people trying to answer them right now. I've provided my answer. Anyone is free to disagree with it. Anyone is free to decide it for themselves.
I don't think I am Elijah, and that's so stupid a proposition that I have a hard time even dignifying it with an answer. I want to say: "Are you serious???!!" But I'll leave it with, "no."
The sealing keys came to Joseph, like they came and were conferred upon Melchizedek and Nephi the same way. I explained it in Passing the Heavenly Gift. I'm not going to repeat it again here. It comes in only one way, that is by the Voice of God.
I've never said any church leader was "evil" or "of the devil." On the contrary, I've continually said they are the only ones entitled to lead the church, and no one has a right to interfere with their leading. No one has the right to call someone to any office in the church, collect tithing, or lead people away from the church. But EVERYONE has a duty to testify of the truth and to teach one another the doctrines of the kingdom. Therefore we are all under some obligation to declare what we believe, explain why, and defend it using the scriptures and declarations of the prophets. As to the analogy of church presidents to "Popes" that is J. Reuben Clark's terminology, as you can see in the book, and is not mine. I defer to him for that characterization. It is relevant to see how a member of the First Presidency viewed the role of the President and for that reason was included. I do not say whether I agree or disagree with his characterization, I only provide it. In fact, I do very little evaluating or concluding in Passing the Heavenly Gift. I merely set out what was said, done or written with the exception of one chapter which presumes, for purposes of that chapter, that the things promised in Section 124 were not delivered. Then, in light of that presumption, I explain what would then be the case. The book is an alternative view of history, which people are free to consider and reject. It is proposed as a way to grapple with inconsistencies and glaring problems which are not adequately reconcilable with the current stories we tell one another. I believe it is faith promoting. Particularly for those who are aware of the problems with our history. But, it is only faith promoting if you read the entire book. Reading only the first part will not be faith promoting, because it acknowledges the many problems and acquaints readers with the reasons why there is a crisis of faith among some of the most serious students of our history. I do not try to hide anything. It is or should be clear I'm not trying to shirk from difficulties. After setting it out, I then explain why I believe God's hand still lingers over the church and the saints. What is amusing to me is that one apostate reader thought it was too much an apologetic work (i.e. a defense of the church) for him to finish reading it. In other words, he thought it TOO faith promoting.
I do think the words of a dispensation head, in any dispensation, are binding upon all who follow. I do not think any prophet subsequent to Moses had the right to change Moses' teachings, for they were binding upon them. Until the Lord makes a change and opens a New Dispensation (which I expect Him to do personally), what Joseph Smith brought us is binding upon everyone, including all following prophets. We are told to be obedient to what we have received from him. (D&C 28: 2-3.) I believe that is still true. Meaning that no one, regardless of position or rank, can ignore what came through Joseph Smith except to their peril. Until a New Dispensation arrives, what Joseph Smith launched is supposed to remain intact.
"Elias" for our day is, I believe, Joseph Smith.
I expect Elijah to return the same way he departed. That's one of the great assignments to him. He must return because he will reopen the way through which others will follow. It will be, I believe, the same person as departed and not someone who self-proclaims or self-identifies as being "Elijah." It will be him. Not another. Anyone making that claim would (to me at least) be someone who does not understand the scriptures and is not to be take seriously.
I think that covers it. But I have to say the mischief comes from speculating, interpreting or emotionally reacting to the words I've written or spoken. Not in the words themselves. I try to be clear. The words are not attempting to "suggest" anything. Only to explain what I believe and why I believe as I do. They are the result of a great deal of work, which is set out in the text or footnotes, or bibliography.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Technical Transcription Challenge
I do intend to post a transcription of the talk eventually. The voice recognition software which was to do the greatest part of the process has difficulty recognizing words correctly because of the large area in which it was recorded, with an echo, and background noises. So I'm going to have to get it physically transcribed by a person doing the work.
Once that is done, I'll edit it. I noticed some problems as I listened to it, for example when reading about Enoch from the Book of Moses I once referred to "Enoch" as "Moses." That sort of thing will be cleaned up as I edit it. I also omitted citing the scriptures being read, and I'll add those as I edit it.
There were also thoughts which, because of time, were not complete. I did not explain, for example, the reason it was John the Baptist and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration was because these two were the opener and the closer of the preceding Dispensation. Moses, who opened, and John the Baptist, who closed, the preceding Dispensation were there to "hand off" (so to speak) to Christ. These two witnesses, along with the three living mortal disciples, answered all the requirements to end one and begin another Dispensation. The Mount was also where these disciples received their instructions on the heavenly ascent, or endowment. But those are details I didn't touch upon. I may do so in the edit when it is transcribed.
In any event, I will put it up here. But I make no promises about how long it will be before it is finished.
Once that is done, I'll edit it. I noticed some problems as I listened to it, for example when reading about Enoch from the Book of Moses I once referred to "Enoch" as "Moses." That sort of thing will be cleaned up as I edit it. I also omitted citing the scriptures being read, and I'll add those as I edit it.
There were also thoughts which, because of time, were not complete. I did not explain, for example, the reason it was John the Baptist and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration was because these two were the opener and the closer of the preceding Dispensation. Moses, who opened, and John the Baptist, who closed, the preceding Dispensation were there to "hand off" (so to speak) to Christ. These two witnesses, along with the three living mortal disciples, answered all the requirements to end one and begin another Dispensation. The Mount was also where these disciples received their instructions on the heavenly ascent, or endowment. But those are details I didn't touch upon. I may do so in the edit when it is transcribed.
In any event, I will put it up here. But I make no promises about how long it will be before it is finished.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Talk Write Up
There's some silliness going on about the talk I will give at Confetti Books tomorrow. I promise I will write up the talk and put it on this blog. When I do, there will be citations, and probably more information than will be covered in a spontaneous discussion tomorrow. It'll be no doubt better organized than will the talk. I never write a talk in advance, I just give it. But I've also written up talks after they were given, and have made them available to anyone interested.
I want to make clear a couple of things: First, I assure you I'm absolutely unimportant and not worth your notice. There are ideas, doctrine and history which are important, but for the most part you can find them in the scriptures and in Joseph Smith's writings. You don't need me for that. So if you're really interested in the truth, you would probably be better off spending the time with your scriptures and Joseph's writings than listening to me. They are original, I am merely derivitive. Second, the ideas are the only things which are important, and you don't need me for them. They come to anyone through the Spirit. So if you'll do as Moroni tells you and ask God, you can "know the truth of all things" from Him, directly. (Moroni 10: 4-5.) I am utterly unimportant, irrelevant, and without any merit whatsoever. The doctrine is what matters. You can get that from God.
As the last book also made clear, the only ones who have any right to manage the church are those who are sustained by common consent and therefore hold office in the church. You should listen to those you've sustained and give heed to their counsel because that's the system established by revelation and which is still in operation today. I am absolutely not someone who has any authority over anyone, but am, like you, subject to their rule in the church. Therefore, although I can offer some views from the scriptures, they are my views and set out my understanding and you are free to accept or reject them. But if you decide to accept them I would remind you that you need to have the Spirit or revelation confirm something before you decide I've said anything worth even considering.
No one needs to travel, interrupt their evening, or go to any inconvenience to be there tomorrow. Everything will be put up here in writing, and I'll personally make a digital recording and make it available. For that I haven't figured out if I can do it through this blog, or if my wife is going to have to send email attachments to anyone interested. But I promise I'll make it available. Along with a written version. And the written version will be better. So you don't need to be there.
Finally, I don't want any videos taken. I'm not worth notice and don't want to be noticed. Photographs and videos tend to distract from what is important (doctrine) and refocus attention to someone who does not matter. You have church authorities who are known, whose images are available for you to notice and recognize, and I'm not one of them. I don't want your attention. If an idea helps you, that's a good thing. But as for me, I'm irrelevant.
I want to make clear a couple of things: First, I assure you I'm absolutely unimportant and not worth your notice. There are ideas, doctrine and history which are important, but for the most part you can find them in the scriptures and in Joseph Smith's writings. You don't need me for that. So if you're really interested in the truth, you would probably be better off spending the time with your scriptures and Joseph's writings than listening to me. They are original, I am merely derivitive. Second, the ideas are the only things which are important, and you don't need me for them. They come to anyone through the Spirit. So if you'll do as Moroni tells you and ask God, you can "know the truth of all things" from Him, directly. (Moroni 10: 4-5.) I am utterly unimportant, irrelevant, and without any merit whatsoever. The doctrine is what matters. You can get that from God.
