Light and Truth

This lecture by Denver Snuffer entitled “Faith” was originally recorded in Idaho Falls, Idaho on September 28, 2013, in front of a live audience.

Transcript

It was 40 years ago today, at almost this exact moment, when I went back out into the Atlantic Ocean off the Sea Point Beach in Kittery, Maine, and I baptized a fellow named Ronald Allan Mahle. Ron had taken the missionary discussions at the same time I had, and he was more retiring than I was, and it required my baptism before he considered being baptized himself. And between the time of being baptized (18 days earlier) and this date, the 28th, George Hoger had ordained me to the Aaronic Priesthood. And so, when Ron asked if I could perform the baptism, I was able to do that. And we’re here, in part, because this represents the 40th anniversary of my own baptism and conversion to Mormonism, and therefore, I’m going to take note of events along the way each time we get together. 

Ron Mahle has since left the church. He’s a good friend; he’s remained a good friend. In fact, I spoke with him a couple of days ago. He was calling to make sure I was okay with all that’s going on. He’s involved in some interesting circles, and they know that he’s a friend of mine, so they were keeping him up to speed on some things, and he was calling me and expressing. 

There is this one thing about the process of converting, and that is that you do, in fact, make lifelong friends in the process. And it doesn’t matter what comes and what goes, those friendships are enduring. Ron and I learned together that when the missionaries invite you to dinner that you probably ought to turn them down. The missionaries had something that they had called perpetual chili, and they were determined to at last get rid of the dregs of the perpetual chili. I swear there were some waffles in it on the occasion. But we went over, and we ate, and true enough, we all— It was rather like the stories you hear of the missionaries in Mexico when they are getting down there and acclimating to the food. 

In that first ward— I was going through my head the members that were in the Portsmouth, New Hampshire ward at the time, and I remembered that there was this couple who had a house they were building. It was constantly under construction, getting adjustments made here and there. And a bank had closed down, and the bank had sold all of the doors. They were going to tear the building, and they went and they bought these enormous, solid wood doors, hardwood doors, to install. This was Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, who is a woman now— She was teaching Sunday school classes back when I converted. She is on the faculty at Harvard. She’s been down to BYU and presented down there, and she is the author of the book Well Behaved Women Don’t Make History, which is something that got turned into coffee mugs and t-shirts from an article that she wrote about funerals in the Puritan era and the behavior of women. There were some interesting people in that first ward. 

I wanted to talk about the purpose behind all of this material. It’s to try and discuss not what great things the Lord has done but how great things the Lord has done, which is the terminology that you find in the Book of Mormon. Because what doesn’t matter anything near as much as how. What is an exercise in voyeurism, essentially. How is an exercise in what you need to do and how you come about to linking into, and participating in, what ultimately is the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And so we’re going to be covering how great things are done. 

One of the things that I was reminded about this week by a friend (I coined it, but he suggested the idea) is that it’s important that you not get the misimpression that before you wind up in the presence of the Lord, you have the responsibility of making yourself absolutely spick-and-span. In terms of connecting with the Lord, it is essentially a come-as- you-are party because you are never going to be able to do the heavy lifting required to be clean in His presence. He does that; you don’t. He extends the invitation; you accept it. It’s a come-as-you-are party. 

There are two parables that the Lord told that I want to put together to help illustrate the point. One of them is in Matthew chapter 22. It’s a parable about a wedding feast. And the Lord, in that parable, talks about how the folks that were invited wouldn’t show up. And because the folks that were invited would not show up, an invitation was extended to, essentially, whoever was out on the streets. And the folks who were out on the streets were brought in. Begin at verse 8 of chapter 22: Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy (Matthew 8:22). 

You know, he’s telling a story, largely about a condition that persists whenever you find a religious organization functioning, because institutions have a way of having their own cares. Joseph Smith was a disastrous businessman. He created financial debacle after financial debacle. The most notorious one was the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Group—Anti, because they couldn’t get the bank charter. But if you file for bankruptcy in the state of Utah, one of the things that they do at the discharge hearing, in order to help people feel better about themselves, is they remind people that at the time of his death, Joseph Smith had a pending petition in bankruptcy. And that is supposed to salve the conscience of those who find themselves in that extremity. 

The fact is that Joseph was not a particularly good businessman because he didn’t care for business. He wound up giving away his inventory to the needy folks, rather than trying to profit off the needs of the Saints. There was some exasperation about that. Well, we fixed that. We have, managing the church and attending to the financial interests of the kingdom (as we call it now), those that are more than qualified financially. I suspect a profligate like Joseph Smith would be unsuitable for management today. But in any event, the parable starts with the Lord, who’s trying to get people to come to the wedding, telling the servants the wedding’s ready but those that I’ve asked are not worthy:

Go…into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid [them] to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways [always the servants, always angels do this work; they do the gathering], and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And…the king came in to see the guests, he saw there [was] a man which had not…a wedding garment…saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou…hither not having a wedding garment?…he was speechless…the king [said], Bind him hand and foot…take him away…cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping [and wailing] and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 22:9-13)

So, I want to put that on the table, because in this part of this parable you have anyone who will come being invited, because the people that were targeted for attendance simply aren’t worthy to come. So anyone gets to come. And now you have among them someone who doesn’t have on a wedding garment. And for that I want to refer you to Luke chapter 15, because in Luke chapter 15 we run into the Lord talking about a robe being supplied. This is the son who found himself, having been in a far-off land, filling his belly with the husks that the swine did eat…no man gave unto him. [He comes] to himself, [says:] How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! So when he goes back to see his father, look at what happens in verse 22 of Luke chapter 15: But the father said to his servants [again, it’s the angels that do this], Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him…put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet (Luke 15:16,17,22).

You see, this, I think, has to be kept in mind whenever you’re looking at someone who has arrived at the feast, bidden from the highway, who arrives and doesn’t have on the robe. The Master is the one that wants you to wear it. The Master is the one that will furnish it. Don’t think that the purpose of the Lord is to judge. The purpose of the Lord is to redeem, and for that purpose He is infinitely patient and willing, if you will respond, with forgiveness of your sins, as He does consistently throughout the Book of Mormon. 

In Boise we had gotten to verse 40 of the Joseph Smith History, and we had gone through the 11th chapter of Isaiah that Moroni referred to. But according to the Joseph Smith History, Moroni quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when “they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,” but soon would come (Joseph Smith History 1:40).

If you go back to that provision in Acts chapter 3, what it says there is For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me—which I find really interesting, because what Moses is saying in his prophecy is that Christ is going to come, and Christ is going to be like unto Moses. It’s an interesting statement for Moses to have made, trying, I suppose, in his day and his context, to make people look forward to the coming of the Lord. In our day, in our context, I would have a very difficult time, no matter what I had been given, with saying the Lord is going to be like unto me. I would rather say, And I’m hoping to be somewhat akin unto Him. 

Nevertheless, Moses said: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people (Acts 3:22).

Now, you have Moses talking about the coming of Christ. You have Peter talking about Christ immediately after Him having come. Then you have Moroni talking about what Moses had said, quoting Peter, about something that was involving the Lord. And therefore, a lot of people have concluded from that, that that means the Lord is yet to come. It doesn’t mean that at all. Go back and read Moroni. What Moroni says: But the day had not yet come when “they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people” (Joseph Smith History 1:40).

That doesn’t mean that Christ is coming again. What it does mean is that Christ’s voice will be heard again, and in that final voicing by Christ, those who do not have the ears to hear it, they will be cut off. That cutting off is future. That voice of the Lord, both during the time He spoke in mortality, as well as the time when He spoke through the Prophet Joseph Smith, as well as the time when He speaks again to give a final warning— If His voice is not heard and is not heeded, that cutting off, and only that cutting off, remains yet in the future. And therefore, the comment here by Moroni has reference to the future cutting off by those who would not hear the voice of the Lord, which is in that day soon to come, in our day,  almost upon us. 

Then in verse 41, Moroni also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be. And he further stated that the fulness of the Gentiles was soon to come in. He quoted many other passages of scripture, and offered many explanations which cannot be mentioned here (Joseph Smith History 1:41).

So let’s go back to Joel, in the second chapter, and begin at the 28th verse and look at that. This is what has not yet been fulfilled but is soon to come:

And it shall come to pass afterward [beginning at verse 28 of chapter 2 of Joel], that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit…I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness…the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD…And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. (Joel 2:28-32)

Now one of the things that we perhaps take for granted, but we have to give credit to Joseph Smith for doing, is distinguishing between all of these references to Jerusalem and these references to Zion. Until Joseph spoke, it was assumed that that was the same thing. It’s not; and we know that there will be Zion, on the one hand, and we know that there will be Jerusalem, a gathering there, on the other hand. And we know that this prophecy concerning your sons, your daughters, prophecy, dreams, visions, all of this being poured out—this is something that is yet to happen. But it is soon to come to pass. We have a great deal to look forward to that the angel Moroni, instructing Joseph Smith, covered with him on that night when he first appeared to him, promising that these things were going to come to pass. And they still have not yet come in. 

Going back to Joseph Smith History 1, verse 41, when he referred to Joel, he says that the fullness of the Gentiles was soon to come in. The “fullness of the Gentiles” is something different than the “times of the Gentiles.” The times of the Gentiles have been with us. The fullness of the Gentiles is when we turn a leaf, and their opportunity comes to an end. Notice that in addition, in verse 41, that there were many other passages of scripture and many other explanations (that he doesn’t mention here) that the angel offered. How often, when an angel comes to instruct, does the angel simply open the scriptures? When you look at what happened with the Lord on the day of His resurrection—before He appeared to the twelve—and He walked the afternoon on the road to Emmaus with Cleopas and (I believe) Luke, He spent the afternoon opening to them the scriptures. 

Angels instruct using the scriptures. The Lord, on the day of His resurrection, spent the afternoon talking about the scriptures. Joseph Smith, when he was trying to figure out which church he should join, labored over the scriptures. And yet, we think we needn’t perform that same labor or become familiar with that same canon of scripture. And I’m telling you that the more you have inside you in familiarity with the words of scripture, the more able you are to comprehend the doings of God in your own life, and in the lives of all those around you, and in the time in which you live. So don’t let it be lost on you that what the angel Moroni spent the night doing with Joseph was discussing scripture. And don’t let it be lost on you that he returned again, to deliver another time, a message involving expounding the scriptures. 

Prophecy is essentially focused…  All of prophecy is essentially focused on two events. You can always find an exception to this because there are all kinds of intermediate events that get covered, but essentially, the burden of prophecy focuses upon two, and only two, events. The first one is the looking forward to the coming of the Lord in the flesh in His mortal ministry, and the second one is looking forward to the coming of the Lord in glory to judge the world. Those are the two primary events that are the burden of prophecy—the burden of scripture—and you are living on the cusp of the fulfillment of the second of those two events. And therefore, you would be well served to learn as much as you can about those two events. 

