Light and Truth

The following comments were made at the Top of the Mountains conference held near Stanley, Idaho on June 29, 2024.

Before I start, I want to note that, unlike other faiths/groups/religions/people, everything we do requires that there be sacrifices made, and when someone decides that they’re gonna do a conference like this, it imposes a phenomenal burden on the person that’s gonna undertake the enterprise. Doug (who was just up here) and Tonia, his wife—the Atwoods—have made a tremendous sacrifice in getting all of this setup. And then, in addition to having the tent set up, the covering that we’ve got on the ground was made possible by a bunch of people volunteering to scrape and flatten out and then put down the ground cover that we’ve got in here, and set up all the chairs. I mean, this was a tremendous amount of work, and I want to particularly note and thank Doug and Tonia for doing that. 

Also, Rock Waterman asked me at the outset of my talk to thank those who have been praying on behalf of Connie—because the prayers have had remarkably good effect on her behalf, and despite the broken leg, she is now back home and in Rock’s care instead of being trusted to others. 

I want to thank the other speakers who have gone before me and note that this conference began on the 180th anniversary of the death of Joseph Smith, which got acknowledged at that opening session. 

There was an extravagant waste of Joseph Smith, an incalculably foolish waste of what Joseph Smith represented. He had an opportunity to accomplish a great deal more than was accomplished while we had him here. Instead, it was neglect and doubts, opposition and infighting, sycophants, aspiring and jealous men, ignorance and traditions that blinded that bogged down what it was that Joseph could have done on our behalf and that resulted in, essentially, an aborted restoration at the outset. It didn’t need to be that way, but in fact, that’s how it turned out. 

Like Peter before him, Joseph Smith’s name has now been used as a magic talisman to claim that Joseph Smith stands as the foundational route from which corrupt religious institutions derive their authority and their power, and none of them are anything like the Prophet Joseph Smith; none of them bear any of the imprint of what one would expect from a prophet of God. All of them are profiteering. All of them are practicing priestcraft. All of them are looking for the honors of men. All of them are looking for wealth. And none of them do what this group of people do—and that is sacrifice. 

Every person here has had to pay their own way, myself included. Everyone here has had to take time off of what they do in their daily life, myself included, in order to be here/in order to participate. And there are people here who have come long distances at some personal inconvenience—because conferences that get called by us happen when people are willing to make the sacrifice to make a facility/a venue and organize an event for our benefit. Other religions hire, pay, or own facilities. And Peter’s continuing lamentation from behind the veil about how his name has been abused could be echoed by the Prophet Joseph Smith because of corrupt institutions, likewise, using his name for their benefit. 

People generally crave order, government, and rules that they can enforce against others. I’ve resisted that, but I am not ignorant of the desire or the impulse or the many advantages that come from imposing governmental rule upon others. I’m not at all ignorant of that. But I’m deliberately not going to adopt any model that has already failed. Why would we do it again? Why would we shuttle ourselves into a trap that can be waylaid merely by the acquisition of central control by corrupt, aspiring, and evil men? And make no mistake about it: They ARE evil because they are not serving the Lord and pursuing the Lord’s will, desires, and following His principles. You have to control your desire to follow traditions that have only (in the past and at present) given power to our adversary. We’re not going to do that. I’m not going to do that. Be patient. Let what the Lord is doing unfold. He knows exactly what He’s doing, and it will unfold. 

In 2017, we got a revelation as part of a covenant conference, in which the Lord instituted the covenant because of Scriptures that He had allowed us to recover. The condemnation that was originally given in 1832 about the corruption, He undid. The Lord declared the following, referring to the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Book of Mormon: The records you have gathered as scriptures yet lack many of my words [and] have errors throughout…[they’ve] not been maintained or guarded against the cunning plans of false brethren… 

When the Scripture project was done, because we were leaving behind what the Lord had criticized, they were given new names: The Old Covenants, The New Covenants, the Teachings and Commandments. These names were given to them because they were, in fact, new volumes of Scripture. The Lord said, 

…many parts were discarded and other parts were altered… Conspiracies have corrupted the records, beginning among the Jews, and again following the time of my apostles, and yet again following the time of Joseph and Hyrum. As [you’ve] labored with the records [you’ve] witnessed the alterations and insertions, and your effort to recover them pleases me and is of great worth… 

Then we were told: 

You are permitted to…update language to select a current vocabulary, but take care not to change meaning — and if you cannot resolve the meaning, either petition me again or retain the former words. (T&C 157:12-15) 

The work of recovering the Scriptures took a group of volunteers years before the work was completed in 2017. 

But I want to remind you of earlier history: The Book of Mormon was published BEFORE The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized. It belongs to the entire Christian world and not a single denomination. When the text was recovered for the Scripture project in 2017, the earliest surviving portion of the translation and the printer’s copy were used. The printer’s copy was a hand-copied version of the translation given to E.B. Grandin’s print shop for use in typesetting. That copying of the original into the printer’s copy resulted in numerous transcription errors. Joseph Smith was attempting to correct those errors in 1842 for a later edition of the Book of Mormon. Not all of those errors were corrected, and the 2017 project attempted to finish recovering the earliest, most correct text. 

But the Book of Mormon (in the form that it existed when it was translated by Joseph Smith and then typeset) was translated in what has been referred to as Elizabethan or Shakespearian English that is most correctly called “Early Modern English,” and it was the language that was in common use between 1485 and 1714. It wasn’t in use in common vernacular in 1830 when the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith. Many of the words were in common usage before the creation of the King James Bible in 1611. Accordingly, when the Book of Mormon first appeared in 1830, its formal language was already outdated and hadn’t been in common usage for more than a century (and it went back as much as four centuries earlier). Instead of the early 19th-century American English, the initial translation was awkward—yet, sometimes poetic—English language that dated from the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries. Because of this, relying on Noah Webster’s 1828 first edition of An American Dictionary of the English Language as a reference to understand the text is going to be inadequate. It’s not the language the book was translated into! 

Seven years ago, the Scriptures were approved by a conference that accepted the corrected, updated, recovered, and more complete texts at a conference in Boise, Idaho, and were adopted at that time as scripture. Since 2017, work has continued on the Book of Mormon following the approved process and confining the work to the Lord’s direction: …you are permitted to proceed to the end with your plan to update language, to select a current vocabulary, but take care not to change meaning (ibid. 15, emphasis added). Seven years of effort have resulted in a new version of the Book of Mormon in modern English. 

When the recovered Scriptures were presented to and accepted by the Lord in 2017, He offered a covenant to believers and asked of us to receive the scriptures approved by the Lord as a standard to govern you in your daily walk in life, to accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant, and to use the scriptures to correct yourselves and to guide your words, thoughts, and deeds (T&C 158:3, emphasis added). For this reason, as the project to restate the Book of Mormon in modern English neared completion, the Lord gave it a new title. It’s now titled: Covenant of Christ.

That new title is the direct result of the Lord’s 2017 covenant; the updated language is essential for those who accept the 2017 covenant. During the final stage of the project, the Lord declared the original Book of Mormon translation was to get THAT generation to be willing to accept it as Scripture. They needed it to mimic the King James Version language. But this has a different purpose. This is to help a new generation understand the content to help with the Lord’s return. There is as much divine attention and assistance in getting this new version completed as before. Inspiration from the Lord has assisted throughout the process of finalizing this updated volume of Scripture. 

This volume is not intended solely for those who accept the 2017 covenant but will have value for anyone who wants to read and understand the Book of Mormon. This format for this volume will allow readers to locate specific verses or paragraphs from other published versions of the Book of Mormon. The LDS version of the Book of Mormon has unique chapter and verse divisions—that was done by Orson Pratt in about 1878 when he divided the whole book up into new chapters and assigned to it verses. This new… All the RE version paragraphs and LDS verses are intended to do is to give you the geography so that you can locate something in a specific place within the text. So if you’re sitting among people that use an LDS version and they want you to read a verse, you can find it in this book. If you are a Latter-day Saint and you want to understand the Book of Mormon better, and you want to take it with you and read the verse they ask you to read in your gospel doctrine class, you’ll be able to locate it in this book. It’s available for everyone. 

The RE paragraphs are intended to take you away from the bumper-sticker-sloganizing-use of the Book of Mormon that versification has caused and make you read the sentence inside its host paragraph, and it’s divided into chapters the way that it was originally set by Joseph Smith. So within the text, you will find a larger number that is an LDS chapter number; you will find smaller numbers that are LDS verses; then you will find at the top of one, a citation of where the page begins in the LDS, and on the other, you will find where the page ends in the RE version. The RE version paragraphs are retained, and they have Roman numerals beside each paragraph; and each chapter in the RE version is a chapter beginning in this book. So once you get your copy and you look at it, you’ll be able to navigate, and it doesn’t matter who you’re talking to and what citation they give to you, you’ll be able to find it with the geographical bearing that is afforded to you in this text.

The Covenant of Christ is the most important volume of Scripture for the present day. The original text from 1830 was not a commentary, not an interpretation, neither a narration nor an explanation. It presented itself as original, authentic ancient Scripture. This new edition renders the text into modern, present-day language that we speak. 

During the first phase of this project (which took four years to complete), it involved treating every word in the text with care and diligence. There were some archaic elements, words, and syntax that weren’t recognized as archaic until we go deep into the project. As the project progressed, the unique flavor and personality of the text became far more noticeable. It became a challenge to update the language and still preserve the uniqueness of the text. It was apparent that some words and phrases struggle to yield an acceptable modern equivalent. Each word has undergone numerous independent and collaborative verifications, ensuring that this has precise accuracy. Unfortunately, there doesn’t exist a lexicon of archaic early modern English terms and their modern equivalents that would have been useful in the project. Phase One required many years and thousands of hours of research, utilizing a consulting scholar’s experience and expertise who specialized in “etymological source of English word origins” by looking at all of the earliest existing literature. His expertise in the field of philology, word origins, and providing interpretation of archaic and obsolete words was indispensable in getting this project done. All of that would have been otherwise unavailable without having someone with that expertise. Painstaking care and inspiration were taken in the selection of vocabulary to replace archaic or outdated words, phrases, and idioms. 

It was clear from the outset that there was a clear, limited mandate set out in Scripture: We were only permitted to update language to select a current vocabulary, and we were warned not to change the meaning. We were also instructed: …take care not to change meaning — and if you cannot resolve the meaning, either petition me again or retain the former words (supra). This, therefore, became a very narrow, tightly-confined assignment. This project had constraints that were set by the Lord. The criteria prohibited simply rewriting or interpreting and did not even give us permission to clarify the text. What already existed could not be changed, and therefore, the task was solely to render existing content into a modern, more readable format. 

That does not allow for any change! Some of the difficult or complex language structures from the original text could not be smoothed into modern language while maintaining fidelity to each verse in the original. To remain faithful to the original, this modern English version tracks the versification provided by Orson Pratt to the LDS Book of Mormon that allows readers to do a verse-by-verse comparison. I just said we couldn’t do it respecting verse-by-verse. Here’s a problem that was encountered (my recollection is this happened at least three times in the text): 

A paragraph begins with a clause; it’s an incomplete thought. The thought doesn’t come around to being completed until the end of a whole series of intervening, interrupting thoughts that go on inside the text. So if we’re trying to render it readable to the modern reader, I changed it one of two ways: I either took all of those intervening clauses and I made them staccato, short sentences that are introducing the conclusion—and then the beginning and the end were put together, and now you have a complete thought, not interrupted by all of these others. (This is a challenge that’s also being presented in the Hebrew translation project that’s ongoing.) When we have done that, you will find, as you read, that you’re going along reading verse 8 and 9, and now you’re looking at verse 17, and then you get to 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. The verses will line up, but they will line up in a coherent, readable way to the modern reader. So if you want to find out what we started with, the easiest way would actually be to go to an LDS copy and look at their verses, because the translation process went verse by verse (which was often phrase by phrase) in order to work through all of the materials. But the versification numbers remain true to the original. 

This book owes its existence to many things. The first is the nature of the original text. To create this new edition, we utilized The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, 2nd. ed., edited by Royal Skousen, as the base or foundational text. This earliest text was very important in terms of textual accuracy; it presents the book in its purest state, guiding us back to the original manuscript, carefully reconstructed, and even capturing the exact words as initially dictated by Joseph Smith. We used the Oxford English Dictionary. We used The Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, six volumes, and Analysis of Textual Variance of the Book of Mormon in a six-volume set. (I spent a lot of money buying text material, to the dismay of my wife; we don’t have enough bookshelf space for all we’ve got, and now we’re getting… Anyway…)

After the initial undertaking was completed and an acceptable draft manuscript was prepared (I was only consulted interveningly during that early process, and I only handled the most difficult passages; most of that work was done by others), it was then given to me to edit and finalize. That was a commission demanding intense mental focus, and I examined the initial draft multiple times, making thousands of restatements and corrections. I completely rewrote and transformed the “phase one” text with inspiration from the Lord. After several months, I returned the text with instructions about formatting and usage consistencies. It was reviewed, formatted, and returned to me for a final pass-through. In that second pass-through, I made hundreds of additional restatements and edit clarifications. (I’m calling it “first” and “second”—that’s time divisions. I think I went through it… I think I’ve read and reread the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover a dozen times between December 10th of last year and June 20th of this year in order to get through the text and accomplish what needed to be done.) Those who worked for years to provide the initial text for review then reviewed the formatted document a final time. During the entire process, the Lord has been petitioned, and He has responded, and His influence is reflected in this current, published volume. This book has been designed to be easier for a modern reader to understand than the original, which was the primary goal of this project!

There are a number of works in the 18th and 19th century that were written in the style of the King James Bible, but the style ended its popularity in the first half of the 19th century. You can find some stuff, including a project that Benjamin Franklin undertook, “A Parable Against Persecution,” and [The] American Revolution: Written in the Style of Ancient History, which Benjamin Franklin [Richard Snowden] composed. There’s no question that the effect of the King James Bible on Western culture and thought affected all areas of life and society. Its influence on language is undeniable. The King James Bible has been, at least in the mainstream, unchallenged for 270 years. Eight or nine generations have read that book. Its language, even archaic in 1611, derived from a form of English that stopped being used sometime earlier—but it sounded like the Voice of God (see Adam Nicholson, God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible). And because of this, the assumption in 1830 would be that if you wanted to hear the voice of God in a book, you needed to read it in the “same kind of language familiar to the reader” of God speaking in the King James Version of the Bible. And so, the Book of Mormon got rendered in that fashion. 

The Bible took hundreds of years, over thousands of writers’ lifetimes, in order to compile; the document had to gradually come together from various times, locations, and authors. The sheer number and age of various biblical manuscripts overwhelms anyone that has looked into it. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating from the third century BC to the first century BC, the oldest Old Testament manuscripts in existence are the Ben Asher Codex that was written in 895 AD. There are some 5800 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 10,000 in Latin, and 9300 in various other language manuscripts. In Joseph Smith’s day, people didn’t have access to ancient manuscripts from the Old World; the Egyptian language couldn’t be read or understood. And Babylonian, the oldest known form of writing, is still difficult to decipher today!

The Book of Mormon was given to us already organized, already edited, already translated, and delivered as a single text. The modern English version is intended to make it accessible, clear, and as succinct as possible. It—the Covenant of Christ—is once again a modern revelation from God to the world. I have read, taught, expounded, and written about the Book of Mormon for 50 years. This modern English version is the first time I’ve understood the genius of the book. 

This is an extraordinarily tightly written book. It emphasizes only a small handful of themes. Everything in the book that got included is designed to support the handful of themes. The war chapters (that seem to be so long-winded and superfluous) are tightly focused on illustrating the theme that they just told you about, in order to show you exactly how God vindicates His word when He warns people, and they choose to reject His warning, and then reject the prophets and either drive them away or kill them. What happens flows naturally as a consequence. Even though the way in which the results get to occur may seem happenstantial/random; they are not. Everything is designed tightly. 

There are some changes that we made deliberately in the book in order to communicate some concepts. These concepts belong within the original, but the way in which they worded it is different than the way we chose to word it. In this version of the Covenant of Christ, the word “church” is always negative—it is always apostate; it is always corrupt. And God’s people are called the “congregation.” If you encounter congregation, you are reading about the people following God. If you encounter church, you are reading about people that are corrupt, priestcraft being practiced, an effort to gain authority and control and influence. 

Another change that will appear in here that is clarifying the text… So don’t think, “A-ha, we caught you making a change!” Didn’t happen. There’s an incident that occurred in the Book of Judges in which a man was killed by a woman; she took a nail and drove it into his temple. As a result of doing that, he died, and the nail driven into the temple is called, in the text, “smiting off his head.” In the Book of Mormon, based upon inspiration at the time the text was being rendered, you will no longer find that Nephi decapitated Laban and then took the clothes of the decapitated corpse and put them on himself. It’s described differently. It harmonizes with the same way in which a fatal head wound was administered in the Book of Judges, but it doesn’t involve decapitation.

I believe that if you look and read it in the format of the RE version, you will find that the text is far less injured than it is in the LDS versification that constantly interrupts thoughts and doesn’t allow them to be completed. If you read it in the RE paragraphs and chapters, I think you’ll find you’re getting a lot more out of the text. 

I want to point out something about the text of the Book of Mormon. We view what happened after Mormon takes over with the Words of Mormon as an abridgment of the Book of Mormon. Nephi provided an abridgment himself. He had written for at least three decades on other plates that he was then commanded to abridge into the small plates that he was commanded to make some 30-40 years after they had departed from Jerusalem. So what we’ve got in the Small Plates of Nephi is an abridgment by Nephi. If you read carefully the book of Jacob, what you will find is that Jacob finished his text three times. He wrote his main text, and he wrapped it up. Then something happened that he needed to add, and so he added that, and he wrapped it up. Then something else happened, and he added that, and he wrapped it up. I believe the first part of the text was, by Jacob, also an abridgment. 

I believe what we got in the Book of Mormon is entirely (with the exception of the people that Omni and Jarom and those fellows that write, in one case, “I saw my brother write what he wrote the day he handed me the plates. Now I’m writing in the plates, and I don’t have anything to add”—I don’t think that’s an abridgment; I think that’s authentic; it’s authentic contemporary journalism at its best), but Nephi set a pattern. 

Nephi wrote his text, recognizing that some of the message that he wanted to convey existed in an earlier prophetic form in Isaiah. And so he took the Isaiah materials and he embedded it into his, but it was to convey his own message. I’ve written about this in the book Nephi’s Isaiah. He gives you his adoption of the Isaiah text, and then he gives you an interpretive key in his last chapters of Second Nephi to tell you why he put it in there and how you ought to interpret and understand what he had done there. 

Then along comes his brother, Jacob, who does essentially the same thing. He gives you his account, but he incorporates into his account the allegory that was written by Zenos, and he adopts it entirely. He tells his people, “Come up to the temple. I’m going to prophesy to you.” They come up. The allegory that Zenos wrote he then delivers to them, and he says, “Here’s now my prophecy. Now that I’ve read you this allegory, my prophecy is: Those words are true.” So he’s delivered his message and his prophecy. 

In the case of Nephi and in the case of Jacob, they give attribution to the source material that they used in their prophetic writing. I don’t believe Mormon did the same thing, even if the writers that he’s abridging did it in their original. I believe that Mormon, in making his abridgment, simply put in the material without attribution. But I believe that the entirety of the Book of Mormon has lengthy, adopted passages taken from what are called the Brass Plates and simply incorporated right into the narrative without attribution. And that when you are reading the Book of Mormon, you are actually reading not just Mormon’s abridgment of their stuff; you’re reading a great deal of content that comes directly from the earlier Brass Plates that we are told will one day shine brightly. I believe the shining of the brightness of the Brass Plates has already been embedded into the text of the book that we now have. 

I believe that evidence of quoting without attribution is clearly present in the case of explanations about details from the life of Melchizedek and details about the Holy Order and descriptions and discussions that are given from the life of Adam and Eve that we don’t have in the Genesis text, but we do have in the Book of Mormon. I believe that what we’ve got in the Book of Mormon is a continuous quoting from earlier Scripture without attribution—because Mormon didn’t bother doing that, unlike Nephi and Jacob who did. 

The first writer that commissioned all of the Scripture-writing that he and those who followed him would undertake, says this: …but on these plates, I only write the things within my soul and quotes…from the brass plates (2 Nephi 3:6 CE, emphasis added). And by the way, when I’m reading from the Book of Mormon today, I’m only reading from Covenant of Christ. I’m not using language that died centuries earlier. 

Alma gives this extensive explanation about Melchizedek. And he’s teaching things about Melchizedek that are unheard of except within the Book of Mormon. And after he finishes this lengthy exposition about things going on in the life of Melchizedek—in what happened, who he was, and how it unfolded—he says, Now I don’t intend to explain [all] this at length; what I’ve said is enough. The scriptures are readily available to you; if you deliberately misinterpret or distort them, it will be to your own destruction (Alma 10:2 CE). So after explaining a great deal about Melchizedek, he says, “I don’t need to go on about this stuff. You already have the Scriptures.” Well, what you’ve been saying to us, Alma, isn’t IN our Old Testament! Where on Earth would we read from the Scriptures about what you just told us? Well, it’s gonna be the Brass Plates. So I think we’ve got a good deal more of “Brass Plateage” than we think we do in the Book of Mormon. 

One of the great themes of the Book of Mormon is that if you reject the truth after it has first been taught to you, that makes you worse off than remaining ignorant. And that point is proven over and over in the Book of Mormon. Alma 21: 

Now these defectors had learned the same truths and prophecies from the Nephites and were taught the same knowledge of the Lord. Yet despite this, it’s odd but true…not long after defecting, they became more hardened, unrepentant, uncivilized, wicked, and savagely cruel than the Lamanites, eagerly adopting Lamanite traditions, giving in to laziness and all kinds of lustful behavior, indeed, entirely forgetting the Lord who is God. (Alma 21:30 CE)

Then in Alma 14: 

And so it becomes apparent that after people have once been enlightened by God’s Spirit and possess great knowledge about the requirements of righteousness and then fall into sin and transgression, they become very hardened; and the result is worse than if they had never known the truth. (Alma 14:12 CE)

Abinadi, in Mosiah 7:

You shall not use the name of the Lord your God to accomplish your ambitions, for the Lord will not forgive him who advances himself using God’s name. (Mosiah 7:21 CE)

Did you hear that? And I’m not just trying to call this to the attention of the people here. I wish this were written on the walls of the corridors of 47 E. South Temple in Salt Lake City. You men who call yourself “Brethren” (as though that made you elevated) need to listen carefully again to what I just read: You shall not use the name of the Lord, your God, to accomplish your ambitions. For the Lord will not forgive him who advances himself using God’s name (ibid. emphasis added)—one of the great themes of the Book of Mormon. Apostasy leads to rebellion against every authority, because false religious ideas create megalomania.

See, the people in who rejected the conversion effort of the people of Ammon when they went to them, and they wanted instead to elect kingmen. When they lost the election, they not only rebelled against the religion, they went on to rebel against the government. They became completely ungovernable. They began to rebel against their king, rejecting him as their king. 

But I also want to point out something interesting about repentance—because the Book of Mormon is designed to call us to repentance, and it doesn’t distinguish between what we would regard as really, really serious, crappy things that people do and just being a Lamanite king who suddenly realizes that he’s accountable for his people, whose heart is softened, and he decides to change the course for both himself and his people. There’s a character who’s called and sent on a mission, and Alma the Younger (who’s the father), after the mission, looking back in retrospect, gives his son, Corianton, some commandments, and he says:

This is my complaint against you: You proceeded to brag of your strength and wisdom. But this isn’t everything, my son. You made me ashamed when you abandoned the ministry and traveled to Siron near the border of the Lamanites to chase the harlot Isabel. (Alma 19:1 CE)

Well, that kind of sucks! I mean, what…? We don’t want a guy like that around us! We certainly don’t want him pretending to be a missionary—and he was full of braggadocio, and this is crappy stuff. But years later—this is years later—this is the same father talking about the very same son: 

There was continual peace among them and great prosperity in the congregation because of the attention…diligence they gave God’s Word, which was preached to them by Helaman, Shiblon, Corianton, Ammon, his brothers, and so forth, and by all those who had been ordained by the Holy Order of God. (Alma 21:42 CE)

Years later, the same reprobate is responsible for helping to save souls. And then, probably the most surprising passage to me of all, about this same Corianton: 

In the 39th year of the judges’ rule, Shiblon died as well. And Corianton had sailed to the north, to take supplies for people who went there. Therefore it was necessary for Shiblon, prior to his death, to confer those sacred things on Helaman’s son, who was named Helaman after his father. (Alma 30:5 CE)

Helaman, who wrote the book of Helaman, only got to be the writer in the book of Helaman because Corianton had already left on a mission to help supply people who needed resupplying and was unavailable. But for that, the Book of Mormon would have included a book of Corianton. Now, that’s a sobering thought because we tend to believe not in repentance, we tend to believe in “get it right the first time, damn it,” and if you don’t, then, you know, you’re wicked, and we don’t want any part of you. 

The Book of Mormon is an extraordinarily comforting, reassuring text. Genuine repentance results in genuine forgiveness. And Corianton is probably someone, in this book at least, that we ought to be talking about a little more frequently by giving hope to people. 

Here’s another… This is an absolutely major theme in the Book of Mormon, and it creeps in through the side door, but it’s “there,” it’s “there,” and it’s “there”—over and over. It’s not until we get all the way into Third Nephi and Jesus is talking before we finally have him just lay it out bluntly and say, “Here’s the deal. You’ve been reading this book for quite a while, but here’s the deal. Here’s something that, if you go back and you look, you’re gonna find everywhere. In fact…” (This is Christ talking now in the modern English version: 

In fact, I give you a commandment to study these things diligently, because Isaiah’s prophecies are critical. He clearly focused his prophecy on My people, who are part of the house of Israel. Therefore he necessarily prophesied about the Gentiles. (3 Nephi 10:4 CE, emphasis added)

Let that sink in for a minute. Christ is saying… Great are the words of Isaiah (ibid. RE) is the way it is in that old English version. He’s saying: “Isaiah’s [words] are critical. He clearly focused his prophecy on my people, who are part of the house of Israel. Therefore, he necessarily prophesied about the Gentiles.” If you want to understand what the Lord has been up to with the house of Israel through all of the generations, you have to take into account the Gentiles, because the Gentiles are simply part of the house of Israel that lost their identity. 

We have two groups of the house of Israel who have retained an identity that we can point to and say, “Oh, they’re remnants.” One of them are what we call Jews; the others are what we call Native Americans. Despite the fact that the Native Americans, like the Gentiles, have lost their personal identity with the tribes of Israel, they are nevertheless a remnant of the house of Israel. So in the allegory (that we get an encounter as early as Jacob—in the RE version—chapter 3; in the Book of Mormon LDS, chapter 5), when you encounter that, those branches that are being scattered around the vineyard necessarily include groups that have altogether lost their identity. And the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to awaken people and bring them back. And it goes so far as to say, “I don’t care what your bloodline is. If you reject the covenant, you’re no longer my covenant people. And if you accept my covenant, you are part of my covenant people.” And he’s putting back together root and branch to have the natural fruit return. And that’s the great work of the Book of Mormon. 

Alma describes the Lord’s conditions for this land in Alma 21. This is what the Lord has said: 

The land will be cursed to destroy any people on this land who do evil, whether they belong to any nation, tribe, or language, when they’re fully ripe. And just as I’ve said, so [it will] happen. Indeed, this is God’s cursing and blessing on the land, because the Lord can’t tolerate sin to any degree. (Alma 21:3 CE)

Moroni adds his caution to us:

This is a choice land; and any nation that inhabits it will be free from enslavement and captivity and from all other nations under heaven if they will only serve the God of [this] land, who is Jesus Christ, who’s been revealed to you through the things we’ve written. (Ether 1:7 CE)

And then Jesus Christ talks about the potential for the Gentiles achieving something remarkable on the land: 

But if the Gentiles repent and hearken to My words and don’t harden their hearts, I’ll establish My congregation among them. And they will enter the covenant and be included with the remnant of Jacob, to whom I’ve given this land as their inheritance. They will join with My people, the remnant of Jacob, and all those of the house of Israel who come, so they can build a city that will be called the New Jerusalem. Then they will join with My people, who are scattered throughout the land so they can be brought in together to the New Jerusalem. Then the Powers of heaven will come down among them, and I will be with them as well. Then the Father’s work will be underway, when this gospel is preached among the remnant of this people. (3 Nephi 10:1 CE)

See, there are people who believe that the New Jerusalem is something that’s gonna fall down from Heaven and that there doesn’t need to be a New Jerusalem actually built. Jesus just clarified: It’s gonna be built! It’s gonna be built first, and there are gonna be people who have to build it. It has to exist. And then, when that happens, they will be joined from above, who will come to join with them. They both happen. But the first one that has to happen is the building of the New Jerusalem by people here. 

And then we have this really sobering message: Christ speaking, describing exactly where we are at this moment on this land. (This could be a headline from a responsible news agency today—if you could find one.) This is exactly what is happening, and it’s Christ’s words:

Yes, woe to the Gentiles unless they repent: For when that day come, says the Father, I’ll take away your strength from you, and I’ll destroy your security. Your cities will fall and I’ll break open your guarded borders. Your sciences and learning will turn into foolishness, and your false beliefs will cause your failure. I’ll expose the fraud of those in authority, …your trusted institutions will lose every[body’s] loyalty. (3 Nephi 9:12 CE)

The new Covenant of Christ is intended to tell you exactly where you are and exactly how we got here. It is a revelation from God. 

So, as we approached the end of the project—and after I had done what I considered my best, and I contributed all that I could—it struck me that this is the kind of a project that ought not be presented to the Lord informally, but it deserves a formal dedication to Him and petition. And so, I composed a prayer that I’m now going to read that was offered to the Lord as this project was approaching completion.

Heavenly Father, it is I whom you named David, asking you in the name of Jesus Christ to answer this petition. We are grateful for the covenant you ordained in 2017 and hope to obey it. We remember what you said about our scriptures in your Answer:

The records you have gathered as scriptures yet lack many of my words, have errors throughout, and contain things that are not of me, because the records you used in your labors have not been maintained nor guarded against the cunning plans of false brethren who have been deceived by Satan.

… the records you have received have not [been] transmitted that which was first written in holiness,

… many parts were discarded and other parts were altered. False brethren who did not fear me intended to corrupt and to pervert the right way, to blind the eyes and harden the hearts of others, in order to obtain power and authority over them.

Conspiracies have corrupted the records, beginning among the Jews, and again following the time of my apostles, and yet again following the time of Joseph and Hyrum. As you have labored with the records you have witnessed the alterations and insertions, and your effort to recover them pleases me and is of great worth. You may remove the brackets from your record, as I accept your clarifications, and you are permitted to proceed to the end with your plan to update language to select a current vocabulary, but take care not to change meaning — and if you cannot resolve the meaning, either petition me again or retain the former words. Nevertheless, you labor with an incomplete text.

These words about how the scriptures have been treated by those in the past warn us about how we treat your scriptures today. We are afraid of making errors again by failing to maintain or guard the scriptures. We have acted on your permission to proceed to the end with our plan to update language to select a current vocabulary, and we took care not to change meaning of anything in the Book of Mormon.  You promised us that you:

… will lead all who come to me to the truth of all things. The fullness is to receive the truth of all things, and this too from me, in power, by my word, and in very deed. For I will come unto you if you will come unto me.

Therefore we have asked for your guidance, direction and inspiration to be able to fulfill obligations assigned to us. In the 2017 Covenant you asked:

Do you have faith in these things and receive the scriptures approved by the Lord as a standard to govern you in your daily walk in life, to accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant, and to use the scriptures to correct yourselves and to guide your words, thoughts, and deeds?

Therefore, you ordained the Book of Mormon as the Covenant for us. But you also permitted us to proceed with our plan to update language to select a current vocabulary, while taking care not to change meaning. 

You directed us to:

… Seek to recover the lost sheep remnant of this land and of Israel and no longer forsake them. Bring them unto me and teach them of my ways, to walk in them.

To recover the lost sheep of Israel also requires a Hebrew language version of the Book of Mormon, and therefore we are doing that work and expect it to be completed soon and ask for it to be accepted when finished. As for [the] other lost sheep of Israel the text needs to be updated for English language readers to understand it. Many passages use words and grammar that confuse rather than inform today’s readers. To obey the Covenant requires people to first understand it, and the language has become a barrier.

You instructed us to:

… study my words and let them be the standard for your faith, and I will add thereto many treasures.

Our study will be improved by rewriting the book into modern English. Therefore we ask you to approve the modern language [English] version as an acceptable Covenant version of the Book of Mormon. We do not want to make any change[s] that fails to maintain or guard the language. We do not want to make the same errors as in the past for which ancient Israel was condemned. Isaiah wrote:

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

We will not use the new English language version as part of the Covenant without your approval. We are asking for that approval, keeping in mind your previous revelation stating:

You have asked to know if the scriptures are acceptable and approved, or if there is more to be done:

The work that has been done is acceptable and sufficient for the labor now underway. You were permitted to update language, select a current vocabulary, and you were warned not to change any meaning. I reminded you that you do not understand the glory to be revealed unto my covenant people. You were instructed to complete the agreed upon labors, and you have done as was required.

These scriptures are sent forth to be my warning to the world, my comfort to the faithful, my counsel to the meek, my reproof to the proud, my rebuke to the contentious, and my condemnation of the wicked. They are my invitation to all mankind to flee from corruption, repent and be baptized in my name, and prepare for the coming judgment.

For four [seven] years following the Covenant we have continued working to update the language of the Book of Mormon, trying to not change any meanings. On December 10, 2023 after years of labor by others, that project was turned over to me, and I have been working to complete the work of restating the text in modern English language. As I worked with the book, on December 22, 2023 you informed me:

The original Book of Mormon translation was to get that generation to be willing to accept it as scripture. They needed it to mimic the King James Version language. But this has a different purpose. This is to help a new generation to understand the content to help with the Lord’s return. There is as much Divine attention and assistance in getting this new version completed as before.

I acknowledge your continuing assistance while laboring with the book, and now ask [you] whether it has accomplished your will. You provided a new name for this version of the Book of Mormon, calling it Covenant of Christ. Therefore, we ask: will you authorize this Covenant of Christ updated version to be accepted as your Covenant?

That was the prayer that I offered. But before the Lord answered, I was instructed to review the entire text again, which I did as a repetition that required a lot of hours and late night. So, before the Lord answered, I was instructed to review the entire text, during which several changes were required to be made.

On June 20, 2024 the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 

It is enough. I have given to you my direction both now and as the work was underway, and therefore I say to you: It is enough.

I labored alongside you in this work. My word is truth. My word is spirit. As you worked with the text I gave you my word and it is to be kept as it was given. My word carries with it the power of truth, and you are not called to alter it, but are to defend it. As you have considered comments from others you have feared man more than me. The corruption of scripture has been caused by men fearing others and failing to heed my word. You were told to update the language, and that included restating my doctrine, sacrament and baptismal prayers but you hesitated and needed to be commanded to do so. Let your work of updating the language now end with the words I have given you.

Publish it for the [my] people to read. Then, have the voice of the people determine if they will accept it as my Covenant, as they will be judged by their voice on this matter. Once the voice of the people has been heard, if they accept it let it be your Covenant version to guide you. No one should be forbidden from using the earlier text, nor compelled to use only one of these two, but if approved by their vote it will be your Covenant text to guide you.

As for my doctrine, sacrament and baptismal prayers, use the new language but you are not to forbid using the earlier language, as I will accept either wording for these ordinances.

In the future when translating the Book of Mormon into other languages, use this Covenant of Christ version as the source for that work.

And again, let this be how you proceed with the Hebrew translation also underway: When it is finished let your fellow servant Jaqim pray and ask if I will accept it, trusting the answer he will receive from me. Then let him find twelve believing Jews who speak and read Hebrew who will sustain it as scripture, have them meet and vote, and once sustained by their vote let it be published as scripture with their names testifying to it, and I will hold the Jews accountable for how they respond to the testimony of Jaqim and the other twelve who witness.

… 

Hear me now: Let every person take care in how they use my name, as if I had part in their every dispute, for many things provoking arguments among the people are born from pride, stubbornness, aspiring for control, and reckless indifference toward me and one another. I bear with the people still, and patiently await the return of natural fruit in my vineyard. Do not be misled by my patience, for the time is quickly approaching for the harvest of my vineyard. Amen. (Full text of the prayer and answer provided by Denver Snuffer; strike-through and bracketed words indicate changes made during the reading.)

Now that “having the people vote to sustain it” is akin to what happened earlier in 2017, when the material was made available for people to read early in the year at a conference, but it was not sustained until the end of the year in a follow-on conference. Therefore, no one should sustain anything in ignorance. It needs to be made available to the public.

An hour before I began speaking, copies of this became available to order online through www.covenantofchrist.org where you can order either a hardbound copy or a softbound copy. We have also… (Steph, would you take Brent and Taylor Ward and Vaughn Hughes and… Is Eric Martineau here? Yeah, would you take them to the car?) We also had 100 copies of the text printed to hand out to you who are attending here in the conference. You don’t have to buy these. We’re giving them to you, but we only have a hundred copies, and there’s more than a hundred of you here. So we would really like to give a copy to each family, and then if there are family members who don’t live together, if you don’t live in the same house as other family members, we’ll give copies to people until the hundred copies are all distributed. 

I’ve got an earlier copy, which I used in going through the final read-through, that also has an earlier cover. The cover got updated as we went along, and what you’re about to receive is prettier than the version that I’ve got, because everything was being worked on, including the cover of the Covenant of Christ. It’s available for sale on www.Amazon.com right now in the (I think it’s the) hardcover version, and it’s available in the softcover version through Lulu, because the quality of printing by those two is different. They’re bringing those in, and they’re gonna hand those out. 

I’m gonna continue talking for just a few minutes. But if you try and… Try and read them in your families. I’m assuming that the planned conference that is being put together by Mark Barlow for (I think in) October, that that will give people enough time to read through this volume and to decide whether or not you’re willing to sustain it. 

There were a number of interesting things that occurred as I worked with the text, including some changes that I was absolutely loath to make because, in my view, it was going to result in people saying, “You’ve changed the ordinance!” If you update the sacrament prayer, people are gonna say, “The sacrament is an ordinance; you’ve changed it.” So I left the language of the sacrament prayer, the baptismal prayer, and that Doctrine of Christ statement unchanged, and I didn’t want to deal with the argument that that constituted changing it. I was ultimately persuaded by one of the people here today that that didn’t make any sense, and it was gonna be alienating. It was gonna make the Lord look like He is the caricature that the King Jamesian language sometimes gives the impression of, and so I went ahead, and I prayed about that. And as you can tell from the answer, it didn’t please the Lord at all that I was worried about the reaction of other people. 

Here’s another problem: After I’d gone through and made the final changes, after I had gotten the answer to the prayer, and after it had been finalized, I got a suggestion from someone that I thought was really good and worth making, so I went ahead, and I made that change. Within seconds of having sent the email, I learned that He really did want me only to defend and not change the text. So, if any of you feel that you’ve got the prerogative of changing the text, great—good on you! But I’m supposed to defend it, so I can’t participate in making any further changes because I’m confident that, as for me and as for this project and as for the prayer and the answer, it’s done. The only thing left and the only question left hanging is, Will the people, after having read it, sustain it as the covenant version of the Book of Mormon? Because if we do, then I think in the next printing of the Scriptures, we can include this version as what will be in the leather-bound texts. But if we reject it, then I don’t know that we would print it, but I will—I think the instruction I got is—I will use it. 

So having said that, this is what I’d like to do now. I’m gonna stop talking. This will be a little disruptive. They’re gonna bring in and distribute the books. I think we should bring them in here and distribute them. What are you thinking? 

[Stephanie responding from the background]

Oh, do it at a table? Okay. But I’m going to turn the time over for a little song and dance thing here that’s coming up that Doug told us about before I began talking. But I’m gonna wrap up now and… 

[Stephanie talking in the background]

Oh, okay. Very good. Okay! What she said! And you people online? Hah! You didn’t hear my wife!

The post Modern English Translation appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following comments by Denver and Stephanie were delivered as part of a conference held in Geneva, New York on April 7, 2024.

Stephanie Snuffer: Okay, alright. 1-2-3, eyes on me! Works for second graders; sometimes works for fifth graders. Doesn’t work so good for adults.

Denver Snuffer: She’s a substitute teacher at Waterford. So, yeah, you’re gonna… 

SS: Alright. Okay. Are you gonna sit? What are you gonna do? We’re supposed to be up here together.

DS: I’m gonna make faces. 

SS: Okay, so we—I don’t know, about two weeks ago, maybe?—we started talking about maybe some topics that, if he finished, that we could bring up and just briefly address or put some ideas out there for you that you can start to consider in terms of, you know, yourselves/your relationships. If anybody has ever heard me speak in the last year or so, I have a particular penchant for interpersonal relationships and the benefit of getting your crap together, which basically means you have to know stuff. And I love how much knowledge we can gain by reading Scriptures, books, whatever it is we’re doing. And I don’t want to leave this part of learning off of the table. So Denver’s sort of really been a wonderful guinea pig for the last few years for me. We… He’s willing to… He’s taught me amazing things over the past 30 years that we’ve been married, and I’ve been, hopefully, lucky to offer up some stuff that maybe he hasn’t known in the past.

DS: It’s the electric shocks that bother me most. [laughter]

SS: Oh, stop it. Alright. (Kids, that doesn’t really happen.) Okay, we have… We came up with like nine or ten; we’re gonna maybe try and get through one or two—okay?—depending on how long it takes. The first idea we want to talk about is an idea… The idea of resilience. And every time I say, “resilience,” I want to sing Chumbawamba. Anybody? 

Edwin Wilde: “I get knocked down…” 

DS: “…but I get up again!”

SS: Right? Yeah. Okay. If you didn’t hear Edwin sing Chumbawamba, just ask him a little bit later. Resilience has a very specific definition: It is the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties. So inherent in that definition is, “Life is hard, and you are going to get knocked down.” And then you have to get up again. And what I did is I tried to find scriptural representation of resilience, so…because there’s nothing better than sort of marrying the two ideas, right?—some, you know, personal skills, some mental wellness, some self awareness—and then just see how that is represented scripturally. 

So, in James 1:2-4,  there’s this scripture that says, My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing (Epistle of Jacob 1:2 RE). So, we were driving to Niagara yesterday and reading through these things, and I said… Okay, so then we’re talking about the scripture, “Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that you may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” And I asked, “What do you think that means?” And you gave your input… 

DS: Feel free to repeat it.

SS: I don’t remember what it was because I was actually looking for the… 

DS: It was profound. 

SS: I was looking for the RIGHT answer. And he didn’t give me the right answer, so I had to wait ‘til he finished, and then I had to say, “But what about THIS?” And so, what struck me was it says… 

DS: [Chuckling] That’s true.

SS: …“let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” So this idea of the trying of your faith, this idea of a difficulty or a fall down, if you will, and tying it with patience and perfect work and entire and wanting nothing just really sort of actually blew my mind. Because I think that what this scripture is trying to say is that we have the ability to be complete, we have the ability to be whole, we have the opportunity to want nothing in the patience… 

DS: (I just want to see if this [mic] makes feedback.) 

SS: …of the trying of our faith. And so, if you tie this to resilience, the “getting knocked down” is a gift. It is the opportunity for you to do what the Lord wants you to do. Have faith. Pick yourself back up. Be resilient. And in that, you have the opportunity to be perfect, be whole.

DS: You know… Is this [the mic] working? 

SS: Up… Very… All the way up to your mouth. 

DS: Allll the way up… 

SS: All the way up to your mouth. 

DS: So like… 

SS: Come over here! 

DS: …like Jagger.

SS: Yeah, you’re gonna hate this. Get over here.

DS: I get to speak like Jagger. 

SS: Yeah.