As the last book also made clear, the only ones who have any right to manage the church are those who are sustained by common consent and therefore hold office in the church. You should listen to those you've sustained and give heed to their counsel because that's the system established by revelation and which is still in operation today. I am absolutely not someone who has any authority over anyone, but am, like you, subject to their rule in the church. Therefore, although I can offer some views from the scriptures, they are my views and set out my understanding and you are free to accept or reject them. But if you decide to accept them I would remind you that you need to have the Spirit or revelation confirm something before you decide I've said anything worth even considering.
No one needs to travel, interrupt their evening, or go to any inconvenience to be there tomorrow. Everything will be put up here in writing, and I'll personally make a digital recording and make it available. For that I haven't figured out if I can do it through this blog, or if my wife is going to have to send email attachments to anyone interested. But I promise I'll make it available. Along with a written version. And the written version will be better. So you don't need to be there.
Finally, I don't want any videos taken. I'm not worth notice and don't want to be noticed. Photographs and videos tend to distract from what is important (doctrine) and refocus attention to someone who does not matter. You have church authorities who are known, whose images are available for you to notice and recognize, and I'm not one of them. I don't want your attention. If an idea helps you, that's a good thing. But as for me, I'm irrelevant.
Ticketing
I got an email this morning telling me the following:
> You need to contact Confetti about tickets (which they are
> requiring). That allows them to keep it organized somewhat.
That allows them to make a lot of money. According to their Facebook
page "To get tickets you must call us at 801-798-0137 and Order Denver's
latest book Passing the Heavenly Gift ($28.95) via phone," which gets
one 2 tickets. It might help your blog readers if you post Confetti's
phone number and mention the purchase requirement.
______________________________________
Although I do not make a living selling or writing books, there are those who do. All throughout the book industry there are those who spend their lives making it possible for things to be put into print. They invest time, resources and effort, which in turn makes it possible for them to support their families. I do not begrudge the fact that, for example, Mill Creek Press makes money on what I write, CreatSpace makes money printing the books, Amazon makes money by marketing the books, the Bench family makes money selling them through Benchmark Books, and Confetti makes money by purchasing them, stocking them, and selling them. I do not have copies except on rare occasions. When I get them I do so with the intent to give them away. But it is an expensive proposition to give them away, and therefore the numbers have been reduced from the first book (I gave away 200 copies) to the last book (I gave away 35 copies).
I wish it were possible to show gratitude without raising ire. But here, in this world, those who want to be offended will always be offended; while those who are grateful for the service of others are grateful to help them and show gratitude by their acts as well.
I do not rely upon book revenues to support my family, but the people at Confetti do. Therefore they have determined to charge for admission; though my appearance there is donated and without any fee paid to me. I believe they have rented a space for that evening, and are using what they make from the book sale commission to pay the rent on the space for the evening. But those are details I am unacquainted with and really do not intend to concern myself with. I will be there from 6:30 to 8:30 to talk.
There are two other interesting things happening at the same time. The Sacred Geometry conference was announced on this blog, and I believe has an admission charge. But Benchmark's event with Terryl Givens is free, I believe. I think either of those would be worthwhile and you would be edified by attending either of them. I believe there is going to be a recording of the things I have to say, and I'm anticipating it will be made available. If I can figure out how to accomplish it, I'm hoping to make it a digital recording which gets put on this blog for anyone who cares to listen to it. I cannot guarantee that will happen, however, because I've never attempted to do such a thing and am therefore not confident I can figure out how to accomplish it. Nevertheless I intend to try.
> You need to contact Confetti about tickets (which they are
> requiring). That allows them to keep it organized somewhat.
That allows them to make a lot of money. According to their Facebook
page "To get tickets you must call us at 801-798-0137 and Order Denver's
latest book Passing the Heavenly Gift ($28.95) via phone," which gets
one 2 tickets. It might help your blog readers if you post Confetti's
phone number and mention the purchase requirement.
______________________________________
Although I do not make a living selling or writing books, there are those who do. All throughout the book industry there are those who spend their lives making it possible for things to be put into print. They invest time, resources and effort, which in turn makes it possible for them to support their families. I do not begrudge the fact that, for example, Mill Creek Press makes money on what I write, CreatSpace makes money printing the books, Amazon makes money by marketing the books, the Bench family makes money selling them through Benchmark Books, and Confetti makes money by purchasing them, stocking them, and selling them. I do not have copies except on rare occasions. When I get them I do so with the intent to give them away. But it is an expensive proposition to give them away, and therefore the numbers have been reduced from the first book (I gave away 200 copies) to the last book (I gave away 35 copies).
I wish it were possible to show gratitude without raising ire. But here, in this world, those who want to be offended will always be offended; while those who are grateful for the service of others are grateful to help them and show gratitude by their acts as well.
I do not rely upon book revenues to support my family, but the people at Confetti do. Therefore they have determined to charge for admission; though my appearance there is donated and without any fee paid to me. I believe they have rented a space for that evening, and are using what they make from the book sale commission to pay the rent on the space for the evening. But those are details I am unacquainted with and really do not intend to concern myself with. I will be there from 6:30 to 8:30 to talk.
There are two other interesting things happening at the same time. The Sacred Geometry conference was announced on this blog, and I believe has an admission charge. But Benchmark's event with Terryl Givens is free, I believe. I think either of those would be worthwhile and you would be edified by attending either of them. I believe there is going to be a recording of the things I have to say, and I'm anticipating it will be made available. If I can figure out how to accomplish it, I'm hoping to make it a digital recording which gets put on this blog for anyone who cares to listen to it. I cannot guarantee that will happen, however, because I've never attempted to do such a thing and am therefore not confident I can figure out how to accomplish it. Nevertheless I intend to try.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tickets for Friday
I forgot to mention, Confetti Books is handling the event. All I do is show up and speak. You need to contact Confetti about tickets (which they are requiring). That allows them to keep it organized somewhat.
Friday October 14th
I've previously posted notice here about the events on Friday of this week. There is the Sacred Geometry event (see below) and the Benchmark Books event where Terryl Givens will speak. But I have not mentioned that I will be speaking at Confetti Books in Spanish Fork.
I do not like to speak at events, and generally decline to do so. However, I owe a debt of gratitude to Confetti Books because they have carried all of my books for years. They have asked me to come and I have finally agreed to do so.
Confetti Books is located on Main Street in Spanish Fork, Utah. They have a remarkable bookstore, and carry many titles which are difficult to locate. If you have not visited their store, you should take a look at their diverse collection of LDS books.
I am speaking from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on Friday evening. I'd like to see some of you take the time to shop at Confetti beforehand (they are open until 6:00) and then join us at the evening talk. It is likely the talk will be recorded, and if so then copies will be made available at some point.
Finally, let me add, I am not being paid for this event, nor would I accept any payment for doing it. If it is recorded, and copies are sold by those who take the trouble to accomplish it, any payment which would go to me will be donated to the missionary program of the LDS Church. I have always refused to accept payment for such things.
I want to extend a particular invitation to those who believe I am "an apostate" to come and listen. It will improve your capacity to judge me if you take the time to listen to something I have to say. I do not intend to change your mind, but rather I want to equip you to make a more sound judgment.
I do not like to speak at events, and generally decline to do so. However, I owe a debt of gratitude to Confetti Books because they have carried all of my books for years. They have asked me to come and I have finally agreed to do so.
Confetti Books is located on Main Street in Spanish Fork, Utah. They have a remarkable bookstore, and carry many titles which are difficult to locate. If you have not visited their store, you should take a look at their diverse collection of LDS books.
I am speaking from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on Friday evening. I'd like to see some of you take the time to shop at Confetti beforehand (they are open until 6:00) and then join us at the evening talk. It is likely the talk will be recorded, and if so then copies will be made available at some point.
Finally, let me add, I am not being paid for this event, nor would I accept any payment for doing it. If it is recorded, and copies are sold by those who take the trouble to accomplish it, any payment which would go to me will be donated to the missionary program of the LDS Church. I have always refused to accept payment for such things.