I want to turn back to Jeremiah chapter 31, because in Jeremiah, he’s talking about the second of those events, the one that’s about to be upon us. Beginning in Jeremiah chapter 31, verse 31 (should be easy to remember—31-31—it’s like a 30-30 for you hunters, except it’s got yet another caliber), so: 

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 31:31-32)

As a reminder, you know, He’s telling about something that He did, and then how they  broke it, and how He was faithful to it as a husband unto them. Just as a reminder, as we get ready to talk about the coming covenant… Because if you break the next one when it’s restored, if you break that one, you cannot stand in the day that He comes. Because in the day that He comes to judge the world, there will be a judgment which is either passed or failed. And if failed, then they who come will burn them up by the brightness of their glory. So, He’s not giving you just this gratuitous, interlineation thought in the middle of the prophecy by Jeremiah. He’s trying to cue you in to the fact that this stuff is taken very seriously by Him, and therefore, ought be taken very seriously by us. So: But this shall be the covenant (verse 33)—

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me. (Jeremiah 31:33-34)

This is not they shall all know about Me. This is they shall know Me. And it will no longer be necessary for anyone to say know the Lord, because you shall know Him. It’s not knowledge concerning Him; it’s Him. And those that know Him shall be from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more (Jeremiah 31:34). That’s who He is. That’s what He does. He doesn’t want to remember your sin. He would rather prefer it if you don’t remember your sin. Because if you don’t remember your sin and you go on in a positive way, having laid down the burden that He so willingly will accept from you, and remove from you that burden of guilt, then you can go on and become healthy again. You needn’t be troubled about all of those things that have bogged you down. He wants to remove that. He wants to carry them. 

I will remember their sin no more. Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever. (Jeremiah 31:34-36)

If you look up in the morning sky, right now you can see Orion on the Eastern horizon. And that’s been true, twice a year, since the beginning. It’s been true that all of the ordinances ordained by God in the heavens above have remained true from the day that He set them there until today. They are so well established, they are so regular, they are so permanent, and they are so far beyond the ability of man to touch, alter, or destroy, that the only way to have an apostasy from those ordinances—from our perspective—is for you to forget what knowledge there is that are written in the heavens. But the Lord wrote it there; it remains there. And it’s still yet part of what is to be restored. 

Well, the definition of salvation or life eternal, given in John 17, verse 3: This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent (John 17:3). This is the knowledge of the Lord that he’s talking about here. This is the day that Jeremiah prophesies. No one needs to say, Know the Lord—for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest. This is what the Gospel was intended to restore, offer, promise, suggest to each one of us. 

The ordinances that are referred to here in the heavens… If you go to Genesis chapter 1, verse 14 (and for those that aren’t familiar with their scriptures, Genesis is like page one): And God said [this is verse 14]: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and [for] years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so (Genesis 1:14-15). And so, He sets this up, and He sets this up in order to communicate things. 

If you go back to the book of Abraham chapter 4 (and this is the other end of the four standard works), go to Abraham chapter 4, beginning at verse 14: 

And the Gods organized the lights in the expanse of the heaven, and caused them to divide the day from the night; and organized them to be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years; And organized them to be for lights in the expanse of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so. And the Gods organized the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day…the lesser light to rule the night; with the lesser light they set the stars also; And the Gods set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light upon the earth…to rule over the day and over the night…to cause to divide the light from the darkness. And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning [and] it was night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening [and] it was day; and it was the fourth time. (Abraham 4:19)

This is not a bunch of gratuitous language. This is describing something that took place with absolutely deliberate intent. Everything that is written in scripture and all of the ordinances that were ordained upon the earth—in the heavens—were reckoned from the position of the earth. It’s not that the ancients were ignorant of what’s going on in the heavens. It’s that they viewed the heavens as being a testimony given to us on the earth. It is a geocentric; that it is from the surface of the earth that that testimony is written. From the surface of the earth, the sun occupies a space… Even though the sun is over 100 times larger than the earth, the space that the sun occupies in the firmament of the earth is exactly the same as the space in the firmament that is occupied by the moon—although the moon is 1/6 the size of the earth. From the surface of the earth they are identical in size. So much so, that when you put them on the ecliptic, as they are located, one can block out the other entirely in an eclipse. Because all of these things were ordained by God to testify in the heavens about Him and about His work. And those things are bearing testimony, and they are telling you something. And who knows if we will ever get to that. But they are designed to be. 

Well, I’m going to go ahead. We won’t get to this for weeks. Well—weeks—we won’t get to this for some time. Go to Doctrine and Covenants section 121. Beginning at verse 26 (these are the neglected verses because we don’t pay attention to this stuff anymore): 

God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the   Holy [Spirit], that has not been revealed since the world was until now [not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit has been revealed. It’s the knowledge that is coming that has not yet been revealed]. Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory; A time to come in the which nothing [should] be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they [should] be manifest. All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, [should] be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ. [As] also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars—All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, [should] be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times—According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before [the] world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest. (D&C 121:26-32)

There is an agenda. That agenda is to be completed. It’s to be completed before the coming of the Lord. And it includes a restoration of things that we have hardly yet thought about. 

Well, Jeremiah knew what he was talking about when he referred to the ordinances. We’ve long since forgotten the only way you apostatize from that stuff is through forgetfulness, because the testimony remains. And it’s in front of your eyes nightly and daily. Everything begins with faith. You don’t skip to knowledge. You begin with faith, and you progress. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith on page 348 says, “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel.”

The principles of the gospel are not supposed to be comprehended in one bite. You progress. And the ladder that he’s talking about climbing is, in fact, the ladder that is ordered and that Jacob referred to. Jacob’s ladder is something that we refer to, and it’s an ordered process. But whenever you begin that climb, you begin it at the bottom. And so, you find yourselves here. Notwithstanding finding yourselves here, there are absolutely, invariably (and we’ll get to this eventually) seven rungs on Jacob’s ladder. And we find ourselves, at present, at the bottom of it. 

Belief leads to faith. Faith has to surrender, ultimately, to knowledge. And it was the purpose of the Prophet Joseph Smith to try and expound upon the principle of faith in a set of scriptures that he put forth. That got canonized. That we’re going to spend our time on this evening. I was reading the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. You can find that in the Joseph Smith Papers. They have a photostatic copy of the actual 1835 edition, and you can read it in the type. And, I mean,  it’s an exact reproduction. It’s a photograph of that edition. 

I loathe to waste time. And I’m captured each Sunday for a three-hour block, and so I spent a lot of time reading scriptures during church each Sunday. And I made sacrament meetings with the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants for a period of weeks in order to get through that. I was absolutely thunderstruck. Because if you’ve never read the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, it is as audacious a scriptural document as anyone has ever seen. It is like a thunderbolt out of the blue. It is an amazing text. And it begins… The first 70 some pages are the Lectures on Faith. Then the revelations are organized, not in the way in which they’re presently organized in our Doctrine and Covenants; they are organized topically and thematically. 

And when you pick up the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, and you look at that document, to me it was abundantly clear that there is something new taking place on the earth. The Prophet Joseph Smith was what he said he was. In fact, if anything, he understated who and what he was. The Prophet Joseph Smith was an agent, sent by God, to restore lost knowledge for whoever is willing to receive it. And the form that it takes in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants is a religious classic. It is a greater document than the New Testament. It is an amazing piece of work. 

Before its publication, Joseph Smith; Assistant President of the Church, Oliver Cowdery; First Counselor in the First Presidency, Sidney Rigdon; and Second Counselor in the First Presidency, Frederick G. Williams jointly signed a preface written by Joseph Smith. In his journals, leading up to the publication of the Lectures on Faith, Joseph Smith recorded that he spent days editing the Lectures that had been given before their publication as scripture.

There’s a debate: since they’ve been removed from the scriptures, there are a lot of people who are trying to vindicate the decision that was made to remove them from scripture. And one of the arguments that’s made in furtherance of removing them from the scripture was that it was primarily a product of Sidney Rigdon’s pen. And it was primarily a product of Sidney Rigdon’s pen because they’ve done word typing and computer analysis, and they’ve come up with probability of authorship. It doesn’t matter if Sidney Rigdon had a hand in the document, because Joseph Smith edited it. And Joseph Smith corrected it. And Joseph Smith vouched for it. And in the preface to the Lectures on Faith in the 1835 edition—which you can read in the Joseph Smith Papers, Volume 2 of the “Revelations and Translations”— Volume 2, and it’s, I don’t know, some 400-500 pages into that document, you can read the preface. And I’m reading you this over Joseph Smith’s name: 

We deem it to be unnecessary to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say that it contains, in short, the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe. The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of lectures as delivered before a theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrines of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work. We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced.

Joseph Smith’s saying, This is a document that I intend to vouch for. His official history, January of 1835, he says: “During the month of January,” in his records, “I was engaged in the school of the elders and in preparing the Lectures on Theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants.” You find that in the History of the Church Volume 2, beginning at page 180.

He defended every principle that was advanced. It was brought before a Council of the Church. And I’m reading from the Joseph Smith Papers. This is on page 307 of Volume 2 of the “Revelations and Translations”: “[On 17 August 1835, a general assembly of the] Church…[met] for the purpose of Examining a book of commandments and covenants…[that had] been compiled and written by the…[publications] committee.” Joseph Smith headed the publications committee. “This Committee having finished said Book according to the instructions given them”—the minutes read—“it was deemed necessary to call the general assembly of the Church to see whether the book be approved or not by the Authoroties [sic] of the Church, that it may, if approved, become a law. unto the church, and a rule of faith and practice [of] the same.”

Though the assembly was convened by the Presidency of the Church, several of them were absent at the time that the vote took. The responsibility of presenting the book to the conference fell to Oliver Cowdery, a member of both the Presidency and the four man Publication Committee; and Assistant President of the Church at the moment that this took place. Sidney Rigdon, the other Presidency member and Committee member present, stood and explained the matter by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly, for or against said book. Voting on the book proceeded by quorums and groups, with the leader of each group bearing witness of the truth of the volume before his group voted to accept the book of Doctrine and Covenants for their faith. And then they proceeded to vote. And they voted by quorum. And they voted by quorum from the least to the greatest. And then after all the quorums of the church had accepted the Doctrine and Covenants—the first 70-some pages of which were the Lectures on Faith—then the General Assembly voted, including everyone who was present. Children, women, everyone voted. And they all sustained this as the Doctrine of the Church. 

In 1921, the Lectures on Faith were dropped from the scriptures by a committee that was comprised of George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widstoe, and Joseph Fielding Smith. That committee dropped the Lectures on Faith from the scriptures because, they said: “Certain lessons, entitled Lectures on Faith, which [was] bound with Doctrine and Covenants in some of its former issues, are not included in this edition. Those lessons were prepared for use in the School of Elders…but they were never presented nor accepted by the Church as other than theological lessons or lectures” (D&C, Introductory Explanation, 1921 Edition).

That’s a lie. And the Joseph Smith Papers, if you will read them today, tell you that that’s not at all the truth. And part of what I hope to get to tonight, and if not tonight then in Logan, is the reasons why it is. Joseph Smith called this “doctrine—important doctrine.” “Leading items of the religion.” And that “he would answer to every principle that’s advanced in the document.” Now to his credit, Joseph Fielding Smith, who was on that, said (this was in 1966)—He said, “I suppose that the rising generation knows little about the Lectures… In my own judgment these Lectures are of great value and should be studied… I consider them to be of extreme value in the study of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (“The School of the Prophets,” BYU Leadership Week, June 18, 1956).