DS: I’ve suggested that you read the account in Exodus and only look at what Moses said in the story of the deliverance from the pharaoh. Moses was told to go, do, and say some things. But it’s pretty clear that when he went and he did and he said, that the whole process intimidated him, and he wasn’t even confident about how well it would be vindicated—and Pharaoh wasn’t persuaded. So he went, and he told the pharaoh that the sign would be given, and that sign was given. And however much Cecil B. DeMille may have distorted our view of what that looked like, to the pharaoh, it didn’t look like enough to justify freeing the people. And Moses left there defeated and complaining and whining about it. If you think that adversity is something that only YOU get to experience… 

It’s universal. It’s everywhere. And it includes extraordinary frustration, difficulty, setbacks (that we know about) in the life of Moses, in the life of Jesus Christ, in the life of Joseph Smith. We just don’t have an adequate record to be able to fully assess all of the challenges, difficulties, and disappointments in the life of Melchizedek. I mean, why DID he need, by faith, to call rivers out of their course? What exactly was going on when that event took place? I mean, was he begging God and running for his life? It reads like “triumph,” but I don’t know of any life that gets lived without setback after setback and frustration after frustration. I referred to the first verse in the Book of Mormon (in the LDS version), Nephi telling you about himself—suffered all kinds of things throughout his life and, nevertheless, been “highly favored to the Lord”—is because he was resilient. 

SS: Um-hmm.

DS: (Here, I’ll take that.)

SS: Okie dokie. Job is another obvious representation of someone who was incredibly resilient: Though he slay me, yet I will trust in him (Job 5:10 RE). “Though he slay me…” This is Job talking about God: “Though he slay me, I will trust in Him.” That’s a pretty powerful recognition of where these bumps and knock-downs are coming from, right? Job knew what was happening to him, and yet, he views it as an opportunity to trust in God. 

It doesn’t take… You don’t have to read very much or listen to too many different things to realize that we’re not a particularly resilient population. We’re actually quite soft, and it’s getting worse by the HOUR, actually. It really is getting worse by the hour. And so, resilience is an important thing to understand, and it’s an important thing to cultivate. And there are actually things you can do to increase your resilience. Many of the things that are talked about in the context of mental health or mental wellness are SKILLS. This is not the kind of stuff that distills on you like the dew—umm, I don’t know—the dew, right? This is stuff you have to practice. Very often it doesn’t come naturally. Very often we feel confused/unmoored, so to speak. We don’t know where we’re going wrong. 

I won’t name any names, but I was talking to a lovely woman who told me that she listens to my podcast and realized that she was doing something that she thought was right until I said otherwise. (I wasn’t telling her she was doing it wrong.) But there are skills that can help in these kinds of concepts. And so, resilience is one of them. One of the things that you can do to increase your resilience is a gratitude practice. And a gratitude practice can be on paper, it can be in a journal, it can be with a buddy, it can be through text messages and group family chats, it can be some form of prayer, it can be said out loud, it can be said quietly. But a resilient person is grateful! They’re grateful for their shoes and their most comfortable pair of pants. And they’re grateful that the Airbnb had another set of pillows in the other bedroom because the ones in the bed that she was sleeping in were not sleepable (or something like that). And a gratitude practice is a wonderful way to increase your resilience. And it’s easy. It’s free. You don’t have to ask anyone or pay anyone for this, right? You can do this on your own.

DS: I’m telling you, you would have paid money to use those pillows in a high school pillow fight [laughter]. You could dislocate some important body parts with ‘em. So there’s reason to be grateful for just about everything. The idea that you don’t mourn your losses or deal with your frustrations and that the failure to do that is an absence of resilience… 

It shows up over and over when Nephi is lamenting his life and when Alma is lamenting his sojourn. They both interrupt their complaints and say, “But I really ought to be grateful,” and then they flip it. I mean, it’s not just an idle idea that you can overcome your disappointment and frustration with gratitude. It’s in the Scriptures by some pretty accomplished Scripture authors that they felt the same way we all feel from time to time. But then they stop and take an inventory. 

There’s a fairly… Well, you would know some of these guys who are now not only NOT Latter-day Saints, they actively engage in the business of being an ex-Mormon and do shows and collect money and… In private conversations, I have had people who appear for all the world to be faithless and hostile to the Restoration and disbelieving in Joseph say their lives were better when they believed, and they would trade nothing for the mission that they served when they went out preaching for two years. They were blessed, and they were benefited from that. However much they may have lost their faith now, it blessed and it benefited them. I can’t help but think that in declining years, as people get a little more reflective and a little more sober about eternity, that there won’t be a whole lot of people that we regard right now as faithless and hostile and apostate who, as they think back on their life, will realize their happiest moments came when they were trying to obey God, came when they were serving faithfully within a church organization or within a community of believers. And I think many of them may yet repent, as long as the disease that kills them lingers long enough. You take ‘em in a heart attack, it may be too abrupt. But if you can give ‘em something that they will suffer to die with, I think many of them are going to regroup and reconsider and repent. I think it’s coming. Well, adversity serves not only a benign—but it serves a beneficial—purpose, and gratitude gets you there quicker. Yeah.

SS: We have… We would have nothing in terms of this particular religion (or Scriptures, for that matter) if the people who were not writing them or sacrificing or moving or crossing the ocean or…were not resilient people. That goes without saying, except that it is not a HIGHLIGHTED feature in what we read or what we take in; it’s just this backdrop, and we don’t realize how much of “what mental health is” existed in these people: Abinadi, Nephi, Lehi, Abraham, Isaac. I mean, I’m just gonna… I’m just… Pick out the names! It doesnt matter… 

DS: Lehi’s wife.

SS: Yeah, Lehi’s wife. 

DS: Yeah.

SS: It doesn’t matter… 

DS: She complained. 

SS: She has a name. What is her name, honey? 

DS: Sariah.

SS: Sariah. Thank you. Yes. I am not Denver’s wife. I am Stephanie.

DS: [Chuckling] Yeah, there ya go. Yeah.

SS: So in the context of these ideas and these concepts, understand that there is a lot not written that we just take for granted or ignore outright as characteristics: a solid set of mental health skills that these people operated with. And we’re running around here, willy nilly, you know, lo there, lo here, dismissing that, only taking this seriously because we don’t know what we don’t know. 

So another way to increase your resilience is to meditate. Ahhhh. Have a mindfulness practice. A mindfulness practice will improve your ability to bounce back from difficult situations. And it’s not going to be magic; you’re not automatically going to wake up one morning and say, “Oh, yes, I’m so glad that I did that five minutes of mindfulness yesterday because, now, the fact that my dryer doesn’t work and my fence blew down doesn’t bother me in the slightest!” Okay? Might still bother you, but you will have a better capacity to tolerate that, right?

DS: Yeah. Because you can always use that same wind that blew the fence down to dry the clothes! It’s like that Monty Python thing: “Always Look on the bright side of life!” 

(I’m sorry. You were talking about something…)

SS: No, you’re absolutely right. You’re absolutely right. I love… That is resilience. Resilience is the ability to find the positive in something.

DS: [Chuckling] I hear whistling. [Whistles]

SS: The ability to look on the bright side of life is also a resilient skill, right? Use your friends, use your family. If you’re low, if you’re down, if you’re struggling, reach out to someone who can help somehow build you up and give you something, you know, that sort of settles you down. 

I have done… I… In fact, I looked while I was sitting over there: Podcast, 37, 38, and 39 are all on resilience. And the reason I did three podcasts on resilience is because I think it is pretty dang important. And we don’t have a lot of it. And I think it’s one of those things that, as a body of people whose goal is to come together in some meaningful way to further God’s work (in whatever way you’re called, in whatever way that will look like for you, at whatever time in your life you are at), this is something you have to have—because I assure you, you will get knocked down about a million and a half times. And if you don’t have what it takes already to get back up, in the immortal words of Chumbawamba, you know, there’s a whole community of people who got no use for you.

DS: Hey, I wanna comment on the…that idea of meditation. I think one of the most interesting passages in one of the shortest books in the Book of Mormon is when Enos goes out in the wilderness to hunt beasts, and the words that he often heard his father speak to him sank deep into his heart. Well, what that means is that he may be out there and he may be alone and he may be up to something else, but the word sank deep in his heart. He’s meditative about something that matters to him.

Back when there was a Provo temple (it’s been destroyed recently), you could go to the Provo temple, and every 20 minutes there was a session starting because they had six rooms in a circle. And as a law student and then after graduation, I went to the Provo temple so often (in the pre-1990 era) that I could recite the endowment (‘cuz you’d heard it so many times). Well, once they started making dramatic revisions in 1990 (and have continued on apace), there are many, many things that were once there that are still in my memory that I DO reflect on, that I DO meditate on—because I think the whole purpose of it was to present, in a ceremonial form, vast ideas compressed into little, little symbols, so that if you could grasp the little symbol, it would spool out into something much, much bigger. 

(I don’t know; I may have already told this story.) But I was there in the temple one time with a group of missionaries, ‘cuz missionaries came over and ate at our place all the time, and one of the permitted things you could do with them was to go to the temple. And so I was in the temple with a group of—I think it was a whole district—and we were in the celestial room, and I was talking to them about some of the symbolism that’s embedded into the garments and how they relate to some of the things that go on in the ceremony. And there was this old, puckered fellow that looked rather more like a Baptist Sunday School teacher than a Latter-day Saint, and… 

SS: Don’t editorialize. 

DS: Don’t editorialize? 

SS: [Chuckling] No.

DS: It makes the story better. [Audience laughter.] 

And he scowled for a bit at me, and then he came over, and… Literally, I’m gonna try and replicate (as best I can) his whisper: “If you’re talking about the meaning…”

SS: Stop it. That is not… 

DS: “…of the symbols, you’re wrong!…”

SS: I was there.

DS: “We don’t know what they mean!” 

SS: [Chuckling] That’s not how it happened.

DS: I thanked him, and then I continued apace explaining what was going on. And it, really, it drew him in. He actually got interested. 

SS: [Chucking] That is not how it happened!

DS: Anyway, that’s a long way to go from Enos in the wilderness hunting beasts to…

SS: What are you talking about? 

DS: But meditating on things, particularly some of the prosaic words that we get in Scripture… Some of the passages that we’ve got in Isaiah are an amalgamation of things that will happen/have happened/are happening or patterns that are going to repeat themselves in history by multiple people, at multiple times, in multiple ways. And when Christ finally gets to the point in Third Nephi that he has now delivered, “I’ve now told you what the Father commanded me to tell you,” and there’s a line of demarcation; He’s been doing and saying and teaching and accomplishing exactly what the Father wanted him to do, and when He gets done with that, then He just sort of freelances for a little bit. And Christ in Third Nephi is rather like Isaiah: He’s future, He’s present, He’s past, He’s future, He’s present. It’s as if there is no past, present, or future in the mind of the Lord or in the revelations given by the Lord, but that they amalgamate all into one—so that the past and the present and the future are present before God continually. And when He comments, He comments (basically) thematically. And so, when you get a thematic commentary by Isaiah or by Christ, maybe that’s because we ought to be meditating about themes, about really big subjects, about really repeating patterns that come and get fulfilled—extraordinarily, clearly—in one life at one time and then get repeated in your own experience, and in the experience of your children, and in the experience of a body of believers, over and over again. Because when God interjects Himself into the course of events that we live, it turns out that everything mirrors what went on before and what will come after. And as you meditate on those things, sometimes you can see the very themes that were present in the book of Isaiah or in the comments of Christ are present in your life and that you’re living a pattern—and the pattern is continual. 

That meditation thing? That’s big, whammy stuff there.

SS: Okay, and actually, what you said reminded me about the themes and the themes of life, because I know you’re talking Scripture, and then you went personal and then community, but that’s also a really important thing. Because there are themes in your life. There are patterns in your life. Your patterns are different than mine. Mine are different than his. And that self-awareness and that meditation and that opportunity to focus on the patterns in your life and the themes in your life (this is from that book we’re listening to)… 

DS: Oh, yeah.

SS: …is an important way of bringing self-awareness and bringing an awareness to see where your strengths are. 

These are themes and patterns that if you start to pay attention—through a meditative practice, by seeing where you’re resilient and where you are not resilient—this will become obvious to you. And you will awaken to a new level of understanding, which by its very nature draws you closer to God. The work and glory of God is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Genesis 1:7 RE). And we have the scripture side down: we have the “study the Scriptures,” we have the tools to study the Scriptures, we have a lot of really good resources and a lot of really good material to do all of that. That’s one part. That’s one part. It’s a huge part. The other part is this part: it’s the YOU part. It’s the part you are trying to find those deeper answers to so that you can see why you’re stuck. You can see why you can’t break through in this way or that way—and resilience and mindfulness and journaling and gratitude. Those are real skills and real tools that have the potential to really open up in ways that you could not have foreseen before.

Okay, do you have anything else on resilience, ‘cuz I think I’ll move on.

DS: What was it…? What was it that…?

SS: (Give that to Q; she wants it.)

DS: (She wants this?)

SS: [Chuckling] (Just give it!) 

DS: What was it that Ferris Bueller said to the guy at the restaurant when they ordered pancreas? It’s because of… 

SS: Oh, gosh! 

DS: It’s because of…

SS: People like…

Audience Member: Tolerance.

DS: Tolerance that…

SS: Yeah.

DS: People like us can put up with people like you.

SS: What does that have to do with anything? I like it, but…

DS: Resilience!

SS: What does it have to do with anything?

DS: That’s just the way I “resiliate”!

SS: Okay, now this one, okay, this one is “wise mind.” 

DS: Oh, this is important. 

SS: This is important, but…

DS: We should have started there. 

SS: No. Okay, whatever. 

DS: Okay. Yeah.

SS: The problem with this is I have a whole bunch of scriptures written down, but there’s two things wrong: 1) They’re King James Version Bible scriptures in Proverbs, and neither one of us brought our scriptures, and 2) I can’t translate them into the new Proverbs. So I don’t know what they say. I just went through and found them. But let’s start with “wise mind,” okay? “Wise mind” is this concept that is the balance between rational thought and your emotional experience. That’s important. “Wise mind” is the balance between your rational thought and your emotional experience. 

Now I want you just for a minute to close your eyes, and just briefly, remember the last emotional experience you may have had.

DS: Like, really emotional? Like…? 

SS: (Shush, don’t leave ‘em.) 

Could have been…it could have been a calm emotional experience. 

DS: Hmm… No, no.

SS: It could have been a very agitated emotional, right? 

DS: Ah, yeah. There we are. Yeah.

SS: There is a very distinct difference between your rational thought and your emotional experiences—like HUGE, like to the point of, “Oh gosh, I wish I hadn’t have acted like that,” right? “Oh, shoot, I wish I hadn’ta said that,” okay? So there’s this idea of balancing this all out in a wise mind. Practice: meaning skill, meaning this is something you can actually get better at! This is what I love about this stuff. Not one of us is stuck where we are. It doesn’t matter how old you are, it doesn’t matter how young you are, if you are willing to learn some things, practice some skills, you can improve. 

So “reasonable mind”: this is where your logic is, it’s where your facts are, it’s where you see things objectively. This is where you just describe something. Decisions are made from this state The decisions that are made from this state are typically analytical and based in evidence.

DS: Oh, yeah. We talked about this yesterday.

SS: Well, kind of, but… So don’t go there yet. 

DS: Okay. Alright. 

SS: But this is “the lawyer.” This is “the facts.” This is “how it is.” It is “this way,” and if it’s not this way…

DS: “Just the facts, ma’am.”

SS: …(right), it can’t be any other way. 

DS: ‘til Friday.

SS: Right? Okay. “Emotion mind” is where your emotions drive this state: Decisions are made based on feelings, and responses are governed by the emotional reaction to a situation. 

DS: [With great exasperation] “Are you kidding me?!!” 

SS: You have very little control over your emotions. 

DS: Yeah. 

SS: They just come unbidden. What you do have is the ability to control the management of your emotions, right? So there is no… Not one of you out there should be saying to yourself, “Well, I have a hard time controlling my emotions,” because you’re not supposed to control your emotions. You’re not supposed to control whether they come, whether they go away, what they are, how they are. You’re not supposed to care whether it surprises you or it doesn’t surprise you. What you’re supposed to care about is how you ACT. That’s what you’re supposed to care about. You’re only supposed to care about how you act—because that’s what other people are gonna care about. 

So we had a discussion (I don’t know if this was about this one), but we were talking about how the person… 

Okay, I come in, and I’m crying. (I’m trying to think of a good reason why I would be crying. Whatever. It’s okay.) 

DS: Red Sox lost. 

SS: That’s not why I’m crying [audience laughter]. So I come in, and I’m upset about something. All right, maybe I’m crying, maybe I’m not crying; maybe I’m just plain old upset, who knows? And I’m upset, and I come in, and I’m ranting and raving, and I’m upset, and we’re in the kitchen—right?—and everybody can see me. My kids can see me. Whoever’s there can see me. They can clearly see that mom’s upset. And dad steps in, and he’s like, “Hey, it’s no big deal. You don’t need to be upset.” And he tries to calm me down. In that—my emotional experience, okay?—in that moment, who is looked at as the better person? 

[Audience response.]

The rational one! That is nonsense! Okay, so HE gets… I mean, not in MY family, because we’re all like me. I mean, we’re… This is the… I mean, there’s three therapists and whatever. So that’s not praised in my house, right? But in the world, the person who looks good to the world is the rational one, the one who calms the emotional child down, the one who says, “There, there. You don’t have to cry,” right? That is a profoundly misunderstood concept.

DS: You’ve reversed it. 

SS: Yeah, the person who actually is in some sort of healthy engagement in their life experience is the one who is actually emotional… 

DS: They’re dealing with it.

SS: …(right?), the one who’s actually feeling the frustration or the tears or the crying or the sadness or the whatever it is. In that moment, what I have control over and what I should do is make sure that my BEHAVIOR in my emotional state does not hurt anyone, is not offensive, is not lashing out, is not threatening or in any way aggressive, right? 

But the wise mind and the rational mind are both important. They have a place. The wise mind is the convergence of “reasonable” and “emotional” mind, leading to intuition and knowledge, where you can make balanced decisions. My favorite part of this is that the balance between those two things leads to intuition—right?—this sense, this felt sense, that what you’re doing is right because you are neither too emotional or too rational.

DS: Yeah. Have you ever thought about how Christ could tell what the other people were thinking? They haven’t articulated it yet. It was intuitive. And I don’t think that that was because of a magic trick. I think it was because of the wise mind. He could look at their demeanor, He could look at their body language, He could look at their facial expression, He could tell from that—and because of the circumstance, and the situation, the setting, and the subject at hand—He could tell they were about to oppose Him on this topic. So He could say, “Yeah, I know what you’re thinking,” and then address that without them ever having said a word. He was intuitive because it was the wise mind.

SS: Okay, so then I wrote a whole bunch of Proverbs scriptures on the back of my paper, but I can’t do anything with them. So… Okay, so what I want YOU to do with them is I want you to read Proverbs. 

DS: Hmm. Yeah.

SS: And I want you to read Proverbs with this idea in mind. Where is there some sort of representation of the wise mind in the Proverbs? Because we all know that Proverbs is full of, you know, comments and discussions about wisdom. So find the scriptures in Proverbs that deal with the wise mind. And then go further than that. Just continue to look for these concepts in your Scriptures, because you will find them. They are there. This is the material in mental health concepts, whether it’s a therapy, in and of itself, or… I can’t even think of what I’m…the words I’m looking for. It is the gospel in secular language. That’s all mental health is. It is a way for a non-believing population to still have the opportunity to develop a spiritual, grounded side.

DS: Let’s go there next, and we’ll finish there. 

SS: Okay. 

DS: Yeah.

SS: Alright. Okay, so nothing more on wise mind?

DS: It eludes me! 

SS: Okay. (I’m sorry. I just put a mint in my mouth.) Alright, so the next one is: We’re gonna talk about assumptions. And I have to… We keep having these conversations. I cannot… (I don’t know what this is.) I refuse to talk or have a conversation or listen to a conversation if the premise of the conversation starts on an assumption. If the premise of the conversation starts on an assumption—meaning you just think you know something, and so you’re going to start to have a conversation—I will literally stop you. Because I cannot do that. It is such an enormous waste of time to talk about something that is not grounded in any kind of fact or truth whatsoever. And when you start to pay attention to it, you will stop talking to a lot of people! And the rest of us should just shut our mouths because we’re not actually saying anything. We’re just walking around, opening our mouths, saying, “Hey, did you hear this?” And I’ll say, “Where did you hear that?” And they’ll say, “Oh, so and so said, ‘So and so,’” and I’m like, “Stop there, okay?” Not a conversation I’m willing to have, because there’s nothing to it. And so, this idea of assumptions and operating from a place of assumptions is incredibly toxic to interpersonal relationships. Even, I mean… 

And it’s amazing how assumptive we actually are, right? So it is as simple as: He comes home from work, you know, kind of cranky or… I don’t know, maybe he comes home from work, and I’m cranky; let’s do it that way. He comes home from work, and I’m cranky (had a tired day; I’m hungry; I didn’t have plans for dinner), and I snap at him because—I don’t know why—because I’m cranky! And he just, for some reason (maybe he’s not feeling particularly resilient that day), and he just sort of goes into a spin, and he thinks that I am mad at him. And then he starts to think of a conversation we had this morning that maybe didn’t go perfectly. And he’s like, “Oh my gosh, that’s why she’s mad at me.” And then we spend three hours just kind of poking at each other unnecessarily because he assumed—because I was cranky—that I was mad at him. How is that fixed? Well, it’s generally not, right? We go to bed, and then we wake up in the morning, and everybody’s fine. But we actually wasted three hours of some amount of emotional dysregulation and disconnection because of a 30-second exchange when he walked in the door. [Addressing Denver] What could you have done?

DS: I could have stopped at McDonald’s and… 

No, umm, the… There’s a statement that kind of stuck with me. Carl Jung, the psychologist, this is a quote from 1937. It said, “In the absence of facts, we project what happened,” meaning: When we don’t know the truth about something, then we draw on ourselves and we project the things that we fear (or we are) into assumptions about the other person. So when you don’t have facts BUT you are viewing someone narrowly and critically, what you’re probably doing is you’re revealing something TO yourself ABOUT yourself, not about them. I thought it was a profound insight, because we really do let our fears inform what we think of others, and often our fears are based upon what our own internal problems are. 

This was the one where we talked about the law. 

SS: Yes. Yeah. Okay, hold on just a second. I want to brief… And then we’ll probably end with that. 

So assumptions erode trust. I’m just going to tell you what happens when you operate from a place of assuming something. I mean, besides the fact that it makes an ass out of you and me, right? Do you remember when your teacher used to write that on the board or whatever? ASS-U-ME, which is really ironic because that is the very… That’s the bedrock of what assumptions are. Assumptions erode trust. They break down healthy communication—assuming you have healthy communication. Assumptions break down healthy communication. They build and breed resentment and conflict. They are barriers to intimacy and personal growth. There is a loss of self expression and agency, especially if someone is making assumptions about YOU. If I assume that my child is intentionally misbehaving and that is the way I deal with that child, then that child has lost the opportunity to express him or herself and be autonomous in sharing with me what is actually going on for them. So I want you to pay attention, because you will be SHOCKED at how much of your life is built on assumptions and conversations that take place around them. 

So this was where we talked about it because… 

DS: Yeah. 

SS: So let’s… Yeah, let’s talk about it. We were talking about how assumptions play into our lives but particularly him—because his life is literally built on facts, right? I mean, 30 years in the law practice, it’s facts and only facts! So what were we talking about?

DS: You cannot—under the rules of evidence, both state and federal—you can’t offer opinion testimony except within extremely narrow confines that require you to have some kind of basis for offering the opinion, and it has to be qualified, based upon knowledge, experience, education, training. Other than that, you can’t offer an opinion. So a witness says, “Well, he was at fault in causing the car accident.” That’s an opinion. That’s a conclusion. Why are you saying that? If that was the testimony, there would be an objection, the objection would be sustained, and if the witness managed to say that before the objection, the judge would say, “Strike it from the record.” 

All of those things are foundational before you ever get to a fact. You’re not allowed to just spew things in the courtroom because the courtroom is a fairly serious moment in which you’re trying to resolve a problem. If the problem were easily resolved, you would never have a trial. The only cases that go to trial are the ones where there are two legitimately different stories, and if you believe one story, they will win, and if you believe the other story, they will win. And both sides believe so intensely on the story they’re telling that they can’t resolve it between them—because they simply disagree on what the facts are. So when you finally get there and you’re presenting the case, you don’t get to say, “She’s a bad woman. She was mean. She treated me badly.” Okay, I… Maybe. Yeah, okay. I object. And let’s talk about: 

And at the end of all that, if the final statement—once you’ve laid a foundation so that you know who, what, when, where, and your opportunity to observe, you put out a fact—it is possible that the trier of fact is gonna say, “Yeah, but my wife does that to me every day. She… I wouldn’t call her ‘mean.’ I would call her ‘forthright’ or something a little more laudable.” 

We tend not to ever get down to the fact. We tend to “high-level” our descriptions of what went on in characterizations, conclusions, opinions—and completely devoid of facts. And we do that just as a matter of common conversation because it takes a lot of time. Trials take a lot of work. It takes a lot of training for people to finally get to the point that the presentation is focused on the facts that happen. 

There have been cases where I knew—I knew!—I could absolutely tear apart the nonsense that the judge was going to hear from the other side, and they offered a bunch of objectionable opinion and conclusions, and I didn’t make any objections. And I’ve got a judge sitting up there looking at me like, “Did you take the day off, Counselor? What are you doing?” I’ve even had them ask me, “Are you not going to object?” And I’ve had to say on occasion, “No, Your Honor, I don’t have an objection to this line,” but that’s because I have photographs, and I have recordings, and I have documents, and I have other witnesses, and every one of them is consistent, and the nonsense you just heard from the witness, I am going to utterly undermine. And so I want them to do this. Because when you hear the facts and when we finally get to the bottom of it, then you’re going to say, “I can disregard everything that that witness said because it was simply a bunch of negative opinions without any foundation.” 

Look, we tend to be far more sloppy, careless, disrespectful, unkind, and frankly, incredible (meaning lacking credibility) in our everyday conversation. I don’t expect you all to become trial lawyers overnight, but it would be nice—particularly if someone has something critical to say about someone else—if you tried to find where the fact was. Because the opinion may be very negative and honestly held, and perhaps, in that person’s experience, not only understandable, but maybe that’s the right way they should view the person because of their own life’s experience. But it doesn’t mean that you should share the view unless you make a reasonable enough inquiry to try to get to the bottom of it to figure out what they did. What people do is bad enough. We don’t need to pile on with our opinions.

SS: Yeah, I want to say, too, that this… We practice this wrongly in our relationships, right? This is… We… This is our standard mode of operating (going back just to the basic, you know, example that I used with Denver). And so, it IS a lot of work. It IS a lot of work to build resilience. It IS a lot of work to operate from a wise mind and marry the rational and the emotional together. It IS a lot of work to get to the bottom of what is potentially an assumption. Make no mistake, it IS a LOT of work. It’s not trial-level work but close. And the payoff is much better than trial-level work. 

The reason the payoff is better is because everything that you practice in terms of these kinds of skills will improve your relationships, create greater intimacy, build bridges, bring you together. What we’re doing is either keeping us apart or it’s keeping us at the status quo, right? And if our goal is to become, you know, exalted (holy crap), if that’s our goal (our goal is to be exalted), that’s where the work is—right?—because I’m pretty sure we have a set of Heavenly Parents who are still doing this stuff because I don’t think this ever ends, right? As long as you are in a relationship with someone, this is your work. And so when we practice making assumptions (with our kids and with our spouses and with our siblings and with our co-workers), and when we have a imprecision of language and we do not use the correct words for the correct things, and we’re sloppy in our emotional expression, and we’re sloppy in our, you know, we don’t get back up as quickly as we should, that takes a toll on us. 

DS: Um-hmm.

SS: It is disconnecting from God when we are not doing this work.

(And that’s four out of the ten… ish.)

DS: Yeah, we’re gonna wrap it up there. 

SS: K, I’m done.

DS: So there! Take that! 

SS: Alright. Works for me.

DS: (Are those your glasses?)

SS: (No, those are your glasses.)

DS: What? What? [Audience question.] Yeah, SHE’LL answer. 

Question 1: Good. It sounds like intuition and assumption are fighting against each other. 

SS: Okay, tell me how.

Q1: How is intuition NOT an assumption?

DS: Intuition is based upon the wise mind, which is taking evidence that’s before you and reaching a conclusion based upon a premise that you’re entertaining from both your own experience, your own emotions, your own background, AND thinking it through.

SS: Assumption… [Mic feedback] (Aaaa, what just happened, Reed?) Assumption is… (Red button. This one? Okay, you hit the red button.) 

Assumption is just believing anything you see or hear, without any kind of corroboration. OR assumption is “not actually seeking” for clarification.

DS: Yeah… 

SS: So I don’t know. I mean, you tell me! 

DS: …the wise mind is marrying both rational thought and emotional reaction. Look, our emotional reactions are exactly the same as the emotional reactions of a little child. When you have a one-year-old, a two-year-old, a three-year-old, a four-year-old and their emotions, their emotions may be closer to the surface and put on display with greater frequency, but an adult’s emotions are exactly the same; there’s no difference between the two. And the problem is that we tend to express that emotional outburst in more colorful language when we’re an adult (and just a lot of noise when you’re a child). But it’s this… It’s grounded in the same thing. So if you’re reacting to something emotionally, you’re reacting the same way a child would, and it doesn’t do any good to tell the child to settle down! You have to let that process play through. And then you can think about, and you can reflect on.

SS: Okay, let’s…

DS: The wise mind gives some distance between the emotional outburst and the opportunity to think it through rationally. 

SS: Okay…

DS: Assumptions are not based on anything but innuendo—and especially when assumptions are negative (because we tend to allow the assumptions to run in favor of the negative). But we also find people whose assumptions run to the positive. Joseph Smith did that. He thought people generally had the same motivation as did he. As a result, there were a lot of con-men that got over inside the Latter-day Saint community in Kirtland and in Missouri and in Nauvoo. And it was because he trusted people that were untrustworthy. It was an assumption that he made, and it was the wrong one. 

SS: K, let’s go!

DS: What’s that?

SS: I said, “Let’s go.” It’s 4:15.

DS: Oh, yeah, it’s 4:15. We’re supposed to end now! And you figure it out!

The post Topics to Consider appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following talk was delivered on April 7, 2024, at “The Heavens Speak” conference in Geneva, New York.

This is… It’s gone back and forth, and right now the “forth” is that it’s gonna go out over the Internet because this particular venue has an adequate connection to the Internet. And it was supposed to start at 10 [o’clock], and it’s 10, and I like to be prompt. 

I appreciate the invitation to come. For those that are unfamiliar with how we conduct conferences, volunteers decide that they would like to host a conference, and then they organize it, they arrange for the venue, they take care of all of the responsibilities associated with making a conference work, and they do it largely “volunteering” and out of pocket. Now, meals are very often the subject of requests that you pay for your own meal. But anytime someone agrees to do a conference, what they’re agreeing to do is to SACRIFICE, which is an essential component of having faith. You cannot have faith if your religion doesn’t require that you make sacrifices. Therefore, if you’re looking to be compensated to participate in anything that we do, you’re sadly mistaken, because we would like to encourage you to have faith. Those who attend the conference, by and large, are here as I am, paying your own way, buying your own plane ticket, renting your own car, paying for your own hotel, and making a sacrifice. I mean, the invitation to come and speak is not an invitation to “not sacrifice.” 

Religion mandates that we sacrifice for it in order to give us the capacity to have faith. When you have a multi-billion dollar organization supporting and compensating you, it’s a matter of a truism, as Joseph described in the Lectures on Faith, it becomes impossible if you’re rewarded in order to have faith. And so I’m grateful for the faith of those that have organized and sacrificed to make this conference take place.

If you did not see and haven’t had access to what was presented last evening, it’s worth the time and the trouble of looking at. One of the things that happened was a report on the translation of the Book of Mormon into Hebrew—not just “Hebrew,” but “Old Testament Hebrew,” and not just “Old Testament Hebrew,” but the canon as it existed at 600 BC and earlier; and so the later prophets, who wrote after the moment that they departed from Jerusalem at 600 BC may have used slightly different vocabulary, added some words that didn’t appear in the earlier canon, or used grammar adjustments that don’t appear in the earlier canon. What is being done in the Hebrew translation is literally pre-600 BC Jewish Scripture, just as it would have been composed by the authors, although they used a different vocabulary. 

(Brian [McNulty]! How you doin’? We have a Scotsman here! [Brian responds,] “I’m doin’ okay.” [Denver responds in a Scottish accent,] “Yer doin’ okay.” Well… )

Salvation comes through Jesus Christ. He was assigned the role of Redeemer before the foundation of the world, and in all likelihood was the only one that could have fulfilled that role. Resurrection is only available through Jesus Christ. Forgiveness of sins is only possible because of the atonement of Jesus Christ. This talk is about how, from time to time, Christ sends authority and order into the world, for His purposes. How He chooses to establish order does not change His essential, central, and singular role as our Savior. 

Seven years ago, after a solar eclipse that traversed the United States, I gave a talk titled “The Holy Order.” Now another solar eclipse will traverse the United States in two days after this talk. This is titled “The Holy Order, Part 2.” Actually, the change in schedule: it’s tomorrow. Tomorrow there’ll be another eclipse.

The previous talk is both a paper that can be downloaded from my website and one of the essays in the book Eight Essays. The two talks (or papers) belong together. 

Footnote 9 to that earlier talk explains a concern when we receive more Gospel light (I’m reading that footnote): 

Although I am going to discuss this topic in only a limited way, each time I convey more of what God is now doing it gives God’s opponents more information they can use to deceive others. I hesitate to equip the pretenders, the well-intentioned but deceived, and the foolish with more ammunition to make a better pretense. Even those who hold good intentions are often tempted to run into errors because they possess only a tiny fraction of the truth. We should all only disclose what God approves…when He directs, and how He directs. 

I should add that one of the problems that I have seen (and this isn’t in the paper, this is an aside, which I probably shouldn’t do ‘cuz it’s just gonna make this thing longer), but one of the things that I have noticed is that big religious ideas overwhelm weak minds. And sometimes people, in their enthusiasm, display a lot of foolishness simply because the big religious ideas are beyond their capacity to handle.

I’ve noticed when something new is added, there are those who start discussing it as if it were their own insight—even when they have never said one word about it until after they first learn of it from me. The same caution as set out in footnote 9 in the earlier talk applies equally here. 

I am not going to repeat anything from the earlier talk but will assume you understand what was taught there, and this will follow up on that discussion. 

The earlier Holy Order talk explained the term “fullness of the priesthood.” It was used by Joseph Smith at different times with different meanings, but we can do better than that. This talk is going to clarify that term.

The fullness of the Priesthood, including the rites of the Holy Order, is not something that has ever been or can be publicly explained in complete detail. The fullness of the Priesthood is different from the fullness of the Gospel. The Book of Mormon contains the “fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

The fullness of the Gospel was intended openly for everyone. In contrast, the “fullness of the Priesthood” (which is the Holy Order after the Order of the Son of God) is not something that was restored to the church Joseph Smith organized, nor is it publicly available, nor is it intended FOR everyone. It may SERVE everyone, but it will never be held by everyone. The fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ produces faith in the Savior and will save you if accepted and obeyed. The Book of Mormon reports that some of what Jesus Christ taught cannot be written, neither can they be uttered by man (3 Nephi 9:5; see also 3 Nephi 8:4). Joseph Smith could not write all that God revealed to him. Much of those unspeakable things belong to the fullness of the Priesthood but will not be publicly available before the Lord’s return. 

Adam and Eve were the original priestly patriarch and matriarch to whom God gave the right of dominion over every living thing that moves upon the earth (Genesis 2:8-9). That appointment by God giving them dominion was (and is) part of the Holy Order. They held it jointly, as companions. Joseph Smith explained, 

[The Holy Order] was first given to Adam; he obtained the [first presiding position on the Earth], and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Genesis 1:26, 27, 28. He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam in the [Holy Order]; he was called of God to this office, and was the Father of all living in this day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven. The [Holy Order] is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven, whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from Heaven, it is by Adam’s authority. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, hereafter referred to as TPJS, p. 157; see also JSP Documents Vol. 6, pp. 542-543)

This (from Joseph) ties together parenthood, priesthood, dominion, and Holy Order. All of these elements were necessary for Adam and Eve to be at the head of the Holy Order and are necessary for it to exist today. In “Our Divine Parents” (a talk and paper you can also read on the website), the nature of eternal unity between the man and the woman and the dual nature of God were explained. 

The Holy Order is not synonymous with having your calling and election made sure. You can have your calling and election made sure without having the Holy Order. 

The Holy Order is not synonymous with being redeemed from the fall and returning to God’s presence. That also can happen without having the Holy Order. 

Nor is the Holy Order synonymous with having the fullness of revelations from before the creation of the world through the end of this cycle of creation. That, also, can be given to a person while they still lack the Holy Order. 

An individual does not need to possess the Holy Order to be able to enter into a covenant. Covenants have been offered mankind by God through the Holy Order. Once offered, covenants are still honored even if the Holy Order is no longer present. The condition for a covenant to remain in effect requires only that the covenant never change. If officiators make changes, the covenant is broken and is no longer in effect. 

Further, it is not required for you to be initiated into the Holy Order to become a member of the eternal Family of God. All those who will be exalted will be members. Only a tiny fraction of the Family will experience that in mortality. 

Finally, any position in the Holy Order may change after this life. Christ reminded the mother of Jacob (or James) and John that positions in the afterlife will be assigned by His Father. The Holy Order must return before the Second Coming to re-establish God’s “house of order.” But organizing and ordering for the afterlife will not happen until some time after the Lord’s return. Restoring and organizing God’s Family is necessary because of the disorder caused by the fall of Adam. That disorder has been compounded by additional repeated apostasies from the periodic restorations of the Holy Order. 

Despite what the Holy Order is not, it is important to understand. Most of our scriptures are the writings of members of the Holy Order. The Order must return. This talk is to confirm God is vindicating His promises, whether the world takes any notice or not. 

The Holy Order function requires both a father and mother and is the reason Joseph Smith wrote, 

…there are many teachers but perhaps not many Fathers. There are times coming when God will signify many things which are expedient for the well being of the saints but the times have not yet come but will come as fast as there can be found place and receptions for them. (JSP Documents Vol. 6, February 1838-August 1839, pp. 396-397) 

That time did not come during Joseph’s life, and therefore, the return of the Holy Order did not happen in his day. Because of the failure in Joseph’s day, the Family or House of God still needs to be set in order. As is always the case, there will need to be a temple prepared for the Holy Order to function. It was first given to Adam and Eve in sacred space, and therefore, sacred space like the Garden of Eden is required for its function.

Abraham received the records going back to Adam and were passed down through generations to him. Despite having the records and testimony of the first fathers from which he learned about the Holy Order, Abraham did not hold it merely because he learned of it. It inspired him to seek for the blessings of the [Father] and the right whereunto [he] should be ordained to administer the same (Abraham 1:1).

Adam [Abraham] spoke with God face to face (Abraham 5:3) when he was not yet a member of the Holy Order. God also revealed to Abraham a vision of the creation of this world and its destiny while still not a member of the Holy Order. 

Joseph Smith told us exactly when Abraham received his priestly appointment, the one that is without father or mother, beginning or end of days, but is endless and eternal. He also clarified who bestowed it. Despite all Abraham had received before, the Holy Order was not conferred upon him until he met and was initiated by Melchizedek. Abraham explained the process: it came down from the Fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning (or before the foundations of the earth) to the present time, even the right of the firstborn (or the first man — who is Adam — or first Father) through the Fathers unto me (Abraham 1:1). Melchizedek was a king and a priest and stood as God to give laws to the people, administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam (see Glossary: Melchizedek) and from him, Abraham received the required initiation into the Holy Order. 

In the talk “Religion of the Fathers,” I explained that the Book of Abraham covered events in Abraham’s life before he entered into Egypt. It was years after he left Egypt before Abraham met with Melchizedek and was initiated into the Holy Order.  Abraham honored the Order and received it because he was not aspiring to supplant Melchizedek, the man who presided. Instead, he respected and honored the rights that belong to the Fathers. Had he wanted to supplant Melchizedek, he would not have qualified for the ordinance: 

I sought for the blessings of the Fathers and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same. Having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a Father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a high priest, holding the right belonging to the Fathers. It was conferred upon me from the Fathers: it came down from the Fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning (or before the foundations of the earth) to the present time, even the right of the firstborn (or the first man — who is Adam — or first Father) through the Fathers unto me. I sought for my appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the Fathers concerning the seed. (Abraham 1:1, emphasis added) 

That could never have happened for Abraham if he did not obtain it in the right way, with the right intent, and from the one who could confer it upon him. Periodic fighting over who had the right was always evidence of aspiring, untrustworthy men seeking their own vainglory. Abraham was faithful and unaspiring, but also seeking and willing. 

The Lord trusted Abraham because he (Abraham) respected the man chosen by the Lord to stand at the head before him. By respecting Melchizedek, Abraham also respected all of the fathers, from Adam through Melchizedek, chosen by God as His representatives on Earth. Because Abraham was to become part of that Family, the Lord could say to him: 

And you shall be a blessing unto your seed after you, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations. And I will bless them through your name; for as many as receive this gospel shall be called after your name and shall be accounted your seed, and shall rise up and bless you, as unto their Father. And I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you. And in you (that is, in your Priesthood) and in your seed, (that is, [in] your Priesthood) — for I give unto you a promise that this right shall continue in you and in your seed after you (that is to say, the literal seed or…seed of the body) — shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of…[eternal life]. (Abraham 3:1) 

For the purpose of this talk, it is important to understand certain terms. The term “this gospel” does not just include the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ but also the fullness of the Priesthood. Those who become part of the Holy Order necessarily recognize Abraham as a Father to them, and they in turn become his “seed” or descendants. Abraham was adopted as son to Melchizedek, which made Melchizedek father to Abraham. Subsequently, all those who were added to the line holding the fullness of the Priesthood became adopted descendants to Abraham. That is why it is written they shall rise up and bless you, as unto their Father (supra). 

Melchizedek was “Father” to the righteous at the time Abraham was seeking for the blessings of the Fathers. Because Abraham honored the position occupied by Melchizedek, Heaven took notice. As stated before, Abraham was faithful and unaspiring, but also seeking and willing. If he hoped to displace, or compete, or stand independent of Melchizedek, he would not have been qualified, nor even considered by Heaven. 

If Lehi had not respected Jeremiah as the Lord’s messenger, the heavens would not have opened for him. If Nephi had not respected his father Lehi as God’s messenger, Nephi would not have had the heavens open for him. An aspiring spirit is toxic, and while aspiring men may gain some measure of spiritual understanding, they forfeit any blessing they might have been gained by accepting and honoring the Holy Order. 

Abraham received the promise from the Lord that: I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you (supra). Abraham qualified for this blessing because Abraham honored the position occupied by Melchizedek. Abraham was not like Nephi’s older brothers, who assumed because they were older that they were entitled to rule and not be ruled. As Nephi described his brothers: 

…they did seek to take away my life. Yea, they did murmur against me, saying, Our younger brother thinks to rule over us, and we have had much trial because of him; wherefore, now let us slay him, that we may not be afflicted more because of his words. For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler, for it belongs [to] us, who are the elder brethren, to rule over this people. (2 Nephi 4:1)

This refusal to respect God’s choice doomed them and their descendants to continual apostasy. That apostasy led to open warfare beginning with the first generation. Centuries later, Lamanite fighters were inspired by hatred because they believed your fathers did wrong their brethren, insomuch that they did rob them of their right to the government when it rightfully belonged [to] them (Alma 25:4). This hatred was grounded in religious resentment. Father Abraham was nothing like Laman. Instead, he willingly accepted and honored the Holy Order. Consider for a moment how unlike Abraham his great-grandsons were (the children of Jacob). They destroyed their father’s garment and perhaps other artifacts handed down within the Holy Order. 