I want to extend a particular invitation to those who believe I am "an apostate" to come and listen. It will improve your capacity to judge me if you take the time to listen to something I have to say. I do not intend to change your mind, but rather I want to equip you to make a more sound judgment.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Repentance
The first step for repentance is always to recognize something is wrong and needs changing. Oddly, that is a more difficult challenge than it ought to be. We all like to think of ourselves as being in the right way. It makes people mad to suggest otherwise.
Membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was never intended to be temporary, with people cycling in and then out of the church. Once they come aboard they should stay aboard. The Gospel, as restored through Joseph Smith, has a delightful and expanding source of almost endless truth available to all of us. We were not meant to be bored, flattered and comfortable. Instead we were meant to be challenged, provoked, delighted and engaged in the relentless search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of God. When we take it and instead make it flat, curtailed and predictable, we often attract only temporary members. People who come for the doctrine at first, and then leave because the new faith offering answers at last to their questions, ends in a repetition of brief and superficial answers to probing questions after a brief cycle of a few years. I wish all men were motivated to study deeply for themselves, but they are not. For such people, they rely upon others to bring them along further and further in the right Path. When they falter because we aren't teaching them invigorating, challenging material each week, they presume we have nothing to offer. The truth is we have a lifetime of rewarding information available for their endless edification and growth. But, when they will not search into it for themselves, they do not find it.
We make a mistake when we discourage the search or claim they MUST confine what they investigate to our limited approved church curriculum. They get the mistaken impression that is because our official manuals are all the Gospel offers. They presume we are no better informed than are the other mainstream churches, whose memberships are static or dropping.
In our Region of the church (we're about to have a Regional Conference in two weeks), one of the greatest problems we face is adult apostasy stemming from reading critical things about the church's history on the Internet. A great number of adults are dismayed when they learn of things from hostile, even bitterly opposed sources working to remove faith in the restored Gospel. There are some people assigned by the church to investigate this problem, and who are discussing how to address it. I suggested to my stake president that my book, Passing the Heavenly Gift, might be of use. I know of twelve men now who have returned to activity in the church after reading the book. These are bright men, well read and engaged in searching into things which matter to them. They had all reached the conclusion the church was not being honest about its history and therefore ended their activity with the church. After reading the book, however, they decided it was not as they presumed, and the Lord does indeed have a destiny for the Latter-day Saints, foretold by the Prophets in the Book of Mormon and revealed to Joseph Smith.
I have found nothing quite as engaging, challenging and hopeful as the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To me it is exactly as Nephi put it: "delicious." It takes a great deal of effort to make the excitement of eternal truth into something stale and boring. That effort ought to be spent letting the Gospel understanding expand, under the tutelage of a benign church, tolerant of inquiry and discussion that is open ended and tolerant. The discussions are going to happen. Any efforts to stop them will only drive them into places where the truth may not receive an invitation to even contribute.
There is nothing so wonderful as the truths we were handed by Joseph Smith. All those who awaken to his great ministry still "seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under [his] hand." (D&C 122: 2.) The truth never had a better friend than Joseph Smith. Even when it put him into conflict with all the world, he nevertheless declared the truth. That is because truth compels the recipient to declare: "I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth. I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation." (JS-H 1: 25.) Praise to the man, indeed!
I could not have repented (at least not in an effective way) if I had not listened to what Joseph taught. In that sense, he brought me to Christ. Therefore, although Christ is the Redeemer and Savior, it was Joseph Smith who taught me how to return to the Lord. No man can save another. Yet there are those we owe some gratitude for the light they brought. Not because they are more than men (for all men are weak and prone to err), but because the Lord worked with them despite their weakness.
Membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was never intended to be temporary, with people cycling in and then out of the church. Once they come aboard they should stay aboard. The Gospel, as restored through Joseph Smith, has a delightful and expanding source of almost endless truth available to all of us. We were not meant to be bored, flattered and comfortable. Instead we were meant to be challenged, provoked, delighted and engaged in the relentless search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of God. When we take it and instead make it flat, curtailed and predictable, we often attract only temporary members. People who come for the doctrine at first, and then leave because the new faith offering answers at last to their questions, ends in a repetition of brief and superficial answers to probing questions after a brief cycle of a few years. I wish all men were motivated to study deeply for themselves, but they are not. For such people, they rely upon others to bring them along further and further in the right Path. When they falter because we aren't teaching them invigorating, challenging material each week, they presume we have nothing to offer. The truth is we have a lifetime of rewarding information available for their endless edification and growth. But, when they will not search into it for themselves, they do not find it.
We make a mistake when we discourage the search or claim they MUST confine what they investigate to our limited approved church curriculum. They get the mistaken impression that is because our official manuals are all the Gospel offers. They presume we are no better informed than are the other mainstream churches, whose memberships are static or dropping.
In our Region of the church (we're about to have a Regional Conference in two weeks), one of the greatest problems we face is adult apostasy stemming from reading critical things about the church's history on the Internet. A great number of adults are dismayed when they learn of things from hostile, even bitterly opposed sources working to remove faith in the restored Gospel. There are some people assigned by the church to investigate this problem, and who are discussing how to address it. I suggested to my stake president that my book, Passing the Heavenly Gift, might be of use. I know of twelve men now who have returned to activity in the church after reading the book. These are bright men, well read and engaged in searching into things which matter to them. They had all reached the conclusion the church was not being honest about its history and therefore ended their activity with the church. After reading the book, however, they decided it was not as they presumed, and the Lord does indeed have a destiny for the Latter-day Saints, foretold by the Prophets in the Book of Mormon and revealed to Joseph Smith.
I have found nothing quite as engaging, challenging and hopeful as the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To me it is exactly as Nephi put it: "delicious." It takes a great deal of effort to make the excitement of eternal truth into something stale and boring. That effort ought to be spent letting the Gospel understanding expand, under the tutelage of a benign church, tolerant of inquiry and discussion that is open ended and tolerant. The discussions are going to happen. Any efforts to stop them will only drive them into places where the truth may not receive an invitation to even contribute.
There is nothing so wonderful as the truths we were handed by Joseph Smith. All those who awaken to his great ministry still "seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under [his] hand." (D&C 122: 2.) The truth never had a better friend than Joseph Smith. Even when it put him into conflict with all the world, he nevertheless declared the truth. That is because truth compels the recipient to declare: "I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth. I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation." (JS-H 1: 25.) Praise to the man, indeed!
I could not have repented (at least not in an effective way) if I had not listened to what Joseph taught. In that sense, he brought me to Christ. Therefore, although Christ is the Redeemer and Savior, it was Joseph Smith who taught me how to return to the Lord. No man can save another. Yet there are those we owe some gratitude for the light they brought. Not because they are more than men (for all men are weak and prone to err), but because the Lord worked with them despite their weakness.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Some Random Updates
There are two events on October 14th of note. The Sacred Geometry matter announced below will begin. Yvonne Bent has organized the event and several interesting speakers are coming. For those interested in the subject it should be delightful.
The same evening Benchmark Books will be hosting an event in which Terryl Givens and Matthew Grow will be speaking about their new book on Parley Pratt. This will be held at the Benchmark store location at 3269 South Main, Suite 250.
Both of these events look to be quite worthwhile.
I was saddened by the passing of Matthew Brown, who was only 48 years old. His widow and children are not protected by any life insurance and a fund has been set up to donate for anyone interested. I would encourage anyone who can to do so.
My wife brought a matter to my attention which I thought I'd comment about again. I put up some cautions about how the new book was going to have those who wanted to take sensational statements out of context and put them on the Internet in isolation, separated from the many sources carefully assembled to lay a foundation to understand the statements. That has begun. I'd only remind those who are interested that anything can be made to look sensational if it is divorced from context. I could make the most benign of Joseph Smith's statements look fanatical and rob them of all meaning if I wanted to do so. But to understand the Prophet, it takes careful, even prayerful, study.
I have no agenda apart from explaining the truth as I understand it. But when I explain it, I give (particularly in the case of the latest book) enough historic and scriptural support that any conclusions are only an extension of what the Prophet, or the Book of Mormon, or the history itself compels us to conclude. The conclusions are rather anticlimactic. They are only the result of the accumulated and disclosed body of information preceding them. When, therefore, someone takes merely the conclusion and represents it as an accurate statement of what I've written, it is so gross a distortion that it is essentially untrue. Time, care, patience and great effort was taken to show the history for the benefit of the reader. Divorcing all that from a single sentence and parading it as what I think is, at best, a disservice.