And in a talk given by Elder Bruce R. McConkie at Brigham Young University (the son-in-law to the one of the committee members, whose words I just read), in January the 4th of 1972 (that would have been before I was there), Elder McConkie said—

Every time I read Bruce R. McConkie [impersonating Bruce R. McConkie’s voice] ‘I am tempted to read it in the voice of Elder McConkie, which echoes still in my skull.’ I won’t do that. And I’m reading him now: 

In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, intelligent, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language—that exists in one place defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the Spirit of inspiration…it is, in effect, eternal scripture, [it is] true. (BYU Speeches, 4 January 1972)

And yet… And yet, it’s not in our scriptures. The School of the Prophets was organized based upon a commandment. Doctrine and Covenants section 88— verse 127 of section 88: And again, the order of the house prepared for the presidency of the school of the prophets, established for their instruction in all things that are expedient for them, even for all the officers of the church, or in other words, those who are called to the ministry in the church, beginning at the high priests, even down to the deacons (D&C 88:127).

This is referring to the School of the Prophets. This was the forum established by revelation, in which the Lectures on Faith were developed. Then after having been delivered there, edited by Joseph, prepared for publication… And it became scripture. It was approved in a subsequent revelation. If you turn a few pages to D&C 97, in verse 3 to 6:

Behold, I say unto you, concerning the school in Zion, I, the Lord, am well pleased that there should be a school in Zion, and also with my servant Parley P. Pratt, for he abideth in me. And inasmuch as he continueth to abide in me he shall continue to preside over the school in the land of Zion until I shall give unto him other commandments…I will bless him with a multiplicity of blessings, in expounding all scriptures and mysteries to the edification of the school, and of the church in Zion. (D&C 97:3-6)

The school, the school, the school! They wanted one established then. The purpose of that was to bring the Lectures in. The purpose of the Lectures was to teach people so that you would understand what the doctrines are, because the doctrine was the Lectures on Faith. The covenants were the balance of the book. And by the way, if you get out the 1835 edition, you will find that the typeface for the Lectures on Faith are actually larger type than the subsequent commandments which are in the revelations that we have left over in the Doctrine and Covenants. They came in first. They were vouched for by Joseph. They were the “leading items.” He considered them so important that they came first in the doctrine, the first 74 pages of the 1835 edition.

So having now explained why, I want to turn attention to them. And hoping that you brought your own copy of theLectures on Faith, I want to turn to the Lectures on Faith. The edition that you will find in the Joseph Smith Papers is not plagued with a bunch of footnotes, interlineating. If you buy a copy today from Deseret Book, you’re going to find footnotes that explain a bunch of stuff—and in essence contradict the content of the Lectures on Faith—and then explain why they know more than Joseph did, and they’re fixing his doctrinal errors. 

The First Lecture on Faith is essentially asserting the primacy of faith as an operative principle of power, that exists with God and with all of us. Okay, you’ve left home, and you’ve come here. While you’re here, your home exists only as a matter of faith to you. You believe it exists. You intend to drive back there; and your family that’s there, and your dog that’s there, and that infernal parrot that now can mimic the low battery signal on the fire alarm—she’s there too. And so, it’s a matter of faith, that despite the fact that I am here and out of her presence, my bird is waiting for me when I get home. You act as if these things that you no longer see… See, in the development of a child, what you find in really young children is that they don’t have the capacity to entertain the fact that it still exists. When it’s gone, it’s gone forever. And the child… It takes a while before the child has confidence that what gets removed from their sight continues to exist outside of the presence of their actual observation. It’s one of those childhood development things. 

Well, God’s beyond that. Everything that exists—faith, and faith only— And I’m using a compilation that was published—I don’t know, it’s from the Brigham Young University archive. I just printed it out. In mine it’s verse 11,  excuse me, it’s verse 10 of Lecture 1:

It is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action in them [that is in all men, but is also the principle by which everything is moved into action. Verse 12:] Faith is the moving cause of all action in temporal concerns, so it is in spiritual; for the Saviour has said, that truly, that He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Through faith— [In Verse 14:] Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.  …all things in heaven [in Verse 15:] [or] earth, or under…earth, exist by reason of faith as it existed in Him [Him being God. 17:] Who cannot see, that if God framed the worlds by faith, that it is by faith that he exercises power over them, and that faith is the principle of power? And if the principle of power, it must be so in man as well as in the Deity? This is the testimony of all the sacred writers and the lesson which they have been endeavouring to teach to man. 

You are acting… Everything that you are doing—the education that you got, the employment that you have, the plans that you undertake, the things that you design to do—are all a product of your faith. You are a being filled with, animated by, and continually upholding everything in your life by your faith! And yet you don’t have the faith to see it. You are a creature of faith. All of you are. And you always have been, and you always will be. Do not be doubtful, but be believing. You are here by reason of God’s faith. And you have faith to do the things that you do, continually. Every movement you undertake, every plan you make, is based upon the faith that you have. 

Well, we don’t have time to pause on the first one because I’m hoping to get far enough along in this process. But I’d like you to value the Lectures on Faith. I’d like you to study the Lectures on Faith. I’d like you to take a lot more time with them than we’re going to have the time to take tonight. Let’s skip to the Second Lecture. This is the second verse:

We here observe that God is the only supreme governor and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell; who is omnipotent, omnipresent,…omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life; and that in him every good gift and every good principle dwell;…that he is the Father of lights; in him the principle of faith dwells independently,…he is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings center for life and salvation. 

Did you get that?! It’s not me; it’s not your bishop; it’s not Hugh Nibley; it’s not your stake president; it’s not the Catholic priest down the street, the Pope in Rome, or the President of the Church in Salt Lake. It’s no man! The principle of faith must be grounded in God, the Supreme Governor. Because if your faith is grounded in anyone or anything else, you cannot have the faith necessary to attain to salvation. All of these Lectures are concerned with your salvation. 

Look at verse 12. And it’s been a discussion of what went on at the beginning: man in the Garden of Eden, God talking to him. Verse 12: 

From the foregoing we learn man’s situation at his first creation, the knowledge [of] which he was endowed, and the high and exalted station in which he was placed—lord or governor of all things on [the] earth, and at the same time enjoying communion and intercourse with his Maker, without a veil to separate between.

That’s where man began. And that’s why knowledge of God existed in the first place. Because in the beginning, God talked to man. And if you think, Well, yeah that was then, what about now? We will get to now. Verse 18, about halfway down: 

God conversed with him face to face. In his presence he was permitted to stand, and from his own mouth he was permitted to receive instruction. He heard his voice, walked before him…gazed upon his glory, while intelligence burst upon his understanding, and enabled him to give names to the vast assemblage of his Maker’s works.

This was man’s original condition—a condition, to which, the gospel is designed to return man. And in fact, at the Second Coming, all who remain will be in that condition once again. The earth is going to be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory, and it’s going to do so because God will come and dwell here again. And man will be able to converse Him. Look at verse 19: Though man did transgress, his transgression did not deprive him of the previous knowledge with which he was endowed. This is really interesting, because in verse 21 Joseph Smith says: We next proceed to present the account of the direct revelation which man received after he was cast out of Eden, and further copy from the new translation:… 

The Lectures on Faith, throughout, use only what we call the Inspired Version of Scriptures. The only Bible references that they permit into the Lectures on Faith: the Inspired Version of the Bible. Even though the Inspired Version of the Bible was never made public during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, he still uses it in order to get the Lectures on Faith right. Which tells you something about the priority. He did not give that for general release, general consumption, but it was so important that the Lectures on Faith be done correctly that they are what get quoted in here. In fact, in the Second Lecture, this verse, verse 23, is so important that it’s been incorporated into the temple endowment itself: 

And after many days, an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying, Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord?…Adam said…I know not, save the Lord commanded me. And..the angel spake, saying, This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth…thou shalt do all that thou doest, in the name of the Son…thou shalt repent…call upon God, in the name of the Son for evermore.

So important that it appears in the temple. So important it appears in the Lectures on Faith. So important that it was put into the Lectures on Faith even though the Inspired Version was not made generally available. And—the Lectures on Faithare so important that they have been deleted from your scriptures, because in 1921 a committee said, Nah, don’t worry about that. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. 

Verse 25: Though our first parents were driven out of the garden of Eden, and were even separated from the presence of God by a veil, they still retained a knowledge of his existence. And then it goes through what happened with Cain, and Cain’s gross transgression. But look at verse 30: God continued, after man’s transgression, to manifest himself to him and to his posterity; and, notwithstanding they were separated from his immediate presence that they could not see his face, they continued to hear his voice. And look at verse 32: God condescended to talk with Cain after his great transgression in slaying his brother. 

And you don’t think God will talk to you?! And you think God is so quiet that He’s not speaking to you?! At one point God says, My works never cease and my words never cease (see Moses 1:4). The silence that is caused to reign in the heavens are the angels—but not God. The angels withdraw; God does not. And if God would talk to Cain after his transgression in slaying his brother, He’ll talk with you. 

You ought to ask yourself why the chronology in the Second Lecture is given, because the chronology that’s given there, and we don’t have time to go through it, but the chronology matters, and the life spans matter. And maybe by the time we get to Provo—I guess the Spanish Fork area—we’ll revisit that. 

Okay, verse 55 of Second Lecture: The extent of their knowledge respecting his character and glory will depend upon their diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him. 

Every person’s knowledge is dependent upon the diligence and the faithfulness of the individual, and if your diligence and faithfulness in seeking after Him… And by the way, we have one brave soul who’s just tired. I hate these chairs. You know, they designed these chairs to stack, and the human being has to simply conform to the stackability. I mean, it’s like the engineer that says, What’s your list of priorities? Well, it’s not humanity. I mean we want these damn things to be stackable. Okay, what if it’s rather like sitting on a jackhammer, and having your ass “slain” after the first 45 minutes? And the engineer responds, You don’t get it; they stack. They will stack. I can take a whole room and I can put them in a corner, and it’s like— Chairs? Seating. Seating? Chairs. And it’s a wonder of engineering. Therefore, since this brave soul got up and cushioned his tush with a coat, I would commend anyone anytime to stand up, to stretch your legs, and give everyone behind you a good look at your backside.

And so, the extent of any man’s knowledge concerning the character and glory of God depends upon the diligence and the faithfulness of the individual:

Until, like Enoch, the brother of Jared, and Moses, they shall obtain faith in God, and power with him to behold him face to face. We have now clearly set forth how it is, and how it was, that God became an object of faith for rational beings; and also, upon what foundation the testimony was based which excited the inquiry and diligent search of the ancient saints to seek after and obtain a knowledge of the glory of God; and we have seen that it was human testimony, and human testimony only, that excited this inquiry, in the first instance, in their minds. It was the credence they gave to the testimony of their fathers, this testimony having aroused their minds to inquire after the knowledge of God; the inquiry frequently terminated, indeed always terminated when rightly pursued, in the most glorious discoveries and eternal certainty. (Lectures on Faith 2:55-56)

And what is “the most glorious discovery?” It is the person of God. And what is the “eternal certainty” that you want? It is your own salvation. Because no man can give that to you, but God can. But it is testimony, and it is testimony alone, upon which that faith can be grounded. Therefore, let me testify to you that when I became a Mormon, I assumed you people were like Joseph Smith. I assumed that you people went out and prayed in groves and God visited with you. I assumed you were awakened during the course of the night and that Moroni, or Peter, or James, or whomever—whoever was vagrant in the halls of heaven would be sent down to occupy the night in teaching you Mormons, because this was a regular event. 

And so it was my expectation that that was possible. And I thought it possible because Joseph did it, and because there were missionaries saying, “I know” this stuff is true. I didn’t have a lexicon of Mormonese before me that allowed me to say, “I know” equals “I really, really, really, believe this stuff.” In fact, it was confusing to me when I got a testimony, and I said, Yeah, God actually answered my prayer, and damn it, I’m going to get baptized. Because I did not think I’d be a particularly good Mormon. And maybe I ought to explain why I wouldn’t be a very good Mormon. 