The only qualified man in Abraham’s day (who obtained it from Adam through the Fathers), was Melchizedek. Although Abraham had been rescued by an angel, conversed with the Lord, had the heavens opened to him, the Holy Order could only be obtained from Melchizedek, who was the heir and officiator of that Order.

In the Restoration Edition of Scriptures, Abraham entered Egypt in Genesis chapter 7, paragraph 4. He left Egypt in paragraph 6. It is not until chapter 7, paragraph 14 (many years later) when Abraham met with Melchizedek. It was then he [Melchizedek] blessed him [Abraham] and said, Blessed Abram, you are a man of the Most High God, possessor of Heaven and earth (Genesis 7:14).

You should read that footnote when you get this paper. Oh, I’ll read it:

Melchizedek lifted up his voice and blessed Abram (Genesis 7:17). It’s interesting to consider whether the description “possessor of Heaven and earth” were about “the Most High God” or about “Blessed Abram” in Melchizedek’s salutation. It could easily be either (or both). 

It may seem odd that this Order is so rare that it is withheld from righteous men who have stood in God’s presence. Nevertheless, there are good reasons, established before the foundation of the world, setting conditions that strictly confine the Order.

The Holy Order inducts couples into the Family of God. You can only have one father and one mother standing at the head at a time. Abraham could not receive it from anyone other than the singular couple who stood at the head. God’s House is a house of order, and there is never more than one parental couple at a time at the head. There is no more reason to aspire or envy that couple than there was for you to jealously want to replace your own father or mother. We should hope for it to return. Early Christians prayed for the Lord’s quick return: “µαρὰν ἀθά” mar’-an ath’-ah (Lord come quickly). We should also hope for His quick return. However, unlike others who follow the Lord without understanding the prophecies, promises, and covenants, we should also hope and pray for the return of the Holy Order that must be restored before His return. 

Unlike Abraham, people of this fallen world have rebelled against God’s governance. Despite mankind’s rebellion, God has been willing to gather people like a hen gathering her chicks under her wings, but we’ve rejected those offers. The heavens have not withdrawn, they have been evicted. A false “god of this world” has reigned from the rivers to the ends of the earth. He demands mankind worship him. And unfortunately, mankind has too often accommodated that demand with idolatry. For that to change, at least a small group of people must accept and welcome God’s governance. Abraham did not assert independence from, nor compete with, Melchizedek. Had he done otherwise he would not have qualified. He recognized the officiant, respected his position, and paid tithes to Melchizedek. 

There’s a footnote there: “Today tithes are gathered in fellowships and distributed there to those in need” (footnote 34). So you need to read the footnotes! 

This gained favor from God for Abraham. Had Abraham been aspiring to compete with or held any reservations about honoring the officiator Melchizedek, Abraham would never have received the “blessings of the Fathers and the right to be ordained to officiate in that Order.” 

Joseph Smith wrote a discourse the day after announcing plans to build the Nauvoo Temple. He explained, in relevant part: 

It is the highest and holiest Priesthood and is after the Order of the Son of God, and all other [powers] priesthoods are only parts, ramifications, powers, and blessings belonging to the same, and are held, controlled, and directed by it. It is the channel through which the Almighty commenced revealing his glory at the beginning of the creation of this earth, and through which he has continued to reveal himself to the children of men to the present time, and through which he will make known his purposes to the end of time. 

Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the Ancient of Days, or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great grand progenitor, of whom it is said in another place, He is Michael [Denver mistakenly said “Melchizedek”], because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but…was the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from Heaven and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times; i.e., the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him, from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that are to be revealed. (T&C 140:2-3) 

It may sound odd that Joseph Smith said Melchizedek “stood as God to give laws to the people, administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam” (JSP Documents Vol. 13 August-December 1843, p. 74). That is, however, the actual purpose of the Holy Order. Joseph Smith was not unique in teaching a man can act in the place of God for the benefit of God’s people. When Moses was called to restore Israel to God’s presence, Moses was given that same role:

And you shall speak unto him and put words in his mouth, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do. And he shall be your spokesman unto the people, and he shall be, even he shall be to you in stead of a mouth, and you [Moses] shall be to him in stead of God. (Exodus 2:7) 

Joseph Smith’s comment on this scripture confirms the principle: 

These scriptures are a [mix] of very strange doctrines to the Christian world, who are blindly led by the blind. I will refer to another scripture. “Now,” says God, when He visited Moses in the bush, (Moses was a stammering sort of a boy like me) God said, “Thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel.” God said, “Thou shalt be a God unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman.” I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be the sons of God, and all can cry, “Abba, Father!” Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for.” (TPJS, pp. 374-375; see also JSP Documents, Vol 15, p. 274) 

That’s a strange comment that Joseph Smith made. Well, hopefully by the end of this talk you’ll understand it a bit better.

In his first letter, John mentioned there are those who are God’s “sons” and very like God: now…we are the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him… (1 John 1:13). 

Jesus Christ defended teaching He was the Son of God by explaining that there had been other mortal men who substituted for God. He taught that He was serving on God the Father’s behalf and got accused of blasphemy because of it: 

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law: I [say], you are gods? If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken, do you say of him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I [say] I am the Son of God? (John 6:30) 

It is a hard matter to hear, and a harder one to teach. There is nothing about this subject that should be understood in a worldly sense. It involves a heavenly order of things and not something to be divided from God’s purpose to save all mankind and exalt those He can. Not everyone is suited to become part of God’s Family. The reality is that very few are.

Jesus taught from Isaiah and would certainly have been acquainted with the Isaiah passage that states, I am the Lord, and there is none else. …there is no God…besides me — a just God and a Savior, [and] there is none besides me. Look unto me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God and there is none else (Isaiah 15:19). And yet Christ also recognized there are gods unto whom the word of God came (supra). Therefore, the idea of men who are called “gods” in scripture ought to be understood as an appointment to represent and a calling to teach, and never as making a man anything more than a fellow servant. In the Book of Revelation, an angel was sent to John and testified of his message that, These are the true sayings of God. John fell to the earth to worship the angel, and was rebuked for showing him honor: And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, Do you not see…I am your fellow servant? And of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus? Worship God, for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 7:10). Bear in mind and understand that messengers can be acknowledged in scripture as “gods, even the sons of god”— while we are commanded at the same time to only worship the Father in Heaven and His Son. 

Jesus Christ, the greatest of all, is the best example of this principle in action. He stood as God and was in fact the Son of God. Yet when Christ was asked about His kingship and kingdom, He explained: 

My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews. But now is my kingdom not from here. Pilate therefore said unto him, Are you a king then? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king; to this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world — that I should bear witness [of] the truth. Everyone that is of the truth hears my voice. (John 10:7)

This is an example of how the Holy Order should operate. He came to fulfill the role of  servant. Jesus Christ set the pattern and demonstrated how God’s House is correctly ruled: 

But Jesus called [unto] them and said, You know that the princes of the gentiles exercise dominion over them, and [that] they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. …whoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant, even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life, a ransom for many. (Matthew 10:3) 

The Lord’s Holy Order is not designed to impose rule, control, or assert dominion over the unwilling. It is designed to teach correct principles and then let those who are taught govern themselves. The Holy Order empowers and frees. It assumes the individual will decide to give heed to what is taught. In contrast, ambitious men crave control over others. They enslave and subjugate. They oppose freedom and self-rule. The Holy Order relies on man’s agency. The adversary wants to limit and destroy man’s agency. 

Christ explained His role, which is similar to the role entrusted to the Holy Order: 

My doctrine does not come from me, but from God who sent me. Anyone who walks in God’s path will understand his doctrine, because that path increases light and knowledge. I testify of that path. Follow it and you will know whether I am sent by God or [whether] I am not sent by God. Teachers who preach from their own understanding only gratify their pride, but a teacher of truth teaches only what God tells him, and that teacher provides a light worth heeding. (TSJ 6:5) 

If God gave Christ the words to teach, then those who believed and followed those teachings were following Christ’s Father. This is the same as when the angel asked Nephi if he believed the words of his father. Nephi said emphatically that he did. Upon hearing this, the angel proclaimed, Blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the Most High God (1 Nephi 3:6). Believing in the words of truth from a messenger is to believe in the Son of the Most High God! That is as true today as when the angel said this to Nephi. 

Enoch is another example of a teacher from the Holy Order. He was sent by God to teach a message. When called by God, Enoch responded, Why is it that I have found favor in your sight, and am but a lad, and all the people hate me, for I am slow of speech; why am I your servant? (Genesis 4:2). He was no braggart. The task sobered him; he believed himself unequal to the task. But he taught, some people repented, and without any compulsion, those willing to be taught lived together in peace. 

When he was commissioned by God to teach Israel, Moses reacted similarly to Enoch: And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before now nor since you have spoken unto your servant, but I am slow of speech and of a slow tongue (Exodus 2:7). Moses also described the difference between himself (all mankind) and God: Now for this once I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed (Genesis 1:2). 

Those who have been part of the Holy Order have been trustworthy to God because they know they are weak. When the Lord says He will make weak things become strong, I do not believe that means a man will become strong but instead means God will provide the strength to those who rely on Him. 

If every angel from Adam…

[Denver coughs] Excuse me. They gave me water, but I think this has been opened. It’s sorta like kissing the predecessor. That reminds me of a story. (Reed, you’re just gonna have to edit this thing.)

So, one year… I need to segregate this.

One year we went to the bike/the motorcycle rally in Sturgis, and that year we went to some rural road that’s north and south but not an interstate, ‘cuz you always take the back roads. And we were stopped at a gas station, and the fellow I was with had brought his daughter. And his daughter and I were sitting on a bench outside the gas station where we’d stopped to get a drink and to refuel and sally forth to our decadence in Sturgis. It’s like “Disneyland in Hell,” according to one of my friend’s wives. So we’re at the gas station, and this rather friendly fellow from Colorado came up to talk to her and to me, and he was just a welder who welded by trade. He had…  I think he had a Shovelhead; it was an older bike. And we had this pleasant exchange, but boy! He was non-hygienic! After he walked away, I said, “I think he had green teeth!” She said, “Yeahhh!”

Well, this bottle of water that she and I had been sharing, and after we’d shared it for awhile, the guy—Green Teeth—came back to get his water bottle he’d left on the bench that had been between the two of us, and I said to her, “Dude! That was like kissing Green Teeth…which is bad for you, but it’s so much worse for me!”

(K, you’ve gotta get that out of there!)

If every angel from Adam down to the present time who ministered to Joseph Smith were to minister to you, and if Joseph and Hyrum were added to those who ministered to you, and if you knew more about the heavens than any man now living, you would still be nothing. We do not and cannot comprehend enough to understand God’s works. The Lord explained to Moses, For my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. Wherefore, no man can behold all my works except he behold all my glory, and no man can behold all my glory and afterward remain in the flesh on the earth (Genesis 1:1). Even if a man knows more about Heaven than anyone alive at the time, he still remains incapable of knowing all that God has in store for mankind. 

We are feeble, unprofitable servants. None of us have anything to brag about. Any boast about being great and having some wonderful assignment from God is arrogant and vainglorious. DO something for God, don’t claim you are going to do so. Then, if you accomplish something, Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips (Proverbs 4:49). 

The arrogance of men is astonishing. Nephi understood this vanity and described it: 

Oh the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves. Wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not; and they shall perish. (2 Nephi 6:9)

The Holy Order is not for the benefit of the holder. No one who views himself or herself as worthy has ever been trusted with it. They (the man and the woman) must be meek like Moses, Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men who were upon the face of the earth (Numbers 7:22). It is troubling, daunting, and perilous. There is no great reward in this life. Here, those who are members of the Holy Order will be doubted, criticized, envied, accused, feared, and cast out from those who they are asked to teach. Only a very few will be willing to give them heed, and many who do listen will still be poor disciples, wayward in their conduct, and misunderstanding what is taught. People rejected the Lord, and more have (and will) reject His messengers. 

God’s message given through a member of the Holy Order is not to be trifled with, either by the holder or by people who are taught. Everything is always voluntary, and teaching must still persuade. Pure knowledge and love unfeigned are the approved tools. Sometimes reproving with sharpness is necessary as well. Gratifying pride or vain ambition are forbidden. 

The approved tools are necessarily what the world regards as “weak.” It is intentionally designed by the Lord to be weak. It is the opposite of the “strong man” model. But if followed, the Holy Order can teach people to become strong in faith, hope, and charity. As it is written, If they humble themselves before me and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them. Behold, I will shew unto the gentiles their weakness. And I will shew unto them that faith, hope, and charity bringeth unto me, the fountain of all righteousness (Ether 5:5). 

Just like Jesus Christ, we believe in being subject to and obeying the law. We are not our own “sovereign” but are subject to obey rules and laws of the land. We render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. There is something called the “sovereign citizen movement,” which has no place in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Sovereign citizens claim the right to reject laws, claiming they have no application to them. 

The “sovereign citizen movement” refers to a group of people who see themselves as answerable only to the laws as they interpret them, not as they are written. Members of the sovereign citizen movement include everyone from litigants and tax protesters, to those who promote financial schemes. They do not believe they are subject to the same governmental statutes that govern the rest of the country. (https://legaldictionary.net/sovereign-citizen/) 

The worst examples of this are Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols whose Oklahoma bombing killed 168 people, 19 of whom were children. They injured another 680 people. The most tranquil examples are tax protestors who refuse to pay federal, state, and local taxes. We should reject all of the “sovereign citizen” ideas because they are contrary to the teaching and example of Jesus Christ. They are contrary to the restored faith. 

While Christ declared His kingdom is not of this world (John 10:7), there are those who think they can found their own heavenly kingdom. The advocates display the worst form of hypocrisy because they cannot detect their own inconsistencies. I have a pamphlet that advocates a form of withdrawing from “Babylon” by denouncing U.S. Citizenship and claiming to be a citizen of the “Kingdom of Heaven.” The pamphlet advocating this is bound in a plastic spiral binding. This ignores the fact that the plastic is likely produced by hydrocarbons requiring an entire fossil fuel industry to provide the pamphlet’s binding. 

It is printed with ink. The ink-making process requires raw materials of pigments, binders, solvents, and additives to produce, all of which require multiple industries to provide the ink for the “Kingdom of Heaven” pamphlet.

It is printed on paper that uses cellulose pulp from a lumber operation, transported by logging trucks to mills, where sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide are used to break down the lignin of the wood for paper manufacture. 

The transportation trucks move along roads paid for by federal and state tax collection. They are safe because of federal, state, and local law enforcement that keep the roads safe for commerce to take place.

All of the raw ingredients used to make the pamphlet were produced and supplied by Babylon. The author is oblivious to his obvious dependence upon what he calls “Babylon.” 

While pretending to be separated from “Babylon,” their hypocrisy knows no limits. They are parasitic and require the ongoing support of the same society, government, and taxpayers they judge as morally inferior. 

Part of the difficulty with those who believe this way is that they seem to be possessed with a false spirit that will not suffer common sense to be spoken in their presence. They advocate their withdrawal from society relentlessly and do not see and will not hear how things really are. It is as if the spirit possessing them will not tolerate the truth to be spoken.

Those who believe they can be more pure by living “off-grid” are fooling themselves. Some, for example, use solar panels instead of connecting to the electrical grid. Solar panels are built using rare earth minerals, mined using heavy equipment, burning fossil fuels, transported using public highways, and utterly dependent on the proper functioning of a complex society that clothes, powers, protects, and serves them. We should be grateful to society, humble about our own dependence, and accepting of our plight. We may not like “Babylon” (as the fool calls the functioning society that succors them), but as long as it exists, we are not and cannot be independent of it.  

Unfortunately, I know people who have bought into these false ideas. Their lives have been burdened, and many of the responsibilities that they should take care of for themselves have been imposed on others. Some have lost family homes, one has been jailed, vehicles without licenses have been impounded, and countless difficulties have resulted from their lawlessness. They foolishly believe they are living a “more pure” and “godly” way of life, while the sad reality is that they are forsaking basic responsibilities they should discharge for themselves.

In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord gave us this instruction to follow:

Truly, truly I say unto you, I give unto you to be the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Behold, do men light a candle and put it under a bushel? [No, they put it] on a candlestick, and it gives light to all that are in the house. Therefore, let your light so shine before this world, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven. (Matthew 3:16; see also 3 Nephi 5:21)

How do you suppose rebellion and lawlessness to be “good works” that “glorify your Father who is in Heaven?” They will instead resent your imposition upon society. We may fool ourselves into believing we are independent of society, but we are not. All of us who obey, honor, and sustain the law are symbiotic with the government and society at large. Those who claim sovereign citizenship are parasitic. None of us are independent. We should acknowledge our plight and stop fooling ourselves.

There would have been no governments of man if the original Holy Order had been followed from the beginning. Because of rebellion against God’s plan, societies divided into governments that supplanted God’s order with kings, magistrates, governors, dictators, and ministers. For the present, governments are necessary for peaceful and ordered societies to function, and therefore deserve our obedience to their laws. But loyalty to God must remain. God’s “kingdom” is indeed not of this world. Man’s kingdoms will be supplanted by a returning Lord. Before then, we should respect and submit to the order of society and contribute to the peace and safety of our communities.

Society will only welcome us if we benefit others. Letting our light shine includes making our towns and neighborhoods better places by our service to others. People should want us. Because we are commanded to become the “salt of the earth” or the  “leaven” that benefits the entire meal, we cannot abandon principles that make us valuable to society.

The First Amendment gives religious societies exemption from taxation. Not individual taxpayers, but the society itself is exempt from taxation. The Lord’s House will be built when a command is given and will be exempt from property taxes. However, despite this Constitutional protection, a voluntary payment to support the surrounding community as an act of appreciation to neighbors is consistent with being “leaven” or “salt” or a “shining light.” I would hope everyone would want to do this.

While we should not be in rebellion against our government, sadly the time will come when:

With famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed ha[th] made a full end of all nations. (T&C 85:3)

That’s not something to look forward to. It will be a time of great mourning and sorrow. Whatever we can do to delay that day and preserve our nation we should do.

Prophecies in the Book of Mormon and modern revelation will be vindicated. Societies will degenerate into violence. The Book of Mormon warns us of the coming destruction of all the gentile nations upon the Americas and all other lands. 

But behold, in the last days, or…the days of the gentiles, yea, behold, all the nations of the gentiles, and also the Jews, both those who shall come upon this land and those who shall be upon other lands, yea, even upon all the lands of the earth, behold, they will be drunken with iniquity and all manner of abominations. And when that day shall come, they shall be visited of the Lord of Hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and with… great noise, and with storm and tempest, and with the flame of devouring fire. And all the nations that fight against Zion and that distress her shall be as a dream of a night vision. (2 Nephi 11:15)

Now, I said I would take a break every hour for about ten minutes, and it’s been an hour. And while that’s not the best places or the happiest note to… We’ll find out just how intimidated you are by how many people now visit the restroom! So, let’s take ten minutes.

—————

Although there are gentile nations that seem sturdy, enduring, and capable, to God they are no more substantial than a dream. They will pass away. The Lord’s people do not need to fight against these governments, nor to cheer on their demise. Fleeing from the coming societal failure is first internal. Our fears, jealousies, shame, guilt separate us from God and each other. We owe honesty and candor to one another. We’re living a lie when we fail to honestly speak to each other. I’ve observed how we deceitfully fail to speak directly to one another but instead tell our complaints to uninvolved others.  That’s not only wrong, it turns an opportunity to improve one another with honest feedback into gossiping behind our backs. 

Gossiping about someone’s misbehavior only makes society worse. On the other hand, honestly confronting each other and truthfully sharing our concerns can heal society. We either grow together peacefully, honestly, and candidly, or we will never have peace between each other. We are told to prepare to live in peace and with our fellow man. Fleeing Babylon is first emotional and internal and will become physical and external as the world’s institutions fail. 

There is nothing about becoming radical, aloof, or isolated that shows we have fled Babylon. Although we should have our eyes open to the wickedness all around us, we can still have compassion on the victims of terrible ideas, false beliefs, and destructive and corrupting social and governmental trends. The world is flooded with lies. Lies were used by Satan to wrap the world in chains at the time of Noah. The widespread lies today are much like the days of Noah. If you want to escape the destruction of Babylon, study and hold tight to truth.

Mormon recorded a specific plea God commanded him to write to us:

Turn, all ye gentiles, from your wicked ways, and repent of your evil doings — of your lyings and deceivings, …of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and…your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations — and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins and be filled with the holy ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel. (3 Nephi 14:1)

Our world is filled with lying, deceit, whoredoms, murder, priestcrafts, envy, and strife. While the exact number is not known, it’s estimated that approximately 60 million American children have been murdered in the womb. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1973 that abortion was a constitutional right, the nation had no say about it. When that decision was reversed in 2022, the issue was returned to each state to decide. As soon as states were given the choice, the people became accountable for the continued slaughter of innocent children. The United States has engaged in a half-century of genocidal slaughter of unborn children. Continuing it when given a choice to end it by the voice of the people makes Americans complicit in mass-murder. Consider this warning from the Book of Mormon: And if the time cometh that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you. Yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction, even as he has hitherto visited this land (Mosiah 13:7). That warning is as applicable to us now as it was to the earlier people who inherited this land. France recently amended their constitution to call abortion a “right.” It is now legal in at least 75 countries (where 40% of the world’s women reside). 

Political parties have learned that fear motivates people to follow politicians who promise safety and protection. Class envy, resentment of others, false allegations of racism, and sexual confusion are political tools. If that course continues uninterrupted, the outcome will be violence. Already, the rhetoric of violence is justified as “restorative justice” and “ending oppression.” 

Eventually the gentile nations will become unsustainable as they descend into violence and confusion. The only preparation for that inevitability is to reject the growing tidal wave of lies. We cannot live in peace with each other if we believe lies about one another.

And it shall come to pass among the wicked that every man that will not take [up] his sword against his neighbor must needs flee [to] Zion for safety, and there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven, and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another. And it shall be said among the wicked, Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible, wherefore we cannot stand. And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion singing with songs of everlasting joy. (T&C 31:15)

There will be a place of safety. But “peace” is not possible if your mind has been demented by confusion and deceit. The truth alone can make you free. Jesus Christ was confronted by false religious teachers and explained why they missed the mark. He explained:

Only if you continue to follow my teachings will you be my students indeed, because you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. The leaders interrupted to claim, We’re Abraham’s descendants, and have never been slaves to any man. Why do you say we will become free? Jesus answered them, …I say unto you, Whoever misses the mark is the slave of errors. And such a slave will not be allowed to be within Abraham’s house in the resurrection, but the Son will remain part of God’s Family forever.

If the Son sets you free from sin, you are free indeed. …If you were really Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. …I am a man that has only told you the truth that I have heard from the Most High God; Abraham would never do such a thing. You follow the example of your real father. …If God were your Father, you would love me, for I am sent by and represent God. I am not speaking my own words or pursuing my own agenda, but the Father’s words and agenda. Why do you fail to comprehend my words? Your refusal to hearken and submit to my teachings makes you deaf indeed. Your father is the accuser, and you share the envy and rebellion of your father. He was a rebellious destroyer from the beginning, and fought against the truth, …he [preferred] lies. [Because] he spreads a lie, he advances his agenda. He is the source of deceit in this fallen world. And because I am the Source of truth, you are unable to believe me. Which of you can truthfully show that I have missed the mark? And if I teach the truth, why do you refuse to believe me? Everyone who follows the Most High God hearkens to God’s words. Because you do not follow the Most High God, you cannot hear him. (TSJ 6:18-19)

The test for mankind is always the same. It’s no different now than when Adam, Enoch, Noah, or Abraham were here. It is no different now than when Christ was here. When the Lord commissions a member of the Holy Order to declare His message, some will hear and be numbered as His sheep. The rest will reject the warning and forfeit accordingly. It’s always been necessary for mankind to face and choose the truth while being confronted with widespread and relentless lies.

If you can find a messenger with a godly message, then give heed. The Holy Order will return as part of the end time being like the days of Noah. I doubt you will hear anyone with real authority from the Lord speak about it as if it were a credential. When it comes to something that is most sacred, fools will damn themselves by falsely claiming that which they do not have:

Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips, for behold, verily I say that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins and I the Lord will own them, otherwise they shall be cut off.

Remember that that which comes from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care and by constraint of the spirit, and in this there is no condemnation. (T&C 50:14-15)

Those who hold it are unlikely to boast of it. Those who boast of it are not likely to be trusted by God. True holders let the false claimants go in peace. Abraham did not challenge the false, feigning claim of Pharaoh. 

Truth alone should be proof of the position. God will do work through whom He chooses and will provide whatever knowledge and authority is necessary to complete the work. Although His servant may be misunderstood, the Lord will see that he is like Moses and can be trusted with His work because he will pursue the Lord’s will and not his own. He will hardly mention authority or keys. There will be no need or desire for a hierarchy to accomplish the work. Much like Enoch and Melchizedek, they will teach.

In a letter from Liberty Jail, Joseph explained how the highest order of Priesthood, or any portion of it, should be used:

[Men’s] hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson — that the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the Powers of Heaven and …Powers of Heaven cannot be controlled nor handled, only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it[’s] true, but when we undertake to cover our sins or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control, or dominion, or compulsion, upon the souls of the children of men in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the Heavens withdraw themselves, the spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left [to] himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God. We have learned by sad experience that it[’s] the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood; only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, by kindness and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul; without hypocrisy and without guile; …your bowels also [should be] full of charity toward all men, and to the household of faith; and virtue garnish your thoughts unceasingly. Then shall your confidence wax strong in the presence of God, and the doctrines of the Priesthood shall distill upon your soul as the dews from heaven. The holy ghost shall be your constant companion, and your scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth, and your dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, …without compulsory means it shall flow unto you for ever and ever. (T&C 139:5-6)

God the Father, who upholds the worlds by His power, uses that power to bless and benefit all of us. Both the good and the evil benefit from the power of God the Father. Christ explained that we should treat one another kindly that you may be the children of your Father who is in Heaven; for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matthew 3:26)

Generations have wanted to hear the words that are being taught today and have not heard them. To hear them is to become accountable for receiving and then acting on what is taught. 

King Benjamin put authority and “kingship” into perspective:

I have not commanded you to come up hither that [you] should fear me, or that [you] should think…I of myself am more than a mortal man. But I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind. Yet as I have been chosen by this people, and was consecrated by my father, and was suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people, and have been kept and preserved by his matchless power to serve thee with all the might, mind, and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me…  

He did not presume that his position made him anything more than another mortal man, subject to infirmities. But he could not deny that the Lord had made him a ruler over the people. Continuing:

…I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold, nor silver, nor any manner of riches of you, neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves [of one] another, or…ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery, or even I have not suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord in all things which he hath commanded you… 

He was not motivated by wealth, but by service. He was a “ruler” and a teacher. And he taught his people to obey the commandments. Continuing:

…And even I myself have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and …there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne. …I have not done these things that I might boast, neither do I tell [you] these things that thereby I might accuse you; but I tell you these things that ye may know that I can answer a clear conscience before God this day. Behold, I say unto you that because I[’ve] said…that I ha[ve] spent my days in your service, I do[n’t] desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God. …behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom, …ye may learn that when [you] are in the service of your fellow beings, [you’re] only in the service of your God… (Mosiah 1:7-8) 

This head of the Holy Order performs his obligation to God and his fellow believer by serving. He is not served. He labors with his own hands to support himself and his family. He does not receive compensation for serving God. Alma abandoned secular authority to serve in the Holy Order. Alma delivered up the judgment seat to Nephihah, and confined himself wholly to the High Priesthood of the Holy Order of God, to the testimony of the word, according to the spirit of revelation and prophecy (Alma 2:5). Teaching and persuading are best accomplished without exerting authority. Continuing:

…Behold, [you] have called me your king. And if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then had not ye ought to labor to serve one another? And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service and yet has been in the service of God, doth merit any thanks from you, oh how had you ought to thank your Heavenly King! (Mosiah 1:8)

God chooses people to serve, and their role is to provide service. God approves those who desire to help others, bless lives, and lose their own ambition. Only a mere servant can be trusted with the Holy Order. This is why the Holy Order can act in the stead of God, and those who benefit from it are not trusting the arm of flesh. Quite the contrary, the words of a servant in the Holy Order are the words of the Lord Himself: 

What I, the Lord, have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself. And though the heaven[s] and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same. (T&C 54:7)

This principle of equivalency does not apply to pretenders. They certainly apply to the man and the woman of the Holy Order. They did apply to Joseph Smith in 1831. They would apply to Hyrum Smith in 1841 when he was given the assignment as Joseph’s older brother. When the Lord appoints such a servant to bless His people, then trust in that servant is not trust in the arm of flesh but trust in the arm of the Lord. It was not idolatry for Abraham to go to Melchizedek for authority and blessing, to pay him tithing, and to recognize and respect him as God’s king and priest. The name “Melchizedek” is a compound word that means “king” and “priest.”

That name-title was given to Shem, the son of Noah. Shem obtained it by descent from Adam through his father, Noah. As revelation explained:

Abraham received the Priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah, …from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers, and from Enoch to Abel who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the Priesthood by the commandment of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man, which Priesthood continues in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years. (T&C 82:10)

The Holy Order was and is intended to establish a “house of order.” In 1836, the saints were invited to reestablish the Lord’s house of order. They hoped to accomplish that by their own initiative: The Lord wanted His House, Even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a House of God (T&C 123:3). They were offered the Holy Order or fullness of the Priesthood, but it was lost unto [them] (T&C 141:10) and taken away from that generation. This was not unexpected. The Lord knew they would fail and had previously promised there would come a time when His House would be set in order (T&C 83:4). This will happen when the Lord reestablishes the Holy Order. The Lord’s “House” is not merely a physical building but includes His Family/House as well.

Egypt’s first Pharaoh tried to perpetuate the Holy Order by imitating what had been in the first generation:

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first Patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. (Abraham 2:3)

The name “Pharaoh” in Egyptian means “great house.” Pharaoh wanted to recreate the “House” meaning the “Family” of God. That is why he was trying “earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first Patriarchal reign.” He wanted to be the head of God’s Family on Earth. However, men cannot establish the Holy Order. It can only be established by God or, as Joseph Smith explained, through Adam (the original father and holder of the right) under the direction of Jesus Christ. 

Those who falsely claim to be apostles of the Lord are not to be trusted, and following them is putting trust in the arm of flesh. When Zion returns, it will be clear who the Lord’s servants are.

The Apostle Paul explained that you cannot have faith unless God sends a messenger to preach the truth: 

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they are sent? — as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! So then faith comes by hearing the word of God. (Romans 1:49)

Those who deliver a living message from the Living Lord are indispensible ministers whose work is needed so that the “residue of men” can have faith in God, but only God can save us. As it is written:

…neither have angels ceased to minister unto the children of men. For behold, they are subject unto him, to minister according to the word of his command, shewing themselves unto them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness. And the office of their ministry is to call men unto repentance, and to fulfill and to do the work of the covenants of the Father which he hath made unto the children of men, to prepare the way among the children of men by declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels…that they may bear testimony of him; [that] by so doing, God prepareth the way that the residue of men may have faith in Christ, that the holy ghost may have place in their hearts, according to the power thereof; and after this manner bringeth to pass the Father the covenants which he hath made unto the children of men. And Christ hath said, If ye will have faith in me, ye shall have power to do whatsoever thing is expedient in me. And he hath said, Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, and have faith in me, that ye may be saved. (Moroni 7:6)

The Holy Order requires both a man and a woman in similitude of Adam and Eve. The couple holds dominion as a father and mother over the Family of God on Earth. That is different than acting as a priest and priestess. God’s House is a house of order. To set it right is something far more important than administering a church or performing priestly rites.

We know that Adam is the one with authority over the Holy Order. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times; i.e., the dispensation of all…times [that] have been and will be revealed through him, from the beginning to Christ, …from Christ to the end of…the dispensations that are to be revealed (T&C 140:3). However, the identity of “Adam” is not just the first man but includes his helpmeet. It is the first couple who are named “Adam,” and Eve stands as partner in this order. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; in the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day [that] they were created and became living souls in the land… (Genesis 3:14).

The role of the woman is greater than most have imagined. We have enough in modern revelation to know of the mother’s importance and power. Consider these words from the Answer to the Prayer for Covenant:

I say [un]to you, Abraham and Sarah sit upon a Throne, for he could not be there if not for Sarah’s covenant with him; Isaac and Rebecca sit upon a Throne, and Isaac likewise could not be there if not for Rebecca’s covenant with him; and Jacob and Rachel sit upon a Throne, and Jacob could not be there if not for Rachel’s covenant with him; and all these have ascended above Dominions and Principalities and Powers, to abide in my Kingdom. (T&C 157:42, emphasis added)

The covenant-making to secure a throne requires the direct participation of the woman. The Holy Order involves both the husband and wife. Refer back to “Our Divine Parents” regarding the Heavenly Mother and the other mothers involved in the Holy Order. The Heavenly Mother declared, By me kings reign and princes decree justice. By me princes rule and nobles, even all the judges of the earth (Proverbs 1:36). That talk went on to explain that it was Eve who identified the successor to Adam. That was her right, just as it is the Heavenly Mother’s right over Her offspring. It was Rebecca’s right to choose Jacob over Esau. We should therefore expect the woman/mother/wife/priestess to be involved directly with the covenant making, who positions her husband in the Holy Order. And we should anticipate that the senior-most mother would also likewise have a say in who succeeds her husband as heir-successor in the Holy Order.

It was the Holy Order that existed as the singular government organization for mankind at the first. There was no “church” or other institution. There was only a family, and it had at the head a father and mother set there by God. They were given dominion over all others. They were to be “husbandmen” to raise up righteous posterity who would walk in the pathway leading back to God.

With the exception of Abraham, all subsequent dispensations were organized different from the first. But the end will return to the beginning, and what was once will be again, for the prophecy must be fulfilled: Now this same Priesthood which was in the beginning shall be in the end of the world also (now this prophecy Adam spoke as he was moved upon by the holy ghost) (Genesis 3:14).

This Order has been offered in earlier dispensations but can be and has been repeatedly rejected. For example, the Holy Order was refused by the Israelites and, therefore, taken from them:

And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew two other [stones of tablet], like unto the first, and I will write upon them also the words of the law, according as they were written [on] the first on the tablets which you broke. But it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the Priesthood out of their midst. Therefore, my Holy Order and the ordinances thereof shall not go before them, for my presence shall not go up in their midst lest I destroy them. But I will give unto them the law as at…first; but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment, for I have sworn in my wrath that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore, do as I have commanded you, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto Mount Sinai, and present yourself there to me in the top of the mount. And no man shall come up with you, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount… (Exodus 18:5, emphasis added)

Modern revelation explains this was a terribly significant loss for ancient Israel.

And this greater Priesthood administers the gospel and holds the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God… 

It is their responsibility to “know”—but not necessarily to teach. Some things are necessary for the greater priesthood holder to understand but to be kept in sacred silence. 

Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest, and without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the Priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto man in the flesh, for without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live…

Part of the instruction of the knowledge of God’s mysteries is given through “ordinances.” These are also kept from public display.

Now, this, Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God, but they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence. Therefore, the Lord, in his wrath (for his anger was kindled against them) swore that they should not enter into his rest — which rest is the fullness of his glory — while in the wilderness.

Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also. And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holds the key of…ministering of angels, and the preparatory gospel, which gospel is the gospel of repentance, and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron, among the children of Israel, until John, whom [the Lord] raised up, being filled with the holy ghost from his mother’s womb. (T&C 82:12-14)

Like Israel at the time of Moses, the Latter-day Saints at the time of Joseph and Hyrum also rejected the Holy Order. In January 1841, the LDS were commanded to build a house unto my name for the Most High [God] to dwell… For there is not place found on…earth that he may come and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he has taken away, even the fullness of the Priesthood (T&C 141:10). Although Joseph Smith restored the fullness of the Gospel, he was unable to deliver the fullness of the Priesthood or Holy Order after the Order of the Son of God. The required temple was never completed, and the time and opportunity available to them passed. That rejection was foreshadowed in an 1831 revelation foretelling a future moment when the Lord will speak from Heaven declaring:

Hearken, O you nations of the earth, and hear the words of that God who made you: O you nations of the earth, how often would I have gathered you as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, but you would not? How oft have I called upon you by the mouth of my servants, and by the ministering of angels, and by my own voice, and by the voice of [thundering], …by the voice of lightnings, and by the voice of tempests, and …the voice of earthquakes and great hailstorms, …by the voice of famines and [pestilence] of every kind, and by the great sound of a trump, and by the voice of judgments, and by the voice of mercy all the day long, and by the voice of glory and honor and the riches of eternal life, and would have saved you with an everlasting salvation, but you would not? (T&C 29:8)

The question remains open as to whether we will allow the Holy Order to function among us. The Lord will permit it. He’s willing to identify those He will permit to enter into His House (meaning His Family). The question is, who will welcome it? The conditions today are the same as at the time of Adam, Enoch, Melchizedek, and Abraham. Few there will be that will find it.

Predictably, as soon as some learn of the content of this talk, they will claim to be worthy, perhaps even in possession of the Holy Order. All such claimants are liars and deceivers. Whenever there is a couple appointed to the Holy Order, there are always competing voices, pretenders, opponents, and deluded others acting in direct opposition. 

The Book of Mormon explains for us the direct connection between repentance and obedience in obtaining this Order. This was and is required not only for Melchizedek but also for the people who will welcome the return of the Order:

Now as I said concerning the Holy Order, or this High Priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God. And it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish. Therefore, they were called after this Holy Order and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb. Now they, after being sanctified by the holy ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence. And there were many, an exceeding great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God. And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest. Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same Order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the High Priesthood for ever. And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes — yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed. Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his Order, or…being his Order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.

Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem, and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abominations — yea, they had all gone astray; [and] they were full of all manner of wickedness. But Melchizedek, having exercised…faith and received the office of the High Priesthood according to the Holy Order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent. And Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore, he was called the Prince of Peace, for he was the King of Salem; and he did reign under his father. Now there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater. Therefore, of him they have more particularly made mention. Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; [and] if ye will wrest them, it shall be to your own destruction. (Alma 10:1-2)

When he was the servant, Melchizedek preached repentance. He didn’t claim self-importance, establish an organization, or claim an office. He preached repentance.  

In a sermon on August 27, 1843, Joseph Smith explained, “The Holy Order is the channel through which all knowledge, doctrine, the plan of salvation, and every important matter is revealed from Heaven” (JSP, Documents Vol. 7, p.435; TPJS, p.166-167; WJS, p.38). Because it is the mechanism God uses to reveal from Heaven what is necessary for the salvation of mankind, His messenger will preach repentance. 

This world was organized to provide an opportunity for every soul sent here to be added upon (Abraham 6:2). But it was never expected that souls would develop equally. Because of apostasy, an overwhelming number of mankind have lived without any opportunity to receive and accept the Gospel. It will nevertheless be “tolerable” for them in the resurrection. But when the Gospel is taught to and rejected by people, the resurrection will not be “tolerable” for them. People who live and die without learning of God’s law are also redeemed and unaccountable for what was never shown to them.

From among the few who have the Gospel preached to them, the “fullness of the Priesthood” has been available to teach very few indeed. How often God would have gathered people as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings? But mankind has continually returned to a state of apostasy, rejecting the gift that was (and now is) continually offered by a gracious God:

You who are quickened by a portion of the Celestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fullness. And they who are quickened by a portion of the terrestrial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fullness. And also, they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fullness. And they who remain, shall also be quickened. Nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they [were] willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received. For what does it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive[s] not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift. (T&C 86:4)

If there is a need to fix blame for the limited opportunities mankind has had for being gathered by God and protected by Him, then the blame is upon our ancestors who rejected the Gospel. The blame is not on a willing God. Our unwillingness to let Him govern us through the Holy Order has resulted in this world descending into chaos and sin. The path back is through repenting and returning to God’s path.

The Holy Order was established before the world and was conferred on Adam. It could have been a continuous guide to all of Adam’s descendants, but men loved sin and surrendered to carnality because of their weakness. Even as Adam was preaching the truth, Satan came among them, saying, I am also a Son of God. And he commanded them, saying, Believe [it] not. And they believed not, and loved Satan more than God. And men began from that time forth to be carnal, sensual, and devilish (Genesis 3:5). 

Although mankind rejected Adam’s preaching, God never withdrew Adam’s commission. He continues to hold that position and will do so until the end of this cycle of creation or the end of the world. All of the later forms of priesthood are inferior to the original.

The Holy Order requires a restoring of great knowledge that’s hidden from the world. The fathers knew it would be restored in the last days and anxiously anticipated its return. 

The Holy Order was conferred during the creation, when Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden and were given dominion over the creation. Then, after the fall, Adam’s initiation into the Order continued in this documented event:

And it came to pass [that] when the Lord had spoken with Adam our father that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was [carried] away by the spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water. And thus he was baptized, and the spirit of God descended upon him. And thus he was born of the spirit and became quickened in the inner man. And he heard [the] voice out of Heaven saying, You are baptized with fire and with the holy ghost. This is the record of the Father and the Son, [and] from henceforth and for ever. And you are after the Order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from…eternity to all eternity. Behold, you are one in me, a son of God. And thus [all may] become my sons. Amen. (Genesis 4:10)

Adam would teach his descendants these principles as part of the initiations. Our Scriptures do not provide the details. However, we learn more about the Holy Order from the account involving Melchizedek in The Old Covenants, Genesis 7:17-23: 

And Melchizedek lifted up his voice and blessed [him]…  

Melchizedek ordained Abraham. However, details are missing. But the record tells us why Melchizedek was chosen to hold the Holy Order:

Now Melchizedek was a man of faith who wrought righteousness. And when a child, he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire. And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained a high priest after the Order of the covenant which God made with Enoch, it being after the Order of the Son of God, which Order came not by man, nor the will of men, neither by father nor mother, neither…beginning of days nor end of years, but of God. And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed [in] his name.

For God, having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself that everyone being ordained after this Order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, …divide the seas, …dry up waters, to turn them out of their course, to put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God, to do all things according to his will, according to his command subdue principalities and powers; and this by the will of the Son of God which was from before the foundation of the world. And men having this faith, coming up unto this Order…were translated and taken up into Heaven.

…now Melchizedek was a priest of this Order, therefore he obtained peace in Salem and was called the Prince of Peace. And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained Heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch which God had before taken, separating it from the earth, having reserved it unto the latter days, or the end of the world, and has said and sworn with an oath that the heavens and the earth should [not] come together, and the sons of God should be tried so as by fire. And this Melchizedek, having thus established righteousness, was called the King of [Peace] by his people…

…he lifted up his voice and he blessed Abram, being the high priest and…keeper of the storehouse of God, him whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor. [Therefore], Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him, more than that which he [needed]. And it came to pass that God blessed Abram, and gave unto him riches, and honor, and lands for an everlasting possession, according to the covenant which he had made…according to the blessing with which Melchizedek had blessed him.

And it came to pass that after these things, the word of the Lord came [to] Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram. I will be your shield. I will be your [exceeding] great reward. And according to the [blessing] of my servant, [the “blessing of my servant” is referring to Melchizedek], I will give unto you. And Abram said, Lord God, what will you give me, seeing I go childless and Eliezer of Damascus was made the steward of my house? …Abram said, Behold, to me you have given no seed and [no] one born in my house is my heir. …behold, the word of the Lord came unto him again, saying, This shall not be your heir, but he…shall come forth out of your own body [and] shall be your heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and…said, Look now toward heaven…tally the stars, if you[’re] able to number them. …he said unto him, So shall your seed be. …Abram said [to the] Lord…how will you give me this land for an everlasting inheritance? And the Lord said, Though you were dead, yet am I not able to give it to you? And if you shall die, yet you shall possess it. For the day comes that the Son of Man shall live. But how can he live if he be not dead? He must first be quickened.