But people crave the 'sound-bite' solution to everything. Therefore the cunning and fearful want to rush to expose and distort, in hopes to mislead and inoculate people from learning some things which help them find their way to the Lord. As I say in the book, I've been ministered to by the Lord. I'd caution those who want to distort what I've written to be careful, therefore, and prayerful (as I have been) in how they elect to proceed.
The souls of men are something no one should trifle with. I've never done so. I'd encourage others to avoid doing so unless they are certain they are on the Lord's errand.
The same evening Benchmark Books will be hosting an event in which Terryl Givens and Matthew Grow will be speaking about their new book on Parley Pratt. This will be held at the Benchmark store location at 3269 South Main, Suite 250.
Both of these events look to be quite worthwhile.
I was saddened by the passing of Matthew Brown, who was only 48 years old. His widow and children are not protected by any life insurance and a fund has been set up to donate for anyone interested. I would encourage anyone who can to do so.
My wife brought a matter to my attention which I thought I'd comment about again. I put up some cautions about how the new book was going to have those who wanted to take sensational statements out of context and put them on the Internet in isolation, separated from the many sources carefully assembled to lay a foundation to understand the statements. That has begun. I'd only remind those who are interested that anything can be made to look sensational if it is divorced from context. I could make the most benign of Joseph Smith's statements look fanatical and rob them of all meaning if I wanted to do so. But to understand the Prophet, it takes careful, even prayerful, study.
I have no agenda apart from explaining the truth as I understand it. But when I explain it, I give (particularly in the case of the latest book) enough historic and scriptural support that any conclusions are only an extension of what the Prophet, or the Book of Mormon, or the history itself compels us to conclude. The conclusions are rather anticlimactic. They are only the result of the accumulated and disclosed body of information preceding them. When, therefore, someone takes merely the conclusion and represents it as an accurate statement of what I've written, it is so gross a distortion that it is essentially untrue. Time, care, patience and great effort was taken to show the history for the benefit of the reader. Divorcing all that from a single sentence and parading it as what I think is, at best, a disservice.
But people crave the 'sound-bite' solution to everything. Therefore the cunning and fearful want to rush to expose and distort, in hopes to mislead and inoculate people from learning some things which help them find their way to the Lord. As I say in the book, I've been ministered to by the Lord. I'd caution those who want to distort what I've written to be careful, therefore, and prayerful (as I have been) in how they elect to proceed.
The souls of men are something no one should trifle with. I've never done so. I'd encourage others to avoid doing so unless they are certain they are on the Lord's errand.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Sacred Geometry
I was asked to put up this announcement.
________________________________________
What do you know About Sacred Geometry? October 14 & 15, 2011, at the Springville Museum of Art, Springville, Ut. A multitude of questions regarding sacred geometry are about to be answered. An in-depth conference will be held to address the age-old quandary over the purpose of symbols and shapes. The Springville Museum of Art is pleased to host the very first event of this kind ever to take place anywhere in the world. Leaders in the fields of art, photography, astronomy, mathematics and science join together to share their knowledge with the general public regarding their research and findings in the worldwide curiosity over geometry and symbolism.
Beginning Oct 14 at 3-5 p.m., a free hands-on workshop will provide
tutoring in the use of the compass and right angle to those who desire to
learn how to create the divine proportion. Those wishing to participate
will need to bring a professional compass, right angle, and graph paper.
After a short dinner break, a panel discussion will be open to the general
public from 6-9 p.m. Questions from the audience will be addressed.
Following promptly at 8:30 a.m., Saturday, October 15, the conference
will continue with lectures from Wulf Barsch, who will discuss Abraham and
Facsimile #2. At 10:30 a.m. Dr. C. Lance Harding will share his wealth of
knowledge on the divine proportion and the human body. A box lunch
lecture will commence at 12:30 p.m., featuring Garth Norman, who will
discuss archeo-astronomy. The final lecture will begin at 2 p.m.
featuring a joint presentation from Val Brinkerhoff and Yvonne Bent. They
will talk about sacred architecture, both in temples and the human
body.
Tickets are $45, which includes a box lunch. Tickets are available only on
line at AboutSacredGeometry.com. For further information, visit the web
site or write to yvonne@thehomeuniversity.com. Seating is limited and
will be available on a first come, first serve basis. Books and
transcripts will also be available at the event.
This event is not affiliated or endorsed by Brigham Young University or
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Controlled Revelation
Joseph
Smith did not attempt to control or limit people's revelations except
in only one regard. When it came to revelation involving governing the
church, that was limited to him alone, as President. (See, e.g. D&C 43: 2-5; 21: 4-5; 28: 2.) Reading The Joseph Smith Papers,
however, it is clear that for Joseph, it came as a matter of some
considerable satisfaction to him that others received revelation as
well.
The declarations of Joseph's revelations raise
two interesting questions: First, if Joseph's status as the prophet, seer and revelator are foundational, then can any subsequent
person change anything restored through Joseph? Even if there is
another person elected through common consent to be the
president of the church, is such an office holder free from the obligation to receive
Joseph's words as God's words? Are we all, including subsequent office
holders, required to "give heed unto all his [Joseph's] words and
commandments, which he [Joseph] shall give unto you as he receiveth
them"? Or instead, does Joseph get relegated to obsolescence once he
has been replaced by President Brigham Young, and so on?
Secondly, the question arises whether
possession of the office Joseph held (church president) automatically
entitles such an office holder to be in every whit exactly like Joseph. That is, do subsequent office holders also get the automatic right to
claim everyone in the church must give heed to their words, too?
In Joseph's case, the only way to replace him in
his position was for Joseph himself to designate his
successor/replacement. This is set out in the revelation to Joseph as
follows: "[N]one else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be
through him [Joseph]; for if it is taken from him [Joseph] he shall not
have power except to appoint another in his stead." (D&C 43: 4.)
Implicit in the revelation, if you read it carefully, is that Joseph's
choice of the one who would succeed him would necessarily come by
revelation to Joseph. "And this shall be a law unto you, that ye
receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as
revelations or commandments; And this I give unto you that you may not
be deceived, that you may know they are not of me. For verily I say
unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and
be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations, which
you have received and shall receive through him [Joseph] whom I have
appointed." (D&C 43: 5-7.)
In Joseph's case, he did receive a revelation
which identified who would replace him, just as the revelation
provided. "[T]hat my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood
and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing
and also by right; That from henceforth he shall hold the keys of the
Patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people, That 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. And from
this time forth I appoint unto him that he may be a prophet, and a seer,
and a revelator unto my church, as well as my servant Joseph..." (D&C 124: 91-94.)
Hyrum, however, died in Carthage Jail before
Joseph. The issue of "succession" was decided by common consent in the
votes taken in Nauvoo following Joseph's death. Then there is all that
stuff about Joseph giving "the keys of the kingdom" to "the council." But "the kingdom" was the Council of Fifty, not the church. The
"council" to whom Joseph made the remark was the Fifty, not the Twelve.
But we sorted that out in Nauvoo by common consent, choosing to follow
the Twelve.
Revelation is foundational to the church. No
one comes into the church without revelation. Missionaries ask
investigators to ask God, based on Moroni 10:4, and get their own
answer to prayer. A convert is expected to have received a personal
revelation before becoming a Mormon.
This gives rise to some other interesting
issues: Moroni 10:4 has as its scope the truthfulness of the Book of
Mormon. But Moroni 10:5 expands the scope so that a sincere inquirer
"may know the truth of all things." Therefore, there is no limit on
what a person might inquire about and receive a revelation concerning.
Now a convert who has discovered that they have
already obtained an answer to prayer is likely (as I was) to continue
to inquire. Converts who have had such an experience become rather like
Joseph Smith following his first vision. That is, they "had full
confidence in obtaining a divine manifestation, as [they] previously had
one." (JS-H 1: 29.) So people who have succeeded in obtaining an
answer to prayer go on to make further inquiries and get further
answers. The scope of such inquiries can be, as Moroni 10: 5 informs
us, into literally ANYTHING. They can get to know "the truth of all
things" by making such inquiries.
The interesting issue arises when the church
then informs the convert that they can't have revelations involving
things which the church wants to control. They can't ask and get an
answer about anything that contradicts or opposes what the church
says. If they do so, they are told they have a false revelation, or
they are being inspired by the devil.