Ron Mahle and I were on one of our regular… (I’ve elicited a groan from my wife.) We were on one of our regular enlisted-in-the-Air-Force weekend events when he, in his Ford Gran Torino, was caught on the radar gun doing 120 miles an hour in Portsmouth city limits, and we were pulled over. And back in those days, DUI did not mean that you were immediately ushered off to jail, but it meant you had the potential for that someday. So Ron, who had blown the breathalyzer problem, was removed from the driver’s seat, and I was put into it. He didn’t ask me for my breathing test, and so I drove him back to the base. And with time the day of reckoning came, and the arrest warrant was issued, and Ron was carted off to jail. And on the day that I got the call that I needed to go down to jail and bail him out, we had new Elders transferred into the area, and they needed a ride. And Ron being locked up and me having access to his Torino, I went and I picked up the Elders. And, you know, they were going to ultimately missionary me into the baptismal font, but I had another golden contact I wanted them to meet. And so they went with me to where Ron was locked up, and they met at the release at the jail. 

In any event, back in those days I thought all you people had these things. And then there was the patriarchal blessing that I got which said (and this is a quote) that, “you will again be in the presence of your Father in Heaven while in the Second Estate.” That’s in my patriarchal blessing. And I thought, well, of course; it belongs there. That’s what we do, isn’t it? We’re Mormons. I mean, we’re on God’s team; God likes us. He’s paying really close attention to us. And when we do stuff wrong, we can look up and feel guilty. Actually, we can look… I’m disoriented here. I could point you to the spot if I were back home, but I’m not sure where those coordinates are at this spot. 

In any event, I thought we were related to God in an intimate way because, well, the heavens were open. And therefore, it was not to me shocking when I encountered an angel. And I have encountered many of them, and all of them leave a vivid and permanent impression. I can tell you that it’s been nearly 40 years since the first time I met with an angel, and  I can still close my eyes and see the scene this minute. This stuff happens. My experiences matter only because I can testify that it happens. The content is nothing but voyeurism for you. You need to have a connection with heaven. The scriptures are the authorized accounts given to us that testify to these things. The Lectures on Faith are trying to set it forth in a comprehensive way, so that we can all get it. But the Gospel is supposed to be a living, breathing, miraculous thing in your life. Whether I’m saved or not doesn’t matter. What matters is whether you are saved or not. And the way in which you become saved is by coming to know “eternal certainty,” the last words in verse 56. And eternal certainty is about your salvation, so that you’re not dependent upon someone else for your knowledge of God, but so that you can say in your own right, “I know.” 

Well, which brings us then to the Third Lecture on Faith. Now we’re starting really to get into some important stuff. So I hope your chair is painful enough to keep you awake. Personally, I’d rather stand up here than sit in one of those things. That’s it, you could get this over with a lot quicker if you put me in one of those chairs and said, Talk until you’re sick of that. 

Verse 2 of Lecture 3: Let us here observe, that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God— [Faith in God] unto life and salvation (Lectures on Faith 3:2). Faith in God, not in man, not in men, not in an institution, not in some magic talisman—faith in God. To the extent that anyone is trying to displace your faith in God and attract attention to themselves, myself included, that is a perversion. It will not save you. It is a distraction. It is evil. It is wrong. It is damnable. Anyone that tries to attract your worship, myself included, ought to be sent to hell. It’s why I continually remind you, talking about me is a waste of time. Talking about the things that I’m saying, talking about the content of these scriptures, talking about the doctrines that will save you, that’s very important. But you can leave me out of that. You don’t ever need to mention my name again in your life. But pay attention to the doctrine that we’re talking about. Pay attention to the message that comes to us through scripture. You will never be saved because you relied upon some guy to elevate you. The only way in which that will happen is when you connect with God. You have to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. 

There are three things: 

• First, the idea that he actually exists. You can get that from someone else. 
• Secondly, a correct idea of His character, perfections and attributes. Any error in that prevents you from having faith. Therefore, in order to get that right, it’s going to require something of you in the way of study and effort. Because if you’re making—look at the word, they italicized it—a correct idea of His character, perfections, and attributes, that’s what you need to study to show what it is you’re going to have faith in. 
• Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to his will (Lectures on Faith 3:3-5).

You must know this. And you cannot cover the gap by lying to yourself. You can’t lie to yourself, pretending that you are on God’s course, and then have actual knowledge that the course of life you’re pursuing is according to His will. Nor can you depend entirely upon what other people are telling you. You’re supposed to be asking and getting answers from God. And the answers from God are going to tell you what you need to do.  And the sacrifices that He will require of you are unique to you, because the contribution that you can make for the salvation of yourself and others is unique to you. There are things that you and only you can do. And if you will sign up with God, He will have you do them. You may find yourself doing things you would rather prefer not doing. It doesn’t matter. If you have faith in Him and you do what He asks, you’ll know that the course you are pursuing is according to His will. And doing things He asks of you, according to His will, invariably produce faith. And they produce faith unto salvation. Because it always grows. Light grows or dims; it never stays static. Therefore, when you set on this course, you never turn back. If you turn back, you lose everything that you’ve gained up to that point.  Look at verse 5 (this is third):

An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to his will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness, unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Lectures on Faith 3:5, emphasis added)

Therefore, these three things you need to know. God exists. You need to study until you have a correct understanding of His character, perfections, and attributes. And then you have to live your life so that you actually know that the course you’re leading in your life conforms to what He would have. Turn to verse 23: 

But it is also necessary that men should have an idea that he is no respecter of persons, for with the idea of all the other excellencies in his character, and this one wanting, men could not exercise faith in him; because if he were a respecter of persons, they could not tell what their privileges were, nor how far they were authorized to exercise faith in him, or whether they were authorized to do it at all, but all must be confusion; but no sooner are the minds of men made acquainted with the truth on this point, that he is no respecter of persons, than they see that they have authority by faith to lay hold on eternal life, the richest boon of heaven, because God is no respecter of persons, and that every man in every nation has an equal privilege. (Lectures on Faith 3:23)

That’s you, that’s you. God has done nothing for Joseph Smith He will not do for you. I understand all of the doctrinal arguments. I can make them all. I have made them all. And I’ve made them to the Lord. I’ve argued with Him on every point of doctrine that any of you… I’ve quoted to Him every scripture that any of you have advanced, and many more besides. And the Lord has always borne testimony back, consistently. This stuff is true. You’re hedging up the way of your own salvation and of the salvation of others when you say, No one has the privilege in our day, yet, to lay hold on salvation. You’re hedging up the way, you are damning yourself, and you are damning those who will listen to you when you say people in our time are not yet authorized to exercise faith in God unto salvation, because you are authorized. 

I have done so. I have spoken with Him as a man speaks to another. He speaks in plain humility, reasoning as one man does with another. He will reason with you. The first night I got a testimony, I was in the middle of an argument with God—I thought with myself—until when I got down to the final question in my mind, which was, “How do I even know there is a God?” To which the response came, “Who do you think you’ve been talking to the last two hours?” I didn’t realize that that still small voice, which will talk with any and all of you, was God. When you exercise the required faith to permit Him to step out from behind the veil, like the brother of Jared, He’ll do that, too. He’s no respecter of persons. You should not question what your privileges are, nor how far you are authorized to exercise faith in Him, or whether you’re authorized to do it at all. Don’t have doubts about your privileges. 

And then verse 24, twice: He is love…he is love. He is love. Now in my copy, beginning on page 40, “The following excerpt is not part of the Lectures on Faith.” Therefore, we pass over that without comment. And I’ll try and not have a sneer. 

Now we get to the Fifth Lecture, which is what I was hoping to get to. Yes, we have time. This is where we run into some problems. This is when, by 1921… You see, we have a problem with the nature of God advanced by the Christian world. At one time in the temple endowment, there was a player whose role was to be the Christian minister who would, in his effort to convert Adam and Eve, say, “Do you believe in a God who sits on the top of a topless throne? Whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere? Do you believe in this great being, who is surrounded by a myriad of beings who have been saved, not for any act of theirs, but by his good pleasure?” And Adam responds, “I do not. I cannot comprehend such a being.” And the minister says, “Oh, that is the beauty of it!” And then he goes on to describe the devil. But I attended the temple so often before they made the changes in 1990 that I have the temple ceremony memorized, and I still recite all the missing parts. Actually, I guess in my condition, they’re all missing at this point. Well, you can take away everything, except what’s inside.

In any event, the Christian naysayers point at Mormons and say, Ahh, you believe in an anthropomorphic God. We have anthropomorphized God. Instead of deipomorphizing man—which is, We are made in His image—they’re trying to say that we’ve turned God into our image. It’s one of those doctrinal points. Well, not content merely with the Personages given to us by Joseph Smith in the First Vision and elaborated upon in the Fifth Lecture, our enthusiasm has anthropomorphized—has created a being out of—the Holy Spirit. And we’re going to deconstruct that. And we’re going to look at the scriptures that are the basis upon which the committee in 1921 got high-centered on this. Because we are now at the point where— 

Okay, remember in Lecture 3 paragraph 4, in order for you to exercise faith you must have a correct idea of God’s character, perfections, and attributes. You’ve got to have that. And if you don’t have that, then you are missing something that prevents you from having the right kind of faith. Okay, so Lecture Fifth, verse 1:

We shall, in this lecture, speak of the Godhead—we mean the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible, whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son—the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man…

And then, you go down to the bottom of that verse:  

He being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth… having overcome, received a fullness of…glory of the Father, possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one; or, in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things; by whom all things were created and made that were created and made, and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one; the Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power, and fullness—filling all in all; the Son being filled with the fullness of the mind, glory, and power; or, in other words, the spirit, glory, and power, of the Father, possessing all [the] knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom, sitting [on] the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father…

And it goes on to say: …the Spirit of the Father, which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe [in] his name…keep his commandments…all those who keep his commandments shall grow…from grace to grace…[possess] the same mind…(Lectures on Faith 5:1-2) and so on. 

Well, the committee in 1921 concluded that this Lecture was wrong about God the Father because it says He is a personage of spirit, glory, and power. And the Son was a personage of tabernacle. And they believe that the Father is a personage of tabernacle as well. That was the first mistake that Joseph Smith—who vouched for the doctrine in these Lectures, who stood in the presence of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ—made, in the estimation of the committee, who had not stood in God’s presence. Because “Joseph erred in doctrine,” you see. They concluded that Joseph Smith was wrong about his description of the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is one of the Godhead, and that the Holy Spirit is the mind of the Father.

Therefore, either Joseph Smith had an incorrect idea of God’s character, perfections, and attributes, or alternatively, George F. Richards, Anthony Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widstoe, and Joseph Fielding Smith had an incorrect idea of God’s character, perfections, and attributes, because they disagree on this Lecture—the one saying it is so vile and so error ridden that it must be taken out of the scriptures; and the other saying this is a true statement of our doctrine, and therefore, needs to be in our scriptures. 

Consequently and correspondingly, either Joseph Smith did not, indeed could not, have faith, or George F. Richards, Anthony Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widstoe, Joseph Fielding Smith did not, indeed could not, have faith. One or the other is true because they disagree on the definition of God. And you must have a correct idea of His character, perfections, and attributes in order to exercise faith in Him. 