…it came to pass that Abram looked forth…saw the days of the Son of Man, and was glad. And his soul found rest, and he believed in the Lord, and the Lord counted it to him for righteousness. (Genesis 8:18-23)

The Book of Mormon has 25 different places expounding on the Holy Order. The Book of Mormon has more information than any other book of Scripture about that subject. It is first mentioned in 2 Nephi chapter 5 in The New Covenants version.

The words of Jacob, the brother of Nephi, which he spake unto the people of Nephi: Behold, my beloved brethren, I, Jacob, having been called of God and ordained after the manner of his Holy Order, and having been consecrated by my brother Nephi, unto whom ye look as a king or a protector and on whom ye depend for safety, behold, ye know that I have spoken unto you exceeding many things. (2 Nephi 5:1)

For Jacob to have been “called of God and ordained,” it required someone to ordain him; he identifies Nephi as the source. 

When and how did Nephi obtain the Holy Order of God?  Before his family migrated across the Arabian peninsula, God spoke to him, 

…the Lord spake unto me, saying, Blessed art thou, Nephi, because of thy faith, for thou hast sought me diligently with lowliness of heart. And inasmuch as ye…keep my commandments, ye shall prosper and…be led to a land of promise, yea, even a land which I have prepared for you, a land which is choice above all other lands. …And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren. (1 Nephi 1:9)

Those words, “a ruler and a teacher” identify a role that belongs to the Holy Order. But this is a conditional promise of a future ordination. After that promise, by faith Nephi obtained the plates of Laban, studied the records of the fathers and the prophets, broke the bands from his hands and feet, beheld a vision of God’s condescension, witnessed things not lawful for him to teach, held the power of God in his hands, built a ship and led others across the oceans to a promised land, recorded God’s dealings in Scripture for his people, and summarized God’s blessings to him in these words:

I know in whom I have trusted. My God hath been my support, he hath led me through mine afflictions in the wilderness and he hath preserved me upon the waters of the great deep. He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh. He hath confounded mine enemies, unto the causing of them to quake before me. Behold, he hath heard my cry by day, …he hath given me knowledge by visions in the night time. And by day have I waxed bold in mighty prayer before him; yea, my voice have I sent up on high, and angels came down and ministered unto me. And upon the wings of his spirit hath my body been carried away up on [an] exceeding[ly] high [mountain]. And mine eyes have beheld great things — yea, even too great for man — therefore I was bidden that I should not write them.

…I have seen so great things, [and] the Lord, in his condescension unto the children of men, hath visited me in so much mercy… (2 Nephi 3:7-8)

These accomplishments are evidence of Nephi’s ordination, however, he omits mention of the actual event for himself. He does record his brother, Jacob’s, ordination to the Holy Order by him. This is also typical of someone having authority. The evidence is not in proclaiming status, but in providing service.

The Holy Order continued for generations with the descendants of Nephi. Alma the Younger claimed to have been called after the Holy Order, and what he taught about it is the best proof he was a member of the Order. Here is what he wrote about his calling:

And Alma went and began to declare the word of God unto the church which was established in the valley of Gideon, according to the revelation of the truth [and] the word which had been spoken by his fathers, and according to the spirit of prophecy which was in him — according to the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God who should come to redeem his people from their sins — and the Holy Order by which he was called. And thus it is written. Amen. (Alma 4:2)

Alma the Younger gives the best scriptural exposition and the foremost description for why an individual is ordained to the Holy Order in this life: 

And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children. And I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests after his Holy Order, which was after the Order of his Son…

This clarifies that Alma is speaking of the original Holy Order that was after the Order of the Son of God. This is the priestly authority that many of the Nephite prophets held. This is why Joseph Smith called the record of the Nephites the most correct book and the keystone of our religion.  The text was composed by people within the Holy Order who were adept in the required knowledge, experience, and wisdom to compose a correct amount [account].

…to teach these things unto the people… 

This is the primary role of the Holy Order. Enoch led a city to peace by teaching. By obeying Enoch’s teachings, his city was translated into Heaven.

And those priests were ordained after the Order of his Son in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption… 

Now we’re getting into some pretty deep water that I don’t want to interrupt for lunch. It’s a little ahead, and I’m gonna end there for lunch. And I’ve had a couple people ask me if I was willing to take questions. Here’s the problem: You don’t know what’s gonna be said as we’re going forward, so the answer to your question is very likely gonna be heard a little later in this same talk. So, ONLY in relation to anything that has been said up to this point and nothing further. Does anyone want to ask a question, or would you like more time to eat lunch?

Okay, we’ve got one hand up here. Someone’s not all that hungry.

Yes?

QUESTION 1: Just a question of… Earlier you’d said that it’s not (I don’t know the exact word, but…) “permissible” with someone who the Lord said identified as holding the Holy Order, so it made my thoughts go to Paul and Peter. Did Paul make a mistake there? Or is that something different?

DS: No, in fact, the two of them are described…

[Audience interjection]

Oh, the question was, it’s not appropriate for people within the order to compete with one another; what about Peter and Paul?

Okay, Peter was a very rigid man, and Paul was a very enthusiastic man, and in terms of personality types, they were probably two of the most incompatible people that you will ever meet. And yet, both of them were servants of God and called and asked and given assignments. Peter primarily labor,ed as Paul with disgust pointed out, among the Jews, so much so that he accommodated them in ways that Paul would not. But then later… Later, Paul gets Timothy circumcised, rather abruptly, in a non-hygienic way that would never be approved by a modern physician who would be considerably more hygienic in the process of accomplishing such a feat. And so, when it came right down to the rub, there were moments of conduct by Peter, on the one hand, accommodating the Jews, and Paul, on the other hand, accommodating the Jews, that you could put either of them in the exact same place and you would detect no difference between how they were proceeding and what they were doing. That being said, when they got together, Paul talks about how he “withstood Peter to his face.” Well, good on you, Paul. Peter probably needed that. And Paul probably needed his comeuppance. 

Look, the primary focus and the primary reason for calling Paul was to take a message into the gentile world. Peter was indeed the one who saw the blanket descend with the unclean animals on it and received the admonition to “take and eat” and then protested that that would ceremonially violate the law to which he was holding fidelity. But he got the vision! He was the one that it was instructed. It was Paul, however, who became the messenger to the Gentiles. And so, I mean, it’s… So between the two of them they licked the platter clean. You didn’t get the job done with one, and you didn’t get the job done altogether with the other. You actually needed both of them in order to accomplish the work. Paul did NOT supplant Peter. And Peter did not supplant Paul. They were disagreeable with one another…which oughtta be another lesson about how godly people don’t necessarily have personality traits that are fully and completely compatible. I mean, “Hail, fellow well-met,” is not necessarily the greeting that…

In fact, Joseph Smith, in a revelation, gave words that are supposed to be spoken when a brother meets a brother at the entry to the temple, and they are to greet one another with a holy kiss. And the words of greeting are proscribed! It’s not, “Oh, crap! He’s here! ‘Hey….’” It’s specific words. “Art thou a brother?” or if it’s more than one, “Art thou brethren?” And then you greet one another with a recitation and a holy kiss. It’s kinda French. It’d make Aaron feel at home. Maybe he’ll be the greeter!

Yes, okay!

QUESTION 2: Sorry, I just wanted… I wonder if you’re gonna speak more about the woman’s role or what it means to a woman or… [crosstalk]

DS: Maybe. Maybe. Maybe we will, and maybe we’ll just have her [Stephanie] get up here and talk for a little while about something or another. She…yeah.

Look, this is all one singular, self-contained exposition about a subject, the most alarming portions of which will come after lunch. Now I know you guys had the sacrament and you drank wine, and it put people into a…one of those wine comas. I’m hoping that you don’t come back in a food coma for this afternoon because there’s something valuable about having the content sounded live in your own ears in the moment that it gets offered. And I can’t… I don’t think I can adequately express the importance of the content of this material. It will, I think, dawn on you at some point. I’m hoping not while we’re still together, and that I can catch an eclipse. 

But we’re gonna go ahead and end early for lunch ‘cuz it’s gonna take awhile. There is a lunch that people have paid for, and that… You’ll [Joe Jensen] take care of that? Okay.

—————

K, so the primary responsibility—primary, probably the foremost responsibility—is to teach. But we have this in Alma’s description: 

…those priests were ordained after the Order of his Son in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption…

So there’s a connection between the manner in which the ordination is done and proving up the mission of Christ. They’re intended to reflect the Son of God. It’s the Son of God who’s going to provide for the redemption. But only one generation was there and heard Him teach. Other generations needed examples that allowed them to believe in and anticipate the redemption through the Son of God. And that is also needed now.

The Son of God would only teach what the Father told Him to teach. I am Son Ahman, and that I have done nothing on my own; but as my Father has taught me, I repeat his words (TSJ 6:16) This is what the Son of God would do and what every one ordained after His Order would likewise do. That’s the manner to look forward to Christ and to also look back and understand about Christ. 

…this is the manner after which they were ordained: being called and prepared from the foundation of the world, according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works in the first place, being left to choose good or evil; therefore they, having chosen good, and exercising exceeding great faith, are called with a holy calling — yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such… 

Probably the most important single description of how the Holy Order operates.

All the qualifying individuals for the Holy Order—all of that qualifying—happened before this cycle of creation. When the “foundation” or beginning planning of the world was first underway, God in His Wisdom knew it would be necessary to send messengers who would reliably teach others. Those chosen had already proven to be loyal to God and shown great faith in God’s Son. However, even if they were prepared before the foundation of the world, they needed to be initiated into the Order in mortality. Abraham was chosen before the creation but still was not part of the Holy Order in mortality until initiated by Melchizedek.

…thus they hav[ing] been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds (while, if it had not been for this, they might have had as great a privilege as their brethren — or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren — thus, this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts…

That happened BEFORE; it happened before this creation. That was when the qualifying took place. That’s when Abraham qualified. Some showed unwavering devotion to God. They had proven reliable. Others would not qualify because they would risk failing and leading souls astray. They risked rejecting God’s spirit because of hardness of hearts—or in other words pride and lack of humility. They questioned and argued, doubted and challenged. They had an inconsistent record of conduct, sometimes hesitating when others remained steadfast and true.

The risk of blind guides falling in a ditch and leading others to fall in that same ditch was disqualifying. And yet we still see those who, without possessing the required calling and ordination, claim they should be leaders and teachers. Even the pre-qualified still need  to be “called” here.

The Holy Order is not for the benefit of the servant. Its purpose is to allow others to “enter into his rest” or receive the redemption of the Son of God offered to all. The Holy Order is to “teach his commandments” in a reliable, authorized, and dependable way. It’s not to get acclaim, attract a following, or preside over anyone. The responsibility is to teach God’s commandments.

…which Order was from the foundation of the world, or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity according to his foreknowledge of all things… 

Because the qualification and ordination was first accomplished from the foundation of the world, it took place before the first day was set for this world. Therefore it is without any beginning of days. And because that authority will endure into the afterlife, it will not come to any end in this world where years are counted. Hence it is “from eternity to…eternity.”

Now they were ordained after this manner, being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance… (Alma 9:10)

An ordinance is required. Alma confirmed there is a required “holy ordinance” for someone who qualified before the foundation of the world. They need to receive that holy ordinance before they are part of the High Priesthood of the Holy Order. That’s why Abraham went to Melchizedek to obtain the ordinance. 

The description of those who obtain the Holy Order was given in the Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory on February 16, 1832. They are identified as those,

…who overc[a]me by faith and are sealed by that Holy Spirit of Promise, which the Father sheddeth forth upon all those who are just and true.

They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

They are they into whose hands the Father hath given all things [dominion].

They are they who are priests and kings, who, having received of his fullness and of his glory, are priests of the Most High [God] after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the Order of the Only Begotten Son. Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God. Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. And they shall overcome all things. Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let them glory in God who shall subdue all enemies under his feet. (T&C 69:10-13, emphasis added)

Here the scripture uses the present tense to call them “gods, even the sons of God”; not that they will be, but that they are presently in that position. And yet, consistent with all we have been told about worship of God only, this same description teaches, “let no man glory in man, but rather let them glory in God who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.” These are consistent statements. The appointment to the Holy Order does not make the recipients anything other than servants, teachers, and guides who can reliably report on their errand from the Lord. They deliver God’s words but are not to be worshipped. 

While these words have been around since 1832 and generally regarded as promising status to the faithful in the afterlife, when understood in light of the Holy Order, they take on a different meaning. They describe specifically and exclusively that group.

Some comparatively few qualified for the Holy Order before this world’s current cycle of creation. But remember, the course of the Lord is one eternal round (1 Nephi 3:5). Things repeat, and there are worlds without end (T&C 69:28). 

This is not our “first estate,” nor will it be our last. Creation is endless, and God has declared that His [words] are without end, …for they never cease (Genesis 1:1). God explained to Moses:

For behold, there are many worlds which have passed away by the word of my power, and there are many [worlds] also which now stand, and numberless are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

And it came to pass that Moses spoke unto the Lord, saying, Be merciful unto your servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens; and then your servant will be content. And the Lord God spoke unto Moses of the heavens, saying, These are many and they cannot be numbered unto man, but they are numbered unto me for they are mine. And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof, even so shall another come. And there is no end to my works, neither my words. (Ibid. 6-7)

We have a partial account of events before this cycle of creation. There were those who rebelled during this earlier existence or estate. Because it happened prior to this cycle of creation, it is referred to as the “first estate,” but it might as well be called an “earlier estate” or a “prior estate.” We read:

And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon, and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; …they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

And the Lord said, Who shall I send? …one answered like unto the Son of Man, Here am I, send me. And another answered and said, Here am I, send me. And the Lord said, I will send the first. And the second was angry and kept not his first estate, …at that day many followed after him. (Abraham 6:2-3)

The second who did not keep his first estate was cast down and drew a third of the stars of Heaven with him as he fell to Earth. It’s described as,

…an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten…(whom the Father loved, [and] was in the bosom of the Father), was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son, and was called Perdition, for the Heavens wept over him. (T&C 69:6)

That earlier tragedy before this cycle of creation is not dissimilar to a description of events to happen later, at the end of this cycle: 

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be set loose out of his prison and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and encompassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city. (Revelation 8:6)

It is all one eternal round, worlds without end, opportunities to prove faithful without end. Accordingly, we can prove faithful in this present estate so that what comes in the next cycle will let it be said of us:

…being called and prepared from the foundation of the world, according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works in the first place, being left to choose good or evil; therefore they, having chosen good, and exercising exceeding…faith, are called with a holy calling… (Alma 9:10)

We tip the scales by our choices, and by so doing, we change all eternity. We change eternity by the choices we make here (T&C 159:13).

There is an eternal balance, with infinite results, hanging on our every choice. We stand in peril or stand in glory depending upon our every thought and deed (Ibid. 14).

Five minutes of mortality are more precious than all the prior eternities of pre-earth life. Only here can you demonstrate the faith from which creation itself was born (Ibid. 15).

Why not view this moment as another “first place” and choose to obey God, in faith, to have your good works follow you into your next estate?

Our noble acts and righteous deeds are celebrated in joy and song in the corridors of Heaven. As we choose God and His ways, the Hosanna Shout rings out in Heaven for such choices. We are the place where eternity’s conflicts are now being played out. We are the battleground between infinite good and infinite failure (Ibid. 17).

What you do with your thoughts, words, and deeds NOW matters. Whether you will repent and follow Christ determines an eternal course.

In contrast, those consigned to hell to suffer until the end follow a religion with only a form of godliness, while denying the redemptive power of following Christ’s servants. They are described in the revelation in these words:

These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. These are they who suffer the wrath of God on…earth. These are they who suffer the vengeance of Eternal fire. These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fullness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work, when he shall deliver up the kingdom and present it unto the Father… (T&C 69:27)

They love lies because they’re comforting. Lies tell you there’s no need to repent. Lies promise you salvation without obedience. The scope of their lies is particularly alarming. They claim to follow true but deceased prophets but never accept a living testimony of Jesus:

For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas. These are they who say they are some of one and some of another: some of Christ, and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch… 

…every one of those were actual servants called by the Lord. And we have today those who claim to be absolute, reliable, trustworthy advocates of Isaiah’s works that can tell you (because Jesus made reference to “great are the words of Isaiah,” you know, He commends them to us to study) that he is now a reliable servant and light to be yielded acknowledgment to because he’s teaching you of Isaiah. These are liars who are thrust down to hell, and they say they are “of Isaiah.” 

Oh, and there are those who say, “Torah, Torah, Torah”—not as in the attack on Pearl Harbor, but as in, “You can’t get there without Torah!” They are “of Moses.” They are liars, and they are damned to hell. (I believe they’ll be listening to this.)

…but received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenants… 

They rejected the Holy Order in the form of the servant sent to them. They prefer to think themselves safe by acknowledging known but dead prior messengers, but they dare not risk letting a living, contemporary representative of the Holy Order to teach them.

Reestablishing the Holy Order involves a new dispensation with those who went before providing the foundation for the work to go forward. Angelic ministers needed to come at the start of Joseph’s dispensation and were needed again. 

…all declaring each one: Their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their Priesthood.

[Giving] line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little…there a little, giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come and confirming our hope. (T&C 151:15-17)

This is required to restore the Holy Order any time it’s been lost. The Order is not just a form of priesthood but also involves a family connection to the first fathers. For the holder, it establishes a role within that family. The senior-most living couple in that order stands in the same position as did Adam and Eve. It is essential that the Holy Order be reestablished prior to the Second Coming so that the events of Adam-Ondi-Ahman can take place. To link together God’s Family necessarily follows the precedent of Abraham because it includes adoption of the living holder on Earth to the “fathers who are in heaven” (as Joseph Smith put it). The identity of those “fathers in heaven” and the identity of those who have held the Holy Order are the same. God’s family must be linked together on both sides of the veil.

The fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is open to everyone and publicly invites all to accept it and benefit. Each person must decide if they will repent, forsake their sins, be baptized, and accept Christ’s offer. The fullness of the Priesthood or Holy Order is not open to everyone, but when it exists, it can benefit all those who accept the fullness of the Gospel. Only Adam, under the direction of Jesus Christ, can decide if a couple will be inducted into the fullness of the Priesthood or Holy Order. 

Not all people are going to want the fullness of the Gospel. Every soul is different from every other soul, and no two have the same desire for light and truth. Some souls are added upon by only having the opportunity to witness light and dark each day and night or to experience hot and cold each yearly cycle. Newborn children experience hunger and thirst, and eat and drink to understand the contrast. This world presents contrasts to inform everyone of eternal truths in this mortal experience. The fullness of the Gospel has only been present intermittently, with long periods of apostasy. Even when present, the majority of those living at the time know nothing about it.

This is wise and fair. It’s part of a grand design to patiently allow all of mankind to progress suitably. For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word[s], yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore, we see that the Lord doth counsel in his wisdom, according to that which is just and true (Alma 15:13). Apart from the fullness of the Gospel, there are deeply spiritual, singularly understanding, very pure souls who inherited Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, or other forms of God’s word. They are also remembered by and precious to the Lord. Contrast that with some who have the fullness of the Gospel, miss the point altogether, and are marred with conceit, animosity, and self-righteousness.

As the fullness of the Priesthood or Holy Order is restored, do not expect it to be broadly distributed, openly available, or discussed in public forums. Some portions of the Gospel have always been unlawful to disclose in that manner. The Apostle Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians about being caught up to the third heaven: …he was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words, which…is not lawful for…man to utter (2 Corinthians 1:41). The heavens were opened, and the witness ascended to hear something true and faithful. Yet it was not lawful for him to tell it.

Some things belong to God alone to tell. We have no right to impose those things on others, particularly if the result will be to condemn them for their rejection of the truth.

Yet all are invited to behold and learn from God. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon reported after the heavens were opened to them:

Great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his kingdom which he shewed unto us, which surpasseth all understanding, in glory, and in might, and in dominion, which [we were] commanded…we should not write while we were yet in the spirit, and are not lawful for men to utter…(T&C 69:28-29)

There are true things that are part of the Gospel. God is willing to reveal them. They include:

But we don’t get to teach them, and we aren’t able to help others to understand them. They are God’s (possessive, capital G, God’s). And those who behold them are gods (small g, non-possesive). 

Alma explained how any of us gain this sacred but hidden knowledge:

It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; …[but they’re] laid under a strict command…they shall not impart — only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. …therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word. (Alma 9:3)

Even as they get knowledge, “they’re laid under a strict command they shall not impart.” There are people who use their spiritual experiences as a credential. There ARE people who do that. One fellow tries to get people to listen to him because he claims to have meetings with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and even the ancestors of the person he attempted to persuade. He uses his spiritual experiences as a credential. Another fellow claims, without having accomplished anything to fulfill an assignment from the Lord, he is special, deserving deference, respect, and financial support for his mission.

Then we have so many versions of the sealed Book of Mormon that it would now require a library card catalogue to keep a complete inventory. And the “fan fiction” volumes of apocryphal, pseudo-prophetic materials multiplies at an astonishing rate. All around us, there are false claims of new Scripture.

More alarming, however, are our own weaknesses and foolishness. We gossip and assume and condemn. The Lord has told us how He deals with our failures: If men intend no offense, I take no offense, but if they are taught and should have obeyed, then I reprove and correct, and forgive and forget (T&C 157:58).

We welcome many false ideas and errors. We shouldn’t. We can do better.

Alma’s extensive teaching about the Holy Order continued in chapter 10 of The New Covenants. He wrote:

Now as I said concerning the Holy Order, or this High Priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God. …it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish. Therefore, they were called after this Holy Order and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb…

God’s conditions are the same for everyone. We are all required to repent and work righteousness. That is required before the Holy Order is conferred. The words “ordain,” “sanctified,” and “washed” should be understood in the context of an ordinance (or a process). There is an initiation that is needed. It results in “white garments” or, in other words, a cleansed and forgiven soul through the Lamb of God.

To clarify, they should not be considered… When it says they “could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence,” they should not… That should be considered as absolutely refusing to return to a sinful life without that being abhorrent to them. Their gratitude to God is the product of knowing Them. The Family connection alters the way they view themselves, God, and this life. The “rest of the Lord” removes uncertainty about their relationship to God. They understand they have been made Theirs. On that subject, their minds are at rest; but in this world, there is continuing trouble and challenges. The term “rest” is  characteristic of the afterlife, not something involving ease in this world where the sweat of our brow remains our lot.

…bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest…

Notice that, as in many other places, actual “repentance” requires “fruit” or action to be undertaken. It’s not enough just to feel regret; behavior also has to change. Repentance is always accompanied by outward evidence of an inner change. 

Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his Order or it being his Order… 

Abraham was faithful to and showed respect for the head of the Holy Order before he could be initiated. Alma confirms “these ordinances were given” to induct a couple into the Order. It‘s not just laying on hands. More was and is required, and even Father Abraham, with all he had experienced, still needed these ordinances. Alma understood this subject and wrote truthfully about that.

But Melchizedek, having exercised mighty faith and received the office of the High Priesthood according to the Holy Order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent. (Alma 10:1-2)

Preaching repentance was and is the distinguishing role for the Holy Order in this world. In this description, we should ask: Who was identified as “his people?”—meaning Melchizedek’s people. I do not think it was just a random audience who heard him teach. I think “his people” were those few who heard him teach and responded by repenting. There were likely far more who heard him than who repented. As with any age in history, few will be gathered because only a few will ever respond and repent.

Melchizedek was qualified to teach and preach reliably and truthfully by his knowledge of God’s great mysteries. Similarly, a messenger like Joseph Smith had far more experience beyond the veil than he ever taught or revealed. His First Vision ends with this comment: …and many other things did he say unto me which I cannot write at this time (JSH 2:5). Melchizedek and Joseph were no different from many other messengers who likewise knew far more than they revealed. God does not trust a gossip, nor are the heavens supposed to be the object of voyeurism. 

“Heed and diligence” are recited like a formula in the Scriptures. The great difference between Nephi and his older brothers was the heed and diligence present in Nephi and absent in the older brothers. The first verse of the Book of Mormon describes Nephi as being taught somewhat in all the learning of my father (1 Nephi 1:1). As a result, he was able to gain knowledge of the mysteries of God and had command of the learning of the Jews, and the language of the Egyptians (ibid). Later, Nephi reported about how he and his father had responded to God:

And it came to pass that thus far I and my father had kept the commandments where[fore] the Lord had commanded us. And we…obtained the record which the Lord had commanded us and searched them and found that they were desirable, …even of great worth unto us, insomuch that we could preserve the commandments of the Lord unto our children. Wherefore, it was wisdom in the Lord that we should carry them [forth] with us as we journeyed in the wilderness toward[s] the land of promise. (Ibid. 23, emphasis added)

All of those are referring exclusively and solely toLehi and Nephi, and none of it is referring to the other members of the family. This is about Lehi and Nephi and how they had treated the commandments and the Scriptures. Nephi’s older brothers lacked that same diligence in pursuing godliness. The older brothers apparently lacked even the ability to read the Scriptures, and therefore, Nephi read the plates of brass to them:

I, Nephi, did teach my brethren these things. And it came to pass that I did read many things to them which were engraven upon the plates of brass, that they might know concerning the doings of the Lord in other lands among people of old. And I did read many things unto them which were written in the [book] of Moses. …that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer, I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning. (Ibid. 6:1)

Nephi’s ability to read and teach were the result of his heed and diligence over his lifetime. Like oil in the lamps of the virgins, heed and diligence secured for Nephi a lifetime of light and truth. 

Although they claimed the right of government over Nephi, the older brothers could not understand the Scriptures even when they were read to them:

…after I, Nephi, had read these things which were engraven upon the plates of brass, my brethren came unto me and said unto me, What mean these things which [you] have read? (Ibid. 7:1)

Without heed and diligence, Nephi would not have been appointed by God to be a ruler and teacher over his brethren (ibid. 1:9). He studied, obeyed, and taught from the Scriptures. 

The Scriptures are central to our discussions, teachings, and focus. The words of the Covenant ask us to receive the scriptures approved by the Lord as a standard to govern you in your daily walk in life, to accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant, and to use the scriptures to correct yourselves and to guide your words, thoughts, and deeds (T&C 158:3). Teachings should be anchored in the Scriptures. It should be rare when it becomes necessary to provide any new personal revelation. If there is any scriptural precedent that can be used to teach or reveal a point, then that should be used. Nephi taught and wrote using the words of Isaiah to introduce his great revelation. His brother, Jacob, also taught and wrote this way, using the words of Zenos as his own prophecy.

It takes experience to distinguish true revelation from false revelation. Every gift of the spirit can be the route of a lying spirit used to deceive us. Joseph Smith delivered a lengthy sermon on the presence of false spirits and the necessity of detecting and dismissing them. I adopt his words. I’m putting all of them into the paper. I’ll read excerpts today:

…It is evident from the Apostle’s [writing] that many false spirits existed in their day, and had “gone forth into the world,” and that it needed intelligence which God alone could impart to detect false spirits, and to prove what spirits were of God…Spirits of all kinds have been manifested, in every age and [amongst almost] all people: if we go among the Pagans they have their Spirits, [and] the Mahommedans, the Jews, the Christians, the Indians; all have their Spirits, all have a supernatural agency; and all contend that their Spirits are of God. Who shall solve the mystery?…“many spirits are abroad in the world,” One great evil is that men are ignorant of the nature of Spirits; their power, laws, government, intelligence &c, and imagine that when there is any thing like power, revelation, or vision manifested that it must be of God:— …is there any intelligence communicated? are the curtains of heaven withdrawn, or the purposes of God developed? …they have not a key to unlock, no rule wherewith to measure, and no criteri[a] whereby they can test it; …if Satan should appear as one in glory? Who can tell his color, his signs, his appearance, his glory? or what is the manner of his manifestation? …who can drag into day light and develope the hidden mysteries of the false spirits that so frequently are made manifest among the Latter Day Saints? …no man can do this without the Priesthood, and having a knowledge of the laws by which Spirits are governed; for as “no man knows the [thing] of God but by the Spirit of God,” so no man knows the spirit of the devil and his power and influence but by possessing intelligence which is more than human, and having unfolded through the medium of…Priesthood the mysterious operations of his devices; without knowing the angelic form, the sanctified look, and gesture, and the zeal that is frequently manifested by him for the glory of God:— together with the prophetic spirit, the gracious influence, the godly appearance, and the holy garb which is so characteristic of his proceedings, and his mysterious windings. A man must have the discerning of spirits, before he can drag into daylight this hellish influence and unfold it unto the world in all its soul destroying, diabolical, and horrid colors: for nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit, when they think they have the spirit of God.

…unless some person, or persons, hav[ing] a communication or revelation from God, unfolding to them the operation of spirit, they must eternally remain ignorant of these principles:— for I contend…if one man cannot understand these things but by the Spirit of God, ten thousand men cannot; it is alike out of the reach of the wisdom of the learned, the tongue of the eloquent, and the power of the mighty. And we shall at last have to come to this conclusion, whatever we may think of revelation, that without it we can neither know, nor understand any thing of God, or [of] the devil; …The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and those that were sent of God they considered to be false prophets; and hence they killed, stoned, punished and imprisoned the true prophets, and they had to hide themselves “in deserts, and dens, and caves of the earth”; and although the most honorable men of the earth, they banished them from their society as vagabonds; whilst they cherished, honored, and supported knaves, vagabonds, hypocrites, imposters and the basest of men.

…A power similar to this existed through the medium of the priesthood in different ages. Moses could detect the magicians power and shew that he was God’s servant, he knew when he was upon the mountain (through revelation,) that Israel was engaged in idolatry. (JSP Documents Vol. 9, pp.324-329, discourse Friday April 1, 1842 [spellings as in original], emphasis added; see also DHC, Vol. 4, pp. 571-576).

All of his comments are included in the paper.

Spiritual gifts or sensitivities are just as likely to be influenced by a lying spirit as a truthful one. This means the head of the Holy Order is required to gain experience to be equipped to tell the difference between the two. Adam and Eve witnessed Satan deceive their sons and daughters. The one they first expected to be their successor in the Order loved Satan more than God. Adam’s many experiences made him the one best to detect the Devil when he appeared as an angel of light to deceive Joseph Smith. By the time of the April 1, 1842 sermon I was just reading excerpts from, it’s clear that Joseph also knew the difference between a true and a false spirit.

Moses had no difficulty determining Satan’s demand that he worship him as a “son of God” was deceitful. Moses declared, I can judge between you and God (Genesis 1:3). 

Other members of the Holy Order who have experience with and knowledge about the opposition have been qualified to distinguish true from false spirits by that experience and knowledge. That is necessary. That is why they are called to preach and teach, and their instructions are trustworthy. The efforts of false spirits to mislead are ineffective because, like Moses, they can say, For it is blackness unto me… (ibid.). 

Comprehending these things about the Holy Order allows us to understand Alma’s (the father of Alma) account of his authority from God. Remember he had been one of the wicked priests of King Noah. He heard Abinadi’s warnings and was converted. He fled in order to save his life and began preaching, converting, and baptizing in the wilderness. Members of the Holy Order are commanded to not publish details of the Order. Therefore, the testimony that Alma gives us is discreet. But look carefully at what he tells us: 

…after he had poured out his whole soul to God, the voice of the Lord came to him, saying, Blessed art thou Alma, and blessed are they who were baptized in the waters of Mormon. [For] thou art blessed because of thy exceeding faith in the words alone of my servant Abinadi. And blessed are they because of their exceeding faith in the words alone which thou hast spoken unto them…

The Lord calling Alma “Blessed” is significant. Alma is becoming something and acquiring status recognized by God. But the Lord is likewise blessing those who would accept Alma’s teachings.

…And blessed art thou because thou hast established a church among this people. And they shall be established, and they shall be my people. Yea, blessed is this people who are willing to bear my name, for in my name shall they be called, and they are mine. …Thou art my servant, and I covenant with thee that thou shalt have eternal life. …

For Alma, this was the Day of Judgment. He‘s obtained the Lord’s favorable judgment and, with that, the promise of “eternal life.”

…And thou shalt serve me, and go forth in my name, and shall gather together my sheep. And he that will hear my voice shall be my sheep; and him [ye shall] receive into the church, and him will I also receive…

They’re hearing the Lord’s voice from what Alma is teaching to them because Alma is the one being sent by the Lord with the message. Therefore, when they hear the message from Alma, they are hearing the Lord. 

Like Enoch, Moses, and others who are “gods, even the sons of God,” Alma is now a living doorway for salvation. The Lord trusts him with His (God’s) message. Therefore, the words taught by Alma are delivered as the messenger of God. Whoever receives Alma likewise receives Christ. Jesus taught: He who receives you, receives me. …he who receives me, receives him who sent me. He that receives a prophet, in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward. …he that receives a righteous man, in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward (Matthew 5:8).

The Holy Order, when it is present on earth, is the means provided for mankind’s salvation. When it is absent, then darkness prevails. The prophet Amos declared: 

Behold, the days come, says the Lord…that I will send a famine in the land — not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east. They shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord and shall not find it. (Amos 1:27)

Because mankind refuses to allow God to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, this has been the condition of the world generation after generation. Mankind prefers apostasy. The Holy Order has not generally appealed to the children of Adam. Rejecting teachers from the Holy Order results in being cut off from God. When God appointed Nephi to be a “ruler and a teacher” over his brethren, it was accompanied by this condemnation: And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord (1 Nephi 1:9). Rejecting Nephi as a teacher was rejecting God’s presence. God’s presence is made available to the faithful through His messengers.

That having been said, remember that you can have your calling and election made sure without having the Holy Order. You can be redeemed from the fall and return to God’s presence without it. You can receive the fullness of revelation from before the foundation of the world through the end of this cycle of creation and still not have the Holy Order. Nor do you need it to enter into a covenant with God. It serves God’s purposes when He allows it to be restored, and it is governed strictly by Him. Because this same Priesthood which was in the beginning shall be [at] the end of the world also (Genesis 3:14), it needed to return to function again before the Lord’s return. Do not expect that to be a particularly spectacular thing or for the world at large to take any notice of it.  God’s prophecies are always fulfilled while devout scholars, disbelieving skeptics, worldly fools, and disinterested mankind remain ignorant of His “strange act.” There will be no announcement. The Holy Order will set about teaching and working to obey the Lord’s every command. Of course, some day what has been accomplished will be shouted from the rooftops after the Lord’s return. When men complain that it was done in secret, the Lord will remind them that they are like the Jews who rejected Him: We have piped for you and you have not danced. We have mourned for you and you have not wept (Luke 5:18). Proud people never accept those the Lord sends. They always find reasons to not be persuaded. Like Joseph said, when a real servant is sent, “they banished them from their society as vagabonds; whilst they cherished, honored, and supported knaves, vagabonds, hypocrites, [and] imposters and the basest of men.”

Given the limited availability of the Holy Order and the limited way it can be exercised, the question arises: “Why have it at all?” Certainly it’s not designed to accomplish compulsion, control, or dominion in any degree of unrighteousness. Nor can it be asserted as holding any privilege entitling the holder to any automatic and unquestioned respect. It is merely a God-given opportunity to learn, made available for anyone who is persuaded to the truths that are taught. But when it has been here, there are always competing voices teaching contrary things and asserting claims that conflict with the Holy Order. 

Moses gave a final, inspired blessing to the tribes of Israel. For the tribe of Joseph, Moses prophesied:

And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the Lord be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that crouches beneath, and for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon, and for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, and for the precious things of the earth and fullness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwell[eth] in the bush. Let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren. His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of [the] re’ems. With them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth. And they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh. (Deuteronomy 9:27)

This blessing, hundreds of years after the blessing given to Joseph by Father Jacob whose new name was Israel, echoes the earlier blessing that was given by Israel:

Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well, whose branches run over the wall. The archers have severely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him; but his bow remained in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob (from there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel), even by the God of your father who shall help you, and by the Almighty who shall bless you with [the] blessings of Heaven[s] above, blessings of the deep that lies under, blessings of the breasts and of the womb. The blessings of your father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills. They shall be on the head of Joseph…on the crown of the head of him that was separate[d] from his brethren. (Genesis 12:29)

Upon Joseph, who was separated from the other 11 patriarchs, blessings were conferred that foretold his posterity would locate in “the ancient mountains” and upon “the lasting hills.” HOW is that location to be identified? Will not authority from God be required to inform us? HOW will Joseph “push the people together to the ends of the earth”? Will not authority from God be required to accomplish it? HOW is a “crown” to be placed upon the head of Joseph if not by God? 

We have a revelation from Joseph Smith that foretells some of what will be involved with the fulfillment of these ancient prophesied events:

And the Lord, even the Savior, shall stand in the midst of [the] people and shall reign over all flesh. And they who are in the north countries shall come in remembrance before the Lord, and their prophets shall hear his voice and shall no longer stay themselves, …they shall smite the rocks, and the ice shall flow down at their presence, and a highway shall be cast up in the midst of the great deep. Their enemies shall become a prey unto them, and in the barren deserts there shall come forth pools of living water and the parched ground shall no longer be a thirsty land. And they shall bring forth their rich treasures unto the children of Ephraim, my servants, and the boundaries of the everlasting hills shall tremble at their presence, and there [they shall] fall down and be crowned with glory, even in Zion, by the hands of the servants of the Lord, even the children of Ephraim, and they shall be filled with songs of everlasting joy. Behold, this is the blessing of the everlasting God upon the heads of the tribes of Israel…and his fellows. And they also of the tribe of Judah, after their pain, shall be sanctified in holiness before the Lord, to dwell in his presence day and night, for ever and ever. (T&C 58:3)

HOW will the children of Ephraim be able to crown the Lord’s people with “glory” unless they have received from God the knowledge to do so? If blessings are to be administered “upon the heads of the tribes of Israel,” will it not require the Holy Order to accomplish it?

Ignorant people will not re-gather Israel and confer glory upon the “heads of the tribes.” A great deal of missing knowledge is necessary, or the promises of God will not be fulfilled. The Family of God will have an order.

Remember the greatest fulfillment of prophecy in the past happened in relative obscurity, unnoticed by the world, and with very few directly involved. When the prophesied Messiah came to Israel, His birth was known to only a handful of people. When His ministry began, most who heard Him teach rejected Him. Ultimately, He was killed rather than welcomed by His people. Why should anything be different? Why should anything different be expected before His return in glory? Shouldn’t we expect fulfilling the prophecies at the end to also seem uneventful? If His people did not recognize Him, why would they recognize someone commissioned as His servant who is far less than Him?  

The purpose of the Holy Order is to serve God. It is not to get noticed or acquire fame or fortune. It serves only God’s purposes. The return is related to the last-days’ work. For Zion to put on her strength, it will require the Holy Order, or as Joseph Smith explained about Zion putting on strength: 

[Isaiah] had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of Priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel. And to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the Priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that Power which she had lost. (T&C 129:4)

The only “authority of the Priesthood” that would be adequate to “bring again Zion” is that same authority held in the cities of Enoch and Melchizedek. It would be contrary to the Lord’s consistent pattern for there to be a final City of Zion without the Holy Order that established these prior cities of peace.

Remember the words of the covenant our Lord gave to us in 2017:

All you who have turned from your wicked ways and repented of your evil doings, of lying and deceiving, and of all whoredoms, and of secret abominations, idolatries, murders, [priestcraft], envying, and strife, and from all wickedness and abominations, and have come unto me, and been baptized in my name, and have received a remission of your sins, and received the holy ghost, are now numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel. (T&C 158:10)

Everyone who entered into the covenant and abides by it has “now been numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel,” meaning that when the Lord returns, He will acknowledge you as His and spare you from condemnation as He did the people in Bountiful. That is a great gift from the Lord to us.

Zion cannot be imposed. There can be no hierarchy, no one greater and no one lesser. Even a teacher assigned by the Lord to teach others cannot be esteemed above another. We have a description in the Book of Mormon that gives us a correct pattern:

And when their priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God, they all returned again diligently unto their labors, and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers; for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner. And thus they were all equal; and they did all labor, every man according to his strength. And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted. And they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely. And thus they did establish the affairs of the church; and thus they began to have continual peace again… (Alma 1:5)

You can respect, even honor, the teaching. However, the teacher is no better than the learner, otherwise there is no equality. When there is a hierarchy that maintains a right to control others, it perverts the meaning of “keys” to get gain. Such churches always descend into the direful condition prophesied by Mormon: The power of God shall be denied, and churches become defiled and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts, yea, even in a day when leaders of churches and teachers, in the pride of their hearts, even to the envying of them who belong to their churches (Mormon 4:4). It cannot be like that for Zion to come.

There is still a great gulf separating us from the promised New Jerusalem. There is a need for order, and order should be the result of following correct principles. If we are taught correct principles, then we should be able to govern ourselves. None of us is better than any other. Some of us know a great deal more than others about framing, farming, masonry, engine repair, plumbing, electrical wiring, and other skills. Every one of those will be needed in a functioning community. When the Lord provides His people a teacher, then that teacher is no different or better than a framer. All of us should be willingly contributing, and no one should be prideful.

The Lord Jesus Christ does intend to accomplish a “strange act” that eludes the wisdom of the wise or the understanding of the prudent. But then again, that could be said of almost every significant achievement of the Lord from the beginning.

The final mention of the Holy Order in the Book of Mormon is this: Behold, it was by faith that they of old were called after the Holy Order of God (Ether 5:2). And that’s the right point to end with and leave for you to ponder.

Now, I’ve been asked if there could be questions, and I’m willing to do that just very briefly. Then we’ll take a break, and then we’re gonna move on to something altogether different, and Steph is gonna come join me.

So, is there any question relevant to the topic that doesn’t readily violate what I’ve already said is inappropriate?

Yes! There’s a hand.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Me?

DS: What? Yes, you!

Hey, hey, wait a minute, wait a minute. We have to take a moment—ohmmm—and observe. The lady about to ask a question is a descendant of the very same…

AUDIENCE MEMBER: King Follett.

DS: King Foll-ett, whose funeral sermon…

AUDIENCE MEMBER: His name is pronounced “Follutt.”

DS: Here she is, correcting the pronunciation of her own relatives! As if… Go ahead! What’s your question?

QUESTION 1: You called them “12 patriarchs.” 

DS: Twelve.

Q1: But were all 12 honorable priesthood holders?

DS: No, no, not all 12 were honorable priesthood holders, which brings up a point that’s really interesting because Jesus says to…

She’s asking if all 12 of the patriarchs… I called them 12 patriarchs. And certainly they were, at least genetically and by seed they were. Jesus says to the 12 apostles that they’re gonna sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. But there’s an obvious, you know, question mark that immediately arises because Judas was one of the 12. And yet, Judas was, you know… I think, in that reference to the son of Perdition that Christ makes after the Last Supper, I think it is possible that He viewed Judas as a son of Perditon, which would mean, of course, he fell—which means, then, that of the 12 that were appointed to sit on thrones and to judge the 12 tribes of Israel that one of them fell. So there’s an absence. 

I studied this out and thought about it and came to a conclusion that it would not be Matthias who replaced him in the 12 that would sit on the throne, but it would be Paul who got called separately. And so, thinking myself ever so wise in coming up with that answer, I then—because I don’t ask unless I’ve studied it out, and I’ve reached my own conclusion—I then prayed to know if that were the case. And as it turns out, I was wrong. But when you’ve done the work and you deserve an answer, even when you’re wrong, you get an answer. 

As it turns out, 11 of the original 12 patriarchs lost their position to 11 of the apostles. But there was A patriarch who never fell, who preserved the rest of the family, and who occupied that throne not just during his lifetime but thereafter. And so the 11 that Christ said would sit on thrones will include Joseph who never forfeited his position in the first place. And so, it’s really useful to do what Oliver Cowdery failed to do, which is to study it out in your own mind and come to a conclusion, and ask the Lord if your conclusion is right, and then get an answer. Because He’ll correct you if you’re wrong.