A great problem arises when someone who has
received authentic revelation, and has been inspired as a consequence of
that revelation to join the church, is then told by the church that
their subsequent revelation is false, or of the devil. The convert must
then choose. Revelation led them into the church in the first instance. If the church then tells them their continuing revelation is false or of the devil, they must grapple with whether the original revelation which led them to convert was also false and of the devil? Of course, if they reach that conclusion they
leave the church. The other choice is that the revelation, both the
original and the following revelations, are from God. If that is the conclusion
they reach, then they know the church is overreaching. This gives rise to a continual anxiety
about the church's motives, and reliability about things which matter
most.
Joseph's delight in the revelations others
received is akin to Moses' delight in the same thing: "Enviest thou
for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets,
and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!" (Num. 11: 29.) The
church's jealousy on the same topic makes an interesting contrast, where those who have revelation oftentimes know God has spoken to them,
but also know the church will not tolerate revelation which goes any
further than knowing the Book of Mormon is true, Therefore, you have
an obligation to join the institution which publishes and proclaims that
book.
These are big topics. They are worth a lot of
careful thought. One conclusion which leaps to mind, however, is that
the loose grip Joseph and Moses took on the reigns of control
extended to management decisions at the highest level. At lower levels
people were free to develop their gifts, including revelation, without
any molesting by the top. Our own scriptures say as much. To the
church is given a variety of gifts, disbursed throughout the body:
"To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby. To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful. And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men. And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the Spirit may be given to every man to profit withal. And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom. To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge. And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed; And to others it is given to have faith to heal. And again, to some is given the working of miracles; And to others it is given to prophesy; And to others the discerning of spirits. And again, it is given to some to speak with tongues; And to another is given the interpretation of tongues. And all these gifts come from God, for the benefit of the children of God." (D&C 46: 12-26.)
Well, if they all come from God, and are spread
to people throughout the church, it would seem incredibly wrong-headed
to condemn such things or to attempt to limit them. It is an interesting
thing to try and limit the Spirit. As Christ put it, "The wind bloweth
where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell
whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of
the Spirit." (John 3: 8.) Such things are free indeed. To hedge them
in, correlate them, and attempt to subjugate them, oftentimes does not
convince or persuade those being controlled.
Fortunately, history generally sorts it out
correctly. And today's heroes become tomorrows villains - just as
today's fools become tomorrow's venerated examples. How we sort it out
in our brief moment here is not necessarily how either the Lord or those
in the future will do so.
Well, enough of that. I do so look forward to
General Conference this coming weekend. I'm hoping to get some input on
the things which really do matter most. There are so many important
questions facing us today. It will be nice to hear what counsel we are
given on these many perplexities.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Response to Question
When you write something, a reader can put into what you've written something that is not there. Some of the questions I get asked result from misreading the information, rather than confining the things I've written to the writing itself. I got one this morning which I thought was worthwhile enough to put on the blog.
The question related to the role of the Holy Ghost. In effect, the person I spoke with thought I "denegrated the role of the Holy Ghost" by focusing upon Christ. I responded I did not believe that was the case.
First, I explained in everything I've written, beginning with The Second Comforter, that it is the role of the Holy Ghost to prepare and bring us to Christ. Without the Holy Ghost we cannot come to Christ. Further, in that same book I acknowledged the Holy Ghost's foundational role by telling the reader that they must receive a witness from the Holy Ghost as they read the book or they do not have the required two witnesses. Without the Holy Ghost's ratifying confirmation, I tell the reader to discard what I've written. Far from denegrating the Holy Ghost's role, I have made it a central part of the process, without it no person can come unto Christ.
It is not overemphasis on Christ at the expense of the Holy Ghost, but rather it is showing how the members of the Godhead work together. Just as Christ taught, the Comforter (Holy Ghost) will abide with us and bring us to Him. The Holy Ghost's vital role is unchanged. But to ignore the continuation of the ministry of the members of the Godhead, particularly the role of Christ as a continuing minister of salvation, is to cast aside His promise as the Second Comforter.
He also asked about his conclusion that our "priesthood line of authority" was meaningless. I explained that was not anything I'd written or thought. Rather quite to the contrary, the church extends an authoritative invitation in ordination to the priesthood which is a vital prerequisite to acting on the invitation and receiving the "power of heaven." Without an authoritative invitation, I do not see how a person can obtain the "power of heaven." In fact, there are recent talks in General Conference which lament the absence of "power in the priesthood" within the church. I've cited to those before. The church itself has recognized and taught the need for going beyond mere ordination into receiving power in the priesthood. Therefore, what I've written is consistent with, and respects, the church's rights, as well as the necessity of ordination through the church system.
When we finished talking, he said I'd removed his concerns. Said he would go back and read it again with less emotion.
I spent the day defending the latest book yesterday. I received much welcomed criticism, which allowed me to answer questions. I enjoyed the opportunity very much. Criticism does not bother me. It allows me to understand what the reader has misapprehended, or leaped to conclude, which in turn better informs me about how others can err in attributing motives or positions. I also got some needed corrections (editing never ends), and spelling corrections which are needed. To me it is all worthwhile and quite interesting.
Today I'm going to teach the Priests about testimony. I hope to discuss my own conversion story with them. Some of them are going to be missionaries soon and I want them to know how the potential convert thinks as they approach a monumental change to their life by joining the church.
I do not think I'll mention this to them: Within the first year of joining I'd received visits from angels, and been attacked by the adversary and a hoard of his minions. My life was threatened by those who are darkness iteslf, and was delivered by beings of light. As a new convert, who had recently joined after studying Joseph Smith's experience, I thought this was normal for Mormons. I thought this kind of stuff happened to everyone. I learned, however, that it was not and I should not talk about such things because some became easily offended. So the things I say are heavily redacted that no one may know anything other than I am a believer in Mormonism, with a witness of our Lord. I do in fact have a witness and testimony of Christ. I also have a testimony of Joseph Smith. I have empathy for those who have once believed and find they can no longer. To them I write what I hope will persuade them to believe in Christ that they will return and join in fellowship with the saints.
As to others who misunderstand what I've written, it is a small thing to be evil spoken of when the criticism is not warranted. If even one person is brought to see the truth in Christ, any price required to be paid is modest.
The question related to the role of the Holy Ghost. In effect, the person I spoke with thought I "denegrated the role of the Holy Ghost" by focusing upon Christ. I responded I did not believe that was the case.
First, I explained in everything I've written, beginning with The Second Comforter, that it is the role of the Holy Ghost to prepare and bring us to Christ. Without the Holy Ghost we cannot come to Christ. Further, in that same book I acknowledged the Holy Ghost's foundational role by telling the reader that they must receive a witness from the Holy Ghost as they read the book or they do not have the required two witnesses. Without the Holy Ghost's ratifying confirmation, I tell the reader to discard what I've written. Far from denegrating the Holy Ghost's role, I have made it a central part of the process, without it no person can come unto Christ.
It is not overemphasis on Christ at the expense of the Holy Ghost, but rather it is showing how the members of the Godhead work together. Just as Christ taught, the Comforter (Holy Ghost) will abide with us and bring us to Him. The Holy Ghost's vital role is unchanged. But to ignore the continuation of the ministry of the members of the Godhead, particularly the role of Christ as a continuing minister of salvation, is to cast aside His promise as the Second Comforter.
He also asked about his conclusion that our "priesthood line of authority" was meaningless. I explained that was not anything I'd written or thought. Rather quite to the contrary, the church extends an authoritative invitation in ordination to the priesthood which is a vital prerequisite to acting on the invitation and receiving the "power of heaven." Without an authoritative invitation, I do not see how a person can obtain the "power of heaven." In fact, there are recent talks in General Conference which lament the absence of "power in the priesthood" within the church. I've cited to those before. The church itself has recognized and taught the need for going beyond mere ordination into receiving power in the priesthood. Therefore, what I've written is consistent with, and respects, the church's rights, as well as the necessity of ordination through the church system.
When we finished talking, he said I'd removed his concerns. Said he would go back and read it again with less emotion.
I spent the day defending the latest book yesterday. I received much welcomed criticism, which allowed me to answer questions. I enjoyed the opportunity very much. Criticism does not bother me. It allows me to understand what the reader has misapprehended, or leaped to conclude, which in turn better informs me about how others can err in attributing motives or positions. I also got some needed corrections (editing never ends), and spelling corrections which are needed. To me it is all worthwhile and quite interesting.