And so now, we find ourselves having to choose. And that’s a healthy thing. You ought to have to choose. You ought to have to choose, and you ought to have your salvation at peril on how you choose. You ought to have to decide between whether you believe a man who stood in the presence of God—and bore testimony of what he saw, and what he felt, and what he heard—and others who constitute a committee that disagree with him. You should have to choose. And your eternal peril should hang in the balance as you make that choice. That is a perfect conundrum, in my view. Grow up! Accept the burden! Find out! Learn about God! Or be damned by your carelessness, by your indifference, by your refusal to go forward. It ought to be so. And it ought to be put to you plainly. And you ought to have to choose. And you ought to have to choose every time you hear someone get up and offer something to you and conclude in the name of Jesus Christ. Because they’re either offering you something from Him that will save you, or they’re offering something that they hope will damn you, because they’re signing you up on the wrong team. It ought to be so. Everlastingly, it ought to be so. 

Notice that in the definition of the Father and the Son—both, according to Joseph Smith—both are personages. But the Father is a personage who is described as consisting of spirit, glory, and power. The Son, on the other hand, is described as a personage of tabernacle. What is the difference between a personage of spirit, glory, and power, and a personage of tabernacle? What’s the difference between the two? What is a tabernacle? I mean, if you’re looking at the Tabernacle in the days of Moses, it is something that got set up temporarily and got taken down. And Christ is a personage of tabernacle, came as you have come, to temporarily occupy this [spoken as Denver touched his own body]. And when Christ was resurrected, this could enter the upper level of a locked room without tearing a hole in the ceiling in order to access the room in which the apostles were meeting. He could come, and He could go, inside a locked upper room, where cowering disciples feared for their own safety in the aftermath of the martyrdom of their Lord. He may have been a personage who could say, “Handle me and see,” and they may have been able to actually make contact with. But that tabernacle was no longer confined here. Read the description of what He did when He appeared to the Nephites. And it’s not like your tabernacle. You hope to inherit a better one. 

Well, let’s take a few scriptures because we ought to pay attention to them on this point as well. Doctrine and Covenants section 131. Doctrine and Covenants section 131, verse 7: There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes [therefore, if the Father, according to verse 2 of Lecture 5, is a personage of spirit, that does not mean that He is not also made of material matter. Spirit is matter, more fine, pure, can only be discerned by purer eyes]. We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter (D&C 131:7-8).

The Father is made—as a personage of spirit, glory, and power—of something that is more refined and pure but is absolutely comprised of something which is matter. Though in the equation of things—energy and matter, glory and power—these are things about which, when you get far enough down the road, you find out that there’s some equivalencies in all of that. The Son, on the other hand, was made to be tabernacled here. The biggest problem, if you turn back to 130, the biggest problem becomes this, verse 22 of section 130: The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us (D&C 130:22).

What exactly is it that dwells inside of you and is a personage of spirit? What exactly is it that you hope to become, if not another member of the Godhead? What exactly is it that Joseph Smith is saying in this Lecture on Faith about the mind of God? And understand, he had in front of him, because he was in the process of actually doing it during this time frame, the Inspired Version of the Scriptures. 

Get out Moses chapter 6, and if I’m not mistaken it’s going to be verse 61. Yes, Moses chapter 6, verse 61. This is the definition of the Holy Ghost. And by the way, this definition of the Holy Ghost will read exactly like what we are encountering in the Lectures on Faith. Moses 6:61: Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter [that’s another name for the Holy Ghost. He gets to dwell in you, the record of heaven]— The Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things. 

Joseph Smith said in one of his talks in Nauvoo: “I… know more than all the world…[or] The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and… I will associate myself with Him.” I’m not going to look that quote up, I’ll probably put it into this in a reference, when I edit the transcript [paper] (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 350).

Joseph Smith is talking about this, the record of heaven, the peaceable things: …that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment (Moses 6:61).

The fact of the matter is that when Joseph vouched for this Lecture as being true, he knew what he was talking about. And I don’t care what is said by those who argue otherwise. You’ll never prove, off of a page, something that is superior to the knowledge that was obtained by Joseph Smith standing in the presence of God. It’s impossible to convey. It is impossible to convey adequately all of the information, which is obtained in the presence of God, using the vocabulary and the methodologies that we have here. We stumble upon so many things because we simply haven’t adequate information with which to make it be known. 

Joseph Smith, in the Fifth Lecture on Faith—Joseph Smith, in the translation of Genesis and Moses 6:61… Joseph Smith understood what he was talking about. And the Father is, in fact, a personage of spirit, glory, and power. And the Son became the Son as a result of descending into the tabernacle that He occupied. And the Father and the Son are one. So also, you can be one with Them if you obtain the same mind with Him. Because that is the intent that They have, to share that mind with you. 

You need to have a correct idea of God’s character, perfections, and attributes. Therefore, since these Lectures were designed to try and give you an acquaintance with what those were, I would commend them to you. Go to Mosiah chapter 3, verse 5. Mosiah chapter 3, verse 5: 

For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from…eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. (Mosiah 3:5)

Did you notice the description there, like the Lectures on Faith, refers to the Lord Omnipotent coming down to occupy a tabernacle? And the tabernacle is made, as it is made, of clay. Look at Alma chapter 7, verse 8: 

Behold, I do not say…he will come among us [among us] at the time of his dwelling in his mortal tabernacle; for behold, the Spirit hath not said unto me that this should be the case. Now as to this thing I do not know; but this much I do know, that the Lord God hath power to do all things which are according to his word. (Alma 7:8)

Again, he’s talking about coming and dwelling in a mortal tabernacle. That is what the Lectures on Faith are talking about as well. Look at Doctrine and Covenants section 93. This is verse 4 of Doctrine and Covenants section 93: The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men. Christ came into the world to take upon Himself a mortal tabernacle made of clay. And that’s what that Lecture is referring to. Look in that same section at verse 35: The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple. That’s a coming day.

Well, in order to get out of here, the tabernacle is going to be destroyed. So we’re all going to lose this tabernacle we temporarily occupy. But the tabernacle that is referred to in this description, in the Lectures on Faith, Joseph Smith understood what he was talking about. Joseph Smith understood the correct doctrine. And he’s trying to give you the character, the nature, the attributes of God, because until you get that correct, you’re not going to have the power to exercise faith in Him. Which is why you’re going to encounter some amount of resistance between what it is that you need to believe in and what it is that everyone else in your generation may believe in. It doesn’t matter. The responsibility is placed upon you to understand what is truth and what is not. And you have to choose. And you have to sort it out. And you have to come to the correct conclusion. Because it is only by exercising faith in the correct conclusion that you manage to align yourself with that narrow window through which the heavens are opened, and up which Jacob’s ladder is found to be scaled. 

Well, now we get to the Sixth Lecture, which is where I think we will probably… I want to remind you that in that prior one, Lecture 5, that second paragraph or second verse says that all of us can possess the same mind, and in the third paragraph or verse it says that we all can become one. It is impossible for me to become one with you and you to become one with me, unless you obtain the mind of God and I obtain the mind of God. And then we find that all the differences that separate us melt away into insignificance. Because we’re one—not with each other—we’re one with God. And that intelligence, that light which animates us, that which is inside of us, leads us to the position in which we become of one mind. 

The Sixth Lecture, verse 1: Having treated…the preceding lecture…of…ideas, of the character, perfections, and attributes of God, we next proceed to treat…the knowledge which persons must have, that the course of life which they pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation (Lectures on Faith 6:1).

You see, the course in life that you pursue, you have to know is according to the will of God. I remember shortly after being baptized, and news of that getting back to my parents… My father was very broad-minded, but my mom was a Baptist with all that that implied. And, you know, she was sincerely convinced that this was a horrible mistake. But my father joined with her in letting me know of their disapproval of my becoming a Latter-day Saint, telling me, among other things, that he would not want 10% of everything he’d worked for in life to go to the Mormon Church, as a consequence of which I could expect to receive nothing as an inheritance from him. I had a lot of friends that I grew up with; and although Mormons are in Idaho, and there was, in fact, an infestation in Mountain Home where I grew up… The Mormons in Mountain Home were so tentative about their position that they didn’t even have a baptismal font in the Mountain Home chapel. Now, they’ve since expanded it into a Stake Center, and I’m told that there is now an actual font in the Mountain Home Stake Center. But when I was a kid there wasn’t one, and for good reason, because conversions were just unheard of. 

My future father-in-law, my wife’s dad, was a missionary in Mountain Home, Idaho, while I was a kid growing up. And he undoubtedly was one of the many guys that tracked into our house and got verbally abused by my mom and sent off the porch, ‘cause they only lived around the other side of the block. That’s where the missionary house was back then. But as I counted the cost of becoming a Mormon, in effect, I was giving up all I ever knew, all the friends I ever had, my own family. I counted the cost, and I became a Latter-day Saint, in any event. 

What is really strange about the Lord’s way of reckoning these things is that I’ve recently had to count the cost again. And then, all of those friends that I had now are plagued with yet another dilemma. And yet the Lord always accounts those trades for His purposes because He’s trying to save the individual. He’s trying to save each one of us as individuals. And I don’t care what the cost is that you count up. Knowledge of God is worth whatever price you pay, no matter when, no matter what, no matter how often. If He takes away your family and He gives you a new family, and then He takes that family away again, it is a small price to pay. God will ask of you whatever He will ask of you. The only thing I can say is no price you pay, while tabernacled here, is so great that you should withhold it from the altar. Give what He asks. Because it’s only by giving what He asks of you that you can have faith in Him unto life and salvation. 

You have to know—this is verse 2 of Lecture 6—you have to have An actual knowledge…that the course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God without which no person can obtain eternal life (Lectures on Faith 6:2).

You simply can’t do it. Because the place in which you find God will always be, as to this world, lonely. You are necessarily going to become a stranger and a sojourner here. But you take up residency somewhere else, and you’re not left without comfort. It’s just that that comfort consists in something that is more refined and more pure. And you’re left here, muddling through with people who will not understand you and who will think you are eccentric. They’ll misjudge your motives. They’ll misjudge your heart. They’ll misjudge your ambition. They’ll misjudge everything there is about you. And Christ said, Rejoice and be exceedingly happy, for so persecuted they the prophets before you (see Matthew 5:12).

If you’re hoping to be understood in this world… It really helps if you are a trial attorney because everything I say in court is opposed. Everything I write has an opposition. Every proposition that I advance, someone else is saying, “No, no, no! He’s wrong, he’s wrong, he’s wrong!” And so I live in that world, and I frankly don’t care what people want to offer as an argument against anything I advance. The only thing that is necessary for me to do is to declare in plainness the things that I believe and the things that I know to be true. And then the burden shifts to you. You judge the matter. You decide it. And if you decide it right, and it doesn’t… Forget about me. Decide the matter right. You will be saved. And if you decide the matter wrong, you will be damned. It’s the matter and not me. So, you have to arise. In verse 3 it talks about: 

Having the assurance that they were pursuing a course which was agreeable to the will of God, they were enabled to take, not only the spoiling of their goods, and the wasting of their substance, joyfully, but also to suffer death in its most horrid forms; knowing (not merely believing) that when this earthly house of their tabernacle was dissolved, they had a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. (Lectures on Faith 6:3)

That’s why Joseph could say, as he did, that he left with a conscience void of offense against God or any man—going as a sheep to the slaughter (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 379). But he was okay with it. He was okay with it: Such was, and always will be, the situation of the saints of God, that unless they have an actual knowledge that the course they are pursuing is according to the will of God, they will grow weary in their minds, and faint (Lectures on Faith 6:4).