I’ve studied out many things. Some things have required years of study in order to feel justified in the ability to ask a question of God and get an answer. But I don’t perfunctorily say, “Hey, short-order-cook on High! Fetch me an answer to this bizarre, broad, ill-thought-out question.” You take junk to the altar to offer to God, and He’ll sort through the junk and hand you some of your crap back just so He can get it off the altar. But it’s not going to be a divine revelation. It’s gonna be, “Stop bothering me, kid.”

There was another hand, and then we’re gonna take a break.

Yes! What?

Question 2: So, you’ve said in another talk, which I feel like is related to all this, is it’s not by way of a strongman but it’s, you know, that Zion can’t come by way of a strongman; it’s gotta be by priesthood. And then I’m remembering your Priesthood talk where it talked about priesthood is more of a fellowship. And then in your Holy Order talk six or seven years ago, you said instead of using the word priesthood you’re gonna use Holy Order, so I’m trying to put all that together. Do you want to define some of that?

DS: Ok, so he’s asking something about the Holy Order and priesthood being fellowship and comments made in several different places and how they all harmonize together. Umm…not sure I understand the question, but I’ll take a stab at saying something so we can take a break (because you want to use the bathroom; I can tell).

Look, in the beginning there was one singular—singular—priesthood that God gave that was a form of parenthood and priesthood and dominion and governance and family. Adam and Eve occupied positions as priest and priestess, as rulers, as parents. They occupied, essentially, two different roles in their relationship to their posterity. The role of Eve was to predominantly reflect wisdom; the role of Adam was to predominantly reflect knowledge. These are not automatic things. No one gets fairy dust: “Now you’re knowledgeable!” The reason why Nephi was able to become knowledgeable was because (and he tells you) he studied it extensively. The reason why Eve, I mean… Women can be… In fact, if you read the Proverbs, one of the huge negatives that’s talked about in the Proverbs is the foolish woman. The foolish woman is an absolute catastrophe, not only to herself, but she’s a folly to her husband and to their family. And so, the role of wisdom is not something that is just magically conferred. When we read the account of what Eve was doing at the beginning, they’d had apostate child after apostate child after apostate child until finally she had someone that she thought, “Now I have gotten a child from God, so I know he’s going to choose the right.” And that was Cain, who would subsequently murder Abel. So, to what extent was Eve informed by the sad disappointment in Cain that gave her understanding, wisdom, and insight that before that catastrophe she didn’t have? I mean, very often wisdom is the product of sad failure, disappointment, bitterness… Yeah, you…

Look at how Nephi describes all of the things that he went through that were so terrible, followed immediately afterwards with “having been highly favored of the Lord.” Well, why is is it that you put all of the ugliness out followed by highly being favored by the Lord? It’s because every one of the bruises, every one of the cuts, every one of the breaks and the falls, every one of the failures and the slips and the falls, every one of those things informs you better. 

I was thinking about Leroy [Smedley], and you know, he’s a boxer. And you know, when my dad was trying to teach me something and I wouldn’t get it, eventually he would just demonstrate the hole, okay? “Now, I’ve been telling you, ‘Do something about that.’ You haven’t done something about that. How’s the black eye feel? Okay? Stop it! I mean, it’s comin’ for ya.” Leroy, I imagine you’ve had dozens of learning opportunities in which you figured out, “Well, that didn’t work.”

Leroy: Hence the flat nose.

DS: Hence the flat nose. Ya, it’s where it comes from.

Okay, let’s take a break, and then we’ll regroup and do something else. And I would like to join all of you this evening (whoever’s going) over at wherever. But I would like NOT to talk about this or to answer questions because what I have to say has been put into the paper, it’s been here, it’s been taped, it’s on video, and I don’t want a bunch of, “Oh yeah, but afterwards I asked and then Denver said…” and now I’m accountable for whatever it was that you misunderstood me saying in an off-the-cuff remark at a later time. If it’s really important, send me an email. And if it’s REALLY good, I’ll put a post up on my website, and I’ll actually discuss it in an open way so that I don’t have to be accountable for all of the “Denver said this to me somewhere in sometime in someplace that’s ill-defined; at least that’s what I got out of it.” And I can’t be accountable for what you got out of it! But I’m happy to be accountable for what I put out there. 

Okay, so let’s take a break and move on.

The post The Holy Order, Part 2 appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following talk was given in Sandy, Utah on December 16, 2023.

Foolishness is often displayed in religious matters. I cringe when it shows up among those who have accepted the Lord’s 2017 covenant. In moments of sober reflection I realize it cannot be prevented. It astonishes me that the Lord intends to fulfill His covenants, vindicate His promises, and meet every prophecy of His prophets. It perplexes me how that can happen in this ignorant generation. Nevertheless, somehow God has decreed that it will be so. 

One particularly foolish religious practice involves dogmatic claims to understand just how prophecy will be fulfilled. We can’t do that because God has taken precautions to prevent it. As Isaiah reported: “Have you not known, have you not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth faints not, neither is weary? There is no searching of his understanding.” Isa. 14:5. How God chooses to vindicate His prophecies is entirely in His own unsearchable mind. He intends for it to remain hidden, until at last He accomplishes it. When it is underway, we must consider and ask whether THIS (whatever “this” is) meets the promises God gave beforehand. No matter how it may vary from our predictions, when God’s purposes are underway they will look only how God planned them to look. 

God told Isaiah (referring to His people, Israel):
“Because I knew that you are obstinate, and your neck is an iron sinew, and your brow brass, I have, even from the beginning, declared it to you; before it came to pass, I showed it to you, lest you should say, My idol has done them, and my engraved image and my molten image has commanded them. You have heard, see all this; and will not you declare it? I have shown you new things from this time, even hidden things, and you did not know them. They are created now, and not from the beginning, even before the day when you heard them not, lest you should say, Behold, I knew them. Yea, you heard not, yea, you knew not; yea, from that time that your ear was not opened. For I knew that you would deal very treacherously and were called a transgressor from the womb. For my name’s sake will I defer my anger, and for my praise will I refrain for you, that I cut you not off. Behold, I have refined you, but not with silver; I have chosen you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake — even for my own sake — will I do it[.]” Isa. 17:1. 

He shows it beforehand, but to us it still remains “hidden” and we “know not” because our “ear was not opened.” We assume, we presume, we conjecture and we impose our own vanity and foolishness thinking that we can search out God’s plans, even when He has said, “There is no searching of his understanding.” 

When Jesus Christ was here fulfilling all the prophecies of His coming to His people, there was a learned Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin whose interest in Christ was aroused. However, Nicodemus did not recognize Christ as the Messiah, but instead thought Him just a provocative teacher worth quizzing. Christ reminded Nicodemus that everything He had done, was doing, and would yet accomplish, had been foretold by the prophets. Christ explained it this way: 

“Every thing about my assignment, which I am now performing, was foretold by the prophets sent earlier to teach Israel, for they all testified of me. They told you I would come, and I am now here doing what was prophesied, but you refuse to see it happening. Enough is underway that rejecting it means you prefer darkness to light. Humble yourself and admit the prophets foretold the very things now underway; repent and be baptized and the Spirit of Truth will open your eyes. If you want greater light, you will obey this instruction.” T&C 171: TSJ 2:4. 

Nicodemus knew the prophecies, and he thought he understood them. However, he could not understand how it was possible for God to accomplish all those promises in a way that had never entered into his mind or heart. 

To illustrate this subject, I only intend to use three examples. The first example is a prophecy set out in an allegory likening Israel to an olive tree. After foretelling much of Israel’s history, it covers future events. Concerning events just before the Lord’s return it reveals this:

And now behold, notwithstanding all the care which we have taken of my vineyard, the trees thereof have become corrupted, that they bring forth no good fruit.1 And these I had hoped to preserve, to have laid up fruit thereof against the season unto mine own self. But behold, they have become like unto the wild olive tree, and they are of no worth but to be hewn down and cast into the fire; and it grieveth me that I should lose them. But what could I have done more in my vineyard? Have I slackened mine hand, that I have not nourished it? Nay, I have nourished it, and I have digged about it, and I have pruned it, and I have dunged it, and I have stretched forth mine hand almost all the day long, and the end draweth nigh. And it grieveth me that I should hew down all the trees of my vineyard and cast them into the fire that they should be burned. Who2 is it that has corrupted my vineyard? 

And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master, Is it not the loftiness of thy vineyard?3 Hath not the branches thereof overcome the roots which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof — behold, they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves4 — behold, I say, is not this the cause that the trees of thy vineyard have become corrupted? 

And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said unto the servant, Let us go to, and hew down the trees of the vineyard, and cast them into the fire, that they shall not cumber the ground of my vineyard, for I have done all. What could I have done more for my vineyard? But behold, the servant said unto the Lord of the vineyard, Spare it a little longer. And the Lord said, Yea, I will spare it a little longer, for it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard. Wherefore, let us take of the branches of these which I have planted in the nithermost parts of my vineyard, and let us graft them into the tree from whence they came.5 And let us pluck from the tree those branches whose fruit is most bitter, and graft in the natural branches of the tree in the stead thereof. And this will I do that the tree may not perish, that perhaps I may preserve unto myself the roots thereof for mine own purpose. And behold, the roots of the natural branches of the tree which I planted whithersoever I would are yet alive. Wherefore, that I may preserve them also for mine own purpose, I will take of the branches of this tree, and I will graft them in unto them. Yea, I will graft in unto them the branches of their mother tree, that I may preserve the roots also unto mine own self, that when they shall be sufficiently strong,6 perhaps they may bring forth good fruit unto me, and I may yet have glory in the fruit of my vineyard. 

And it came to pass that they took from the natural tree which had become wild, and grafted in unto the natural trees which also had become wild. And they also took of the natural trees which had become wild and grafted into their mother tree.7 And the Lord of the vineyard saith unto the servant, Pluck not the wild branches from the trees, save it be those which are most bitter; and in them, ye shall graft according to that which I have said. And we will nourish again the trees of the vineyard, and we will trim up8 the branches thereof, and we will pluck from the trees those branches which are ripened that must perish and cast them into the fire. And this I do that perhaps the roots thereof may take strength because of their goodness, and because of the change of the branches, that the good may overcome the evil. And because that I have preserved the natural branches and the roots thereof, and that I have grafted in the natural branches again into their mother tree, and have preserved the roots of their mother tree, that perhaps the trees of my vineyard may bring forth again good fruit, and that I may have joy again in the fruit of my vineyard, and perhaps that I may rejoice exceedingly that I have preserved the roots and the branches of the first fruit, wherefore, go to, and call servants, that we may labor diligently with our mights in the vineyard, that we may prepare the way, that I may bring forth again the natural fruit, which natural fruit is good, and the most precious above all other fruit. 

Wherefore, let us go to and labor with our mights this last time; for behold, the end draweth nigh, and this is for the last time that I shall prune my vineyard. Graft in the branches. Begin at the last, that they may be first and that the first may be last; and dig about the trees, both old and young, the first and the last, and the last and the first, that all may be nourished once again for the last time. Wherefore, dig about them, and prune them, and dung them once more for the last time, for the end draweth nigh. And if it so be that these last grafts shall grow and bring forth the natural fruit, then shall ye prepare the way for them that they may grow. And as they begin to grow, ye shall clear away9 the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof. And ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard; for it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard. Wherefore, ye shall clear away the bad according as the good shall grow, that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until10 the good shall overcome the bad and the bad be hewn down11 and cast into the fire, that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard. And thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard. And the branches of the natural tree will I graft in again into the natural tree,12 and the branches of the natural tree will I graft into the natural branches of the tree, and thus will I bring them together again, that they shall bring forth the natural fruit, and they shall be one. And the bad shall be cast away, yea, even out of all the land of my vineyard; for behold, only this once will I prune my vineyard. 

And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard sent his servant,13 and the servant went and did as the Lord had commanded him and brought other servants,14 and they were few.15 And the Lord of the vineyard said unto them, Go to and labor in the vineyard with your mights, for behold, this is the last time that I shall nourish my vineyard, for the end is nigh at hand and the season speedily cometh. And if ye labor with your mights with me, ye shall have joy in the fruit which I shall lay up unto myself against the time which will soon come. 

And it came to pass that the servants did go and labor with their mights, and the Lord of the vineyard labored also with them. And they did obey the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard in all things. And there began to be the natural fruit again in the vineyard. And the natural branches began to grow and thrive exceedingly, and the wild branches began to be plucked off and to be cast away; and they did keep the root and the top thereof equal, according to the strength thereof. And thus they labored with all diligence, according to the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard, even until the bad had been cast away out of the vineyard and the Lord had preserved unto himself, that the trees had become again the natural fruit. And they became like unto one body,16 and the fruit were equal.17 And the Lord of the vineyard had preserved unto himself the natural fruit, which was most precious unto him from the beginning. 

So, with this first prophecy in mind, I want to discuss two other prophecies and their potential meaning. I hope to show that they fit together. 

This talk is to illustrate the topic, not to cover it comprehensively. It is left to you to apply the principles illustrated in these examples to other prophecies. These next two just seem to be currently under discussion by people. The first is from 3rd Nephi, with Christ speaking: 

“I will establish my church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob, unto whom I have given this land for their inheritance. And they shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city which shall be called the New Jerusalem. And then shall they assist my people, that they may be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem. And then shall the Powers of Heaven come down among them, and I also will be in the midst. And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even when this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of this people.” NC 3 Ne. 10:1 

This prophecy is important because it relates to building a city and a New Jerusalem where the Powers of Heaven18 will be present. There are debates about the identities because some presume it will be impossible for anyone other than Native Americans to build this city. 

Christ mentions at least three (perhaps four) different groups. It is a challenge to identify these different groups in order to understand what the Lord is predicting to take place:
First, the Lord mentions a first group of gentiles among whom the Lord will establish a church. 

Second, a group of the remnant of Jacob who have been given this land for their inheritance.
Apparently the first group will assist the second group to build a city.
Third, a group referred to as “house of Israel.” 

Perhaps there is also a fourth group to be gathered in “who are scattered upon all the face of the land.” 

So if we want to guess about these three (or four) groups, we have a few obvious choices. But we have no guarantee we know who the “gentiles” are among whom the Lord will establish His “church.” There are presently over 100 diverse churches who all claim Joseph Smith as their founder. It is likely that all of them would say they are the gentiles among whom the Lord established a church. 

The Lord adds a helpful addition to His description of the gentiles. It involves gentiles who will “come in unto the covenant and be numbered among …the remnant of Jacob.” In the covenant offered by the Lord in September 2017 the covenant included the following statement by the Lord: 

“All you who have turned from your wicked ways and repented of your evil doings, of lying and deceiving, and of all whoredoms, and of secret abominations, idolatries, murders, priestcrafts, envying, and strife, and from all wickedness and abominations, and have come unto me, and been baptized in my name, and have received a remission of your sins, and received the holy ghost, are now numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel.” T&C 158:10. 

Those words from the covenant may be how the Lord intends to identify the group of gentiles who have come into a covenant and become numbered with the remnant. This idea of taking one identified group of people and then re- identifying them by “numbering among” a different identified group is one of the major themes of the Book of Mormon. 

The first time we encounter this idea of changing identities is in a prophecy of Nephi’s: 

“And it shall come to pass that if the gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks, and harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God, they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father. Yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel; and they shall be a blessed people upon the promised land for ever.” NC 1 Ne. 3:25. 

To gentiles who receive both the Bible and Book of Mormon, the Lord will manifest Himself to them “in word (by them accepting His voice in scripture) and also in power (by the Holy Ghost), in very deed (by removing the veil that keeps Him hidden), unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks.” Joseph Smith began that process, which ended abruptly when he and Hyrum were killed. But the Lord has recommenced the process and revealed Himself again. For those who hear his voice, obey His commands, and come unto Him, “they shall be numbered among the seed of” Nephi’s father. And “they shall be numbered among the house of Israel; and they shall be a blessed people upon the promised land for ever.” 

If these gentiles represent grafting natural branches back into the natural tree connected to the natural roots, does numbering them among Israel and pronouncing them a blessed people upon the promised land forever make them part of the first group, or does it instead make them part of the second group? If they are part of the first, they will assist others to build the New Jerusalem. But if they are part of the second, they will build the New Jerusalem and receive assistance from gentiles as they build. These are questions that events alone will answer. 

The next reference Nephi makes to “numbering” of the gentiles with Israel is in 2 Nephi: 

“Wherefore, the gentiles shall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel. Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed, and they who shall be numbered among thy seed, for ever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands. Wherefore, I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God.” NC 2 Ne. 7:4. 

Here the land is consecrated to the gentiles who are “numbered among” the Nephites as their inheritance. This makes them situated in the identical position as the Nephites themselves. This makes it more likely these converted, covenanting gentiles are part of the second group (who will build the New Jerusalem) rather than the first (who will assist). 

Nephi later mentions the gentiles who are “numbered among” more directly as covenant Israel, “I would say unto you, as many of the gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord[.]” NC 2 Ne. 12:11. If they ARE the covenant people, then perhaps they ARE the second group mentioned by the Lord in His prophecy. We must at least allow that possibility.

When He came to the Nephites, Christ taught that it was the Father who declared the converted gentiles would change identity to become Israel, “But if the gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold, they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.” NC 3 Ne. 7:5. This change of identity requires gentiles to repent, be baptized and return to the Lord’s true doctrine, “the gentiles, if they will not harden their hearts, that they may repent, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, and know of the true points of my doctrine, that they may be numbered among my people, O house of Israel[.]” Id., 9:11. When Christ taught this principle, He quoted from Isaiah; “thy seed shall inherit the gentiles and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.” Id., 10:2. 

In the closing words of 3rd Nephi, Christ makes an appeal to the gentiles in words that are echoed in the language of His 2017 covenant with the gentiles, 

Hearken, O ye gentiles, and hear the words of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, which he hath commanded me that I should speak concerning you; for behold, he commandeth me that I should write, saying, Turn, all ye gentiles, from your wicked ways, and repent of your evil doings — of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations — and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins and be filled with the holy ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel. Id., 14:1. 

The wording was changed by the Lord in the covenant from, “that ye may be numbered with my people who are the house of Israel” to state affirmatively that the covenanting gentiles, “are now numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel.” T&C 158:10. 

As Moroni was finishing the translation of the Book of Ether, he added his explanation of who would build the New Jerusalem: 

“Wherefore, the remnant of the house of Joseph shall be built up upon this land, and it shall be a land of their inheritance. And they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord like unto the Jerusalem of old. And they shall no more be confounded until the end come, when the earth shall pass away. And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth. And they shall be like unto the old, save the old have passed away and all things have become new. And then cometh the New Jerusalem; and blessed are they who dwell therein, for it is they whose garments are white through the blood of the Lamb; and they are they who are numbered among the remnant of the seed of Joseph, who were of the house of Israel. And then also cometh the Jerusalem of old and the inhabitants thereof; blessed are they, for they have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. And they are they who were scattered, and gathered in from the four quarters of the earth and from the north countries, and are partakers of the fulfilling of the covenant which God made with their father, Abraham. And when these things come, bringeth to pass the scripture which saith, There are they who were first who shall be last, and there are they who were last who shall be first.” NC Ether 6:3. 

The question arises as to whether the gentiles retain any identity other than “Israel” after they repent, are baptized, learn of the Lord’s true doctrine, and enter into a covenant with Him. There are some helpful hints in the Book of Mormon text that discuss what happens following people being “numbered among” a different group. 

One example is the people of Jershon: “they were called by the Nephites, the people of Ammon; therefore, they were distinguished by that name ever after. And they were numbered among the people of Nephi, and also numbered among the people who were of the church of God.” NC Alma 15:9. Once they were numbered among the Nephites they were thereafter only regarded as Nephites. 

When the Nephites were destroyed by losing the power of governing themselves and practicing a distinct religion, all those who would remain would forever be numbered as Lamanites: 

“I perceive that this very people, the Nephites, according to the spirit of revelation which is in me, in four hundred years from the time that Jesus Christ shall manifest himself unto them, shall dwindle in unbelief. Yea, and then shall they see wars and pestilences, yea, famine and bloodshed, even until the people of Nephi shall become extinct. Yea, and this because they shall dwindle in unbelief and fall into the works of darkness, and lasciviousness, and all manner of iniquities. Yea, I say unto you that because they shall sin against so great light and knowledge, yea, I say unto you that from that day, even the fourth generation shall not all pass away before this great iniquity shall come. And when that great day cometh, behold, the time very soon cometh that those who are now, or the seed of those who are now numbered among the people of Nephi, shall no more be numbered among the people of Nephi. But whosoever remaineth and is not destroyed in that great and dreadful day shall be numbered among the Lamanites, and shall become like unto them[.]” NC Alma 21:3. 

That loss of identity, and renumbering Nephites to be Lamanites, was permanent. So much so that the Nephites became extinct. All who remained, even if they were Nephite by blood, were thereafter only Lamanite. 

Bearing all this in mind, how do you decipher the three or four different groups mentioned in the prophecy about the New Jerusalem? To repeat, they are: First, a first group of gentiles among whom the Lord will establish a church. Second, a group of the remnant of Jacob who are given the land for their inheritance. 

Apparently the first group will assist the second group to build a city.
Third, a group referred to as “house of Israel.”
Perhaps a fourth group to be gathered in “who are scattered upon all the face of the land.” 

We can guess, and may even be able to make a justifiable guess that seems to get it right. But we will not know how the Lord will fulfill the prophecy until it is fulfilled. This was the problem with Nicodemus. Christ fulfilled all the prophecies about His coming. But He did it in an unexpected way, different from what the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin anticipated. They thought they understood the scriptures, and Christ did not fit their understanding. Therefore, the prophecies about Christ’s coming became a barrier to them recognizing His presence. 

Prophecies are only meant to be understood after they are fulfilled. God’s ways are unsearchable, until they are accomplished. We can anticipate, look carefully, observe cautiously, but until God performs His strange act, our best guesses are likely to be wrong. God does this, ‘lest you should say, Behold, I knew them. Yea, you heard not, yea, you knew not; yea, from that time that your ear was not opened. For I knew that you would deal very treacherously and were called a transgressor from the womb.’ We want to be learned, wise, and appear to share godly insight to make ourselves seem holy. We are not. We are, in God’s words, treacherous transgressors who have a form of godliness but we deny the power thereof. 

Watch carefully. Watch humbly. God will fulfill the prophecy. Keep an open mind about how He will choose to do so. Then, and only then, will you see how great things the Lord has done. 

Remember that the original, natural branches which have produced bitter fruit are to be grafted back to the natural roots. Even if all the vineyard is bitter, what the Lord does to reclaim the vineyard is restoring the original branches. Or, in other words, lost, scattered Israel is being re-gathered. That gathering brings both bloodlines and covenant together again.

The second prophecy I want to discuss is this:
And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words, while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the House of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritance of the saints, whose names are found, and the names of their fathers and of their children, enrolled in the Book of the Law of God; while that man who was called of God, and appointed, that puts forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning. T&C 83:4 

The LDS church thinks this was fulfilled long ago. They correctly have noted that this passage has been used by numerous apostates from the LDS church to claim they are someone ‘mighty and strong,’ deserving to be followed. This is the LDS explanation of the matter: 

“It is to be observed first of all that the subject of this whole letter [the Prophet’s letter to William W. Phelps], as also the part of it subsequently accepted as a revelation [D&C 85], relates to the affairs of the Church in Missouri, the gathering of the Saints to that land and obtaining their inheritances under the law of consecration and stewardship; and the Prophet deals especially with the matter of what is to become of those who fail to receive their inheritances by order or deed from the bishop. … 

“It was while these conditions of rebellion, jealousy, pride, unbelief and hardness of heart prevailed among the brethren in Zion—Jackson county, Missouri—in all of which Bishop Partridge participated, that the words of the revelation taken from the letter to William W. Phelps, of the 27th of November, 1832, were written. The ‘man who was called and appointed of God’ to ‘divide unto the Saints their inheritance’—Edward Partridge—was at that time out of order, neglecting his own duty, and putting ‘forth his hand to steady the ark’; hence, he was warned of the judgment of God impending, and the prediction was made that another, ‘one mighty and strong,’ would be sent of God to take his place, to have his bishopric—one having the spirit and power of that high office resting upon him, by which he would have power to ‘set in order the house of God, and arrange by lot the inheritance of the Saints’; in other words, one who would do the work that Bishop Edward Partridge had been appointed to do, but had failed to accomplish. … 

“… And inasmuch as through his repentance and sacrifices and suffering, Bishop Edward Partridge undoubtedly obtained a mitigation of the threatened judgment against him of falling ‘by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning,’ so the occasion for sending another to fill his station—‘one mighty and strong to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints’—may also be considered as having passed away and the whole incident of the prophecy closed” (in James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. [1965–75], 4:112, 115, 117.) 

That seems reasonable enough to me. But, the language still gets used by claimants who want a following. Assuming that the LDS explanation is wrong, and there will yet be someone who comes forward to set in order the House of God, what should we be looking for? 

-Someone to set in order the LDS church?
-Someone to set in order the temple rites?
-Someone to set in order the family of God through adoption? -Something else? 

That unidentified person will set in order the House of God through holding the scepter of power in his hand:
-What exactly is that?
-Will it be a physical object or metaphorical scepter? 

-If metaphor, what is the correct meaning? 

Then, too, this unidentified fellow will be clothed with light for a covering: -How is that to be understood?
-What will make that happen?
-Can a casual observer detect that light, or is it merely internal to the mighty and strong one? 

The same questions can be asked about his mouth uttering words, eternal words, and his bowels being a fountain of truth. These are ill-defined, lofty words, lacking any specific way to know they are fulfilled. 

Well, you can guess about all of these things, but you cannot know for certain. If God intends to do more than was done in Missouri in the 1830s, then He will accomplish it in His own way, His own time, and in the manner of His choosing. Only a fool will proclaim they are the very one described in that passage as “mighty and strong”—and a particular braggart-fool who has done nothing more than put his ego on display with his self-promotion. I have never claimed to be mighty and strong, and will never do so. 

Watch and pray always that you are not deceived. Allow God the privilege of accomplishing His strange work in a way that eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into your heart. Be trusting, and believing, and wait on the Lord. Eagerness and impatience will not prove useful. 

Let me use two quotes from Christ to illustrate this. First, after quoting from Isaiah, the Lord commanded this: 

“I say unto you that ye had ought to search these things. Yea, a commandment I give unto you that ye search these things diligently, for great are the words of Isaiah. For surely he spake as touching all things concerning my people which are of the house of Israel. Therefore, it must needs be that he must speak also to the gentiles. And all things that he spake hath been and shall be, even according to the words which he spake.” NC 3 Ne. 10:4. 

From this we know we ought to carefully study Isaiah’s prophecy because he spoke about “all things” involving Israel. And if it covers all things about Israel, it must include the gentiles. Although the gentiles must be grafted back into the roots, they are nevertheless part of the original natural branches of the tree, or Israelites who lost their identity. 

On the other hand, the same Lord says, “[W]atch, therefore, for you know not at what hour your Lord does come.” NC Matt. 11:13. Even if you study carefully the words of Isaiah, and know that he prophesied about “all things” involving Israel, still you will “know not” about your Lord’s return. Watch, but you won’t know. Why? Because you do not know how the Lord will choose to fulfill the words of Isaiah until the Lord fulfills them. And if you watch, while being familiar with the prophecies, you should be able to see them as they are fulfilled, even if the fulfillment is not something you can predict in advance. The Lord’s conduct will always be His “strange act” and not according to our anticipated predictions. 

How God chooses to fulfill His promises in our day is as unsearchable and unpredictable as how Christ fulfilled prophecy in front of the learned members of the Sanhedrin while He went unrecognized. He was regarded by them as merely a threat, a pretender, who may have had interesting things to say, but surely (they thought) He could not be the Messiah. 

There have been a great number of things accomplished in these last few years. More is underway at present. It may seem like there is little progress, but preparations take time. Those who will not wait on the preparations put their impatience on display. That in turn allows others to identify them. Haste brings pestilence. In all probability, hasty people will not be suitable for gathering. 

I want to add a word of caution about people claiming inspiration to prophesy. Joseph Smith’s letter from Liberty Jail19 gave sage advice that applies in many circumstances. That letter gives us good advice about understanding prophecy. 

“A fanciful and flowery and heated imagination be aware of, because the things of God are of deep import, and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Your mind, O man, if you will lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost Heavens, and search into and contemplate the lowest considerations of the darkest abyss, and expand upon the broad considerations of eternal expanse. You must commune with God. How much more dignified and noble are the thoughts of God than the vain imagination of the human heart? None but fools will trifle with the souls of men. 

How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations: too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of his will from before the foundation of the world, to hold the keys of the mysteries of those things that have been kept hid from the foundation until now[.]” T&C 138:18-19. 

Recently, there have been some public displays of foolishness made by zealous people acting in haste. God’s meaning only becomes clear when we take enough thought to solemnly, carefully and through enough experience have allowed God’s meaning to become clear. Haste brings pestilence.20 Impatience is the enemy of understanding. When it comes to understanding scripture, obeying God, and parsing through prophecy nothing should be done abruptly. 

Finally, I would suggest that we all stay in our own lane.21 Rather than thinking we can interpret God’s will for others, our search should be to find God’s will for ourselves. If we think someone makes it look easy, that is only because you do not comprehend the price that must be paid in hard-won experience that precedes the results. Joseph Smith said his life was like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing he got was when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against religious bigotry, priestcraft, …lying editors, … backed by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women—all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus he was to become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty. Reflecting on all his difficulties he wrote, “For my part, I think I never could have felt as I now do if I had not suffered the wrongs that I have suffered. All things shall work together for good to them that love God” (letter from Joseph Smith to Presendia Huntington Buell, Mar. 15, 1839, Liberty Jail, Liberty, Missouri). 

No matter how easy it may appear for some to know God, if we saw all of the picture, we would realize it requires as high a price from us as was required of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, Abraham, Joseph of Egypt, and all the others God has taken into His confidence. 

Finally, this needs to be repeated: 

Joseph Smith said: “The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them; we do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord?” (DHC 4:479; TPJS, 195; WJS, 81). Elsewhere Joseph admonished: “If God gives you a manifestation; keep it to yourselves” (DHC 2:309; TPJS, 91). The Second Comforter is for one’s individual comfort and instruction. Not for public display or to gratify one’s pride or serve one’s vain ambition. Sacred things tend to lose their luster as they are profaned by being made common. Just as the white snow tends to stain the longer it is trodden underfoot by men, so also does the purity of revelation become denigrated by being revealed without regard to the audience’s preparation and worthiness to learn of sacred things. This is a binding limitation and an essential part of the process. To be qualified, one must be someone who can be trusted to keep sacred things sacred. T&C Glossary, Casting Pearls Before Swine. 

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

1 There was a universal apostasy from what can save mankind.                                                

2 It is a good question to ask, ‘who has corrupted Israel’s faith?’

3 The vineyard has corrupted itself. Our own “loftiness” or pride has made us utterly corrupt. We have no fruit worth preserving, and only ourselves to blame.

4 We rely on our own strength, because we build successful religions that have power, wealth, influence and fare sumptuously. Mormon described it. Our “churches become defiled and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts, yea, even in a day when leaders of churches and teachers, in the pride of their hearts, even to the envying of them who belong to their churches.” NC Mormon 4:4.

5 The “grafting” process is not taking an altogether foreign line, but reintroducing the scattered remnants of Israel back into the original religion/people where they came from. Lost Israel becomes found/converted Israel. 

6 This is a process and hardly happens when the first effort begins. Branches whose fruit are wild and bitter do not immediately bear suitable fruit. It is only later, when they become sufficiently strong that “perhaps” some will be suitable.

7 The vineyard will be rearranged at the end by grafting lost natural branches (gentiles who have lost their true identity and become “wild”) to the long lost religion of the God of Israel. This allows them to return to their “natural roots” or to be numbered again with Israel. 

8 Trimming involves discarding. 

9 How the Lord “clears away” branches as growth begins may have been explained, at least in part, by a post on my website (God’s Wisdom) on January 29, 2023, in which the Lord explained to me, “some people are taken and not healed because, in the Wisdom of God that person is ready and if left will recede rather than advance, and some are taken because, if left, would interfere with and delay or hinder God’s purposes for others, and some are given to suffer because it gives them the opportunity to develop in Godly attributes they would not otherwise attain. God’s Wisdom is greater than man’s and sees more than can man. But in all matters there is reason and wisdom in how matters of health, life, and death unfold.” 

10 This word, “until”, means it is a process, and perhaps gradual over some length of time before it is possible for the good to gain the strength and numbers to “overcome the bad.” Because the bad are not going to willingly abandon their false beliefs, incorrect ideas, and vain ambition. 

11 This suggests the Lord will be responsible for removing them from the vineyard.

12 Notice that the graft and the final tree are both identified as “natural.” Meaning these will be both literal descendants of Abraham and also heirs to that same priesthood held by Abraham. The Lord promised Abraham, “And in you (that is, in your Priesthood) and in your seed, (that is, your Priesthood) — for I give unto you a promise that this right shall continue in you and in your seed after you (that is to say, the literal seed or the seed of the body) — shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.” T&C 145: Abr. 3:1.

13 Here the “servant” is singular.

14 Here the original servant recruits others, and there are plural “servants.” 

15 Given that there are “few” it may be as difficult for us to believe it is underway as it was for Nicodemus to see how Christ fit into the prophetic promises.

16 Meaning they are to be united by the same religion, not bickering and contending.

17 “Equal” in the way the Lord uses the term: meaning equally accountable before Him. Mankind is never the same. There are greater and lesser intelligences (“if there be two spirits and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits — notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other” (T&C 145: Abr. 5:4)), but they are all equally accountable. 

18 Meaning angels. “ A title referring to a specific group with status on the other side of the veil; a proper noun, not just an abstraction. In the afterlife there are different rungs on Jacob’s ladder where different Powers are fixed: Angel, Archangel, Principality, Power, Dominion, Throne, Cherubim, and Seraphim — they may all be called Powers of Heaven.” T&C Glossary of Terms, defining Powers of Heaven, quoting from Preserving the Restoration, p. 173

19 The letter was primarily the work of Joseph Smith, but it was co-signed by Hyrum Smith, Lyman Wight, Caleb Baldwin and Alexander McRae. 

20 See, e.g., T&C 50:6.

21 I’ve refrained from telling others what they should do. If there is any message I’ve delivered, I consider myself equally obligated to follow and never thought I stood apart or independent of the message. 

TALK/PAPER

The post Understanding Prophecy appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following remarks were shared as part of the United Kingdom Conference held in Edinburgh, Scotland on November 18, 2023.

Denver Snuffer:  Did anyone bring a set of Scriptures with them? A set of the three-volume, new printed Scriptures? You did? Do you mind if… 

Unknown: [indecipherable comment]

DS: No, if I let people pass them around. Is that okay?

Unknown: You have permission. 

DS: This is one volume. Do you have the other two? 

Unknown: No, I just choose between three. 

DS: So you packed and you flew from the States, did you? Umm, this is hard-bound. 

Unknown: Buffalo. 

DS: Did they give you the option of getting them hard-bound? 

Unknown: Yeah. 

DS: They did? 

Unknown: Got in early. 

DS: Yeah, why would anyone do that? They’re flexible when you soft bind them, but they’re still in leather. 

I wanted anyone who has not seen what these look like to have a chance to look at them. I’m gonna mention them… Let’s just pass them around. That way, it’ll wind up—if it goes this way and then this way—it’ll wind up back with its owner. I want to mention the Scriptures at the end. What time are we supposed to end here? 

Unknown: Five o’clock.

DS: Five o’clock. So I’ll be right on the money. 

When the Scriptures were being put together, one of the last things that needed to be done was to take the book of John and do something with it that made it a little more reliable, a little more accurate. And that assignment ultimately devolved upon me. But the material was not put in the New Testament; it was instead added as a section in the Teachings and Commandments volume, as section 171 and under the name of Testimony of St. John. I’m gonna be quoting from an incident that happened in that text. 

As I was working on it, I got to the—very early on—I got to the wedding feast in Canaan [Cana]. And there were so many options using the many definitional choices that you could have with the Greek for the words that were being used, that I gave up, and I quit the assignment, prayerfully, and let the Lord know that, you know, it would never be done in time for adding it to the Scriptures because the choices were too plentiful. And that night, I got help on the wedding feast at Canaan [Cana]. 

John purposefully selected that and put it into his account very early on, in order to tell about an incident that would illustrate the entirety of the gospel of Jesus Christ and Christ Himself. And so the purpose of this event (which actually took place) would put a parable into the mouth of the master of the feast that illustrates what it is we find when we come unto Christ. So I’m gonna read from that testimony: 

When the host of the wedding tasted the ceremonial water…  

Now, it’s called “water” at this point because these pots were six water pots made of stone that were used for ceremonial purification in religious observances. And so far as anyone knew, they were simply six pots filled with water, the water being used in cleansing ceremonies. 

When the host of the wedding tasted the ceremonial water, it had been converted into wine. But he did not know the source that converted the water, unlike the servants who recognized the Source. 

In the account, this is an attempt in our language to replicate some of the subtlety that John had at his command, writing in his language. The word source,

We can use capitals and small letters in our language in order to convey or communicate a point. Throughout the record, Christ is not recognized as who He is, except on rare occasion, and therefore, all the pronouns referring to Him are small letter. But when someone figures out and they’re recognizing Him in His true role, then in our language, we can depict the recognition with capitalization. So “source” gets used twice in this sentence: once small/uncapitalized and once capitalized, because the servants were the ones who knew who the Source was. 

The host of the feast called for the bridegroom, and praised him using a proverb, saying, Careful men introduce their plans using the best wine, and later, when …followers are drunk, then their worst — but you have brought [to] us better wine than at the start. 

This was a sign confirming his role as the Messiah… 

You see, the Messiah is not like men who bring people aboard with some delightful tale, but when they get them within their grasp, then they abuse and misuse it. The Savior, when you come to Him, find out it only gets better. And this is a parable about how the Savior would conduct Himself—and does conduct Himself—with people who come to and accept Him as who He is. 

…It was a demonstration of authority over both the elements and ordinances of salvation. Those who recognized this as a sign of his authority were awed as they considered it was him present among them. (TSJ 1:16-17)

But clearly, it was only a small group. And in fact, it was the group that was the most servile; it was the servants who recognized who the Master was. Others were oblivious. 

Christ would be confronted by Nicodemus in the account that we have in the Testimony of St. John, and Christ explained to Nicodemus: 

I tell you, if you want to ascend to the Heavenly Council, you must first acknowledge and give heed to the messengers sent by them. (TSJ 2:3)

See, Nicodemus had greeted Him by acknowledging Him, that He was a master and that He’d been sent by the Heavenly Council—and he wanted to know something about how to get back into that condition. And Christ is saying, “Well, if you want to ascend to the Heavenly Council, you must first acknowledge and give heed to the messengers sent by them.” So Nicodemus needed to change his priority. Instead of being attentive to the Sanhedrin, an authority that had not been sent; they’d simply inherited office by tradition that had been preserved under the arrangement that Moses had originally established, but they were hollow at this point. They may have authority that people recognized societally/institutionally within the group, but they didn’t have authority from the Heavenly Council. And therefore, what Jesus was saying was rather revolutionary. It was rather turning things upside down. It’s like that quote I read the other night: “All great truths begin as blasphemies,” as George Bernard Shaw. 

Well, at this point, what Christ is saying is really in the form of blasphemy because he’s undermining those that are in a position of authority. Christ goes on to explain to Nicodemus:

Everything about my assignment, which I am now performing, was foretold by the prophets sent earlier to teach Israel, for they all testified of me. They told you I would come, and I am now here doing what was prophesied, but you refuse to see it happening… 

That’s always a dilemma, you know. It’s happening right in plain sight. Easily ignored. 

Enough is underway that rejecting it means you prefer darkness to light. Humble yourself and admit the prophets foretold the very things now underway; repent and be baptized and the Spirit of Truth will open your eyes. If you want greater light, you will obey this instruction. If you refuse, then you never meant it when you greeted me as an enlightened heavenly guide. (Ibid. ¶ 4, emphasis added)

That’s always the test, you see. “I believe in Heaven. I believe in prophets. I believe in Scripture. I believe in the Lord. And I believe all that He said throughout!” And yet, were the Lord here, you’d find reason to criticize! You’d find Him too congenial, too irreverent, or too somber. I mean, He says, at one point: “Look, I sent you people that played for you to dance, and you wouldn’t dance. And I sent you others to cause you to mourn, and you wouldn’t mourn. You’re never happy. You can’t be pleased. The only way to please you is to say, well, you are all of it.” But the truth is, none of us are all of it. We’re all not quite what the Lord was and is. 

Jesus responded to the doubts of the Jewish religious leaders:

My doctrine does not come from me, but from God who sent me. Anyone who walks in God’s path will understand his doctrine, because that path increases light and knowledge. I testify of that path. Follow it and you will know whether I am sent by God or I am not sent by God. Teachers who preach from their own understanding only gratify their pride… (TSJ 6:5)

Okay, so we need to pause at that point because this is a really interesting moment in our Scriptures that we’ve been given. He’s saying, If a man is out teaching you and what he is teaching you, it hails from his understanding, then what he’s doing is being done to gratify his pride. So hold that idea of gratifying your pride, and I want to jump to a letter that was written by Joseph Smith in the Liberty Jail after he’d been confined for nearly six months and at a point when he did not know if he would ever get out of there. He wrote (after saying “many people are called but few are chosen”):

Why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson — that the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the Powers of Heaven and that the Powers of Heaven cannot be controlled nor handled, only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, [it’s] true, but when we undertake to cover our sins or to gratify our pride, …the Heavens withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. (T&C 139:5)

So if we undertake to gratify our pride, God ends any commission of authority given to that person. And Christ in the Testimony of St. John is quoted as teaching that “when you teach based upon your own ego, that’s only being done by a teacher who seeks to gratify his pride.” That ought to put us on notice about how careful we ought to be when we teach. 

…but a teacher of truth teaches only what God tells him, and that teacher provides a light worth heeding. (TSJ 6:5)

So if you can find a teacher who is telling you that what they are teaching hails from a higher source, then you may have found something worth heeding. 

Well, so far, as we have made a few milestones moving along in our present day, we began with the proposition that we were under condemnation, and we had been under condemnation since about the second year of the Restoration through the Prophet Joseph Smith, where the Lord says, “You’re under condemnation, even all of you, because you’ve taken lightly the former commandments and the Book of Mormon, not only to say but to do, and this condemnation rests upon all” (see T&C 82:20). So all of us got condemned in the revelation in 1832 (as I recall), and that never got reversed. Now, I was an active Latter-day Saint when I heard people from the podium (including a president of the Church, Ezra Taft Benson) teach that that condemnation remains upon us. 

So, we accepted the proposition that we were under condemnation, and so, trying to figure out a way out of the condemnation, one of the things that multiple people were inspired to do was to go back and to take a look at the Scriptures that had been treated lightly. Two different groups of people, independent of one another (actually, at the first, there were three, but two of the three combined into one, so there were two by the time it came to me), two groups of people worked on trying to get the Scriptures right. And I heard rumors that this was underway, but I wasn’t involved. 

And then one of the groups came to my attention and gave to me their work-up of the Scriptures. Within a few days after that, the second group contacted me and said, “We’ve worked up the Scriptures, and we’d like to turn them over to you.” And I said to both of them (after finding out that they had worked independent) that “You really need to get together.” So two completed projects! They all met at my office in the conference room to look at what one another had done, and they found out that they had encountered many of the same problems, but they’d reached different solutions. And my suggestion was, “I don’t want two different solutions. You guys get it right.” 