Today I'm going to teach the Priests about testimony. I hope to discuss my own conversion story with them. Some of them are going to be missionaries soon and I want them to know how the potential convert thinks as they approach a monumental change to their life by joining the church.
I do not think I'll mention this to them: Within the first year of joining I'd received visits from angels, and been attacked by the adversary and a hoard of his minions. My life was threatened by those who are darkness iteslf, and was delivered by beings of light. As a new convert, who had recently joined after studying Joseph Smith's experience, I thought this was normal for Mormons. I thought this kind of stuff happened to everyone. I learned, however, that it was not and I should not talk about such things because some became easily offended. So the things I say are heavily redacted that no one may know anything other than I am a believer in Mormonism, with a witness of our Lord. I do in fact have a witness and testimony of Christ. I also have a testimony of Joseph Smith. I have empathy for those who have once believed and find they can no longer. To them I write what I hope will persuade them to believe in Christ that they will return and join in fellowship with the saints.
As to others who misunderstand what I've written, it is a small thing to be evil spoken of when the criticism is not warranted. If even one person is brought to see the truth in Christ, any price required to be paid is modest.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Surfing for Gossip
I don't read other blogs or follow what's happening in the blogosphere. But my wife, who maintains this site for me, does. She has the ability to track stuff all around the 'net, and also has traffic information given her through the site itself. And from time to time she updates me on what she thinks I would be interested in learning about the various gossip mongers who feel free to discuss me.
I do not think I'm worth a minute of anyone's time as a topic to discuss. I really do not matter one bit. Some of the things I've written are quite important. Those ideas are worth time, even a good deal of time, spent in careful contemplation. Some things I've been privileged to write are important enough that a careful soul will make it a matter of prayer, as well. But me? That's just a waste of time. There's nothing about a man worth anyone's time as a topic of gossip, speculation or discussion.
Apparently some number of folks have come to this blog for a week or so to find what I've said about President Boyd K. Packer. He's someone I've quoted more frequently than perhaps any other living church leader. I have a great deal of regard, respect, even admiration for him. Some of the talks he has given have been quite profound and worth reading by everyone. I've also lamented the conflict that developed between him and Paul Toscano. I wish that whole episode had not happened. But, as I've said before, I put the blame on Paul, not on President Packer, for provoking the conflict. I wish Paul were still a member of the church. We are the poorer for his absence.
I'm not sure why anyone would be interested in comments I've made on President Packer, but mentioning him again here will at least give this in answer to a search.
I've been hoping to drive the Alpine Loop when the colors change. They're changing now. Hope I can find time to do that.
General Conference is coming soon. I always go to the Marriott Center at BYU for Priesthood. It's a tradition. I'm looking forward to doing so again in a week or so. I think General Conference Priesthood should be done in a large group. Apart from the Conference Center itself, I think the BYU Marriott Center may be the largest assembly in the world. At least I think they've mentioned that before. Perhaps now the MTC has more.
For Sunday's sessions I like to take a drive with my family and listen in the car. Seems more like an "event" when we do that.And I think the kids like doing that. Oftentimes we'll drive by the Conference Center to see the anti-Mormon stuff. It's always entertaining to see folks spending their time blasting our religion under the pretext of establishing theirs. Not sure how that's supposed to work. But nevertheless someone thinks that is worth their effort. Maybe go the Alpine Loop on Sunday.
My wife tells me some people are offended by others using the word "crap"-- when she said so I inquired if "bovine feces" would be a better substitute. She didn't know.
Saw Stewie and Brian step in and try to rescue Christmas last night. It turned into a home invasion. I laughed so hard I nearly hurt myself. I laugh at the idiocy on the TV. My wife laughs at me. So we both get entertained.
I'm reading a book by a Catholic Theologian who teaches at a Protestant Theological Seminary in New York. Interesting book. When I finish I think I'll put some of his stuff on the blog. His focus is the post-Apostolic era from about 70 a.d. to 125 a.d. It's an interesting moment of rapid change. I disagree with some of his retelling, and I reject his Catholic lens, but nevertheless he has some important things to say.
Well, to return to what started this ramble, watch your gossip. My wife may be watching you.
I do not think I'm worth a minute of anyone's time as a topic to discuss. I really do not matter one bit. Some of the things I've written are quite important. Those ideas are worth time, even a good deal of time, spent in careful contemplation. Some things I've been privileged to write are important enough that a careful soul will make it a matter of prayer, as well. But me? That's just a waste of time. There's nothing about a man worth anyone's time as a topic of gossip, speculation or discussion.
Apparently some number of folks have come to this blog for a week or so to find what I've said about President Boyd K. Packer. He's someone I've quoted more frequently than perhaps any other living church leader. I have a great deal of regard, respect, even admiration for him. Some of the talks he has given have been quite profound and worth reading by everyone. I've also lamented the conflict that developed between him and Paul Toscano. I wish that whole episode had not happened. But, as I've said before, I put the blame on Paul, not on President Packer, for provoking the conflict. I wish Paul were still a member of the church. We are the poorer for his absence.
I'm not sure why anyone would be interested in comments I've made on President Packer, but mentioning him again here will at least give this in answer to a search.
I've been hoping to drive the Alpine Loop when the colors change. They're changing now. Hope I can find time to do that.
General Conference is coming soon. I always go to the Marriott Center at BYU for Priesthood. It's a tradition. I'm looking forward to doing so again in a week or so. I think General Conference Priesthood should be done in a large group. Apart from the Conference Center itself, I think the BYU Marriott Center may be the largest assembly in the world. At least I think they've mentioned that before. Perhaps now the MTC has more.
For Sunday's sessions I like to take a drive with my family and listen in the car. Seems more like an "event" when we do that.And I think the kids like doing that. Oftentimes we'll drive by the Conference Center to see the anti-Mormon stuff. It's always entertaining to see folks spending their time blasting our religion under the pretext of establishing theirs. Not sure how that's supposed to work. But nevertheless someone thinks that is worth their effort. Maybe go the Alpine Loop on Sunday.
My wife tells me some people are offended by others using the word "crap"-- when she said so I inquired if "bovine feces" would be a better substitute. She didn't know.
Saw Stewie and Brian step in and try to rescue Christmas last night. It turned into a home invasion. I laughed so hard I nearly hurt myself. I laugh at the idiocy on the TV. My wife laughs at me. So we both get entertained.
I'm reading a book by a Catholic Theologian who teaches at a Protestant Theological Seminary in New York. Interesting book. When I finish I think I'll put some of his stuff on the blog. His focus is the post-Apostolic era from about 70 a.d. to 125 a.d. It's an interesting moment of rapid change. I disagree with some of his retelling, and I reject his Catholic lens, but nevertheless he has some important things to say.
Well, to return to what started this ramble, watch your gossip. My wife may be watching you.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Joseph Smith's Limited Plural Marriage Sealings
Yesterday, while at a college baseball game, I got an inquiry from David C. asking the following:
The reference this inquiry makes to the "apparent error" in my book (Passing the Heavenly Gift) can be found on the bottom of page 163 and top of page 164 and includes footnote 210. What I wrote on those pages is as follows:
"Of the 23 marriages sealed by Joseph prior to his death, other than his own, only one involved a plural wife. If eternal wives was necessary for exaltation, as was taught in the second phase, proof of that cannot be established through Joseph's actions." This is accompanied by a footnote which gives all the names and cites to Lisle G. Brown's work The Holy Order in Nauvoo, appendix 1. You can find The Holy Order in Nauvoo online, if you look for it. There you can read the names, or you can look at footnote 210 in my book where they are also set out.
The question raised in the email is confusing two issues. The specific topic being discussed in my book involves the narrow issue of the connection between exaltation and plural wives. I explain that eternal marriage is necessary, but plural wives is not. I distinguish between Section 132 (and other statements) during Joseph's lifetime and what became an absolute requirement for exaltation during the phase of Mormonism immediately following his death.
Another recent book contains the same list as the Lisle G. Brown article cited above. It is Devery S. Anderson and Gary James Bergera's book Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845. The list can be found in that book on pp. xxxiv-xxxv.
To put the two different issues into contrast, you need to focus on the topic I am discussing, namely the relationship between requirements for exaltation and plural wives. Joseph's ultimate indication of what was required for exaltation is not found in civil unions, or even church marriages he performed. It is found in the final ordinances, including the second anointing, in which exaltation was assured and a person was sealed up to eternal life. That final step is found in Joseph's organized Quorum of the Anointed, as it was then called.