That’s the problem with many of us. We grow weary in our minds and faint because we don’t know that the course we’re pursuing is according to God. Don’t grow weary. Stay on that course. I have the absolute conviction that much of the stuff that we plague ourselves with, and think is such a heavy burden of sin, is because our minds are occupied with the wrong stuff. Study the things of God and fill yourself with light—and how quickly it is that all the rest of that stuff will simply dissolve away and evaporate. President Boyd Packer said you can fix behavior a lot more quickly by studying doctrine than you can by studying behavior (see ‘Little Children,’ Ensign, Nov. 1986, 17).

You know, I have this… It’s that, it’s really that first parable where the busy young man who was on his way winds up braiding rope and doing that for years on end; braiding rope, occupying his hands. And then tying the net with the Master. And during the course of that apprenticeship, he came to know who the Master was. So that when, finally, the Master asks him if he knows who He is—and he did—and the Master asks him, “What would you want of Me?” The response comes, “Well, there was a time when I would’ve asked a lot. But now, I’m just content.” Because it’s enough. Well, it’s enough and to spare (see Ten Parables,  Denver C. Snuffer, Jr.). Having an actual knowledge that the course that you are pursuing is according to the will of God is enough and to spare. 

[Paragraph] 4 (towards the bottom of that): 

…nothing short of an actual knowledge of their being the favorites of heaven, and of their having embraced [the] order of things which God has established for the redemption of man, will enable them to exercise that confidence in him, necessary for them to overcome the world, and obtain that crown of glory which is laid up for them that fear God. (Lectures on Faith 6:4)

Because we ought to fear God more than we fear man. We ought to fear God more than we fear the loss of anything that is down here. We ought to fear God more than we fear the approval or disapproval, the criticism, the ostracism. We ought to love God and fear Him because it’s our relationship to Him, and Him alone, that matters. This requires more than mere belief or supposition that he’s doing the will of God, but actual knowledge. Realizing that when these sufferings are ended, he will enter into eternal rest and be a partaker of the glory of God. It does require more than mere belief or supposition. But it’s obtained in accordance with this set of principles. And it is purchased by the same price, paid by each of us in turn, on the same conditions. And no one gets it on any other condition. 

Your life may be uniquely situated. You may be inside an environment, a group of friends, a family, a neighborhood, an association that is completely unique to you, and has nothing in common with anyone else in this room. Inside of that, whatever the sacrifices are that are required, it will be exactly the same as it was for Moses—who gave up everything, and then gave up everything again. It will be the same as for Abraham—who gave up everything, and then gave up everything again. It will be the same. And you’ll be called upon to make a sacrifice, because knowing God requires obedience to Him and sacrifice to Him—and not to some man; certainly not to me, but not to a pope, not to a president, not to a priest—to Him. You’re not trying to get to know me. Or if you are, you’re a damn fool. You’re supposed to be getting to know the Lord. You’re not supposed to be getting to know some local presiding authority. Although, I’ve really gotten to know local presiding authorities pretty well. I present copies of these to my Stake President. So: “Hey, President Hunt, you got mentioned tonight!” He’s going to listen to this. And I think it’s interest; I don’t think it’s assignment. I mean, what assignment can he have at this point? So, paragraph 6: 

For unless a person does know that he is walking according to the will of God, it would be offering an insult to the dignity of the Creator were he to say that he would be a partaker of [the] glory when he should be done with the things of this life. But when he has this knowledge, and most assuredly knows that he is doing the will of God, his confidence can be equally strong that he will be a partaker of the glory of God. Let us here observe, that a religion [not an institution, not an organization, not a club, not a fraternity—a religion] that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nor will not seek his face in vain. [But I’ll tell you what is vain:] It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to obtain eternal life, unless they, in like manner, offer unto him the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted of him. (Lectures on Faith 6:6-8)

The authenticity of God’s message is not proven by the means of delivery. Even if an angel comes, an angel can come and mislead you. The only way to distinguish between what is and what is not of God is through the medium of sacrifice, because when you do this, the vessel is clean. And when the vessel is clean before God, then even an angel of light cannot mislead you. Because what they offer is darkness, and you can tell it, because they have not the power to mislead. Everyone can be misled unless the course in life that they pursue is according to God’s will. All gifts can be compromised. Look at Mormon chapter 9. I want to go to verse 27 of Mormon chapter 9: 

O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye…stand in need [of]. Doubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and come unto the Lord with all your heart, and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him. Be wise in the days of your probation; strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God. (Mormon 9:27-28)

You don’t acquire favor with God in order to consume what He gives to you on your lusts—to satisfy your ambition, to become someone great in the eyes of everyone else. It doesn’t happen that way. And if you try to turn it in that way, you’ll meet the same kind of unfortunate end that we see happening time and time again by the ambitious, and the unscrupulous, the knavish, and the foolish. Be wise in the days of your probation. Strip yourselves of all uncleanness. Check your thoughts. Focus them on something that is light and true and pure. Because in the end, none of us have anything to be proud of. In the end, the only thing that matters is if God will vouch for us in the day of judgment. And if He will, and if He does, then it’s a gift. 

I honestly believe, and I’m not saying this for rhetorical purposes, I honestly believe… I have lived my life; I know the mistakes I’ve made. In the book The Second Comforter, the little vignettes in there that are taken out of my life illustrate how to make a mistake, how to do something wrong, how to fail. And then what follows in the chapter is a description of how to do it right. I have learned all that I’ve learned as a consequence of my own failing, as a consequence of my own errors. 

I genuinely believe that almost every person in this room—I say almost because I know there’s a Marine here—almost every person in this room has lived a life that has been better, more pure, more decent, more honorable, more noble than my own. I am unworthy of anything other than your pity. But I can bear testimony of Someone who is pure, who is true, who can save you. My belief is that every one of you, with a couple of exceptions, every one of you have lived lives so much more worthy of the Lord’s recognition than my own. That for the life of me, I can’t understand why you don’t have the faith and confidence to realize that He loves you. And you are more lovable than am I. He probably finds it a lot easier to love you than me. I feel like I’m the idiot that’s writing graffiti on the walls of heaven, and they really wish the guy would leave, and wonder what he’s doing here. I mean, I get that you’re into forgiving the sinner, but you’ve got to be kidding me. I think if you were to arrive there, there would be a lot more propriety to that. Have faith. Be believing. Trust in Him.

Oh, I want to do this one, too. Go to Moses chapter 1. Moses chapter 1, look at verse 8: It came to pass that Moses looked, and [he] beheld the world upon which he was created (Moses 1:8). Moses beheld the world. Boy, this is to me… This is very interesting because he’s describing a view that is very often in scripture referred to as “being caught up to an exceedingly high mountain.” This is a view up, and looking down. 

In any event, move to verse 18: And again Moses said… Now he’s talking, because Satan has come during this interlude, appearing as an angel of light, tempting him. Verse 18: Moses said: I will not cease to call upon God, I have other things to inquire of him: for his glory has been upon me, wherefore I can judge between him and thee. Depart hence, Satan (Moses 1:18).

The defect that Moses perceived in what Lucifer was saying, tempting him, did not consist merely in the presence or the… I mean this is an angel. If you go to Section 76 and read the description, an angel in a position of authority in the presence of God was cast down (see D&C 76:25). That is not a being who, to look upon, would appear to be a vile creature. That would be someone, who to look upon, would appear to be a being of light, a being of glory, an angel of light. The reason Moses could discern between them had nothing to do with the appearance. It had to do with the content. It had to do with the Spirit. It had to do with what he radiated. And what Moses was able to discern was that this was not the source of something which he, Moses, chose to take in—as a consequence of which, he could judge between him and say, You—you I disprefer. 

When you look at the Joseph Smith History, the thick darkness—I talked about this the last time—the Orson Hyde account of that talks about the thick darkness that gathered around him. It consisted of the adversary benighting his mind with doubts; brought to his soul all sorts of improper pictures. The reason why it is possible to do that, and more easily so with many of us, is because we have ingested into ourselves all kinds of improper images which can then be summoned back up. Look at 2 Nephi 9. This is one of the early sermons given by Jacob. Chapter 9 of 2 Nephi, and we’re going to look at verse 9: 

And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out [of] the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. (2 Nephi 9:9)

It’s not the physical appearance, nor the transformation that takes place. It is the content. Which is why you need to know that the course that you are pursuing is in accordance with the will of God. Because once you have made the required sacrifice, you acquire the required knowledge. Look at Alma chapter 30. This is an explanation given at the bad end of Korihor, as judgments were upon him, and he was writing his final confession before his death. Verse 53 of Alma chapter 30:

But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea…he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me. (Alma 30:53)

You see, he was convinced by the devil, who appeared unto him in the form of an angel. It’s not… It’s not always that the adversary comes to you with murderous intent. Sometimes he comes to appeal to your vanity, to your pride, to your… Well, pride is such a sinkhole he can get most people there. Oh, you can have acclaim; you can have wealth. No, you acquire what you need to acquire as a consequence of sacrificing for God. And in that process you will endure criticism, rejection, opposition, the world’s hatred… You may even be cast out. But you obtain what you obtain from God by sacrifice. In 12—verse 12 or paragraph 12—of this Lecture Sixth: 

But those who have not made this sacrifice to God do not know that the course which they pursue is well pleasing in his sight; for whatever may be their belief or their opinion, it is a matter of doubt and uncertainty in their mind; and where doubt and uncertainty are, there faith is not, nor can it be. For doubt and faith do not exist in the same person at the same time; so that persons whose minds are under doubts and fears cannot have unshaken confidence; and where unshaken confidence is not, their faith is weak; and where faith is weak, the [person] will not be able to contend against all the opposition, tribulations, and afflictions which they will have to encounter in order to be heirs of God, and joint heirs with [Jesus Christ]; and they will grow weary in their minds, and the adversary will have power over them and destroy them. (Lectures on Faith 6:12)

Well, he’ll darken the minds, and after having darkened the minds, leave them in a position in which they are simply unable to have faith—at least in the right things, in order to understand the things of God. Verse 10: 

Those, then, who make the sacrifice, will have the testimony that their course is pleasing in the sight of God; and those who have this testimony will have faith to lay hold on eternal life, and will be enabled, through faith, to endure unto the end, and receive the crown that is laid up for them that love the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Lectures on Faith 6:10) 

“Them that love the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ” is talking about not just the Second Coming, that is talking about the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ—whenever He should come, to whomever He should choose to come to, when He chooses to do that. And it is supposed to be an ongoing event. 

I understand that we got off on rather a ragged foot at the beginning of the restoration of the Gospel. How fully we got off on that ragged foot is really not well enough appreciated by Latter-day Saints, who choose to see a sort of uniform continuity of progression from that moment until today, in a rather uninterrupted course of forward momentum. When in fact, Joseph Smith had to fight against terrible opposition inside of the Church to get the doctrine that he was trying to establish, established. Ezekiel chapter 14 was a topic that he raised early. And he raised it again at the time of the Relief Society organization in Nauvoo. Go read Ezekiel chapter 14. Go look at what Joseph Smith was concerned about. And he’s talking to people who accepted him as a prophet. And yet, they were more interested in getting from him what theywanted, instead of receiving from him what the Lord wanted to give. 