So the project that had been worked on for some time—years—now was starting over again. And as it turns out, there was, at the same time, more material rolling out into the public view that had been withheld. And so the project started all over again. And it was worked on diligently. I think that effort, with more people using better resources, took about another 18 months to culminate in a finished project, which at a conference held in St. George, Utah was printed up and distributed in multiple copies, large print, for everyone to take a look at so that everyone could give their input if there’s something that someone else knew that we didn’t know about. And sure enough, as it turns out, there was a fellow who had spent years looking at the Joseph Smith Translation who told us that the Old and New Testament versions we had worked up were incredibly flawed, that the version that we’d been working with had been adopted by the RLDS Church (when they were the Reorganized Church) and that that version included many changes that a committee made that Joseph never did, and it omitted dozens—perhaps hundreds—of changes that Joseph had made that they didn’t feel significant enough to include in the text. 

So now the Bible and the New Testament have to be reworked, and the project starts all over again, and we find out that some of the material that we thought was included in the revelations of Joseph Smith were, in fact, alterations that had occurred after Joseph had released them. And so the Doctrine and Covenants began all over again. 

The Scriptures that are now available have recovered, as close as possible, the version of the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith intended it. The version that the LDS Church printed was taken from a copy that got typeset in England. When the original Book of Mormon was typeset, on average, the printer’s copy made one-and-a-half errors per page when it was copied from the translation copy. So Oliver Cowdrey, making the printer’s copy, introduced errors. The printer’s copy then was taken to E.B. Grandin’s workshop, and John Gilbert typeset the Book of Mormon in the first edition—but John Gilbert was working with a text that had no punctuation. So when Gilbert is supplying the punctuation, he supplies the punctuation in the way that he understood the text ought to be punctuated. Among other things, the punctuation of John Gilbert (which remains as part of the LDS version of the Book of Mormon)—because of commas, semi-colons, periods (and the absence thereof)—has Trinitarian descriptions of God. 

If you erase the punctuation and you let me re-punctuate it, I will make the words of the Book of Mormon consistent with Joseph Smith’s Lectures on Faith. It’s easily done. But there have been Ph.D. dissertations written on the Trinitarian view of Joseph Smith early in his career as a Prophet when he was writing the Book of Mormon, in contrast to his later theological teachings that differed—so Joseph Smith changed his theology. Well, let me change the punctuation, and I’ll make it consistent. It’s not that hard to do. And it has, in fact, much of the punctuation to the text of the Book of Mormon has been eliminated. Wherever possible, we have made it as simple as possible to give the greatest flexibility in understanding it. 

So we have recovered, as close as possible, the version of the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith intended it, we have eliminated things that never belonged in the Doctrine and Covenants, and we have added many of the missing revelations of Joseph Smith that he intended be received as revelations. And there was one talk that Joseph Smith gave in Nauvoo that he wrote up; he intended that as a sermon. It is in… The entirety of that talk is in the—we call it Teachings and Commandments to distinguish it from Doctrine and Covenants—but it’s in that volume that’s being passed about. 

When they worked up the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith had sent Oliver Cowdery to independence, where a printing press was bought and they were going to publish the revelations. So in Independence, Missouri, Oliver Cowdery put together the revelations, and he called it the Book of Commandments. The Book of Commandments never made it into print because the press was destroyed. And when Oliver was attempting to translate the Book of Mormon, he was told about his failure and encouraged by saying, “You get to write other things later for people, not by way of commandment, but you’ll be able to write other revelations later.” When he was putting together the revelations for the Book of Commandments in 1833 in Independence, Oliver took editorial license because he could write on behalf of the Lord—and things in the Book of Commandments blew up; more got put in. When the press was destroyed and copies were smuggled out by the women back to Kirtland (where they had a press and where they were working on a new edition of the Scriptures), the Book of Commandments version of the revelations got incorporated as the “covenants.” And the “doctrine” was something that Joseph Smith worked on from the School of the Prophets: Lectures on Faith. 

Joseph Smith paid attention for months to the content of Lectures on Faith, making sure that he got those right. But a committee took care of the revelations. So Joseph vouched for Lectures on Faith, but he left it to the committee to finish up the revelations. And so the doctrine, which is the Lectures on Faith, was Joseph assuring us that he would stand by every word that appeared in that, and the covenants were left to a committee. We have cleaned up the revelations, we have restored the Lectures on Faith, and we have published that as Teachings and Commandments. 

We have published the most correct and complete version of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (if you have Doctrine and Covenants) is mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants and promised 15 times—that was a necessity for the saints to avoid falling under condemnation; they needed the Joseph Smith Translation. We’ve recovered it. It was promised 15 times. We’ve cleaned it up from what the RLDS did to mangle it. We finished up some of the things that Joseph added that have never been included, and that is The Old Covenants and half of The New Covenants. 

We have obtained and implemented a new covenant from the Lord that was given in 2017. 

We are currently advancing a translation of the Book of Mormon into Old Testament Hebrew that was mentioned earlier. We are also advancing work on a modern English version of the Book of Mormon because, as it turns out, the vocabulary that got employed at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830 has language that we share with those people, but we have an altogether different understanding of the meaning of the words that got employed. And so a modern English version that works through the Book of Mormon—in order to give what today, in our vocabulary, ought to be understood by the word choices—is also currently advancing. And we’re hoping to get (I don’t know, Steph always says, “Never promise a date”) sometime before 2030 to get those in print. We have—modest though our ability and our capacity may be—we have, nevertheless, taken seriously and remembered the covenant people of the Jews and Native Americans, and we have begun a labor on both of those fronts. It’s still modest; we assume it will ultimately pay some dividends. 

We’ve begun gathering funds to build a house of God—a Temple—to be built in the tops of the mountains. 

We’ve published the New Testament and Book of Mormon in a single bound volume, as Joseph Smith intended to do and promised would be done. He wanted the Book of Mormon and the New Testament to occupy a single volume. So The Old Covenants volume is the Old Testament. The New Covenants volume is the Book of Mormon and the New Testament. And the Teachings and Commandments are Lectures on Faith and modern revelations. 

We’ve created a searchable, free, online Scriptures site: scriptures.info. Can you imagine that that website was available for the taking? If you go to scriptures.info, all of the Scriptures are available. They’re available free, they’re online, and they’re searchable. You can do word searches. If you want to know how many times the word “iniquity” appears in the Book of Mormon (because Amberli has aroused your curiosity), you can go to scriptures.info, feed in “iniquity,” limit the search to the Book of Mormon, and see how many times there are. It’s searchable. Now, there have been some updates recently to our phones—the plague of modern man—a new program. And so I think that unless you have an older phone, the search engine on handhelds is currently being updated for the new generation of whatever they’re doing to charge you more money for your phone, and will be available soon. But if you search it from a PC, it’s perfectly established. 

We have also established voluntary fellowships in which tithes are collected and then distributed to members of the fellowship to those needing assistance within the fellowship. Tithing doesn’t go anywhere except among the people who pay in the tithing. It gets used among those who have a need among the fellowship for food, clothing, housing, transportation, medical care, dental care, and education. If anyone within a fellowship has a need, that need gets addressed. Now, there have been fellowships with rather affluent members with practically no needs, and as a consequence of that, they aggregated a lot of money. And so they decided to reach outside their fellowship. This was them deciding this, voluntarily among themselves. No one’s telling anyone what to do with tithe money. It’s all voluntary, and it’s all a matter of consensus. But there was someone who had a profound disability who needed a van that would help transport disabled people and could be operated by someone that was disabled in a wheelchair. The fellowship had enough money; they bought that van for the purpose of helping someone that they knew locally. It’s up to the fellowship to decide such things. But that’s underway. 

Volunteers have organized general and local conferences, including this one. I don’t know who paid for this, but someone did. We believe that the religion requires sacrifice of ourselves. The people who have come over here to participate in this are not being compensated; it is a financial burden to come and to participate. If your religion does not require that you make a sacrifice—and for the most part, people assume that it’s enough to be a home teacher or a home minister or serve as a Sunday school teacher. Tell them it’s gonna involve your pocketbook, and all of a sudden, “Well, that’s not sacrifice. That’s wrong! I’m doing… I’m giving up my time and my talent and everything other than money that the Lord has blessed me with or with which He may bless me to the building up of the Kingdom of God and the establishment of some theoretical future Zion that will never get here until after we develop 133,000 acres of real estate in Florida. But it’s coming!” 

A website has been created to archive the record of the Restoration, including our conferences, our Scriptures, and everything going on currently. And that’s referred to as restorationarchives.com. Any talk that’s ever been given—I assume including the ones that are given here—will ultimately both be available as an audio recording and as a transcription because we have an obsessive-compulsive transcriber; I’ll spare naming her. But she does wonderful work, and she’ll get around to transcribing these things. (I hope part of that’s automated.) 

And we have a website for events that get announced called remnantevents.com. 

And those things are what have been and are currently available or are being prepared for as a consequence of what we’re up to. Small—I’ve never thought numbers mattered. I’m absolutely persuaded numbers don’t matter, now. Based upon the letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, the Lord’s ultimate success in Judea involved 500 who assembled together at the time of His ascension into Heaven. Those I assume to be the correct number of the real believers who had been invited to come along for that occasion. Literally, that means the greatest group of believers that the Lord ever spoke to was the group that He talked to in Bountiful, when people had come up 11 months after the destruction, at a festival time, and they’re standing about showing one another “the marvelous changes that took place since the last time we were at Temple Square. Look, the horn is gone!” Except now the spires are gone; the interior is gone. Sitting over here, you may not know the “marvelous changes” that have gone on. 

All of the original handicraft of the workmen… I don’t know if this is lath and plaster. But it could be because of where we are and how old buildings are here. But all of the interior work of the Salt Lake Temple was made of lath and plaster, painstakingly done by pioneer workmen. It’s gone. They gutted the entire interior. Standing on Temple Square and looking through the windows, you can see the sky from the ground up. It’s… The entire thing’s been gutted. It will be a movie theater version of the temple endowment instead of the live version that was there before. The orientation of the rooms required that you circumambulate a circle, going from room to room and up the stairs; you were required to change directions (a symbol of repentance) when you climb and then change and continue climbing, and then ultimately complete your rotation once you get to the celestial room through the veil, entering from the terrestrial room. And then at the highest level, there were sealing rooms that were made off of the celestial room; an annex was made on the north wall off of the celestial room with a corridor that had sealing rooms on it. That entire north-wall annex is gone. I noticed that one of the problems the temple was having was that when they cut through, in order to add that, the blocks at the corner of the cut had begun to separate, so you could see the crack that was made. They got rid of all that to sturdy up the structure again. But because of that (if the Deseret News can be trusted), they have now moved the sealing rooms—instead of being at the highest level and off of the celestial room—they’ve moved it downstairs into the basement, in the new way of doing it. So you’ll get in… And by the way, in order to gut it, they had to remove the solemn assembly room at the top. I don’t know what they’re going to do to replace or if they’re going to do it. It’s so rare that they use the three pulpits at one end and the three pulpits at the other end. And they have a theater over in the Conference Center, so that’s where the General Authorities can come hold their solemn assemblies. So I don’t know what they’re going to do with that. But one of the premonitions that I had had some time ago was that the Salt Lake Temple would be destroyed. But I thought, rather like the trumpet being shaken out of the hand, that it would be the doing of the Lord, the trembling of the Earth. But as it turns out, it’s been altogether destroyed voluntarily by the proprietors. They’ve gutted it, and now it’s not gonna contain… I assume that they’ll try and put moldings back in. But they’ll be wood and painted; they’ll be, you know, pre-manufactured stuff (at least I hope it’s wood and not plastic). 

Okay, so it’s five o’clock. And I understand this was the moment at which we were supposed to end, but I’m happy to—if anyone’s got a quick question—I’m happy to answer anything on any subject, including why there are so many New York Yankee hats over here! Don’t you guys know the Yankees are the evil empire? Get a Red Sox hat, for goodness sake. 

Yeah, what?

Question: I was just interested in asking whether you could expound upon a comment that you made in Leeds that kind of made me struggle a little bit to think that, umm, when you said that we may have decades. 

DS: It took 500 years for the Roman Empire to fall apart, you know. [Indecipherable audience comment.] It took 500 years for the Roman Empire to finally fall apart. The world is held together—tattered though it may be—the world is held together by American hegemony. If you take the American, really, Navy out of the picture (I guess the Air Force’s ability to transport part of that, as well), but right now, you know: 

Everywhere you look, there are potential conflicts that are kept at bay because there’s a respected world order. So how long does it take? Well, once you remove the capacity to enforce that, you still have a period during which that animosity turns to violence. It’s not abrupt; it’s gradual and generally requires provocation. And the prophecy is that the turbulence, the calamity, the stuff that is to come is going to make a full end of all nations (T&C 85:3). Well, that’s quite a sweeping statement. To make a full end of all nations is not something to be achieved in a blink of an eye. 

If you start today and you remove the American presence and their military hegemony from the scene, it’s still gonna take a while to work things up. I mean, go up to the castle and look at all the swords. How long did it take to fabricate those? You don’t get ready for that, you know, overnight, and you’re going to have to undertake the preparations for war. These people aren’t gonna go out throwing rocks at one another. It takes a while. But the wicked are going to destroy the wicked. That’s the prophecy. The wicked are gonna destroy the wicked, but it’s tedious work. I mean, there are a lot of wicked, but there are a lot of wicked to kill. And everyone’s got something to do when it comes to that kind of an undertaking. 

So, yeah, don’t think of it in terms of an abrupt moment. There will come an abrupt moment, but that’s at the end, “by and by,” when the Lord in His glory does the wrap-up with, you know, things burning as stubble under the feet of the righteous. That will come. But that’s not where it starts. That’s where—after the wicked have had a season of hard labor destroying one another—it all turns about, and the Lord takes care of what’s left. 

Well, thank you. We’ve got someone (a monitor) now at the door telling us to get out of here. So, [singing] “Get that thing back where it came from…”

TRANSCRIPT

The post Milestones appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following remarks were shared as part of the United Kingdom Conference held in Leeds, England on November 14, 2023.

Knowing that I was coming over here, I found some quotes from Englishmen to use. Assuming that a proper education…

[Audio cuts out from 0:15 to 0:35. Denver quoted Winston Churchill as follows: “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”]

…That’s one of the problems with religion, generally, and the truth, almost invariably. 

George Bernard Shaw said, “Beware of false knowledge; [it’s] more dangerous than ignorance.” Ignorance leaves you, you know, still unaware; false knowledge makes you certain. And that’s where unbelief comes from. 

And then this other one, which I like most of all, from George Bernard Shaw, “All great truths begin as blasphemies,” which is where often we find ourselves. I had a Catholic friend—I still have him; I shouldn’t talk of him in the past tense—I had a Catholic friend who heard I had been excommunicated from the LDS Church for writing a book, and he called me excited about that, saying, “You know that when you write a book and get excommunicated from a religion, over time that makes you a saint!” He said, “Someday, you’re going…” Well, as a Catholic would think, “Someday you’re going to be canonized!” I thought, “Oh, settle down. You’re my friend because you coach baseball, and that’s what we talk about, not religion.” 

He’s an honest man, however. I went to the Rose Festival at the Catholic Church with him. He owned a motorcycle. I owned a Harley Davidson. We went on a poker ride (and this was a Catholic Church affair). On a poker ride, you ride from bar to bar to bar, and then you stop at the bar, and you get a card. And after you have made five stops, you have five cards. And depending upon the hand, someone would have the winning hand with the best group of cards. Now, when we got to the fourth stop, which was a bar in a little town called Lehi, Utah (full of cowboys and about 98% Mormon), the bartender was talking about how the Catholics were welcome; they ought to come back. They have a big affair every week on Wednesday evenings where the local Relief Society ladies come in for dinner at this Lehi, Utah bar. And so if the Relief Society could go on Wednesday evenings, I felt proper as (then) a Latter-day Saint attending the same thing. But it was going on too long, and I had to leave. So I gave my four cards to my Catholic friend, and I had to go home; we had some family thing going on. He kept my four cards. He went to the fifth bar, he collected two cards, and then he went back to the Catholic Church in Draper, Utah, submitted two hands of cards, and in my absence, my Catholic friend said I had the winning hand. I won a $700 leather coat as a result of winning the Catholic poker run. I wonder how many Mormon friends, Presbyterian friends, or others entrusted with the winning hand and in my absence would have surrendered a $700 leather coat because it was me that was the winner and not him. He’s a trusted friend, as a consequence. I know him to be honest. 

I’ve been listening to everything that got said here today, and I was struck in particular by Amberli’s statement about this singular individual: that murder went on among the Nephites, but it wasn’t coupled with “secret” until Gadianton, and then the account that she gives of how things progressed from there until the utter destruction of the people because of the prevalence of secret murder among the Nephites. And I’m persuaded by her book; I think she makes a very sad but telling point. 

When I was a law student at Brigham Young University, it was a very young law school, comparatively; I would be in the fifth graduating class. But every year, because the president of the university and the dean of the law school and several of the other members of the faculty had been clerks at the United States Supreme Court, every year during the moot court competition, we would have one or more members of the United States Supreme Court come to the law school to sit during the moot court competition by the students, and then they would meet with us afterwards. And I met a number of the Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Warren Burger, while I was a law student. (And I was a member of the ad hoc committee with Chief Justice Warren Burger that founded the American Inns of Court, modeled after the British Inns of Court. And so someday, I hope in London to visit the Inns of Court there.) But one of the justices who visited while he was there was Justice Harry Blackmun. 

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in Roe vs. Wade, which in 1973 made abortion legal in the United States. No one voted on it; no one had a say on it; it went through the courts. And Justice Blackmun wrote an opinion which said that, through the third trimester, abortion was a constitutional protected right not found in the language of the Constitution but found in (and this is the language) found in the penumbra to the right to privacy. “Penumbra” is a word that describes that gray zone between light and dark; it’s not fully lit, but you’re still somewhat out of the darkness. And in that vague, poorly illuminated (if you can call it that) area between the right to privacy (that we think is brightly lit in the Constitution) and some things that may possibly be implied, there was this right to privacy that guaranteed a woman the ability to have an abortion. 

There’s a scathing dissent written by Justice Rehnquist (who also would come to our law school while I was a law student), and Justice Rehnquist said, “There’s absolutely no precedent for finding this to belong to the right to privacy. It didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was written; it was illegal and considered immoral—in fact, criminal—in every one of the original 13 states that adopted the Constitution, and it is, by and large, illegal throughout the nation at this time.” 

And so you have a “penumbra” in the majority opinion, and you have an outright declaration that what Justice Blackmun had written is a load of crap! However, there is a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion written by Rehnquist—there were other opinions that joined in for other reasons—but Blackmun’s was the majority opinion. And it was like they were speaking opposite one another in different directions with different reasoning, without ever coming together to meet one another’s arguments. 

So when Justice Blackmun opened up the meeting for questions in the moot courtroom, and I was raising my hand to ask a question, and Dean Lee knew that was problematic, Dean Lee was relieved to see Blackmun was calling on people throughout. I was on the far left (I guess I would have been on Justice Rehnquist’s far right, which is probably a little more symbolically suitable). And after trying to be called on for some time, Justice Blackmun said, “Oh, I’ll take one more question. I haven’t called on anyone from over there.” And he called on me, and Dean Lee looked like, “Gah. I could have gone all day without having this!”

So I stood up, and I said, “Justice Blackmun, we have a dissenting opinion in Roe vs. Wade.” Okay. I just spoke the tragic words “Roe vs. Wade.” He’d been on campus for like two weeks, and no one had invoked Roe vs. Wade, and now there it is in all its messiness, sitting right on the table. 

“In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Rehnquist in Roe vs. Wade, you in the majority seem to be like two ships passing in the night. Would you please respond to Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion and explain why he got it wrong?” 

[Impersonating Elvis]: Thank you very much. Elvis has left the building. 

And I sat down, and there was this long, awkward pause while Justice Rehnquist Justice Blackmun paced back and forth up behind the bar at the front of the moot courtroom, rubbing his hair back. And after a long silence, he did not answer my question, but essentially said… Well, he first told the story about how when he came to the Supreme Court, the Sergeant at Arms came into his newly assigned chambers and dropped a large book on the table with a loud thump and said, “Sign it.” And he looked at the book, and it was the Bible. And it had the signatures of venerable prior justices: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Taft, there were a number of names that he listed, and he’s kind of being a tourist looking at the signatures in the Bible, when the Sergeant at Arms [clearing his throat loudly] clears his throat like, “Get on with it.” And he signed his name, and the Sergeant at Arms closed the Bible and left. 

He said he was a religious man. He said he was a man of faith. And he said that religiously there was no way that he could justify abortion. But he said constitutionally he did not see any way to prevent it. And therefore, what he wrote in the majority opinion, he felt had to be done—all of which got sent down the river by a decision of the Supreme Court just in the last few years, in which they overruled Roe vs. Wade, and they sent the decision back to the states for the states to grapple with, and not as something that gets imposed from the top without the public being able to vote on the matter.

This is from the Book of Mormon: Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right, but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right (Mosiah 13:6 RE).

In 1973, the people did not have a vote; they were not given the opportunity to decide that. A single man, acting in the role of Gadianton, imposed upon an entire nation of over 200 million people the judicially imposed, from-the-top-down edict that abortion in the United States is a right. Can’t be prevented. But that right got restored to the people, and the United States was given the opportunity to make a decision at the state level about whether they would or they would not permit abortion to continue on. And so for the last couple of years in the United States, state legislatures have been grappling with it. Politicians have been running campaigns in which they came out supporting or opposing abortion, and state legislators have been elected as a consequence of the position that they hold. And just (I think) last week, Ohio voters were given the opportunity to decide whether they would amend the constitution of the state of Ohio to allow abortion to take place as a constitutional right in the state of Ohio. And the people of Ohio voted to amend the constitution of the state and to make abortion a right that they have in the state. Well, see, the role of decision-making was never given to the voice of the people in 1973. But it has been given now. 

For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction. For the laws had become corrupted, yea, and this was not all; they were a stiffnecked people, insomuch that they could not be governed by the law nor justice, save it were to their destruction. (Helaman 2:15 RE)

There are a handful of states that have made abortion either illegal altogether or limit it to circumstances that we find compelling, like saving the life of the mother or rape or something similar. But on both coasts of the United States, the decision has been made that abortion is permitted. So we find, now, the voice of the people having been persuaded. If you had had an election in 1972, in which this issue was put in the lap of the people and they were permitted to vote, there’s no question what the outcome would have been. It had to be imposed by edict. The edict was issued by Harry Blackmun. In a very real sense, he has occupied the role of Gadianton because now, after 30 years of it being a right and arguments having been mustered to support it, people can’t conceive of it being anything other than a right. And therefore, the voice of the people now has been persuaded by Gadianton that it is altogether right and fitting that we should engage in the process of murdering the unborn. It’s one of the sobering lessons in the Book of Mormon. But the Book of Mormon does not leave us without hope. 

The destruction that took place is analogous to the destruction which will take place, and the destruction was targeted. God knew who to spare, and God knew how to spare them. However random, however surprising the circumstances may have been in which the destruction took place, God knows who His people are. And God has a line He won’t cross: He will let the wicked destroy the wicked; He will even let the wicked destroy the righteous, to a point, in order to justify His judgments against the wicked; but what He will not do is destroy the righteous. He can’t do that; it would violate one of the laws that He has adopted for this entire creation. God will not destroy the righteous. Therefore, if you accept the Book of Mormon, believe its principles, follow its precepts, and accept it as it has been offered in 2017 to us as a covenant, God will not allow the elements to be used, the destructions that have been decreed, or the fires that will consume the wicked as stubble to affect you if you remain true and faithful to what He asks of us. And what He asks of us is largely that our hearts be inclined, that we do our best. You don’t have to be error-free. He’s a forgiving, loving God. Try to do what He asks, give it your best effort, and realize that God will not only refuse to destroy you in the coming judgments, but He will protect those that are His sheep. 

I also want to make clear, because this question came up in a conversation I had about a week ago. I want to make clear, there’s no reason to be in a panic about the coming judgments. First of all, not everyone who has not heard of the Book of Mormon or accepted rebaptism is going to be destroyed. That’s not gonna happen. There will be many, many good people from all over the world with backgrounds that are as divergent as Hinduism and Islam and even atheism who live harmlessly, with goodwill towards their fellow man, who do not present a threat to anyone, who have regard for their fellow man. They won’t be destroyed; they’ll be preserved. The reason why the prophecy into the Millennium talks about people, that the heathens and “it being well with them,” and there being an effort to reach out to them during the Millennium is because many of them are going to be preserved in the coming destruction, and there will be a lot of opportunity for people in very far-spread places to say, “Hey! Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord’s house where we can learn of His ways.” And why do they have to learn of His ways at the mountain of the Lord’s house? It’s because where they reside, they don’t have it. They have to go and learn it “that we may walk in His paths.” See, once they learn, then they want to return and they want to live their lives accordingly. There’s a great effort that will be made among people—good people—who will be preserved in the coming destructions. So if you’ve got someone in your family who’s a good person, and this good person thinks you’re heretical, if they’re a good person, you don’t have to wrestle them down into the River Thames and dunk them under the water in a panic because, otherwise, they’re gonna ignite like a match head when the Lord appears in His glory. That’s not how this is going to work. Calm down! 

Look, the best way for people to be interested in what you have to offer, assuming you have something to offer, is to calmly go about living your life confident in the message of the Lord, trusting in the Book of Mormon, and living true to the faith that you hold. That arouses curiosity. And when someone asks to know about something, they’re a whole lot more interested in hearing what you have to say than they are when you come in hands-on-hip and finger-wagging, saying, “You’re gonna be damned. But I’m not! And I’m not because I got something you don’t got! You, you need what I got!” You’re not gonna persuade anyone with that kind of nonsense. If they’re good people, rejoice with them. Love them. Be kindly towards them. Be patient with them—a long and patient example. When they see… 

I mean, why does the Lord in the Sermon on the Mount say, “Blessed are you when men will speak all manner against you falsely for my name’s sake” (see Matthew 3:14 RE)? It’s because hearts have been broken by hypocrites so often that no one trusts a genuinely religious person to be authentically what they claim to be. I can’t remember the name of that preacher from Oklahoma…  I want to say Swaggart, but I don’t think that’s it. There was a preacher from Oklahoma who had a university. [Audience comments.] No, no, it wasn’t Bakker. And I don’t think it was Oral Roberts, although Oral Roberts had… This guy made, like, Newsweek magazine; it’s been a while. [Audience comment.] Umm, it could have been. Anyway, this guy… I think… I want to say it started with an H, but that doesn’t matter; name doesn’t matter. This guy wound up sleeping with the coeds at his university and getting caught. And when he got caught, this is… This really tells you where his heart was—he’s a Christian minister, but where his heart was—he said he “couldn’t help himself; it was in his genes and chromosomes. It was biology. He just couldn’t help himself.” And there’s an article about it, and he’s giving his confession and saying, Oh, he was compelled to do so! And my reaction to the article was, “Yeah, if he’d kept his jeans on, his chromosomes wouldn’t have been spread about the campus!” 

We’re accustomed to that kind of crap from the religious community! I had a friend who went to present a paper to a group of Christians in Atlanta. And he presented his paper to an auditorium full of Christians, and one of them came up to him and said, “You talk and write like you believe this stuff!” And he said, “Yeah, I… Don’t you?” And the reaction was [disdain sound]. Nonsense. So he asked that there be a show of hands in the auditorium of those who did not believe the account of the New Testament to be accurate, trustworthy, and reliable—these are ministers! 80% of the people raised their hands who were professional ministers! They didn’t believe it. He flipped the question and said, “Well, do any of you believe it to be true?” And about 10% did. So the other missing 10% just didn’t know. And they’re ministers!

The reason why people say evil concerning you for His name’s sake is because if you really do believe and follow what He teaches, everyone is gonna be skeptical because there are so many hypocrites, so many people who sin and disbelieve in private but make a public pretense of believing in it. But if you endure that gracefully, if you really do demonstrate faith in Christ, those people who speak evil concerning you will eventually have it touch them, and they will realize they finally found an authentic follower of the Lord. And when they realize that, that arouses curiosity. You don’t have to bludgeon anyone into believing. You don’t have to go ask the golden questions: “What do you know about the Mormons? Would you like to know more?” You don’t have to do any of that. They’ll ask you. They’ll come to you. You may have to put up with a lot of nonsense first. 

I can’t tell you how much garbage there is about me on the Internet. I don’t defend myself; I don’t respond to the nonsense. I just let it go. But I don’t know how many people who have come and spent any time with me have walked away shocked at the remarkable difference between this rather welcoming chap who seemed to have a bit of common sense about him versus the lunatic that’s out there trying to recruit a cult so that he can fair sumptuously while shacking up with a polygamous commune. I do not believe that Joseph Smith originated or practiced polygamy. I believe it is morally wrong. I have taught that; I’ve been clear on that. I’ve published things about that. And yet on the Internet, that nonsense still percolates about. 

So you’re gonna get lied about. You’re gonna get misinterpreted. You’re gonna get misunderstood. That’s just what Christ said would happen to you in the Sermon on the Mount. So don’t let it surprise you or frustrate you or anger you. Blessed are you. Take it in stride! How do you think Christ remained so congenial throughout His ministry? If you had the nonsense said to your face that He had said to His face, you would have probably been far less kindly than Jesus was. He walked the path; He set the example. We’re just asked to follow it. He’s already set the pattern before us, and He’s given us counsel in the Sermon on the Mount on how to do it. 

So, I’m out of time. We’re past when we said we would stop. There’s still time to hang around in here, and I don’t know if we need to straighten things up or if there’s more treats in the back to be consumed. But I want to wrap up by saying, look, the Book of Mormon is exactly what it purports to be. And Joseph Smith was not only what he said he was, he rather understated the case. Joseph’s proclamations about himself were modest. He was more than he said he was. But he didn’t think people could hear everything that needed to be said. And although he began the process of the restoration, it was not finished! It’s not going to be finished by a group of people atop a multibillion-dollar church that has the financial and political and social clout to decide to undertake a trillion-dollar enterprise developing a city in Florida on 133,000 acres.

They’re not gonna do it. It’s gonna be the few who are the humble followers of Christ who take Him seriously that will finish up the work. That is currently afoot. That is currently advancing, step-by-step, forward to a conclusion. And the promise is that in the generation when it starts, it will all be concluded. There’s still time. “Generation” is a vague timing. We may number them as “Z” and “Baby Boomers” and “X” and “Millennials.” The Lord doesn’t do it that way. So however long a generation is, that’s how long it will take to wrap things up. I think we’ve got perhaps decades. Just live your religion. Just set the example. Arouse the curiosity of others who have seen hypocrisy year in/year out, and live true to your faith. Don’t be a hypocrite, and God will use you to a good end. 

Of that, I testify, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

TRANSCRIPT

The post Live True to Your Faith appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following thoughts were shared as part of the 2023 Unity in Humanity Interfaith Celebration livestream on October 14, 2023.

One of the comments that Brian Bowler just made about prayer circle: That’s a practice that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints participate in in the temples that they build. And at one point, when you get through the process of the temple and the ceremony is wrapping up, there’s a symbol that gets discussed, and it’s a symbol that represents (according to the lecture given) “all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole”—whole w-h-o-l-e, not h-o-l-e, although given where society is right now, all the truths may as well go into a hole. But the truth that can be circumscribed into one great connection is really represented, I think, well by the comments that were made in the earlier presenters. The truths that you discover at the highest level of the teachings of Hinduism and at the highest level of Buddhism and at the highest levels of the Christian experience all merge into a kind of singular, harmonious whole that agrees with one another across the religions. The problem is that our… Marquita [Oliver] was talking about how she doesn’t like organized religion. The problem with organizing religion into entities—no matter what form that entity takes—is that it very often, then, has jealousy for itself and defensiveness against anything that would be viewed as a rival. The religion that I believe in was founded by a prophet who claimed God had visited with him and enlightened him. And one of the proclamations that he made in defining what it was he believed was that all truth belonged to that religion, no matter where it came from. 

The traditional form that Mormonism is regarded to have assumed is in a corporate entity called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that institution has renounced the name “Mormon,” and they no longer claim that they ARE Mormon. In fact, the leader of that church says that whenever the term “Mormon” gets used, that’s a victory for the devil. And I am a Mormon. The founder—the Prophet-founder—defined Mormonism as “more good,” and the religion consists of all truth, no matter where it can be found. And I think that’s a welcoming proposition where, if you can find truth out there, then that’s what we believe. That’s what I believe. That’s what my religion consists of: whatever truth can be found. 

The theme of this conference is “Sacred Beliefs and Holy Writings,” and those, in my view, are two separate things. Not all sacred beliefs are contained in holy writings, nor does holy writings contain fully the sacred beliefs. Texts that I regard as holy writing demonstrate the dichotomy between these two things. This is from a passage in a book called Alma: 

It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless, they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart — only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word. And he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God…in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the Devil and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

Another way of stating that is: If you ignore light and truth, you get less light and truth, and eventually you fall into darkness; and that darkness, that misery, that hopelessness IS hell. It happens here, and it happens now; it is hell. 

That same concept—that you have more understanding or you have less understanding, but that there are limits to what you are able to share in mortality—shows up in the New Testament writings of St. Paul. Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians about a person (we all think he’s referring to himself, but he’s not identifying himself as the person) who was caught up to the third Heaven…(whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell; God knows), that he was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Of such an one will I glory (2 Corinthians 1:41 RE).

The idea that there is something that God can reveal but that man cannot talk about is embedded throughout the Scriptures. Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism) and Sidney Rigdon were shown a vision of what will go on in eternity, and they end that description of what they saw with this: 

But great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his kingdom which he shewed unto us, which surpasseth all understanding, in glory, and in might, and in dominion, which he commanded us we should not write while we were yet in the spirit, and are not lawful for men to utter, neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power of the holy ghost, which God bestows on those who love him and purif[y] themselves before him, to whom he grants th[is] privilege of seeing and knowing for themselves, that through the power and manifestation of the spirit, while in the flesh, they may be able to bear his presence in the world of glory.

See, there are some things about the highest form of religious experience which are intended to be shared between you and God alone. Religion can have sacred beliefs, and religion can have holy writings. But the holy writings often tell you about the sacred experiences that those that pursued the path received, going along the way, in which they encountered God. Religion is intended to bring us to encounter God, whether that is in the least dramatic form of feeling yourself closer to Him or more dramatic forms in which sudden bursts of clarity and understanding come, overwhelming the mind; or a voice speaking to you that comes out of nowhere that informs you of some great answer to a dilemma that you’ve been looking for; or an angelic visitor who comes from another dimension that steps into this dimension to speak to you and to make themselves known and visible to you; or the experience of being caught up (as Paul writes about) into Heaven and seeing and hearing unspeakable things. Everywhere along that continuum, there is a connection that happens between the individual and God, and that’s what religion and sacred writings are intended to cause to happen. Institutions that interfere with that process by claiming that they are a substitute for the experience of a living, breathing, presence of God in your daily experience are really substituting themselves, like an idol, to become a false image, a false messiah, a deceiver, if you will. 

Enlightenment should be experiential (in that you go through it), and it should be shared universally. Nephite disciples recorded in the Book of Mormon: And many of them saw and heard unspeakable things which are not lawful to be written (3 Nephi 12:3 RE). God wants to tell them to you. He doesn’t want someone else to; He wants to tell them to you. Three of the Nephite disciples reported about their experience: 

And behold, the Heavens were opened, and they were caught up into Heaven and saw and heard unspeakable things. And it was forbidden them that they should utter, neither was it given unto them power that they could utter, the things which they saw and heard. And whether they were in the body or out of the body, they could not tell; for it did [not] seem unto them like a transfiguration of them, that they were changed from this body of flesh into an immortal state, that they could behold the things of God.

Your sacred beliefs, based upon holy writings, point you to something that is ineffable and intended to be personal and intended to be shared between you and God alone. 

Nephi saw a vision at the beginning of the Book of Mormon, in which he saw the unfolding of history down through the end. But he was instructed by the angel who was his accompanier on the journey, But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write (1 Nephi 3:30 RE). We should all have experiences that lead us to a familiarity and an intimacy that we share between ourselves and God alone. 

And I do want to comment on the eclipse. As we heard about the eclipse that it—like a snake—it gets a bad reputation. Oddly enough, the snake is not originally a symbol of the deceiver or the adversary. Originally, it was a symbol of God. In order to mislead—in the myth of Adam and Eve—in order to mislead them, the adversary assumed the form of the snake (which was a symbol of renewal of life, shedding the skin, rising from the grave, eternal life), co-opted that, and turned it into the source of temptation and, ultimately, transgression against God and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. But it wasn’t always so. 

I do think that we’re in the midst of a series of eclipses that hold some communicative value from on high. The one that happened in 2017 and the one that happens in 2024 (next year) are total eclipses. I think the total eclipse brings together a symbol of both the Father and the Mother: In the image of [God, created he them], male and female, created he them (Genesis 3:14 RE) is a statement at the very beginning of the account of God’s dealing with this world in the book of Genesis found in the Bible. The image of God, therefore, is both the man and the woman. The sun is many times larger than the moon, but the moon is many times closer than the sun, and from the surface of the Earth, the two occupy the same space in the vision field that we have from the surface of the Earth looking up. Well, when the sun and the moon in an eclipse are at totality (a total eclipse), then you see neither the sun nor the moon; you can see the one and the other joining together, but at the moment of the eclipse, they’re both blotted out. 

Today’s eclipse was an annular eclipse, which is unlike a total in that this one is called a “ring of fire,” because the ring of fire leaves you still with the ring of the glory of the sun exposed, but the presence of the moon there. I think today’s eclipse, unlike the one in 2017 and 2024, represents an agreement between both the Divine Father and the Divine Mother—the image of God—striking an agreement. And I think you have to view the first eclipse and the (in 2017) and the second (in 2024) as conveying a message and today’s eclipse signifying that the two of them are in agreement about that message. (And I think that I’ll speak more about that when we get to a conference in April of 2024.) 

For today, I do think that we have heard from people a consistent message that there is truth, it does matter, that you can take the Hindu teachings and look at the message of Christ and you can find that what Christ is talking about and what the highest level of values in Hinduism represent can be found there. The idea of “awakening” in Buddhism and the “illusion of separation” and the “presence of God in us all” is one of the themes in the talk given by King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon, where he talks about how God is within every one of us, that God is sustaining us from moment to moment by lending us breath so that we can live and move and have our being, and that we are all connected because we’re here borrowing power from God to be here, and that same God who sustains us all, therefore, we have in common. Our separation is an illusion. And there is a constant recycling of existence that we read about in the prophecies of Joseph Smith, about how this process continues worlds without end (T&C 69:28) and how we go from exaltation to exultation until we attain, ultimately, to a point where we secure the resurrection from the dead and we’re no longer needing to go through endless cycles of existence. I agree with what Marquita had said that we are not as different as we are the same. The problem is we tend not to notice our similarities; we tend instead to only reject by noticing our differences. 

And one thing I noted before the schedule was put out was that we intended to end at 12:45, and I think it’s discourteous to go on and require people more time than they’ve allotted for this. So I intend to wrap up now. I don’t think there’s any questions for me, and I’ll turn it back over to you, Jill.

Jill Van Haren: …Denver, there is a question that came up in the question thread. Would you like to take a look at that, or do you want me to read it to you?

Denver: “Many of the panelists explain explicitly, to a degree, what their particular spiritual practices/prayers/mantras look like. Could you share some light into how you pray?” 

Well, this is what I would say. It’s different now than it was at the beginning. At the beginning, prayer seemed the same sort of thing that one would see in a Christian church or in a Mormon church or in a Catholic thing. I didn’t use rote prayers. I used the kind of formal language of prayer. And very often it had the same elements that you would think of in a normal prayer setting: You address God, [and] you articulate what it is you’re looking for. That has changed over time. And while I still will, on occasion, engage in something that is akin to that, very often I reflect upon the things of God all the time; that’s where my mind goes, continually. It’s not that I am constantly in a “state of prayer,” but I will be aware of the presence and involvement of God in things that are going on and will take time to reflect upon and to meditate upon things that involve God and truth [and] creation. 

Yesterday, my wife and I were on a hike, and I was reflecting again, out loud, about how—in both the revelations of Joseph Smith and in the book of Revelation itself—there will come a point at which time is no more; there will be a point at the end of this creation when time ceases to exist in the way in which we encounter time; and at that point, there is time no more. And so if we continue our existence on into that state and there’s timelessness there, then we’re already there; I mean, we will move into that condition, but since that condition is, in itself, timeless, that timeless existence already exists, even though I’m here in time. 

There’s a notion in the Egyptian religion about the ka and the ba, the ka being you in an eternal sense, and the ba being you here in mortality, and you both exist in both places at one time and that there’s no difference between the two, and the objective is to try to get in touch with your eternal self. And there are echoes of that within the Scriptures that I regard as sacred writings or holy writings. And reflecting on that and trying to push that theoretical concept back further is a kind of meditative enterprise that is, in my view, a form of prayer, a form of reflection, and I engage in a lot of that a lot of the time. And there’s not a clear distinction between the prayer life, on the one hand, and the daily existence, on the other hand. 

There’s a passage in the book of Alma about how you ought to pray, and he starts at a distant spot (in your fields and over your crops), and he talks about prayer, and he mentions place after place where prayer should take place, and then it ends with the proximity getting closer and closer until, finally, you’re alone in your closet at home, and you’re praying. And that “alone in your closet at home,” I don’t view as merely physical; I view it also as when you’re alone in your thoughts when you can—by meditative practice—exclude everything there is here and to take into account your relationship to God, you can go to your closet in secret prayer. And I think—now—prayer is more of a constant phenomenon and not an event to be scheduled and to be set apart. I can pray even while I’m in a meeting like this or when I’m talking, as I am now. So, it’s changed over time. 

TRANSCRIPT

The post Unity in Humanity Interfaith Celebration – 2023 appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This interview of Denver Snuffer by Michelle Stone was recorded on July 14, 2023 and published on her YouTube Channel with her edits on August 27th, 2023. This audio contains the full content of the original audio without her edits.

Michelle Stone: There you are… Can you hear me?

Denver Snuffer: I can hear you. Can you hear me?

MS: Perfect, yep, there it is. We’re just barely getting set up—the last-minute stuff with the kids, always.

DS: Hah.

MS: Okay, let me get this started. 

Well, thank you again for agreeing to talk to me!

DS: Yeah, yeah!

MS: I appreciate it. Okay, anything you want to start with? Should we just go ahead and get going? Is there anything you want/topics you want me to avoid or make sure to cover?

DS: Well, if you ask something that I don’t want to talk about, I’ll just not talk about it. Umm…

MS: Perfect.

DS: I don’t really like doing these kinds of things. So, you know, I’m not enthused, but I’m willing to participate. So… 

MS: Well, thank you!

DS: …we’ll do that. Okay.

MS: We’ll hope for the best! Well, I’m gonna go ahead and start recording, if that’s all right. 

DS: Yeah, that’s fine. 

MS: And then…

DS: Yep. 

MS: Okay. I had a super late night last night. So hopefully, I can remember all the words I need to… I’m a bit sleep deprived. Hopefully, it will all go well. So, okay. 

(Oh, let’s see what’s going on with this. One sec. Gotta get the microphone going as well.)

DS: Do you need me to talk to check volume level?

MS: Umm, I think it sounds good. I’m gonna put you on a separate recording. So it should… I’m sadly low-tech. So it’ll just be the best it’s gonna be. Okay, we’ll go ahead and get started, if that’s all right.

DS: That’s fine. 

MS: Okay.

Welcome to this conversation that I am having with Denver Snuffer. Denver, I really, really want to thank you for coming. I know this is not your favorite thing to do. This is not your cup of tea. But I also wanted to explain… Well, I’ve kind of explained to my audience a little bit about why I wanted to talk to you. There are so many things I would love to talk to you about. For those who don’t know Denver’s story, I’m sure we’re going to go into that. And for anyone who feels nervous having Denver here, I just want to repeat that I have talked to many different people who are not members of our faith who have different journeys and different paths. And I think that we can all rely on the fact that the Lord has given us the gift of discernment, so we can listen to what people say and discern truth and error without fear and without needing to just reject people. That’s part of why I wanted to have Denver come. It’s ‘cuz I feel like his voice has been silenced, and other people have been talking on his behalf in ways that don’t feel very fair to me. 