Joseph Smith performed civil marriages. Joseph performed religious marriages. But the link between exaltation, eternal life, sealing up to a kingdom as an eternal inheritance, is to be found unconditionally in the final order he organized known as the Quorum of the Anointed. My book is focused only on that step.
Joseph was able and did perform civil marriages. Joseph also performed other forms of religious marriages. However, on the subject of sealing an eternal union, with the promise of eternal life, that kind of union represents something different. In that form of union we find what Joseph understood would be a marital union that would include exaltation.
In the context of that form of union which is associated by Joseph with exaltation itself, there was, apart from his own, only one other plural marriage. Therefore, if plural wives was REQUIRED for exaltation, as taught subsequently by Brigham Young, the proof for that cannot be based upon Joseph Smith's actions.
In the second book cited above (Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845), they observe this about the final Quorum of Anointed which represent heirs of exaltation in Joseph's practices, "Still, many polygamists were not admitted into the quorum during Joseph's lifetime. Of the twenty-eight men who are presumed to have entered plural marriage during Joseph's lifetime, sixteen (57 percent) joined the quorum prior to Joseph's death; twelve (43 percent) did not. Acceptance of plural marriage did not automatically assure admission into the quorum. (See Table 2.)" (Id. p. xxiii; the referenced Table is the same list as I was referring to in footnote 210 on page 163 of Passing the Heavenly Gift.
Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845 also, referring to those who were polygamists and included in the Quorum before Joseph's death, observes: "No plural wife received the ordinance prior to Joseph's death. '[D]uring the lifetime of Joseph Smith,' Quinn concluded, 'polygamy was only an appendage 'to the highest order of the priesthood' [the second anointing] established on 28 September 1843'" (Id. pp. xxxv-xxxvi, citing to Quinn, Latter-day Saint Prayer Circles, p. 88.)
When I write, I try to be very specific. When speaking about a limited topic (i.e., the requirements for exaltation established by the actions taken by Joseph Smith), I am not referring to other topics. Nor did I take the added step of suggesting that the unsealed plural wives might be evidence of concubinage, or marital relationships which were not intended to continue after this life. That subject isn't even raised in my book. So the better approach would be that the topic I am discussing be read narrowly, and the context I am addressing be carefully considered, before assuming there are "apparent errors."
People assume deep topics and carefully composed language can be read with the same superficiality as reading a text message. I do not write that way. In fact, someone who has hastened through the book probably won't even understand it. The careful reader will find a good deal more in everything I've written than will the casual reader. It took careful, solemn, ponderous thoughts to learn what I've learned. Reading it in casual haste will never yield to such a reader what can be found.
As I also mention in the latest book, everything I've written is focused only on one topic. There has only been one theme to it all. Therefore if someone is interested in being redeemed from the fall, they will find there is a description of the path back in these commonly-themed books. Whether it involves discussion of The Book of Mormon, my testimony of Christ, or church history, it is all centered in redemption of the reader from the fall.
A few people have
contacted me and told me of “apparent errors” in your book… primarily
that Joseph Smith performed a lot more plural marriages.
This in part of an email I received from a friend:
Under
the plural marriage section of Denvers book, I remember that he
mentions that only 1 other plural marriage was performed for another man
besides Joseph before his death... making his case that not many others
lived it. When I came across that a couple nights ago, I was pretty
sure there were more... Brigham, Heber, Will Clayton, etc/ I came across
2 different books tonight, one "The Refiner's Fire" by JL Brooke - said
that there were over 20 different men who also participated before
Joseph's death. The other: The Persistence of Polygamy by Bringhurst and
Craig Foster (Pres of FAIR) states on pg 126, quoting from Brian C
Hales' extensive research and soon to come book, that 34 plural
marriages were done for Joseph, and 29 for other men before Joseph's
death. These they called sealing ceremonies. Many of these brethren that
later lived PM in Joseph's time were also performing PM sealings before
they lived the law themselves -p. 128.
The reference this inquiry makes to the "apparent error" in my book (Passing the Heavenly Gift) can be found on the bottom of page 163 and top of page 164 and includes footnote 210. What I wrote on those pages is as follows:
"Of the 23 marriages sealed by Joseph prior to his death, other than his own, only one involved a plural wife. If eternal wives was necessary for exaltation, as was taught in the second phase, proof of that cannot be established through Joseph's actions." This is accompanied by a footnote which gives all the names and cites to Lisle G. Brown's work The Holy Order in Nauvoo, appendix 1. You can find The Holy Order in Nauvoo online, if you look for it. There you can read the names, or you can look at footnote 210 in my book where they are also set out.
The question raised in the email is confusing two issues. The specific topic being discussed in my book involves the narrow issue of the connection between exaltation and plural wives. I explain that eternal marriage is necessary, but plural wives is not. I distinguish between Section 132 (and other statements) during Joseph's lifetime and what became an absolute requirement for exaltation during the phase of Mormonism immediately following his death.
Another recent book contains the same list as the Lisle G. Brown article cited above. It is Devery S. Anderson and Gary James Bergera's book Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845. The list can be found in that book on pp. xxxiv-xxxv.
To put the two different issues into contrast, you need to focus on the topic I am discussing, namely the relationship between requirements for exaltation and plural wives. Joseph's ultimate indication of what was required for exaltation is not found in civil unions, or even church marriages he performed. It is found in the final ordinances, including the second anointing, in which exaltation was assured and a person was sealed up to eternal life. That final step is found in Joseph's organized Quorum of the Anointed, as it was then called.
Joseph Smith performed civil marriages. Joseph performed religious marriages. But the link between exaltation, eternal life, sealing up to a kingdom as an eternal inheritance, is to be found unconditionally in the final order he organized known as the Quorum of the Anointed. My book is focused only on that step.
Joseph was able and did perform civil marriages. Joseph also performed other forms of religious marriages. However, on the subject of sealing an eternal union, with the promise of eternal life, that kind of union represents something different. In that form of union we find what Joseph understood would be a marital union that would include exaltation.
In the context of that form of union which is associated by Joseph with exaltation itself, there was, apart from his own, only one other plural marriage. Therefore, if plural wives was REQUIRED for exaltation, as taught subsequently by Brigham Young, the proof for that cannot be based upon Joseph Smith's actions.
In the second book cited above (Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845), they observe this about the final Quorum of Anointed which represent heirs of exaltation in Joseph's practices, "Still, many polygamists were not admitted into the quorum during Joseph's lifetime. Of the twenty-eight men who are presumed to have entered plural marriage during Joseph's lifetime, sixteen (57 percent) joined the quorum prior to Joseph's death; twelve (43 percent) did not. Acceptance of plural marriage did not automatically assure admission into the quorum. (See Table 2.)" (Id. p. xxiii; the referenced Table is the same list as I was referring to in footnote 210 on page 163 of Passing the Heavenly Gift.
Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845 also, referring to those who were polygamists and included in the Quorum before Joseph's death, observes: "No plural wife received the ordinance prior to Joseph's death. '[D]uring the lifetime of Joseph Smith,' Quinn concluded, 'polygamy was only an appendage 'to the highest order of the priesthood' [the second anointing] established on 28 September 1843'" (Id. pp. xxxv-xxxvi, citing to Quinn, Latter-day Saint Prayer Circles, p. 88.)
When I write, I try to be very specific. When speaking about a limited topic (i.e., the requirements for exaltation established by the actions taken by Joseph Smith), I am not referring to other topics. Nor did I take the added step of suggesting that the unsealed plural wives might be evidence of concubinage, or marital relationships which were not intended to continue after this life. That subject isn't even raised in my book. So the better approach would be that the topic I am discussing be read narrowly, and the context I am addressing be carefully considered, before assuming there are "apparent errors."
People assume deep topics and carefully composed language can be read with the same superficiality as reading a text message. I do not write that way. In fact, someone who has hastened through the book probably won't even understand it. The careful reader will find a good deal more in everything I've written than will the casual reader. It took careful, solemn, ponderous thoughts to learn what I've learned. Reading it in casual haste will never yield to such a reader what can be found.