Well, look in verse 9 of this Sixth Lecture. About halfway through, there’s a sentence that begins: And in the last days, before the Lord comes [so this is before the Second Coming of the Lord, but it’s in the last days], he is to gather together his saints who have made a covenant with him by sacrifice (Lectures on Faith 6:9).

Not a covenant to sacrifice. You can go make a covenant to sacrifice every day the temple’s open. Making a covenant to sacrifice is not at all the same thing as making a covenant by sacrifice. It’s only through actually sacrificing that it is possible for the Lord to make a covenant with you.

Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him. He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people. Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice. (Lectures on Faith 6:9)

That gathering will be made—not by man or men or institutions. That gathering will be made by the angels of heaven who hold the keys of responsibility for that, that you can read in D&C 77:11.  I’ll probably insert it in the transcript[paper] here; I’m not going to read it—’cause you folks look like you’ve been sitting on metal chairs for two and a half hours, and I’m moved with compassion. I say that tongue in cheek.

Well, let me read one more thing and comment. This is the last half of that paragraph 10: 

But those who do not make the sacrifice cannot enjoy this faith, because men are dependent upon this sacrifice in order to obtain this faith: therefore, they cannot lay hold upon eternal life, because the revelations of God do not guarantee unto them the authority [to do so], and without this guarantee, faith could not exist. (Lectures on Faith 6:10) 

It is a cause and effect. These things are inextricably linked together. If you make the sacrifice, you can enjoy the faith. But all of us, every one of us, were and are dependent upon making the sacrifice. If we don’t do that, we are simply unable to lay hold upon eternal life. And the revelations of God don’t guarantee you eternal life on any other condition.

The good news is that we have the Lectures on Faith, and they make these things clear. The good thing is that every one of you, I suppose, has been baptized. The good thing is, I suppose, that every one of you believe in the Prophet Joseph Smith, the restoration of the Gospel, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants; therefore, you have an enormous leg up. The only question is will you allow it to become a living, breathing faith? Will you allow it to lay hold upon you? Will you allow it to become alive, animated, a fire, again burning, upon the earth today? The closest thing there is to life itself (that isn’t life) is a fire.

On the cover of the book, Passing the Heavenly Gift, there is a candle that’s shown, and it’s smoldering. If you can read Hebrew, and you pay attention to the smoke coming off of that, you’ll find something hidden there. There’s a lot of things hidden in the covers of my books, except for the ones that are just plain. And those were done to make them as cheap as possible. But the smoldering candle… How many of you have ever had a candle that was still smoldering with a spark, and you wanted it to reignite, but you didn’t have a match. And what did you do? You blew on it. You blew the breath of life upon it. To reignite the flame, all it takes is the breath of the Spirit speaking to you. That’s all it takes. And the breath of the Spirit is contingent in what it says to you, depending upon the faith that you have in God to hear what it is He is saying. But He is, surely, saying things to you. He doesn’t just talk to me. 

Ron and I were talking. He had a fellow who’s head of some former-Mormon, ex-Mormon, we-got-a-chip-on-our-shoulder group of Mormons. And apparently, in one of the many newspaper articles, there was something about me saying, “Jesus spoke to me!” Man, if that doesn’t sound weird enough in a newspaper—yeah. So Ron wanted to clarify. And rather than answer him with some—and Ron’s probably going to read this—with some elaborate explanation, I said, “Ron! Dude! Why’d you become Mormon? Why does anyone become Mormon? Because God speaks to you!” The only reason anyone becomes a Mormon is because God speaks to them. The missionaries come out; they say a bunch of stuff; they put on their sales hat; they do their schmoo thing. They interrupt you as you bring your groceries out of the parking lot of the store. And they harass you endlessly. They pamphleteer you. In my day it was… It was the flannel board story stuff, you know, homely, kind of.

When they finally convince you to pray and ask God, no one becomes a Mormon unless they get an answer from God. That’s why Ron converted and asked me to baptize him 40 years ago today. That’s why Ron subsequently went on a mission for the LDS Church. That’s why Ron subsequently got married in the temple, even though he is now a disaffected Latter-day Saint. And that’s why Ron and I, even today, share a brotherhood, share a friendship, share a conviction that God once spoke to both of us. He still talks with me on occasion. No matter how much I may prefer to be somewhere else, doing something else, I oftentimes find myself doing what I’ve been asked to do. 

I don’t know if it’s important that anyone from Idaho Falls comes here. I don’t know if it’s important if anybody from Idaho Falls ever hears one word. But I do know that a testimony needs to be spoken on this ground, in this place. And I know that everyone will be accountable for that, not just those who happen to stumble upon this. I know that the Lord knows a great deal more than do I, and that very often I only figure out later what He has had in mind all along. And God is moving systematically. He is taking the measure of the Latter-day Saints. And His hand is about to move again in the affairs of men. We have a window. This is your dispensation. You are accountable. 

Those prophecies spoken to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni in his room aren’t going to fulfill themselves. There has to be someone who has faith. There has to be someone who rises up. And when he sets His hand and He invites you to join in, and He wants you to know Him… When He sets that in motion, then you need to respond. Not to me, not to any man. You need to respond to Him. This is His work. He and only He will organize it. He and only He will roll it forth. But as one of the verses we read tonight recited, there has to be a people prepared. And that requires that faith return to the earth again. And if what has happened with the Lectures on Faith in 1921 prevented people from acquiring faith, because they misapprehend the character, nature, and attributes of God from that day until today, then it’s time for you to shake that off. Rise up, lay hold upon, and obtain faith again. 

Joseph saw the Father and the Son, and he testified about them, and he described them. I’ve seen the Father, and I’ve seen the Son, and they’ve both spoken with me. The only reason I mention that is to give you confidence that it can happen. It should happen to you. You should be talking with Them. They can tell you what you need to know. And don’t be at all surprised if the subject, about which you need to converse with the Lord, consists almost entirely of a discussion about the scriptures. Don’t be surprised if an angel comes to minister to you, if the topic about which the angel would like to converse involves the scriptures. And don’t be surprised if the Lord authorizes someone to deliver a message, and the message consists in expounding the scriptures. Because on the road to Emmaus, beginning at Moses and all the prophets, what Christ did was open up to them how all things testified of Him. 

Well, all things testify of what is currently getting, at last, underway. And make no mistake about it, it is getting underway. And I don’t care where you look; I don’t care what society you look at; I don’t care what economy you observe, what culture you observe—the earth and all of the people on her are waxing old like a garment. And do you know what they do with garments that are old? They are burned. The way to preserve yourself consists in having faith in God. And the conditions upon which faith in God is obtained are exactly the same for you as they were for Moses, and Abraham, and all of those who have ever had faith; Joseph Smith being the latest, great example of that. 

Well, it would be incomplete, and I would be remiss if I didn’t close in the name of Jesus Christ because I intend always to be accountable to Christ for the words that I deliver. I don’t set the agenda. I don’t choose the topic. I do what I’m asked to do. I say what I’ve been told to say. I hope you understand how little I matter and how much your relationship to Christ and the Father do matter. I hope you understand that His words should be clear and distinct when you hear them spoken. And you should be able to judge, and you should be able to judge the matter correctly. 

I testify of Him because I’ve seen Him. I have faith in Him because I know that every word He has spoken has been vindicated in His Gospel. And the only reason why we are unable to lay hold upon those blessings is because we simply do not have the faith required to do so. Hence, at the beginning of this process this year, it’s necessary to spend a night in Idaho Falls on the subject of faith, using the Lectures on Faith, which I regard as binding scripture vouched for by the Prophet Joseph Smith—every bit as, if not more, important than the revelations that follow in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. 

We can’t spend all the time necessary, and you can’t endure those chairs another five minutes, but pick up the Lectures on Faith. They don’t take long to read. Forget all those footnotes that have been interlineated by folks after 1921. Forget all the articles that have been put in there in order to prop up a different definition of what the Holy Ghost is. Forget about all the drivel. In fact, go photocopy the edition that you find in the Joseph Smith Papers, “Revelations and Translations” Volume 2, in 1835, and read it there. It is an astonishingly wonderful, light-filled document. As Bruce R. McConkie said, “It is scripture; it is true. “

Thank  you. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. 

The post Faith appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This lecture by Denver Snuffer entitled “Be of Good Cheer” was originally recorded in Boise, Idaho on September 10, 2013, in front of a live audience.

Transcript

It was 40 years ago today, at about this moment, when I was baptized in the North Atlantic at a beach called Sea Point Beach in Kittery, Maine. The fellow who presided at the service was named Jim Mortensen. He had just moved into the ward. No one knew who Jim Mortensen was, and there he was on the beach. And he has become infamous for a statement that he made. We had another baptism eighteen days later, and he didn’t like that there were people in the area somehow enjoying that awfully cold water. And the statement he made rather gruffly was: “Let’s move it up the beach, Elders.” He was an old Marine; he used to fly combat missions off of a flat top carrier in Vietnam, and he had all the demeanor of a flat top carrier pilot.

His wife was Monty. Her maiden name was Bunker. She was from the Nevada Bunkers. Bishop Bunker got in a whole lot of trouble because he did not buy the “Adam God” theory. And Bishop Bunker had a trial for excommunication because of heresy, and Bishop Bunker’s bishop couldn’t quite reach a conclusion on what to do. And as a consequence of that, it was tabled. Wilford Woodruff came down, they had another convening of the church court. Ultimately they decided to punt rather than to do anything. And the doctrinal exposition that Bishop Bunker made has since become the doctrine of the church, although at the time, it was dangerous heresy for the man to preach it.

Monty, she was at the time and is still today one of the loveliest women I have ever met. She texted me a little earlier today on my way here and said: “You beware of pride.” Their son texted me today, too.

You know, shortly after that ceremony, I was ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood by George Hoger. George was the Elders Quorum President. Not knowing what one ought to do to be ordained, and George being the primary guy, I asked him to ordain me. So I have a priesthood line of authority that reckons through George.

George’s wife was Judy. Judy was a nun who converted to Mormonism while she was living in a convent. She asked Mother Superior for permission to be baptized. And of course consent was given, but she was told, “You’ve got to have new premises, because you can’t reside here.” Judy grew up Catholic, devout, became a nun—she was, for goodness sake, “Christ’s bride.” And therefore, when George proposed to her, and they were going to actually have marital relations, she tells the most hilarious stories about her pre-marital schooling, when she asked about what was to be expected. I’ll leave that aside.

Eighteen days after my baptism—I mentioned it already—I baptized a fellow. Eighteen days from now we will give the second of these talks, commemorating the gratitude that I hold for the doctrines that I have been taught. You know, no one should be allowed in the Missionary Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who isn’t a convert. Better still, an adult convert to the Church. Because no one joins because of some silly program. You join because of doctrine. And when you choke away the doctrine, there’s no reason to stay.

And so, in gratitude for the principles which brought me aboard the Restoration, we’re going to spend this next year looking at the doctrine that compels belief—that doctrine which doesn’t abuse, control, compel; but invites and entices, that is delicious, that makes you hunger for more; the principles of the gospel that not only edify but enlighten and enliven. The kinds of things which, despite everything else that separates you, you find you can come together in love and appreciation. That’s the gospel. That’s the Restoration.