So Denver, with all of that being said… I guess I should say Denver was/has been a member of the church, I believe, for 40 years. He was baptized, and 40 years later, to the day (if I’m getting the story right) was excommunicated in 2015 for, I believe, a book tour, right? Like a series of lectures you were giving?

DS: Yeah. I was baptized on September 10th of 1973, and I was excommunicated on September 10th of 2013… 

MS: Oh, of 2013. Okay. 

DS: …and it was exactly 40 years to the day.

MS: That is amazing. So, yeah, this is a complicated conversation, ‘cuz I really want my faithful LDS listeners to feel comfortable and welcome and not be afraid, so I’m hoping that people can just listen. But I want to tell a little bit about my… 

So I’ve shared before that I was struggling in my church membership ‘cuz I felt like the church was not living up to what I expected it to be if it was the true church of God. And I was reading the Book of Mormon and just getting these powerful, strong messages from it: mainly, that it was TO us and ABOUT us, that we ARE the Gentiles, we are the ones being called to repentance. And also, what I started to see was this pattern of people coming into the presence of God, basically telling us how to do that. It seemed like an instruction manual with part-by-part, and it starts with Nephi telling us everything he possibly can until the Lord tells him, “You can’t say anymore,” and ends with Moroni basically summing it all up and saying, “If you have…” you know, and right before Moroni, we have Ether, that’s one of the most profound stories, the brother of Jared telling us, “Wait, this is how you come into the presence of God.” And then again, Moroni setting it up. And I felt so… Yeah, I just felt like how… What is going on here? How can I dare believe that this is what the Book of Mormon is about—because someone would have TOLD me! How can I think I know more than everybody else or that I know something different than anybody else? I really, like, it really was actually quite a bit of turmoil. And that was when I was led, really, by the Lord to this book that I believe is… I don’t know if this is the first book you wrote, but it’s the one that I found pretty early on. 

DS: It is…

MS: And it sure… 

DS: …the first.

MS: Is this the first one you wrote? 

DS:  Yeah. 

MS: So this is The Second Comforter (so they can get it in the screen), Communing with the Lord through the Conversing with the Lord through the Veil, and it—for me—served as this beautiful second witness. It gave me permission to believe what the Lord was teaching me without feeling like I was all alone and crazy, you know? So I want to thank you for that. That really was a gift to me. And I want to say also, for those worried about Denver, he wrote this book as a fully active, participating member of the church, I believe serving on the High Council, if I’m not mistaken. And… 

DS: Yeah… 

MS: …and this book didn’t do anything to get you into trouble. This book is not…

DS: Oh, no; heavens, no.

MS: …unsafe for continued members. 

DS: No. And in fact, the manuscript for that book was submitted to Deseret Book, and they took seven months to evaluate it before deciding that they thought the content was too sacred for them to feel comfortable putting out there. But when they finally decided not to publish it, they encouraged me to find another publisher to put it out there, and ultimately, yeah, it got into print. But I didn’t want it advertised; I didn’t want it… I didn’t want to do book signings. I didn’t want it to become something that a lot of attention was drawn to. 

Because I refused to advertise or publicize or do book signings or promote it in any way, I had to bear the cost to get it into print. I had to pay the cost out of pocket for the cover art. I had to pay to get the professional editor. I had to… It took a lot of money to get it into print, but I was hoping it would be a very quiet book—that people for whom it was appropriate would find it, and everyone else would just go their way and pay no notice. But the printer—the month before it went into print—the printer was acquired by the world’s largest bookseller, Amazon; it’s a subsidiary of Amazon that printed the book. And when a title comes out on Amazon and anyone does a word search like… The title of the book is The Second Comforter, Conversing with the Lord through the Veil. If someone picks up and does a search for “the second comforter,” Amazon has worldwide, global reach. And so the, uh… It got more attention than I wanted it to. 

It’s a very personal book. But it’s personal to the reader. It’s taking the reader on an individual, internal journey in themselves. But there are vignettes about me. The vignettes illustrate how to get something wrong. And then the chapter that follows the vignette explains how to get it right. And so it’s personal in the sense, for me, that I’m talking about a lot of personal failures. And it’s personal to the reader because it’s pushing the reader internal to themselves in a search. And your mention of the Book of Mormon… I mean, there are three chapters devoted to Nephi’s struggle and search, because his experience illustrates a great deal about the process. And so Nephi figures prominently for three chapters early in the book.

MS: Tell people what those three chapters are, so they can go and look at ’em…

DS: Oh, I don’t have the book with me. And I don’t have the index. But if you look in the table of contents, it talks about Nephi’s journey and how Nephi came along. I mean, initially, the first thing that Nephi did was to struggle and have a confrontation meditatively and prayerfully with God, struggling to try to believe what his father had said. And it begins with something as simple as that, and then it culminates in what happens with Nephi. And the Book of Mormon, I think, intends to invite everyone—every reader—to go on that same journey.

MS: Exactly. Yes. And I just was rereading… We were speaking to some friends the other night that were talking about it in Moroni 9. One thing that I really also appreciate about your book—appreciated at that time, especially—was that it seeks to almost, I don’t want to say “normalize” but “give people permission” to have spiritual experiences, to have manifestations and visitations, and the things that we have made… They seem crazy. Like, I know that at one point, you know, I had people decide I was schizophrenic if I would share experiences. That literally happened, you know? And it’s very difficult for people to be able to understand that not only do we have the opportunity but almost the obligation to believe that these kinds of experiences, the ministry of angels for, you know, a start are not only possible but are part of what is expected of people of faith. And Moroni 7 makes it so clear (I hope people will read that/reread it) that if angels are/have ceased to minister to/if we aren’t experiencing these kinds of things, it’s not because the heavens are silent; it is due to our lack of faith. And that’s what I think is part of the essential message that all of us are trying to spread is, like, this shouldn’t be so suspect; it shouldn’t be so strange and scary and odd to have communion with the divine. That is the very purpose of the gospel; like, that’s the message I was getting from the Book of Mormon is: What the gospel is, is the power to overcome death and hell (which means separation from God—right?) and physical and spiritual death. And so instead of saying, “So, I can live with God again, someday,” which we mean, just live a good life on the safe path, and then when you die, you’ll be in the presence… It’s so minimized and dumbed down—when what we actually have is the process to come back into the presence of God, overcome spiritual death, and then (eventually, the next step) be translated, overcome physical death (which is the city of Enoch), which is everything we claim to believe in, right? And there’s a literal-ness to all of this that it’s maybe too great and marvelous, too terrifying for us to be willing to accept and embrace and pursue.

DS: I think that’s… Yeah, I think that the institutional encouragement is for Latter-day Saints to outsource spirituality to a hierarchy and trust them to then feed you whatever it is that you need to have fed in order to obtain salvation. And the Book of Mormon is going in an opposite direction, in which we all become individually accountable before God and independently authorized by God to pursue the path of faith in order to reach the point where we, “having been true in all things, are prepared to converse with the Lord through the veil and receive further light and knowledge” (which is still a preserved part of the LDS temple ceremony, despite all of the other changes that have been made). You know, you’re introduced as “having been true and faithful in all things” and desiring now for “further light and knowledge by conversing with the Lord through the veil,” and that’s a ceremony—but it’s a ceremony that’s pointing to a divine invitation and a religious expectation. And the Book of Mormon is ratifying that in account after account, experience after experience—and I mean, why are those accounts given to us if they’re not meant to be accepted, trusted, and acted upon? And you’re right: In chapter seven of Moroni, If these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also (Moroni 7:38 LE). It’s kind of an indictment of the institutional position of outsourcing spirituality and trusting other people to tell you what it is that’s important. 

I think we become easily submissive to religious authority and that the temptation always is if you are given a little authority, that you begin to want control. It’s chaotic when everyone is given the opportunity to believe and trust and act for themselves. And yet, you do not want (and the Scriptures do not encourage you) to seek order at the price of unrighteous dominion, control, compulsion, and abrogating the agency of man. Joseph’s “teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves,” actually did result in a mess in Nauvoo, in a mess in Far West, in a mess at Independence, in a mess at Kirtland. I mean, gathering after gathering, group after group, “teaching correct principles and allowing them to govern themselves” always resulted in unruliness and the fringes of the folks who were gathered being up to a lot of mischief and engaging in a lot of expectations. But I don’t think that is a poor reflection upon either the Lord’s plan to give us all agency or Joseph Smith’s calling to start a rough stone rolling down the hill, to fulfill what Daniel foresaw. What it means is that, individually, we’re just not accepting the responsibility devolving upon ourselves to be peaceable with our fellowman, to be obedient, to be true and faithful, to be something more than the kind of wayward, chaotic, self-indulgent, ambitious, self-promoting people that vied for power and influence in Kirtland and then in Independence and in Far West and in Nauvoo. And Joseph never lived to see a group of people who would rise to the occasion that he had hoped—in teaching them correct principles, that in governing themselves they became like the people of Enoch. 

I don’t think that Joseph was deficient as a teacher. I just think Enoch had a better audience. I mean, Christ is clearly the best teacher of them all, and Christ’s audience didn’t become Zion. And of all those who heard Him throughout His mortal ministry, at the end, the account that we’re given in Paul’s writing is about 500 people were there to see Him ascend on the Mount of Olives. So at the end, after the thousands—perhaps tens of thousands—who had heard the Lord minister, the greatest teacher (greater, more intelligent than they all) only managed to make about 500 people really adopt and accept the lesson. It wasn’t for want of a good teacher that the people at the time of the Lord’s ministry we didn’t realize Zion, and so I don’t think you can indict Jesus or Joseph Smith. I also don’t think you can laud Enoch. I think you have to take the realization that the people themselves have a say—they all have a say…

MS: Okay!

DS: …they all have the opportunity to rise up or to not. And so it’s not… You can’t point to the failure by saying the Lord didn’t send someone adequate to the task, because I think Joseph was more than adequate to the task. It’s just that…

MS: As was Jesus, right? 

DS: Yeah. It’s just that people had… They had more interest in worldliness and the weaknesses of the flesh and the aspirations and ambitions of mortal men, and the consequence was: No Zion. And even now, while I think the Lord is fully prepared to permit a group of people to rise up, the problem remains the same. “Lo here” in hierarchy, “lo there” in a-faction-that-practices-fundamentalism. There are chaotic voices, but none of them penetrate to the heart of the people living today to allow them, with deep reflection and with humility, to live according to… I mean, it’s… If you’ve got your Doctrine and Covenants, it’s D&C section 93, verse 1. I mean, right there is the formula; that’s what’s required: It [should] come to pass that every soul who forsake[s] his sins and come[s] unto me, …and [hearkens to] my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am. I mean, that long—well, long?—relatively short list of things is something… 

The battleground is internal to the person. It’s not how you get along with other people; it’s how you slay the dragon within. Then having slain the dragon within, you can live at peace with your fellowman because the turmoil, the turbulence, the disruption, the fear, the anxiety, the ambition, the hope, the aspiration… All of those things go away if you can slay the dragon within and be right with God. And we have far too many people in Joseph’s day and today who don’t get that first verse of section 93 right. And we’re looking for—and we actually want to be—oh, hey, “Lo here! I’m good! I’m great!” Yeah…

MS: Okay, there are so many things I want to respond to that you just said because… Oh, they’re like… Let me start here: I think that it is an individual responsibility. And part of the reason that it’s messy… Like, I live in the Doctrine and Covenants, and I won’t remember the section right now, but where it says, “If you build a house unto my name, all of the pure in heart can come and will see God” (see D&C 97:15-16). And then right over on the next column, it says, this is Zion—THE PURE IN HEART (vs.21), right? True Zion is made up of a people who walk and talk with God, which is why… So when those people come together… And it is an individual responsibility. I even… Well, I see God’s hand in this entire thing. God needed the pattern set with the city of Enoch to show the rest of mankind. Enoch had hundreds of years. They… You… Their lives were much longer. God established that pattern, if we see that as a literal story, right? And since then, it’s been… Like, I see the Restoration and the—I guess, if we want to call it the “failure” of the Restoration, the failure to establish Zion, the “being disparate” and following under what I consider the covenant curses (because that’s what seems to have happened, you know, to the states in Utah)—I see this all in God’s hand, because everything God does is good. And God is the author. And so all of us, even the leaders of the church are—Brigham Young and the continuing leaders—are playing their role because there has to be this… There’s this necessary traction or friction that you have to grow through, right? I don’t… Like, I think that all of us want to find this perfect place, find this perfect thing where we’ll all just be in the presence of God, without recognizing that that’s not how it works. There has to be the opposition in all things, even—I’ve said before—even in Eden, even in paradise, there was a snake to set this all going, there was a poisoned tree, you know, like, there’s not going to be this perfect place to escape to. And so I think that even our leaders… Like, the process is internal, and we come to God however we will, in whatever organization we’re in; that doesn’t matter very much. The question is, Are we following the promptings we are having? The church structure cannot in any way keep us from God any more than it can bring us into the presence of God, as can no other structure or no other leader—or just like you were saying, even Jesus and Joseph Smith couldn’t bring the people into the presence of God. All they can do is, like the Book of Mormon strives to do: give the example, give the instructions, try to encourage, and try to promote faith, because that’s… Does that make sense? 

And so I think that, like, the faith is multifaceted. We have to have faith, first of all, that this is a possibility. But maybe the harder step is that it’s a possibility for each of us. I know so many people who are like, “Well, I don’t think God expects that of me. That’s…” Right? That it’s… And then the possibility that God can lead us through that process and that whatever effort we make in that direction is good; it’s not like a “you’ve succeeded” or “you’ve failed.” It’s that: Are you striving on this path, in whatever setting the Lord wants you to be in while you are striving on this path? That’s how I see it. 

So I don’t see any church leaders as being obstacles to this journey. In some ways, they serve us as helpers because everybody, you know, like, everybody in our life is a helper for us on this journey if… 

So anyway, and then I do think that Joseph, what he established and where that all went, God knows the end from the beginning. God knew that the whole time. It wasn’t a mistake in the plan or a failure. It’s this incredible opportunity that I feel that we now have to pick up the mantle, to begin finding what is still there. It is still there, absolutely, in the Book of Mormon, and it is even still there, like you said, in the temple and in the gospel and in the church, we see… 

Well, I guess I should talk… Your second book that is… The other one that I have of yours (these are the only two books I have of yours), Passing the Heavenly Gift, which I think this was the troubling one, right? This was the trouble book? 

DS: Yeah, that… Yeah. 

MS: And so this, but this does, I remember, it does talk about the embers still being there; you can still blow carefully on the embers and reignite the flame. 

DS: Right.

MS: It is still present in the gospel that we have. And so, anyway, so that’s why I wanted to, like, clarify… I don’t think… I think that people get scared, thinking, “If I go on this path, then it threatens everything I know. It threatens my family, my membership in the church, and…” 

DS: Yeah.

MS: While… Okay, a couple of things, and then I’ll talk I’ll let you talk again; I’m talking too much. But a couple of things, because you were talking about the messiness of this path. And it is messy, because striving to become pure in heart… And I think that there are so many false spirits and so many opportunities to be tempted from one side to the other like… I think there is—maybe it’s an inevitable part of this path—this sort of grandiosity, this feeling of, “I’m really important. I’m really special.” And we, as mortals, want to put people on pedestals. That’s part of what the problem is. It’s not just that our leaders are claiming that they’re on pedestals. It’s that we want to put them on—we want people on pedestals—and as soon as people get disillusioned with the church, then they want to find someone else to put on the pedestal, whether it’s you or someone else that is vocal about their experiences with the divine, right? So we want to put people on pedestals, and then a consequence of that is we want to be put on a pedestal…

DS: Hah.

MS: …as soon as we start… Right? I think… To me, that’s part of the problem, right there. It’s just our desire. Like I think every time we want to be around someone that we think is important, it’s because it makes us more important, and if we can recognize, “Oh, I’m trying to fill that person in for God; it’s God that I really want to be in connection with, not that person, not…” and “I don’t want people to glorify and put me on a pedestal.” We all… If I’m feeling the desire to have people put me on a pedestal that also is my lack of connection with God. 

DS: Hmm.

MS: I think connection with God fills all of those holes. And I think all of those holes are what make this such a crazy, messy, complicated process for every individual. And so, luckily, kind of when you’re a little further down the road, you can see, “Oh, I think they’re at/in that place on the process that I relate to,” you know—not that everyone’s journey is the same, but when you see someone being a little bit, maybe, self-glorifying or when you see someone wanting to glorify somebody else (you or somebody else), you can kind of recognize that and just pray, “Lord, okay, help them make it through that journey on their own.” 

Anyway, does that resonate with you? Do you find some truth in that?

DS: Yeah. I think there’s very little I would quarrel with. The purpose of a Zion is to have a community that, in effect, a community that finally lives the Sermon on the Mount—because the Sermon on the Mount was simply a blueprint for how a society would get along. And it really is Jesus explaining to people, in a sermon, how He lived, how Christ dealt with the law of Moses as an internal challenge that He was trying to face. 

Zion is a community, and there’s no such thing as an individual Zion. I mean, if you’re gonna have a Zion, you have to have a community. The impediment to the community is the failure of the individual to internalize what the Lord has invited us and commanded us and asked us to do. And part of what interferes is that very notion about, “Hey, there’s something special about you because the Lord took note of you.” 

I can tell you that there’s absolutely nothing special about me. And in fact, as I look around at Latter-day Saints generally, as I was being baptized in September 10th of 1973, I was convicted and convinced that Joseph Smith was a prophet, the Book of Mormon was true, and that I needed to be baptized. I was convinced of that. But I looked at the Latter-day Saints (‘cuz they invited me into family’s homes), and I did not think that I was as good a person as the people in whose homes I was being taught. Some of these were very young married people with children, who were, you know, in their early 20s; they were still very youthful themselves, and yet they were living chaste, moral lives with families: they didn’t smoke; they didn’t drink; they did all of the Mormon things. And I did not believe myself to be capable of living as good a life as the lives I was seeing on display. But I had this conviction that I needed to be baptized because I had gotten an answer to prayer—and that if I failed to respond to that, that I would be losing that connection (because this connection was important to me, and I wanted to preserve it). So I went and I got baptized but didn’t believe I was as good a person as the people I was joining. And realistically, as I look back on my life, I don’t think I’m as good a person as the Latter-day Saint model would suggest. 

I do think that forgiveness from God is absolutely important in order for someone to be reconciled to God, but the fact that God forgives you doesn’t change that you were never good enough in the first place but for Christ’s forgiveness. Therefore, of what do you have to boast? Is there something about you that makes you better than someone that did not need forgiveness for these errors? And my view is that, No, there isn’t. And it’s preposterous to think that, in a spiritual journey, that your stumbles and your falls and your bruised knees and your bloodied elbows are something that you can overlook when you think about yourself. The Lord may forgive you, but you’re still that weak individual that needed to be lifted, that needed to be forgiven, that needed to be buoyed up by the Savior. And the idea that now, “Oh! You get to be a great model, and you get attention!” is foolish. I try to do what the Lord asks, in the way that He asks for it to be done, using what I’m told to do, at the time I’m told to do it, and nothing more. And I believe that anyone that then inserts themselves into the process cannot be trusted by God! And part of what gets favor with God is trustworthiness: the desire to give heed and diligence to Him and to His agenda and to lose yourself and your ambition and your desire. And there are a lot of people who, once having a spiritual experience of any kind, wants to go out and shout about it and call attention to themselves and go stand on a street corner. I mean, I did not want to—throughout, I did not want to call attention to myself. And even now, I don’t like doing interviews because it does seem like you’re trying to get noticed and get airtime with someone. And I don’t like that!

MS: Put the focus on you. 

DS: Yeah.

MS: I think the focus on you is always a… I struggle with that with my podcasts. Like, I feel like this is what I’m supposed to be doing. This is…you know. But it is a challenge to not want the focus to be on me. Of course, it’s nice when people say nice things to me. I appreciate it, you know. But at the same time, I don’t want to drink that—right?—because…

DS: Yeah. I don’t think the Lord can trust someone who has that within their heart, within their ambition. And I think that “being trusted by God” is a rare thing. It does not happen much in Scripture. It does not happen much in life. But if you ever obtain something like that, the last thing you want to do is betray it. And so…

MS: Absolutely.

DS: …I worry about I don’t worry about the Lord trusting me, because I know what I’m about. However, I worry that people misinterpret, misread, and project onto someone else ideas that don’t belong there. And if they project that onto someone—but they’re trying now to follow a path towards God, and they think that that becomes part of that path towards God—then they’re led astray by that. And so you have to be careful about the misimpressions that people take into themselves and then hope that they can get over on God, employing the misimpression that they’ve obtained from their misread of someone’s motives. And I think that happened to Joseph all the time. 

I think, as I read carefully the Joseph Smith Papers and look at, you know, what was going on in the contemporaneous material, there’s a lot of people who are throwing onto Joseph their views of what they think he’s about. And then they go about what is in their own hearts, believing that if they imitate the projection that they put upon Joseph in their own lives, that that will then let them get over with God. And I worry that just as the Lord was misunderstood, and Joseph was misunderstood, and undoubtedly, you know, Peter and Paul and others were misunderstood, that anyone who says, “I have come to know God,” will be misinterpreted and that there will be projections put upon them as a consequence of which they are misled—which is one of the reasons why I think the telestial world includes within the “list of those who are damned” those that say, “I, I am of Cephas, and I am of Peter, and I am of Paul, and I am of Esais,” because what they’re doing is they’re taking someone who was merely employed temporarily to deliver a message, and they’re reading into that individual and projecting onto them what they believe to be a useful pattern to mirror their own lives when that is not the case. The one… These are true messengers that are listed in those that inherit the telestial world. The problem is that they project onto that messenger instead of saying that the messenger was following only the Lord and that…

MS:  Can you back up and say that again? I lost the audio for just a second. Can you…? Say the problem is that they worship messengers…

DS: Yeah. The problem is that they project onto the messengers a pattern that they interpret as being the way to follow the Lord. And so they’ve substituted someone between the Lord and themselves. The messenger ought to be listened to…

MS: Absolutely.

DS:  …They ought to be heeded. But the purpose is to take that in order to try and draw closer to the Lord and only to the Lord—because the only one that ever got it right was the Lord! All of these other people are serving as delivery boys. But the cook in the kitchen and the food is coming from somewhere else. I mean, your DoorDash guy is not the… There’s a whole infrastructure behind him.

MS: He’s not the gardener that grew the food. Right! 

DS: Yeah. 

MS: I think this is exactly what it means with “cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh” (see 2 Nephi 28:31 LE). Because I do… I really… That has been my pattern is, for a time I feel so inspired to learn from this person, you know…

DS: Yeah, sure.

MS: …and I drink up what they’re teaching. And then they say something or something happens, and I’m like, “Oh, that doesn’t resonate with me. They’re off on that.” That doesn’t mean I reject them as a teacher, but I… The spirit is the teacher. What is the truth is the teacher, right? 

DS: Yeah. Yeah.

MS: And I’ll learn from this other person, and I’ll learn from this other… And so, I take the messages from all of these people with messages to deliver, but keep the eye on… Don’t… It’s so tempting to want to be in someone’s good graces or in someone’s good favor, ‘cuz it makes you feel more important, right? And that’s, I think, exactly what you’re talking about. And then, when we start having experiences with God, all of a sudden, we can start trusting in our own flesh, in our own self-speaking: “I can lead these people.” And that is really… That’s a real temptation. To want to be put on a pedestal is as much of a…more of a temptation than wanting to put someone on a pedestal, right? And all of those things are part of this messiness that we have to avoid. Just true messages, letting the Holy Spirit be the guide, not any individual person.

DS: Yeah, yeah. And that is… We have to be wary. And wariness isn’t confined to the motives or intentions or desires of the heart of another person. Wariness needs to be addressed internally to myself. We never escape the weaknesses of the flesh; so long as you’re occupying a body of dust, that body is weak and vulnerable to the appetites of the flesh, the weaknesses of the flesh, the desires of the flesh. We get hungry; we get thirsty; we feel ourselves all the time in need of something else. And our egos are just as big a problem to be wary about as anything else. I don’t think we ever escape the weaknesses of mortality, and we fool ourselves if we think that we do. But the purpose, I think, that we best serve if we have something to offer is in teaching others and helping to lift them so that they draw closer to the divine, closer to light and truth. And in that sense, if you are able to raise someone else and have them accept more light and truth into their life, that’s all you can do to please the Lord and to satisfy your obligation to your fellow man. After that, you don’t get to control them! You don’t get to collect…

MS: Right.

DS: …tithes from them. You don’t get to, you know, pay yourself a dividend, and you don’t get to, you know, stand up and ask for adulation. You really… If you succeed…

MS: You don’t get to become the authoritarian, institutional leader.

DS: Yeah. 

MS: The Lord’s messengers are rarely, if ever, the institution the authoritarian, institutional leader.

DS: The letter from Liberty Jail that Joseph Smith wrote, No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood (D&C 121:41 LE) is an indictment of church leadership. And all of what follows in talking about the only correct way is by “love unfeigned, gentleness, meekness, pure knowledge,” all of that is about the church leadership. It has nothing to do with the government. And it has nothing to do with individual rank-and-file members sitting in the pew. It’s about people who claim to have power and authority by reason of the priesthood. If Jesus Christ is the head of the priesthood, if He is the one from whom all priesthood authority is derived through generations, if He’s the head, He did not come to BE served but to serve.

MS: Yes. 

DS: And so…

MS: And I do have to push back on you just a tiny bit…

DS: Yes?

MS: …for saying it’s an indictment of church leadership. Because I would say… Like, there are so many leaders who truly are servant leaders in the church, and I don’t want to paint…

DS: Yeah.

MS: …with a broad brush there. Like, that is… I think each of us has the opportunity to be a servant or to be an authoritarian. Even as a parent, when I look at myself with my kids, and I’m like, “Go to bed; stop bothering me,” ‘cuz I want my time alone. And I…right? Am I being authoritarian, or am I serving? That’s a question for each of us to ask at all times, in everything that we’re doing. And so, we can’t… Again, we can’t put that off on somebody else when it’s something… It’s in all of our hearts all of the time. I think whatever authority we have—I’m bigger than you; I’m in charge of you, I…right?—we always can get into unrighteous dominion or into servant leadership. So anyway… So I don’t want to… Like, I think that’s a question for all of us all the time. Because how we interact in the stewardship we have shows us how we will interact if we had a bigger stewardship, if we were the president of the church, our own little authoritarianism that would come out with… But in a way, the worst thing that happened to Brigham Young is that he accumulated so much power. If he hadn’t had so much power, he couldn’t have done so much mischief and caused so much damage, right? 

DS: Yeah.

MS: And so that’s the question for each of us in our… I think that applies to all of us all the time is, What do we do with the authority we’re given? 

DS: Yeah.

MS: And one example I use, like, my stake president is, you know… At a very, very difficult time, the way he used his calling was he brought the stake presidency over to clean my kitchen three weeks in a row when I was going through unthinkable things—because he was using his calling to demonstrate the service that can and should be done in our communities. And that… You know, so I really think there is a power to… It is possible to be in any position and abuse authority or not abuse authority. So anyway, continue, I didn’t mean to cut you off.

DS: No, no, no!  I think I don’t have any quarrel with that. You know, I have met some… Some of the greatest people I know have been local Latter-day Saint leadership. The stake president who called me to the High Council, President Lorin Pugh, deserves special mention because I think he was a a godly man and a righteous man. 

We had a stake patriarch. He was actually the stake patriarch before Lorin Pugh; he was released, and he became the stake patriarch. And the high priest group leader wouldn’t call him to be a home teacher—because he didn’t want the stake patriarch to be burdened with home-teaching or to have to deal with any family’s problems or issues. And President Christensen went to the High Priest group leader, and he said, “I WANT to home-teach. I don’t feel like I’m doing my duty if I don’t home-teach.” So the high priest group leader called me in and said, “Okay, I’m gonna let the patriarch home-teach a family, but I want to make sure it’s the right family. And so I’m calling you and your family to be the home-teaching family that I’m sending the patriarch to because I don’t want him to have to bear any burdens or be troubled by anything.” And so, we were called to be the home-teaching family to whom the stake patriarch was assigned as his single home-teaching family. 

MS: That’s great!

DS: And he was a wonderful home teacher! He was the patriarch that came to know my children sufficiently well that when it came time to get patriarchal blessings, we took our kids over to Brother Christensen for patriarchal blessings ‘cuz I thought he certainly would know and understand them. We still have a straggler who was too young, and so she hasn’t yet gotten a patriarchal blessing—so maybe I’ll just give her one; we’ve talked to her about it. 

MS: Wow.

DS: Anyway, there have been some wonderful men that…

MS: Yeah.

DS: …that I’ve encountered who have been in local church leadership, and you’re right! There are some great… There are no categoricals; there are good people everywhere.

MS: Right. 

DS: Yeah.

MS: So, okay, so I have a couple of different areas I really want to get into. The reason I asked you to come on the podcast, specifically—it’s not the only thing I want to talk to you about, but…is… One of the things… So, I talked about how you have different people that you learn from and listen to, and I told you what a service your book (your initial book)…that I was just miraculously led to. I was online, and there was a little link down at the bottom to some other page that just like shot… I had no idea what it was. Clicked on it. It took me to some conversation where there was another link that kind of glowed; I clicked on that. And it took me to some discussion where someone mentioned your book. 

DS: [chuckling]

MS: That was my process of finding your book, which I had no idea what it was; I just knew that it was… The screen was glowing extra bright, and I was like, “I have to buy that book!” And I did. So, I do think it worked that the Lord led people to it who needed it. That was my experience, you know. So…

DS: Oh, hey, while you’re talking about that: The Second Comforter, Nephi’s Isaiah, Eighteen Verses, Beloved Enos are all written by me as a member in good-standing, a High Councilman, active Latter-day Saint, and they all are LDS orthodox. I’ve had a number of people say, “Why don’t you go back and rewrite the books now that you are on the other side?” And my position has always been: Every one of those were written to reflect what was then LDS orthodox teachings, and I don’t… Well, they are an artifact at this point. 

MS: Right.

DS: Every one of them is a reflection of what the doctrine, what the teachings, what the principles, what the understanding was of Latter-day Saint Mormonism at the time those books were put into print. And so if something has changed between then and now (and some things have changed), I want to preserve what it was like at the time that I was a member in good-standing, holding a temple recommend, attending the temple with some regularity, serving on the High Council, and having taught either Gospel Doctrine or Elders Quorum or High Priest Group priesthood for three decades. I understood the orthodox teachings of the church. Now, those books are, in context, an exposition of Mormonism as it was when I was a member—active and in good-standing—and I won’t edit them to change them at this point. And you will see a lot of encouragement to orthodoxy in all of those books; even Passing the Heavenly Gift encourages faith in the Restoration and fidelity to the church—although it takes some of the varnish off the historical narrative of the church, it doesn’t say you should run and hide from LDS orthodoxy; it’s just saying that the narrative is not accurate, it ought to be improved, and suggests ways in which it might well be improved. But it was that and the lectures that followed… 

One thing that excommunication did (in the lectures that followed) was freed me up from what I perceived to be an obligation to pull punches. I really…

MS: …to be careful, to be gentle. Okay.

DS: Yeah, I really did. 

MS: I feel that.

DS: Even in Passing the Heavenly Gift, I am not hitting anything very hard. In fact, a…

MS: Okay, I felt… I will say, as a member, I felt… I loved the terms that you introduce in the first one. Like, the term “institutional pride” was one that, really, I was like, oh, my goodness, that is what the Book of Mormon is talking about, our institutional pride of “we are the chosen people; we have the fullness of the gospel; we’re the ones; everyone needs to be like us,” right? 

DS: Yeah.

MS: But you do hit pretty hard. Like, if people, you know… Like, I have a little bit of a softer tone, but I was able to tolerate it; I thought that it was very useful. I just always… I kind of argue back at you a little bit, ‘cuz I have a slightly different “come from” or way of approach. But I still think that you were… But my understanding—and I need to clarify a few things—but my understanding is you still were trying to preserve faith and trying to…

DS: Yes.

MS: …preserve [indecipherable] membership in the church—your own and of those who would be your readers. I think that was your goal, even at that time.

DS: Right. It was, it was—and let me illustrate with one little incident. I had a (or I HAVE a) law partner who left—he had been on a High Council—he had left the church, and he had actually become Catholic. And he’s a lay Catholic minister. (He can’t be a fully ordained priest in Catholicism because he’s married, and he has a family.) But he had left the church. I took a copy of Passing the Heavenly Gift, and I gave it to my law partner to read, and he read it. His reaction was, “Well, this is an apologetic book, AND I have to tell you, if I had read this book before I had left the church, this may have kept me in the church. So, you know, it’s too late now; I’m not going back. But it’s really an apologetic book.” That’s in the view of someone who I think is a more objective reader than someone who is a Latter-day Saint and who doesn’t want to acknowledge that there may be some unresolved issues, some fudging on history, some shading of accounts… 

MS: We’re plagued by defensiveness.

DS: Yes. Yeah.

MS: I think the defensiveness is one of the greatest things… 

DS: Yeah.

MS: Like, anytime I feel defensive, it’s really… I really take that as a signal of going, “Okay, God, I know this is not from you.” Defensiveness is about pride and fear and shame and things that are the adversary’s tools, not the Lord’s. And so it’s our defensiveness that makes us object to these things. And I think that’s one of the main things we need to get rid of. And so, yeah—so that’s my experience of those books. I will say, and I don’t… This is just, you know… (Someone just called me honest to a fault; it’s true.) But I read your first book—very much inspired by the Lord; greatly appreciated it. I didn’t feel inspired to read any of your other books. I shared your book with my sister, and she went and bought all of your books, and lent one to me, and I started reading it. And while I appreciated it, I wanted to read the Scriptures—do you know what I mean?—like, I didn’t get very far into it, ‘cuz I just felt like, “I’m reading his interpretation of Scriptures, but I want to read the Script…” I get my own interpretation of Scripture. So it wasn’t anything against it; it was just the Lord saying, “Hey, you got what you needed. Now go back to me,” right? That was my journey. 

DS: Yeah. 

MS: And so I never became sort of a follower or, you know (which I don’t think you even like the term “follower,” from my understanding, you know). So I don’t think you’ll object to my journey that I… That was the book I needed from you. And then my journey has been in the Scriptures. 

But I do know… One of the things I wanted to talk to you about (because I don’t know where you talk about this or if I misunderstood), but at some point—and I had, I don’t know, I’m trying to… The memories are fuzzy [on] the timeline. But I know at some point, I heard you say something about polygamy, which led me to believe that, at that time, you believed polygamy was of God, right? Because we all… ‘Cuz I believed polygamy was of God; I’m not… You know, like we all grow and learn. And so that’s kind of what I wanted to talk to you about because I know there was a time where, based on all of the information all of us had, we believed polygamy was of God. And I think maybe what it was… I have sort of now developed a sort of a maybe unhealthy, maybe not knee-jerk reaction to hearing men talk about women’s identity or destiny or purpose that… Do you know…?

DS: Yeah…

MS: Like, that’s… I don’t mean to come up with that. It just is how it is for me at this point, and it has been for many years. And so maybe you were talking about men and women or something, and that’s where I kind of was like, “Okay, I’m tuned out for a little while ‘cuz I can’t have any more men get the answers that are mine and my sisters to get and to present.” Does that…? 

DS: Yeah.

MS: That’s my… I’m sorry. I’m a little bit of a feisty low cap I mean, small-cased “feminist,” you know?

DS: Yeah.

MS: And so, I just kind of instinctively feel that way. So… But what I wanted to talk to you about, because I’ve gone on this journey of strongly believing polygamy was of God and that it would be Zion and that it would be, you know, very much the Bruce R. McConkie perspective, that it would be the celestial kingdom, and it was… It would be a privilege  when we were able to live that. I was incredibly naive, went through the journey of learning, first of all, that polygamy was never of God, then, yeah… I was naive about polygamy. I only saw the glowing, you know, top level—not all of the underbelly. And then went through the process of learning that polygamy was not of God and then, more recently, have come to this conclusion that has become… You know how you finally accept truth and then the Lord confirms it and confirms it and confirms it? 

So, now in the position of not believing that Joseph was the author or any sort of participant in anything to do with polygamy, but that he didn’t define it. And I believe you’ve gone on a similar journey. And I kind of wanted to hear your, like, how you got from point A to point B to point C, what your journey was, and what convinced you, because I think it’s a valuable… People like to write me off. I’m, you know, I’m dealing with a lot of people saying I’m too emotional, and I’m too… They, like… It’s pretty unpleasant. You’re a lawyer, hard-nosed guy, pretty logical. Let’s hear it from you, Denver: Why should people consider that polygamy is not of  God, and that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist?

DS: Well, if… Let me start by just talking about the way in which I had understood it at the beginning because, as a Latter-day Saint, you accept what the Latter-day Saint tradition tells you. So I began with the proposition that it was of God and true, and section 132 is in the Scriptures that…

MS: Right.

DS: …I got, and I respected. And if it’s in the Scriptures, then it just…

MS: It’s canonized! Yeah!

DS: …as a matter of fact, it’s part of the religion! And so I accepted it. 

There was a time when it got called into question. And so, while I accepted it, I then became a little more sensitive to the historical source material that it was predicated upon. And it actually became an issue for investigation that I investigated for more than a quarter century. I didn’t… I accepted it as true; I began to investigate it; it took a long time before I began to question it; then when I began to question it, it didn’t arise to the level of doubting it until I read enough source material that may that troubled me. So I went back to section 132, and I wrestled with the content of section 132 because it is an internally inconsistent document.

MS: Absolutely.

DS: It doesn’t hold a constant theme. And one of the things that I was trying to reconcile is how can this unsteady voice in a single revelation make contradictory statements? I began by accepting the notion that Joseph Smith had received the revelation early on. I found were Brigham Young—in that five volume set of Brigham Young’s discourses—there is a place in there where he says that the revelation was originally received in 1828, while they were translating the Book of Mormon. He says that Joseph and Oliver became exposed to that. I became acquainted with little known history about Oliver Cowdery (one of the first four missionaries going out), and one of the ideas that they entertained on that mission was that they could grab Indian squaws (they refer to them as that; I’m not being disparaging—this is their view) and get them pregnant; breed with the Indian squaws and produce half-breeds. (There was an entire section of land on the other side of the Mississippi River in the Iowa side, opposite Nauvoo, that was called the half-breed section, in which children that American soldiers had fathered with Indian women were considered, you know, the appropriate landowners in the half-breed section.) Well, the first four missionaries that went out were engaged in the thought of taking extra wives and impregnating them.

MS: Now can you clarify that: Are you saying they actually did that? Or that’s the report that came later?

DS: No, that was what was part of what motivated Oliver Cowdery in the first trip out west to engage in the missionary work. They got into Kirtland, and one of the missionaries converted—or started the conversion process for—Sidney Rigdon. Rigdon then went up to where Joseph was in New York. Missionaries continued on and wound up in Independence. But that’s… All of that is a separate issue. It was Brigham Young that put it as early as 1828. And so, one of the questions about section 132 is:

And I looked at it, and I thought, “Well, they’re so different in the way that this subject gets treated. It’s so different that this HAS to be separate revelations,” and I parsed it into four and maybe five different revelations, while still accepting the notion that it was true. And it took some time after that before enough information accumulated that I changed my mind. And that was not a, you know, hasty thing. 

I changed my mind, and I concluded that section 132 was not at all reliable. Its provenance was very dubious. And it’s attribution to Joseph is very suspect. 

In Michael Quinn’s exposition and in Brian Hales’ exposition, they acknowledge that there is only ONE document contemporaneous with Joseph Smith that clearly ties him to the practice—and that one document is section 132. And so if section 132 is suspect because its provenance is insufficient that it shouldn’t be trusted, then we have nothing to tie Joseph to the practice, other than the enormous library of material that was generated years/decades after the death of Joseph Smith, in which they attribute—back into the “Nauvoo era”—things TO Joseph which made sense after the 1852 public announcement and the public advocacy that went on and the indoctrination and the propaganda that went on. It makes sense that they would feel comfortable providing these narratives years/decades after the death of Joseph Smith. 

So, one of the challenges…

MS: Right.

DS: …that I thought needed to be undertaken—which I undertook—was to look at everything that existed on June 27, 1844 and before then as evidence that linked Joseph to the practice, and what you find…

MS: So you wanted to limit the search to the contemporaneous evidence…

DS: Only!

MS: …because I’m just watching everyone… ‘Cuz what we have… They claim that 132 is contemporaneous. It’s not! It appeared magically after Brigham’s death in 1852, which is not contemporaneous with Joseph or when it was received. 

DS: Right. 

MS: And then the very first testimonies we have start in 1869 and then continue on throughout the rest of that century, right? So from what I’m hearing, you were saying, “Okay, we have all of these later documents. Is there anything that can tie them to Joseph’s life? Is there anything contemporaneous I can find to validate or verify any of these later claims?” Is this what I’m…?

DS: Yeah, I…

MS: Okay. …which is what a good lawyer would do (or a good critical thinker). Yes.

DS: I wanted anything that I could find that would tie Joseph directly that existed June 27, 1844 or before then. And so in looking at that, I concluded that the overwhelming body of information was Joseph Smith denouncing/opposing/holding church courts to discipline anything and everything which suggested spiritual wivery, polygamy, multiple wives. He was absolutely opposed to the practice publicly and in any of the private meetings that were held in church disciplinary proceedings. And even the stuff that purported to tie him to it… That McClellan letter about Emma Smith catching Joseph in the barn in the very act—with exclamation points—which was written after the fact and based upon an interview that McClellan had with Emma Smith decades after the event (and she denied Joseph had done that) appears to be not about sex or intercourse or even marriage; it appears to be something about a ceremony being conducted, in which they were in the barn. And that’s it. And what was that ceremony? Because Joseph was in the process of employing a sealing power in order to link people together in order to provide for the eternality of marriage—and the only way that you could make the eternal marriage work in a family in the next life was to link them through Joseph to the eternities. And Joseph was doing something which… You don’t find it in any of the documents (because I’ve looked carefully) until October of 1843, when Joseph (for the first time) mentions the word “adoption.” And so whatever was going on was designed to preserve a family into eternity, and it included a concept which Joseph finally employed the vocabulary word adoption to describe. But one of the problems with saying “sealing=marriage” and “marriage=sex” when it comes to this whole subject matter is that Joseph Smith never fathered a child with anyone other than Emma Smith. Fanny Alger is supposedly someone with whom he had sexual relations, and there was some kind of sealing. Well, she went on to get married to another man, and I forget, it’s either eight or nine children. She was fertile, and she bore eight or nine children. She’s at the…

MS: She also never claimed to be Joseph’s wife. 

DS: Correct.

MS: She never claimed there was anything between them; she refuted… And I will push back a little bit against you again…

DS: Yeah.

MS: …if you don’t mind. You know, like, I think that… I think you’re bringing quite a bit of speculation to the Fanny Alger situation, because we don’t even know if there was any sort of a ceremony happening at all. We’d, like… What we do know is that Oliver said that he had misunderstood; Emma did not hold Joseph accountable/was not angry. We know that the wording in that… Like, it—again—is a very convoluted, like… Something happened in the barn that was somewhat misunderstood and that all works out. As soon as Joseph…

DS: Yeah, they… 

MS: …was able to talk to people—people that he was not manipulating or exerting power over—he just was finally able to explain, and they were like, “Okay, I’ve got it.” So, the reason I get a little uncomfortable, like… And Joseph did talk about adoption, but nobody has any idea what that meant or what it was, other than we can listen to his own words saying it had nothing to… There was no… 

DS: Right.