As I also mention in the latest book, everything I've written is focused only on one topic. There has only been one theme to it all. Therefore if someone is interested in being redeemed from the fall, they will find there is a description of the path back in these commonly-themed books. Whether it involves discussion of The Book of Mormon, my testimony of Christ, or church history, it is all centered in redemption of the reader from the fall.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
" . . . speak unto us smooth things . . ."
There is
a false notion that is so invidious it precludes us from
emerging from our current widespread spiritual slump. The false notion
is that anything from God will invariably be "lovely" or "of good
report" as implied by the 13th Article of Faith. This false
mantra however, is so wrong it alone empowers the darkness to grow all
around us.
If you only need to listen to the voices of praise, and adulation
which speak to you that "all is well in Zion" then you can never
recognize an authentic call from the Lord to repent. Instead, like
Laman and Lemuel, you will erroneously think any message that condemns
your misbehavior is "sharp" or "angry" (2 Nephi 1: 26.) Yet Nephi's
only intention was to seek "the eternal welfare" of Laman and Lemuel.
(2 Nephi 1: 25.)
When we will only listen to vanity and praise, we are not much
different than those who only wanted "smooth things" anciently. (Isa. 30: 10.)
The cure for some illness requires a knife to be used first before
healing can begin. The purpose is not to injure, but only to heal.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
A lesson to the priests
I
was asked by someone who also teaches priests about the lesson to the priests on sex I mentioned on this blog. Here is a brief summary of
what was covered:
When Adam was alone it was "not good" in God's view. (Gen. 2: 18)
The story of Eve's creation is allegorical, not actual. The allegory says she was made "from a rib" taken "from Adam's side." (Gen. 2: 21-23) This is not intended as an actual explanation of her creation, but instead as a description of the way she is to be regarded. Part of him. Taken from his side, making her his intimately connected associate in whom he should recognize companionship runs within himself. Her presence is intended to satisfy what was before "not good" about Adam's condition. She is literally not only a part of him, but also completes him. This completion is the "image of God" because God is both a Father and a Mother. (Gen. 1: 27.) Among mankind, when you see the "image of God" you will always see a couple who are as one. (1 Cor. 11: 11.) [As an aside, I would add this is why there were two angels upon the Mercy Seat. Ex. 25: 22. He would not permit them to behold His image without seeing what is also symbolized in Adam and Eve.]
The purpose of the creation of the two was that they may "become one" or unified. (Gen. 2: 24)
The first commandment given after the two are joined by God was to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1: 27-28).
When they were expelled from the Garden, Adam "knew his wife" which is a euphemism. The word "know" or "knew" is a reference made throughout the Old and New Testaments to sexual intercourse. As a consequence of this Eve became pregnant. (Gen. 4: 1)
This is fulfilling the commandment to "be fruitful," and is the way intended for new human life to be brought into the world. When joined by God (temple marriage) and then used to produce a family, the union of the man and woman is pleasing to God. It is order. It is harmony. It produces life, peace and "fulfills the measure of creation" which "brings joy." Unfortunately, when it is employed in other ways, it produces pain, misery and sometimes catastrophic results.
Keeping the power of procreation inside the bounds which produce joy was included in the 10 commandments. (Ex. 20: 14, 17)
David was a man after God's own heart. As a youth, he had such faith to follow God that although still a lad he was able, with God's help, to slay Goliath. (1 Sam. 17: 34-37; 45-46.) He was so favored by God, that God made him His son, established his throne, and promised him He would watch over him. (2 Sam. 7: 14-16)
But David committed adultery. (2 Sam. 11: 2-5) To conceal the sin, he committed murder. (2 Sam 11: 14-15) As a result of these sins, he fell from his exaltation. (D&C 132: 39) The result was that a man "after the Lord's own heart" lost everything because the power of procreation was not used in the way to produce joy, but instead used to gratify lust.
When the solution to an unwanted pregnancy is abortion, then the person has elected, like David, to do something akin to murder. This is forbidden. (D&C 59: 6)
Adultery and lust leading to adultery deprive us of the Spirit. (D&C 42: 22-24)
The purpose of sexual relations is to have joy. To bring you children. To put those children into a setting where they are loved by both a father and a mother. When it is used in any other way, it produces misery. Almost all crime in the United States is related directly or indirectly to violating this commandment. Even what seems to be unrelated crime often occurs because the person involved was not raised in a home environment where they had a father and mother.
It is a right of every child to come into a family where they have the benefit of the family as established by God. The father and mother are literally symbols of God. They are in His image and likeness. When the image is imprinted upon the child in their early years and innocence, they develop a stability and foundation that is their right as an inheritance from God. Conforming to God's pattern is intended as a gift from Him to every child.
I then took a few moments to speak about individual fathers of the respective young men, including one whose father has passed away. The deceased father was a great man, whose influence is still felt by his son. I expressed my genuine affection for his father, who, although now no longer among us, left a great influence on others in addition to his son. I challenged all of the young priests to become fathers who will bring their children into an environment where they will look with gratitude and affection upon them as fathers.
When Adam was alone it was "not good" in God's view. (Gen. 2: 18)
The story of Eve's creation is allegorical, not actual. The allegory says she was made "from a rib" taken "from Adam's side." (Gen. 2: 21-23) This is not intended as an actual explanation of her creation, but instead as a description of the way she is to be regarded. Part of him. Taken from his side, making her his intimately connected associate in whom he should recognize companionship runs within himself. Her presence is intended to satisfy what was before "not good" about Adam's condition. She is literally not only a part of him, but also completes him. This completion is the "image of God" because God is both a Father and a Mother. (Gen. 1: 27.) Among mankind, when you see the "image of God" you will always see a couple who are as one. (1 Cor. 11: 11.) [As an aside, I would add this is why there were two angels upon the Mercy Seat. Ex. 25: 22. He would not permit them to behold His image without seeing what is also symbolized in Adam and Eve.]
The purpose of the creation of the two was that they may "become one" or unified. (Gen. 2: 24)
The first commandment given after the two are joined by God was to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1: 27-28).
When they were expelled from the Garden, Adam "knew his wife" which is a euphemism. The word "know" or "knew" is a reference made throughout the Old and New Testaments to sexual intercourse. As a consequence of this Eve became pregnant. (Gen. 4: 1)
This is fulfilling the commandment to "be fruitful," and is the way intended for new human life to be brought into the world. When joined by God (temple marriage) and then used to produce a family, the union of the man and woman is pleasing to God. It is order. It is harmony. It produces life, peace and "fulfills the measure of creation" which "brings joy." Unfortunately, when it is employed in other ways, it produces pain, misery and sometimes catastrophic results.
Keeping the power of procreation inside the bounds which produce joy was included in the 10 commandments. (Ex. 20: 14, 17)
David was a man after God's own heart. As a youth, he had such faith to follow God that although still a lad he was able, with God's help, to slay Goliath. (1 Sam. 17: 34-37; 45-46.) He was so favored by God, that God made him His son, established his throne, and promised him He would watch over him. (2 Sam. 7: 14-16)
But David committed adultery. (2 Sam. 11: 2-5) To conceal the sin, he committed murder. (2 Sam 11: 14-15) As a result of these sins, he fell from his exaltation. (D&C 132: 39) The result was that a man "after the Lord's own heart" lost everything because the power of procreation was not used in the way to produce joy, but instead used to gratify lust.
When the solution to an unwanted pregnancy is abortion, then the person has elected, like David, to do something akin to murder. This is forbidden. (D&C 59: 6)
Adultery and lust leading to adultery deprive us of the Spirit. (D&C 42: 22-24)
The purpose of sexual relations is to have joy. To bring you children. To put those children into a setting where they are loved by both a father and a mother. When it is used in any other way, it produces misery. Almost all crime in the United States is related directly or indirectly to violating this commandment. Even what seems to be unrelated crime often occurs because the person involved was not raised in a home environment where they had a father and mother.
It is a right of every child to come into a family where they have the benefit of the family as established by God. The father and mother are literally symbols of God. They are in His image and likeness. When the image is imprinted upon the child in their early years and innocence, they develop a stability and foundation that is their right as an inheritance from God. Conforming to God's pattern is intended as a gift from Him to every child.
I then took a few moments to speak about individual fathers of the respective young men, including one whose father has passed away. The deceased father was a great man, whose influence is still felt by his son. I expressed my genuine affection for his father, who, although now no longer among us, left a great influence on others in addition to his son. I challenged all of the young priests to become fathers who will bring their children into an environment where they will look with gratitude and affection upon them as fathers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)