MS: …allowance for any kind of sealing to anyone as a wife. 

DS: Right.

MS: And so, for me, I guess, the reason I get a little bit feisty about it is because, for me… Emma is my connection to this, you know? Like, I am perfectly happy to defend Joseph, but it’s really Emma—studying her—that convinced me…

DS: Right.

MS: …that this did not happen—because to believe this about Joseph, you have to believe this about Emma. And for me, if Joseph did anything that felt like a betrayal to Emma, then that was a betrayal of their marriage, even if it was some sort of a sealing that Emma didn’t understand. And so, for me, if he was doing some sort of ceremony in the barn with Fanny that upset Emma, that’s not okay. Do you know what I mean? Like, I’m not good with that. 

DS: Yeah, well… 

MS: And so, still, there’s so little that we know.

DS: Well, let me be clear, because apparently you’re misunderstanding. The only source material that we have for recounting the incident with Fanny Alger is the very late McClellan letter…

MS: Yeah.

DS: …which, again, it’s decades later, and it’s filled with exclamation points, and it’s intended to be scandalous. But at the time, I think McClellan felt comfortable in writing it in that fashion because word had leaked out decades earlier about what was going on in Utah. 

You also have the Far West High Council disciplinary court involving Oliver Cowdery, in which, purportedly, Oliver Cowdery said something about Joseph and Fanny Alger; however, the court disciplined Oliver, and he testified that there was never anything untoward that Joseph Smith had done, and that he was unaware of anything that Joseph had done that would violate any of the commandments. 

And then we have Emma’s statements that are contrary to the idea that there was something untoward that took place. 

But the final piece is: The son of the man who claimed that he performed the ceremony in the barn… We don’t have an account of his father; we have his [the son’s] account, and his account is also late! And therefore, I question whether the son’s hearsay comments about what the father did are reliable. 

So the whole Fanny Alger thing… IF something happened—and I don’t think there’s enough to clarify if or what—I am fully satisfied that if the answer to if is, “Yes,” that the answer to the what question is, “The sealing, if it was something that took place, had nothing to do with marriage or intercourse.” 

As I was saying before you interjected that last part, she was at the height of her fertility at the time…

MS: Yeah.

DS: …that this encounter purportedly took place. Joseph Smith fathered, I think, eight pregnancies through Emma (some of whom, you know, died and others miscarried). But he was…

MS: Well, I want… Just to clarify that as well. 

DS: Yeah. 

MS: ‘Cuz now… I want to interject again. Well, you finish your sentence, then I’ll interject. I apologize.

DS: She was at the peak of her fertility, he was at the peak of his fertility, they were young, they were youthful, and yet, if something happened, it produced nothing! I don’t think that you can say that Joseph had 37 (or however many they now aggregate to) women other than Emma, and there was no progeny produced, when most of those women DID bear children and yet Joseph, who—according to 132, its purpose is to “raise up seed unto the Lord,” which is a euphemism for, you know, getting them pregnant and having your cattle produce offspring, which is what Brigham Young did. I mean, you look at the pregnancies, and Joseph was not engaged in whatever it was that Brigham Young began teaching in the absence of Joseph Smith. And the number of plural wife pregnancies mushrooms as soon as Joseph is killed.

MS: Right.

DS: And before then, it’s just… It’s kept on the down-low. One of the things that I think you have to take into account (if you’re examining this whole narrative about the credibility of section 132 and its authenticity) is the lack of any offspring other than through Emma and the presence of this 50+ offspring from Brigham Young that begins after Joseph’s death; it… The narrative doesn’t match the conduct on the ground! And when you’ve got—June 27, 1844 and before then—Joseph denouncing it, Joseph convening church disciplinary councils to discipline those who are caught in this process and asking those, “Where did you learn about this?” and then bringing in the people from whom they learned it and holding a church court for them. These aren’t public; these are private matters, and Joseph is doing this in private. In public, he’s giving lecture and discourse and sermon denouncing this stuff; he’s running denunciations in the Times and Seasons; he has Emma (and he assisted) publishing a declaration from the Relief Society of Nauvoo and trying to get the sisters in Nauvoo to cut off these wayward men seducing them by saying, “Oh, Joseph teaches this nonsense in private.” 

I went to dinner with D. Michael Quinn, and he had a great opening line for starting a conversation: After we settled in for dinner, he said, “I think your position on polygamy is bullshit.” And I said, “Okay, so let’s just think about it for a moment: If you take June 27, 1844 as the cutoff date and you look at what information we have available to us from June 27, 1844 and before—if that’s the library you look at, and you ignore everything after then—tell me what proof you have that Joseph was involved.” 

And he reflected for a minute, and he said, “Well, yeah, the Far West High Council doesn’t quite get there, does it?” 

And I said, “No, it doesn’t!” 

And, you know, he mentioned two or three other things and then said, “Okay, I understand your position,” you know, it wasn’t that…

MS: Okay…

DS: …he agreed with me. It was like, Okay, if that’s going to be where you focus, then you’re not just full of bullshit; I mean…

MS: Yes.

DS: …there’s something there for that. But he and Brian Hales and others who are proponents of the narrative, immediately turn to, “Yes, BUT you have to believe that hundreds of people were lying in the years afterwards, and you can dismiss one or two or three, but you can’t dismiss hundreds of people being liars!” And that’s the problem with this whole subject area. Because a person who wants to support the narrative that polygamy is legit can list off a hundred sources in rapid fire and say, “There! I’ve now proven my case.” In order, then, to respond to that position, you literally have to go through every single one of the examples…

MS: Right…

DS: …one by one by one to show: 

There are so many problems…

MS: And not only put out on the street… Not only put out on the street in this life, lose their entire exaltation! 

DS: Yeah.

MS: These are the men telling them they have control over their eternal destiny. 

DS: Yeah.

MS: And so, lying for the Lord became part of your way to qualify; it was very much a… Obedience… I mean, the preaching of obedience at this time is hard for us to imagine, and the connection between “Follow counsel or go to Hell”… 

DS: Yeah. 

MS: …was profound. Your life will be made healthier, or your eternal life will be hell… 

DS: Yeah. And…

MS: …literally. The fear is something we can’t relate to. 

DS: One of the things that I tried to explain or bring to people’s attention in Passing the Heavenly Gift was what was really going on during the Mormon Reformation. I mean, things are going very, very bad in Utah, and Brigham Young blamed the saints, not himself; he blamed the saints for that failure. The Home Missionary Program asked a series of questions that were designed to determine whether you had sinned in a way that justified the shedding of your blood, because blood atonement was being preached. And so the intimidation that was going on during that time period was… I mean, it was life-threatening! If you wanted to be a righteous saint, you had to conform to the system, and the system included plural marriage. So the gathering of hundreds of affidavits in an atmosphere that is oppressive and threatening is not something to say, “Oh, we’ve proven our case with”—because every one of those has flaws in their credibility, in their reliability, or even whether they were present at the time they claim they were present. I mean, Orson Pratt is rather famous for talking about things that he witnessed when he was in a complete different location, and it was impossible for him to be able to testify to something. I mean, it… Yes…

MS: Right…

DS: …the conclusion I reached is, yes! Hundreds of people can be lying!

MS: Well, and I want to also say it doesn’t require even hundreds of people to be lying. Because even, like, there are just a few of the women who claim to be… There are a few of the women who have to be lying and a few others. And I guess my question is, How many do we have to show our lying absolutely?? Like, we have turned out so many lies! Even the church has many of these people that claim to be wives of Hyrum and Joseph that the church doesn’t accept! 

DS: Yes!

MS: That means the church is acknowledging they were lying, right?

DS: Yeah.

MS: And I guess my question would be, Hey, do you think that the FLDS—before they became this, you know, before that fell apart—do you think they could get hundreds of affidavits saying that Warren Jeffs was not a pedophile and was not a rapist and was not abusing control? Do you think that…? Like, that’s this kind of system we have to get our minds… Anyone who doesn’t think that that absolutely would and could happen is up in the night. And when we recognize that that is what Mormonism was at that time, it should not surprise us at all that we have all of these affid…. Everyone was lining up to do affid… I mean, they were being pressured so much. Everyone of these affidavits you see was in response to being asked for it, to being pressured to give it in some way or other. 

DS: Yeah…

MS: We’ve gone through so many… And more and more all the time saying, “That’s not true. That’s not true. That’s not true.” There is no… Like even Helen Mar Kimball, who’s one of the best known, all of her reasons that she gives, all… Like, none of it is recognizable to anything we would recognize as eternal doctrine. There’s nothing about it in Joseph Smith’s writings anywhere or the revelations. And so it’s bizarre that we say, “No, these things are all true! And God told them that was the truth!” Well, where did that truth go then… 

DS: Yeah.

MS: …right? 

DS: Yeah.

MS: If we needed these dynastic sealings, why don’t we still need them? Like, why could it… I mean, there are so many, many problems. So, I guess that’s what frustrates me is this idea of… 

And it’s not hundreds. It’s not hundreds. We have affidavits of people that were [age] three at the time. They wouldn’t know, right? 

DS: Yeah. Yeah.

MS: We can prove all of these things. So if we can prove so many of them automatically false, and then we have a few that are hard to deal with… Like, we’re calling the women liars. And my example for that is Elizabeth Smart. You can’t look at a trauma-bonded woman and call her a liar. 

DS: Yeah…

MS: You look at the situation that she is victimized by, and go, “Are we wise to listen to the words of her oppressor, even if they’re coming through her mouth? Is that serving that woman well?

DS: I think that this subject is also extremely problematic for the LDS Church and its narrative—because the official position of the LDS Church in the essays that they have written on this subject and published on lds.org makes…

MS: …are written into their history Saints, now; it’s been written into that narrative form, uh-huh.

DS: It makes Joseph Smith: 

Therefore…

MS: Um-hmm, and also a hypocrite because he was disciplining other people… 

DS: Yes!

MS: …for doing what we claim/what they claim he was doing.

DS: Therefore, the people who are bitter, angry, anti-Mormon, former Mormons who are vociferously denouncing and fighting against the the Restoration itself are not irrational or ill-motivated. 

MS: Right.

DS: They are simply accepting the way that the LDS Church claims that Joseph Smith lived. And they’re saying, “This is abhorrent!” If you accept the church’s view of Joseph Smith, I understand why you would throw the Restoration itself out, Joseph, the Book of Mormon, everything. I understand why you would do that. The reason why I hold on to Joseph Smith, to the Book of Mormon, to the Restoration, and to God’s promises that He intends to have a a shoot come out from the dead stump and still live and survive is because I believe Joseph Smith did NOT engage in hypocrisy, pedophilia, predatory, hypocritical, adulterous relations. I believe that Joseph Smith was honest in his public denunciations. And I believe that God would never deal with a man subject to so many flaws, weaknesses, so much treachery, so much betrayal. 

My read in the Joseph Smith Papers is not that Joseph Smith merely loved Emma, but he admired, respected, and deferred to Emma!

MS: RELIED on her, yes! He NEEDED her. And…

DS: She was better educated than him; he respected that. She was older than him; he held her in esteem—she was an elect lady. I think if Emma contradicted Joseph in a discussion, that Joseph would not only listen to her, he would give heed to and probably surrender his opinion to hers if it was better informed—and very often that WAS the case. And I think you read the letters between Joseph and Emma in the Joseph Smith Papers… I don’t get any sense that this is a two-faced, hypocritical, dishonest, treacherous husband betraying a woman that he had little enough regard for that he would consign her to destruction. 

One other thought that I forgot to include earlier. I mean, section 132, was written by someone who was not very well acquainted with the Scriptures, wherein you justify by servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in having multiple wives. Isaac didn’t have multiple wives! It…yeah.

MS: Right. The very first problem reveals what a farce it is. In fact, the very first verse reveals what a farce it is. And then it goes on from there to innumerable other… My podcast is called “132 Problems.” Exactly! There is, like… And we can see… Well, I have Brigham Young and others were… Brigham Young was not familiar with the Scriptures. Joseph Smith very, very much was. 

DS: Yeah. 

MS: And there’s consistency in his teachings. He believed them; he tried to carry them out.

DS: Yeah, yeah, there’s… Yeah. And so I’ve come, ultimately, to the conclusion that section 132 is a—wherever it originated from—it’s not a product of Joseph Smith’s. There may be some internal teachings that reflect what Joseph was teaching about the eternal nature of the marriage covenant. There may be some morsels of truth that migrated into the 132 that originated from Joseph, but 132 did not. I don’t think it is authentically something that we can rely upon. And I don’t think the practice of polygamy is something that originates with Joseph. 

Now, I’m willing to look for additional proof. But the meticulous search that I have made to this point, leads me to the conclusion that the more carefully you examine the credibility of the authority… 

You know, Jeremy Hoop is trying to put together a website and a product that gets everything out there and allows people to make an examination for himself. I gave him a copy of a jury instruction that gets used in court about the credibility of witnesses: You can find one witness to be credible and find ten witnesses that oppose the one not to be credible, and it’s not the number of witnesses that carries the day; it’s the underlying believability and credibility. The church certainly has numerosity on their side. They have… The LDS Church has been effective propagandists. And when they take on a subject, they generate libraries of material to support their position. But that doesn’t mean that the library is trustworthy. You can have a single voice crying in the wilderness, like John the Baptist, who, as Joseph put it, The kingdom of God was with John and not with the Jews at the time. But John was a lone voice crying in the wilderness. He certainly didn’t have numerosity. But he did have the kingdom of God with him.

MS: I… Okay. And I think it is useful to look at the modern-day examples. I was trying to remember the woman’s name—I won’t remember it—but the one woman they finally got to testify against Warren Jeffs to hold him accountable, right? 

DS: Oh, yeah.

MS: They have… Like, it was so hard. Oh, and I know there’s a book, The Witness Wore Red, and it’s her younger sister that Joseph that Warren married off/forced to be married as underage. And to get that ONE woman who was courageous enough and crazy enough to testify against her entire community, and the entire community lined up, called her liars, called her… Right? It isn’t the number; it’s the veracity of the testimony. I just want to emphasize that in this modern case, in our day. That as soon as that one woman was willing to go to trial, it was a slam dunk! It’s so obvious what Warren did! And then, they went in and did the raid and found the tape recordings and found the, you know, then they found much more evidence, but…which I believe is what’s happening, to a great extent, now as we’re getting more access. And that’s one thing I say often: The more gain access, the more we gain scientific valid verification through things like DNA testing, the more information we have available to us, the more innocent Joseph is; the stronger the case is in his favor. And that is a really good way to determine where truth is, right? So to just go by, “I believe these women!” Okay, well, then you need to believe all the polygamist women who still don’t believe that Warren Jeffs was doing anything wrong. You need to do that to be consistent. And people don’t do that!

DS: They don’t. By the way, I went down to the Colorado City community area, and spoke directly to the polygamists a while ago on the subject of plural marriage. I don’t know of any outreach that’s being made by Latter-day Saints, but I don’t think you just sit back and criticize people for believing something—because there is a library of material that justifies their conclusion. I went down there to address them, you know, face-to-face to discuss candidly with them and to try and disabuse them of things that they need to be confronted with and taught about…

MS: Yes.

DS: …and some effort made to reclaim them. And, you know, I’m not interested in just sitting back and throwing rocks. If there’s a way to help people to overcome something, I’m happy to go and attempt to do that—don’t know what…

MS: I love that! I feel like that’s one of the tragedies happening now is the LDS’s…

DS: Yeah.

MS: The church’s insistence on keeping 132 and keeping this doctrine continues the abuse; we are complicit in the ongoing polygamist suffering that’s happening. 

DS: Yeah.

MS: And even the anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons insistence on saying it was Joseph also continues this abuse. If people could look at this evidence honestly, we could actually help men, women, and children suffering under this deplorable satanic system, this abomination today. We can really make an… Us coming to truth and sharing that can help people today! It’s not just a historical question.

DS: You know, earlier I mentioned Doctrine and Covenants 93, verse 1. I believe Joseph to have been an honest man and an authentic messenger called by God. I do not think you can be a morally corrupt man and have that kind of assignment given to you by God. And I think that first verse of D&C 93 defines the character of Joseph Smith: …who…cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am is not just a recitation of, you know, a laundry list of interesting facts. I think it is a description of the kind of character that is required in order for someone, as Joseph did, to come into the presence of God. And to impute to him hypocrisy and predatory behavior and dishonesty is to completely confuse the kind of character that God will deal with in asking for a message to be delivered. 

MS: Absolutely.

DS: I think Joseph was naive in that he trusted a lot of people that he should not have trusted. I think he was imputing to others the kind of character and heart that he had within himself. And so he assumed…

MS: We all project. He projected his goodness onto other people. I’ve done the same thing and gotten myself in trouble. We assume people are the same as us. Right? And so…

DS: And Joseph did that. And he trusted a lot of untrustworthy people. And THAT, I think, is his biggest mistake, but I don’t believe that to be a sin! 

MS: Absolutely.

DS: To trust someone when they’re untrustworthy doesn’t reflect poorly on your character; it reflects generosity and big-heartedness on your part, requiring that they prove themselves to be untrustworthy before you assign to them untrustworthiness. And Joseph made that mistake.

MS: But if we’re going to be hard on Joseph, then we need to also be hard on Jesus…

DS: Yeah.

MS: …who called Judas. Right? It’s… We can see the Lord’s hand in it, or we can blame the individual, which is ridiculous. Yeah.

DS: Yeah, it’s true. 

Well, this is a workday. And I have work to do! So, is there anything else that you wanted…?

MS: Can I ask a couple more questions?

DS: Yeah, yeah. Let’s hit your list of whatever you want that’s important, and let’s wrap it up. Okay.

MS: Okay, this is great. Well, I do want to know, and this is a question for you. So, as we talked about, you did want to stay in the church, and you did want to assist people in staying in the church dealing with this messiness. So my question is for people who are in the church who are coming onto this path, ummm… I guess it’s a two part question. First of all, do you see anything that you… Do you ever deal with regret or self-reproach? I struggle with those things a lot. Do you ever feel like, “Maybe if I had done this a little differently…?” Or do you feel like it was inevitable? And what would you tell people who are dealing with that fear today of “How can I embark on this path without threatening my life as I know it? Or do I need to get rid of that fear and maybe threaten my life as I know it?”

DS: Umm, I think everyone has to sort that out for themselves. However, I do think that preserving marital harmony is important. I… From time to time… Look, the LDS Church has a great Primary program. I have some granddaughters who are benefited by going to the church on Sabbath days to get through the Primary program. It’s an occasion for them to actually put a dress on, to sit and be reverent, to engage in the kind of personal self-discipline that you only get if you go to church before you go to school. And when my granddaughters go to church, they go to the ward I once belonged to because that was where my daughter… (And actually, my daughter and son-in-law lived in our basement; that’s where they went to church after they were first married.) And I go with them. And we go to a local LDS ward, and when the Sacrament meeting ends, I escort my younger of the two granddaughters; she knows exactly where the nursery is, and she runs down the hallway because she’s eager to get there—now that they’re through with the sacrament thing—to get into the nursery. And she and I go down the hallway, and I get her safely into the nursery. And my daughter—because, you know, her children are in Primary and in the nursery, and she’s got to stay around—my daughter will stay and attend Relief Society, and my wife will stay and attend Relief Society with her. And I’ll just go home. And I’m welcomed; in fact, I keep getting invited to stay for Priesthood, but… 

When they excommunicated me, they did not tell me that I couldn’t participate (normally, they give you instructions that say you can’t speak up). And so for some period of time, we attended church after the excommunication, and I did speak up in—back then it was Gospel Doctrine still—and in Priesthood. And there was one fellow in particular that that made uncomfortable. Ultimately, I concluded that it’s better off if I don’t make him uncomfortable. So I go to Relief or I go to Sacrament, but I wouldn’t attend the other meetings. I don’t think that I benefit anyone by going in and answering questions ‘cuz my questions at this point would be honest. 

I don’t see a thing wrong with someone continuing to enjoy LDS membership. I think you can believe in the gospel of Christ, the Restoration, Joseph Smith, and attend a Methodist Church. I mean, his mind had become somewhat partial to the Methodists for pretty good reason (if you read about Methodism and some of their earliest advocates). I think you can belong to whatever church you want to belong to because churches, generally, are fellowshipping forums. How you relate to God and being baptized—because used to be Latter-day Saints were rebaptized with some regularity, and I believe, today, being rebaptized if you’re going to accept the Book of Mormon as a covenant (because the LDS Church has not done that) and if you’re going to repent and try to accept Joseph as an authentic prophet-leader and the version of Joseph that throws out 132—I think you can be rebaptized, but after that, I think you can go sit in an LDS Church, and if you find fellowship and comfort there, I think that’s fine! 

I know there are a lot of people who are independently fellowshipping now. They don’t contribute tithes to an organization. They gather tithes in little fellowships, and then once the tithe’s gathered, they look at the needs of the people in that little fellowship so that money doesn’t aggregate and go to some institutional purpose. Tithing goes to help with the transportation, the food, the rent, the housing, the medical bills of the local people and isn’t spent elsewhere. People do that, and I think THAT is fine. 

But how you deal with your reconciliation with what you’re hearing in the LDS Church is an individual matter—and I wouldn’t encourage anyone to go storming off and becoming an enemy to Mormonism. Even now, I don’t pick a fight with the LDS Church. I don’t go around denouncing them or challenging them. I try to state clearly and plainly my understanding, and if it contradicts a narrative that the LDS Church is advancing, I try to explain why I view it differently than does the institution—but that’s not picking a fight! That’s an attempt to give clarity to why I understand what I understand. 

But I’m not interested and I do not hope for the ultimate failure of the LDS Church. I think Utah and the Mormon corridor from Canada to Mexico is enormously benefited by what the LDS Church offers. I think that the communities all throughout the Mormon corridor have better citizens, they have better people, they have better neighbors who are Latter-day Saints. And so I don’t want the LDS Church to lose its members. I want them to try and hold onto them and continue to make good citizens of them. But that doesn’t mean that I think that they bear the imprimatur of truth and that everything they say is “God speaking on high.” I think that’s kind of a silly notion. 

But I do think that Joseph was authentic, the Book of Mormon is reliable, God was up to something then, and I believe that God intends to conclude that, vindicating everything that had been foretold to happen. It’s just that I don’t think it’s gonna happen, at this point, institutionally. I do think it’s gonna involve the individuals who rise up and who become pure in heart before God, so that they can become pure, neighborly with one another, so that there can be a city of peace. I don’t think you can impose that hierarchically. I think the only hierarchy is you getting right with God, which will in turn make you right with your fellow man. 

But I don’t think anyone should run away from the church. And I do think that the church has—in particular, for youth—a marvelous program. I think foreign missions and learning another language… It helps people prepare for life. It gives them a leg up on other…every other religious community! The programs of the LDS Church make people better off. 

The most articulate people in my high school were the Mormon kids; you could almost pick them out…

MS: Wow…

DS: …because they were composed; they were used to public speaking; they had gone through the Primary program, the Young Men and the Young Women’s program; they had spoken in a Sacrament meeting. And so when they get up to present a paper in class, they were FAR more polished than the contemporaries. People that go on a foreign mission and come back with a second language that they’ve learned, they’re all benefited. 

One of the guys I baptized fell away from the church, asked for his membership to be withdrawn, has become an anti-Mormon. Talking to him, he said the best thing that ever happened to him was when he joined the LDS Church; it set his life on a new direction that benefited him from that moment, and he doesn’t regret one moment of having been a member of the church. I worry that a lot of people display horrible ingratitude for everything the church has done (to personally help develop them into a much better, more polished individual) when they discovered that there are problems with the church. Be grateful for what you got—even if you part ways, and you say, “Ah, it’s just nonsense!” Still, you were benefited. Every one of them were benefited, and they ought to acknowledge it. 

And I’m grateful for what the LDS Church gave me. And I’m still—although kicked out; I didn’t leave, I got kicked out—still believing in Joseph, the Book of Mormon, and in the Restoration.

MS: Okay, I love that. It sounds like we’re kind of on the same page. My desire is that people—as many as possible who feel it’s their path—can be in the church but not of the church (is the way I describe it). I think that even aside from the kind of utilitarian benefits of the church…

DS: Yeah.

MS:  …there also is the training to listen to the Spirit, the training to pray, to believe in God, to… Like, all of the seeds of the path that we believe in and that we walk are taught and nurtured in this church, and there is a way to—for many people, I hope—a way to try to be elevated while in the church and, as a process, be part of elevating the church. That’s my hope, but… 

DS: Yeah.

MS: Denver, I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to me. I didn’t give you much time to kind of share some of your experiences or share a testimony. Is there something—some encouragement or guidance or testimony—you want to share, just as we’re wrapping up?

DS: I think Joseph Smith understated who he was and what exposure he had gotten to things beyond the veil. And I think that when you underestimate Joseph Smith, you make a grave mistake. You would be better off paying careful heed to everything that we got from him, and realizing that he could—and would—have offered a great deal more if the people had been prepared to receive it. And the problem that existed in 1820-1844 (while we had him here) is not a problem that reflects on Joseph Smith as having failed. It’s a reflection on the people who lived contemporaneous with him, who underestimated and who went off with exaggerated self-importance simply because they got close to the man. It’s about penetrating our own veil of darkness—because our flesh IS the veil, and the weaknesses of the flesh are what alienate us from God. 

There’s a great deal of truth out there to be found anywhere and everywhere. And some of the most profound teachings (that echo and mirror what Christ was teaching and what Joseph was trying to get across to us) can be found in all of the world’s great religions. They all have some truth, or they wouldn’t have any adherents. You can find truth in Judaism. They translated in the—I think it’s the CPART project down at BYU—some of the Islamic texts, and there’s a teacher, al-Tha’labi, whose teachings resonate with light and truth that were preserved in Islam at a time when Christianity was so oppressive from the Catholic dominance that everyone was darkened in their mind. And God was still preserving truths there. Taoism and Buddhism and Hinduism… 

I have a fellow who went to India to learn from the Maharaja in India in the 60s who, upon the death of the Maharaja, came back here and rediscovered in the Doctrine and Covenants truths that he had learned in Hinduism—and was excited about the possibility that Mormonism was really every bit as transcendental as what he had been studying over there; began to teach Transcendental Meditation here in Utah, and he read The Second Comforter and looked me up, and said, “How did you find this? How did you find this without a trip to India? How did you find this without going first through Hinduism?” He said, “I didn’t… I couldn’t see it. I couldn’t realize it was there until I had taken this other path.”

Joseph Smith restored to us [a] phenomenal wealth of information; he could have given us more—we just weren’t ready at the time to accept it. So if God starts up things again, we really have to be careful about the heed and the diligence, because we have—in the past—wasted opportunities, and without individually reconciling ourselves to God’s work, we can forfeit opportunities again, which is generally what mankind does. I mean, we only had Zion in Enoch’s time, and then Melchizedek (who was Shem—that used to be a teaching; people doubt it now, but nevertheless) reckoned from before the flood, and he had the covenant. He had the promise that he could be translated, and he lived through the flood, and he was here until Abraham—after generations of apostasy—got fully endowed in the Holy Order, and then Melchizedek acted on the covenant, which was really derivative from before the flood and belonged to Enoch. Melchizedek realized it too, and there was a second city that got taken up (that’s a big story and beyond the scope of this). But twice now (Enoch and then—derivative from Enoch—Melchizedek) two cities have gone up. The next time—the prophecies tell us—the city isn’t going up, but there is a city returning, and there needs to be people here to welcome them so that we can fall on one another, and we can kiss each other’s necks (which is the way that it’s put in the Scriptures: we will fall upon one another and kiss each other’s necks in the welcoming return of Jesus and his ten thousands—Enoch with his ten thousands with Jesus—as He returns in glory). All of those prophecies are going to be vindicated; it’s gonna happen! But the question isn’t “Will it happen?” The question is, I mean, are we gonna have ten thousands falling on two dozen, or are we gonna have ten thousands falling on ten thousands? And it’s just… Numerosity has never been a big deal. Jesus managed to get 500. Joseph got about 18. (That is another discussion.) And the question is, what, if anything, can we do? And…

MS: Yes.

DS: …expectations need to be modest.

MS: So what can people do to try to be among that the residue, the small portion? What would you tell people?

DS: Take very seriously the Book of Mormon. It is the keystone of our religion, and a man can get closer to God by heeding its precepts more so than any other volume. And that’s still true today. Just take the Book of Mormon seriously. And if you have a real problem understanding or parsing the Book of Mormon in a way that elevates your view, that was the purpose of The Second Comforter, Nephi’s Isaiah, and Eighteen Verses. Every one of those… Well, and Beloved Enos. Every one of those books is simply parsing the Book of Mormon, trying to get people to look at it. The Book of Mormon is a shallow book [when] read by a shallow person. The Book of Mormon is a profoundly deep, deeply meaningful book if you bring enough with you to the party. Those books are intended to help someone bring more with them to the party—because the Book of Mormon is very serious stuff. And it doesn’t have much good to say about us. It doesn’t have much good to say about our churches. It doesn’t have much good to say about our superficial religion these days. So…

MS: But it does offer us a tremendous amount of hope for those who will allow the scales of darkness to begin to fall from their eyes. ‘Cuz we can’t just read it as we’ve always read it, through the lenses that are provided to us, through only the Scripture Mastery verses or the lessons. We have… 

DS: Yeah.

MS: We have to read it as a vehicle to come to know God and with God’s mentorship as we… Like, we should always approach it asking God to help transform us through its pages.

DS: That Scripture Mastery comment reminds me—it made me laugh at the time—there was a talk in general conference; it was quoting from the Book of Mormon something about Christ, and the quote in the Book of Mormon was from Sherem, the first Antichrist. And I looked it up to make sure, because when I heard it, I thought, “Well, that’s the wrong source.” And sure enough, there it was, in general conference: an Antichrist being quoted with favor! But that’s probably…

MS: That’s why we need to know on our own, so we can discern.

DS: Yes!

MS: That’s why we can’t take these people as our guides. We need to take the spirit and the book as our guide, because often the same general conference is filled with false doctrines and false attributions to Scripture and false interpretations. So… I shouldn’t say it’s “filled.” It has plenty of it, though. So… 

DS: Yeah. 

MS: …you’ve got to ask individually. Ask: you and God, right? Every individual person.

DS: That’s where it belongs. 

All right. Well, thank you.

MS:  Thank you so much. I appreciate it. I hope to talk to you again sometime.

DS: Take care. 

MS: All right. DS: All right. Goodbye.

TRANSCRIPT

The post Truth At All Costs appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This lecture was delivered at the Sunstone Symposium in Sandy, UT on July 29th 2023.

I am pleased to return to Sunstone and to see it again exists in the form we took for granted before Covid-19. I feel more welcomed here among you intellectuals, doubters, apostates, and seekers than I do now among the active Latter-day Saints. Like many of you, I see gaps, contradictions and falsehoods in the claims made by the LDS church. But I also see many gaps, contradictions and falsehoods in the critics of the LDS church. I’m a believer in Mormonism as Joseph Smith defined it: “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” When it comes to Mormonism, renegade apostates are often that because they have discovered some new, unpleasant truth about the LDS church. These disappointed former saints are not evil and do not deserve being branded as ‘apostate’—but are in reality practicing a more correct form of Mormonism by accepting more truth.

The theme discussed by this year’s Symposium presenters is “(Main)Streaming Mormonism”—an effort by the LDS church to accomplish that objective is certainly underway. But if you define “Mormonism” as Joseph Smith did; that is: “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” Well, then all of you who welcome the truth are Mormons. Even if that search has alienated you from the LDS church, or (in my case) alienated the LDS church from you. If you seek for truth then you are companions with Joseph Smith and “Mormons” as he defined it. [More on that later.]

As for the LDS church, the hope to mainstream their organization has resulted in two things happening simultaneously: First, the original form of Mormonism is being abandoned. Second, political, social, economic and moral trends of modernity are replacing it. Considering many of the titles chosen by presenters at this Symposium, it should be apparent to us all that the present-day LDS church is both threadbare and foolishly attempting to put patches of new cloth on an old garment. The ‘traditional’ believer’s voices no longer dominate LDS meetings, conferences and lessons.

But this is getting ahead of the matter. I should start with another part of this story that requires me to clarify some matters about which many of you will hold very contrary views. I am not going to defend my position on foundational matters. I’ve already done that in some 38 volumes currently in print. This is an hour-long talk, so here is a list of things I believe, but won’t be defending here:

-First, that Joseph Smith was in contact with God and used by Them to accomplish a Divine work.

-Second, that Joseph Smith was a devoted monogamist, faithful to his only wife, Emma. Emma had the stronger personality and better formal education of the two.

-Third, that Joseph Smith opposed plural wivery, did what he could to discover it and eradicate it from Nauvoo, and believed that these secret adulterous crimes would lead to the destruction of the church.

-Forth, that it is wise, noble and virtuous to follow Joseph Smith’s example and counsel, and foolish to hold him in derision and attribute wickedness (including adulterous plural wivery) to him. Ultimately, those who believe and trust lies regarding him will have reason to mourn. 

-Fifth, while Joseph Smith was at the head Mormonism was optimistic, utopian, revolutionary and innovative. It was intent on reshaping the world into a better, more egalitarian place.

-Finally, Joseph Smith was not understood by the majority of those living in Nauvoo during his lifetime. Once Brigham Young ascended to control over the LDS faithful, he implemented a different (although arguably still utopian) form of Mormonism than what Joseph Smith and God intended to accomplish with the restoration.

Joseph was constantly adding to the breadth, depth and width of a religion he understood to have been both ancient and lost. He claimed to be a restorer, not an inventor. When the text of Genesis says that man was formed “in the image of God, male and female…” it only hinted at the truth Joseph would add about mankind: “You have to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one: from grace to grace from exaltation to exaltation until you attain to the resurrection of the dead.” Joseph taught we have not only God’s “image” but also Their potential. Joseph held a much more elevated view of mankind than did Christianity of the 1800s.

I prefer the optimistic, self-confident, revolutionary Mormonism of Joseph Smith over the devolving form it has since assumed. The deformities have multiplied and it now is lurching forward toward an unrecognizably abominable form.

LDS Mormonism has not seen such radical changes as Russell Nelson’s since Brigham Young’s reign. At one point Brigham Young’s agenda brought Utah’s Mormonism into a violent, downward spiral that the US Army was sent to dethrone him as governor. President Young hoped to employ Native Americans as the “battle axe of the Lord,” but that came to nothing. A few years later the Blackhawk War from 1865 to 1872 proved that ‘battle axe’ was the Lord’s, and He wielded it against the Mormons rather than the gentiles. Brigham Young did not take the hint when removed as Governor, and he ignored the slap when the Natives made war against the Mormons. Likewise, Nelson is ignoring the tremendous outflow of disaffected LDS now underway. Instead of radically adopting bad ideas, the LDS church should just be truthful.

Truth need not destroy faith in God, in Joseph Smith, or in Mormonism. Once the varnish is removed, keep digging and remove the veneer also. What you will find is that the LDS church has warped even Joseph Smith as part of their false narrative. There is sturdy lumber lying beneath the marketing veneer of corporate LDS-ism.

There is a vast library supporting institutional LDS historical claims. The LDS church has always been prolific-propagandists, whose effort to claim historical support for themselves has been enthusiastic and overeager. It was, after all, the saints who threatened to “exterminate” the Missourians first, but church apologists have preserved that memory only in the form of a cruel order by Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs. He was only a reactionary.

There were LDS apostles who strayed into bigamy and ‘spiritual wifeism’ in England years before it became something they attributed to Joseph Smith. The LDS reliance on William Clayton’s Journal is misplaced.

The Church History Library withholds many original resource materials, including contemporary journals, diaries and letters from the public. Interesting materials are becoming increasingly available that provide a valuable peek inside censored, authentic LDS history.

Woodruff’s Official Declaration 1 was a lie, and the “Manifesto” was only to mislead the ‘gentiles’ long enough to get statehood for Utah. The document remains part of the LDS scripture canon as if it were an authentic renunciation of plural marriage.

There is another library, not quite so prolific, written by LDS naysayers. They, too, have been enthusiastic if not overeager. After reading both libraries, I’ve reached the conclusion that both overstate their cases and wind up distorting who and what Joseph Smith was. As a result, I do not fit into the LDS church and they properly excommunicated me. As they define “apostasy” I did that. I apostasied [apostatized]. They have every right to define the terms for continuing membership in their religious club, and I violated their terms. However, I do not hold a virulent view of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, or whether God was up to something beginning in the early 1820s. I believe that something resulted in an inspired renewal of God’s commitment to help mankind. For that reason many of you also have strong disagreement with me.

I doubt anything I have to say will be welcome on either side of the ‘pro vs. con’ LDS divide. But at least my voice is heard and even welcomed here. Sunstone is still a valuable meeting ground for Mormons of every stripe.

As LDS Mormonism undergoes another metamorphosis, one question I think should be asked is, ‘what is the role of religion’ any religion, in any society, at any time in history—what role does it serve? To me the answer is to preserve proven or traditional values, to stabilize society against rapid and often disruptive change. Religion impedes new ideas from diverting society into a potentially unwise detour from traditions that have provided stability. Correspondingly, the greatest criticism of religion is that it interferes with adopting fashionable, new ideas. It is inevitable that when “old flattop” comes “grooving up slowly” with “hair down to his knees” he challenges the status quo, and provokes a chorus of churchgoing criticism.

“Changes” require you to “turn and face the strange,” often leading to an uncertain, unpredictable outcome. The voices urging change offend the religions, all religions, because they oppose social stasis. A good lyricist has put the matter both clearly and persuasively:

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don’t criticize what you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times, they are a-changin’

Because LDS Mormonism is teetering on this brink, the Sunstone Symposium this year is timely. It comes when most of you are cheering on this current metamorphosis of LDS Mormonism. LDS leaders have made more changes since Russell M. Nelson ascended to the top at any other time, excepting only Brigham Young. Nelson embraces change, even advising his followers to “eat their vitamins” so they can keep up with his aggressive agenda. His wife, Wendy Nelson, said his elevation would now “unleash” the changes he always aspired to adopt.

All the recent LDS policy changes tell us where the leadership’s heart lies: The church longs to be far more “woke” and popular, urging its adherents to prize a “living prophet” and neglect the dead ones. Dead ones said things unsuitable (or at least very uncomfortable) in the Brave New World where LDS Mormonism awakens. And so we have Elder Haynie of the first quorum of the seventy, telling the LDS faithful in General Conference, “unlike vintage comic books and classic cars, prophetic teachings do not become more valuable with age.” Elder Haynie added, “we should not seek to use the words of past prophets to dismiss the teachings of the living prophets.” That turns things onto its head but will be necessary because LDS “living prophets” contradict and ignore past prophets and even scripture.

Even the vocabulary of “living prophets” was an innovation during the presidency of David O. McKay. Before then, the LDS leader was called “President” and not “Prophet.” Opinion polling showed that LDS members responded more readily when the word “Prophet” was used, and therefore it got adopted in February 1955 by the LDS Deseret News and has continued in use ever since. Query whether now an ‘LDS Prophet’ could implement female ordination by fiat—or if past teachings would prohibit such a change? It probably comes down to when Baby Boomer tithe payers will poll in favor of making the change.

The Community of Christ has ordained women since 1984, and today five of their twelve apostles are women. The LDS organization appears, from the symptoms of recent behavior, to look with envy on that achievement. The overtures are there: Russell Ballard’s May 1, 2015 talk at BYU (The Essential Role of Women) mentioning how women have been allowed to weigh in on church councils, from wards to the highest levels of church administration. Then rewriting the temple endowment to put Eve into direct rather, than indirect, contact with Elohim. The LDS patriarchy glacier clearly wants to melt and run rapidly downhill, freed from the icy prison of its past. Homosexuality is no longer grounds for excommunication. Some homosexuals serve in local leadership positions.

In a gesture that was likely intended to keep more traditional Baby Boomer believers to ‘hold fast’, Dallin H. Oaks spoke to the LDS youth in May 2023. His talk was reported by Peggy Fletcher Stack on May 21, 2023. She reported his talk included this advice:

“Marriage is central to the purpose of mortal life and what follows,” said Oaks. “We are children of a loving Heavenly Father who created us with the capacity to follow his commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.”

The power of creation is “one of the most precious gifts we have in mortal life,” he said, but “central to that gift is the law of chastity, the commandment that our powers of procreation be expressed only within marriage between a man and a woman.”

Delaying childbearing, he said, “means fewer children born to grow up with the blessings of the gospel.”

There’s more than a little common sense to that advice. Catholicism has lasted for two millennia in part because, although its clergy is celibate, its members are traditionally quite fecund. Catholic teachings oppose abortion and birth control, and emphasize having large families. The result is that over the generations, Catholic membership numbers exceed 1 billion.

The one thing that almost all varieties of homosexuality fail to produce is children. Homosexuality does not result in pregnancy and/or children. Transsexuals do not reproduce. It will take only one generation of such sexual non-productivity to “leave them neither root nor branch.” Those Biblical words are genealogical terms, and in context mean without descendants or posterity. It is not a matter of ‘go woke, go broke’ but instead a matter of ‘empty wombs leaves only tombs.’ Any church, including the LDS, which wants to survive the next century, will need a birth-rate well above the mortality rate.

The theme that worldly popularity is antithetical to godliness appears early in the Book of Mormon. Lehi saw but failed to notice, and Nephi both noticed and described the meaning of filthy water:

And the angel spake unto me, saying, Behold the fountain of filthy water which thy father saw, yea, even the river of which he spake; and the depths thereof are the depths of hell. And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the Devil which blindeth the eyes and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost. And the large and spacious building which thy father saw is vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men. And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God and Messiah who is the Lamb of God. (1 Ne. 3:17.)

Broad roads and large, spacious buildings are symbols of worldly success, acceptance, popularity and vanity. Pretty much what we get in the values advocated by mass media, entertainment, current fashion and now well represented in opinion polling among those aged 18-35.

In contrast, as Joseph Smith taught, there is a narrow pathway that runs contrariwise and is to be preferred:

 [I]f one man cannot understand these things but by the spirit of God, ten thousand men cannot. It is alike out of the reach of the wisdom of the learned, the tongue of the eloquent, the power of the mighty. And we shall at last have to come to this conclusion, whatever we may think of revelation, that without it we can neither know nor understand anything of God, or the Devil; and however unwilling the world may be to acknowledge this principle, it is evident from the multifarious creeds and notions concerning this matter that they understand nothing of this principle, and it is equally as plain that without a divine communication they must remain in ignorance. The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and those that were sent of God they considered to be false prophets, and hence they killed, stoned, punished, and imprisoned the true prophets, and they had to hide themselves in deserts, and dens, and caves of the earth, and though the most honorable men of the earth, they banished them from their society as vagabonds, while they cherished, honored, and supported knaves, vagabonds, hypocrites, impostors, and the basest of men. (T&C 147:6, italics in original.)

Joseph Smith was killed by the conspiracy of adulterous insiders, jealous politicians, and mobs motivated by lies. They did not understand him or know what he stood for. The LDS church today has essentially adopted those same slanderous lies as their version of his biography. And many of you think him to have been a pedophile and a liar. I disagree. In 1829 God predicted there would be these opposing views:

The ends of the earth shall inquire after your name, and fools shall have you in derision, and hell shall rage against you, while the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under your hand. And your people shall never be turned against you by the testimony of traitors, and although their influence shall cast you into trouble, and into bars and walls, you shall be had in honor. (D&C 122:1-3; T&C 139:7.)

I hold Joseph in high regard, believing he was a much greater spiritual presence than what he claimed publicly—meaning he understated his visionary calling and mission. He was a friend of heaven, and that alone vouches for his character. I think I understand what heaven requires of a prophet. The caricature believed to be Joseph Smith by the LDS church and many of those attending this Symposium is not a fair representation of what is required to have the heavens opened. God does not entrust salvation of the souls of men to the self-indulgent and sexually promiscuous.