I know of no more cheerful a being in the universe than Christ. When He says, ​Be of good cheer,​ we ought to all accept that as the mantra. There is nothing that any of us will ever go through that He hasn’t gone through, with a considerable greater degree of difficulty. He lived with a higher ‘specific gravity’ than any of us had to ever fight against. And He won for each of us a prize that is potentially eternal. It will be eternal, one way or the other. But if you take full measure of what He offers, it will be delightfully eternal.

Cowardice is largely predicated upon fear. Don’t be cowardly. Don’t be fearful. Fear is the opposite of faith. For goodness sake, you’re already in the battle! You’re already going to be overtaken. The fact of the matter is that no one gets out of here alive. Live this life nobly, fearlessly. When you take the wounds that come your way, you make sure that they come to your front! Don’t let ‘em shoot you in the back. Go about your life boldly, nobly, valiantly. Because it is only through valiance in the testimony of Jesus Christ that you can hope to secure anything—not valiance in your fidelity to anything other than Jesus Christ. The fact of the matter is that faith must be based in Him, and Him alone. We’ll get to that in Idaho Falls.

Tonight I want to introduce some ideas that are essential to salvation, coming through the prophet Joseph Smith, which we really need to become reacquainted with. First, a deviation. And I have to say, I’m deviating because I like the quote. I like the quote because of the substance of what is being said. I don’t like the object of the adoration, so I’m not heaping praise on the fellow who is the object of this statement. But it’s good wording, and I like it. Andrew of St. Victor made the statement in 1170. He was talking about St. Jerome, who is largely responsible for the compilation of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which the Book of Mormon has absolutely no good thing to say about. It leads you into darkness. It takes away the covenants. It’s part of making you blind. It’s a big problem. Despite that, let’s take this praise, and let’s assume this praise is applicable to someone who is worthy of it—in this case, Joseph:

“That learned man knew…how obscure truth is, how deep it lies buried, how far from mortal sight it is plunged into the depths, how it will admit only a few, by how much work it is reached, how practically no one ever succeeds, how it is dug out with difficulty, and then only bit by bit.”

Joseph said: “Knowledge saves a man. And in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge.” He also said in another talk:

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step-by-step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It’s not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.

Now if you go back and reread that quote, and you comprehend that it is possible to pass through the veil before you leave here, “it will be a great while after you pass through the veil before you will have learned them. It’s not all to be comprehended in this world”— You begin to say, Ah, I think I understand why, after 40 years of reflection, Nephi commented about how it was his constant meditation to think upon the things which he had seen and heard. The knowledge obtained from heaven is dynamic.

In another place Joseph said:

A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God.

We equate, in large measure, repentance with whatever it is you’re doing with your genitals. Joseph equates redemption and repentance with whatever it is you’re doing with your heart and with your mind. The problem that we have is our profound ignorance. And what the gospel offers defies ignorance, subdues it, challenges it, destroys it, leaves it in the dark. And so let’s try and search into and obtain some illumination.

First, I want to read a passage from Job and misapply it, if you will. I want you to imagine that what I am reading is not merely a description of a mortal horse. What I am reading is a description of those horses which pull the chariot upon which Elijah ascended to heaven. This is the horse ​you need to ride in your quest for heaven.This is the way in which​ you, too, are to mount up:

Hast thou given the horse strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder? Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terrible. He paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strength: he goeth on to meet the armed men. He mocketh at fear, and is not affrighted; neither turneth he back from the sword. The quiver rattleth against him, the glittering spear and the shield. He swalloweth the ground with fierceness and rage: neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet. He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha; and he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting. ​(Job 39:19-25)

As the battle engages, ride the horse, not away, but toward the sound.

1838 was a terrible year. It was one that followed a terrible year. Late 1837, the church in Kirtland was in turmoil. Several hundred saints questioned Joseph Smith’s divine calling, withdrew from the church. In July of 1837, the Kirtland Safety Society was forced to close its doors. There were a number of people who tried to take over leadership of the Church, to get Joseph voted out. They wanted to force the First Presidency from office and then oust them from Kirtland entirely. Among the people that had dissented was Warren Parrish, the one-time scribe and secretary to Joseph Smith; three of the apostles—John F. Boynton, Luke and Lyman Johnson; Seventies—Hasten Aldridge, Leonard Ridge, Sylvester Smith, John Gould, John Grayson; even Martin Harris, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

In January 1838, Joseph Smith got a revelation that said (I’m reading from it), “…as soon as practical, and the door is open for them and move on to the west as fast as the way is made plain before their…hearts.” They ought to depart. On the night of the day on which that revelation came, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon fled Kirtland. Fled at night. They were chased by people for 200 miles trying to kill Joseph. This is in January of 1838; this is in the beginning of this year.

Now if we back up (you can look it up, it’s Doctrine and Covenants 47:1) in Doctrine and Covenants 47:1, we run into something that is of interest to our topic. Verse one:

Behold [and this is a revelation given on March 8, 1831, Behold]​, it is expedient in me that my servant John [that is, John Whitmer, brother of David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book Mormon, John] should write and keep a regular history, and assist you, my servant Joseph, in transcribing all things which shall be given you, until he is called to further duties​.”

And so, beginning on March the 8th of 1831 and going on thereafter, the history of the Church was maintained by John Whitmer—John Whitmer, the church historian. The Saints had been expelled from Jackson County in 1833. In 1834, then Zion’s camp. In 1837, then the Kirtland Safety Society collapsed, the rebellion, the loss of Kirtland, the night-time flight, and the departure to Missouri.

Beginning early in 1838, there were rumors of immoral conduct that were levied against Joseph Smith. There was a Church court by April the 12th of 1838. The Far West High Council brought nine charges against Oliver Cowdery, the Assistant President to the Church. One of the charges was (and I’m reading a quote), “For seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith, Jr., by falsely insinuating that he was guilty of adultery, etc.”

The court in that proceeding ultimately excommunicated Oliver Cowdery. David Whitmer left the church—was excommunicated. John Whitmer, the church historian, was excommunicated. Hiram Page, W.W. Phelps. Sidney Rigdon in June of 1838 delivered the “Salt Sermon,” where he talked about how dissenters were worthy of being trodden, like salt that was contaminated, under the feet of the Saints. That ignited the anti-Mormons. It caused some of the disaffected people to go over, to encourage the further rebellion.

There were affidavits that year from Thomas Marsh, who was the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, testifying against Joseph and the Church. Orson Hyde also signed an affidavit implicating Joseph Smith. There was a Mormon War in 1838. The battle of Crooked River was fought on October 24th of 1838. The extermination order was issued on October 27th of 1838. Haun’s Mill Massacre occurred on October 30th, and Joseph Smith surrendered at Far West while it was under siege. And on November the 1st, he was sentenced to death “at 9 o’clock tomorrow morning in a public square at Far West.”

Well, this is the year in which Joseph Smith, because there was no history, set about to compose a replacement history. This is the year and these are the circumstances in which the Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price got composed. Joseph Smith—against all of the odds, against all of the opposition, against all of the treachery, against all of the betrayal by his brethren who ought to know better, against all of those who should have known the man’s heart instead turned on him—composed what is as an act of faith and kindness, a testimony that seeks to reclaim those who misapprehend the work of God.

Now you can say that Joseph Smith wrote various versions of the First Vision, and what we have in the 1838 version is an innovation, an invention. The fact of the matter is that Nephi did not compose what he composed until about 40 years after the event—because it was time and distance and reflection that gave him the ability to put into words the truth of what it was he experienced. In the terrible circumstances of 1838, when Joseph Smith set about to compose his testimony of his history, this statement was itself an audacious, faith-filled act of revelation to defend what had gone on and to explain what had gone on.

We don’t have Joseph Smith’s 1838 history anymore. It’s been lost; it’s not been recovered. When you look at the history, the ​Joseph Smith Papers, ​what you find is that there is an 1839 copy that was prepared by Mulholland. And it is the Mulholland version that appears in the Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price. But we reckon it is a copy of what Joseph wrote in 1838 because of the internal dating of the document. He says that “…being now the eighth year since the organization of the said Church.” That’s in verse 2 of the Joseph Smith History. In brackets they’ve inserted the year 1838. That was the year in which Joseph wrote, and that’s apparently Mulholland copying Joseph’s writing the previous year.

So when you start out with the Joseph Smith History and you read the words, ​Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints… recognize that what he’s talking about are the statements that are made by people of his own faith about him. This is Joseph Smith describing the problems that are circulating, as a result of members of the Quorum of the Twelve aligned against him, members of the Seventy that are aligned against him. And as prophets often do, they have the way to put it back into context and into clarity with inspired words as we read here.

In this history [he says in verse 2], ​I shall present the various events in relation to this Church, in truth and righteousness, as they have transpired, or as they at present exist, being now the eighth year since the organization of the said Church.

Therefore, as he begins to defend the Church, he starts with what is essential about the Church: ​I was born in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five, on the twenty-third day of December, because if you want to know the truth about the Church, you must know the truth about its founding prophet. To the extent that there is anything desirable that exists within it, it exists within it as a consequence of the ministry of this prophet. Therefore, if you want to find the truth, you have to look at Joseph.

Born on the 23rd day of December—the day after the winter solstice; the day in which the sunlight won its triumph over the darkness; the first day in which the hours of light and the hours of darkness begin to switch, and light begins to prevail; a moment that is reckoned anciently as one of the four corners of the earth. Joseph’s coming into the world at that moment was no accident.

Well, in verse 5 he starts talking about how there is ​no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist, some for the Presbyterian, some for the Baptists. Religion divides in 1838, in 1820, in 2013, and it ought not.

Joseph, in verse 6, commends to us something. One of the litmus tests he’s suggesting that ought to be applied—perhaps those who are in the state of rebellion, those who are in a state of rejection, those who are fighting against the Word of the Lord that comes through him, perhaps they will take a step back and look at what Joseph has to say. Because ​it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions. You know, at the time Joseph inserts the clause, ​if they ever had any,​ you can’t help but think that he was lamenting the potential false feelings that had been demonstrated by those of his own faith who had pretended to have affection for him.

Well, verse 8 once again: ​so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong. See, that’s the way it is.

In verse 10: There’s always this war of ​worlds​… war of words. (“War of Worlds,” that’s what your kids play.) War of words and tumult of opinions. And so Joseph is confused. How do you resolve this?

Verse 11: ​While I was laboring…​ While I was laboring—

Folks, in general, have your skulls so junked up with the crap of the Internet that you don’t even have the capacity to labor the way it needs to be labored, to solve the questions that need to be solved. It is labor; it is labor over the scriptures. It is labor. Under the extreme difficulties caused by… these parties of religionists [he] was one day reading ​the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Let him ask of God.​ God gives ​to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. I can ask God. God will give to me. God will give to me liberally. God will not tell me, There are lines here you mustn’t cross; there are things about which you must not inquire; there are things your heart is not yet prepared to receive; you don’t have standing! He gives liberally. He can let ​you ​know what you need to know from your study and inquiry into the truth. And no man can stop that! Because this is a matter between you and God. It has always been a matter between you and God. There is no friar with a brown frock that you need to bend the knee to in order to please God. If Joseph had known that (the friar with the frock) he would never have achieved the revolution that he achieved.

Well, when you’re laboring, as verse 11 suggests, and when you hit the right verse, as verse 11 recites, then verse 12 confirms how you get answers to these kinds of inquires. ​Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force.

Turn back to Doctrine and Covenants 76, and look at verse 18. This is the vision of the redemption of the dead that gave us the three degrees of glory. They’re reading in John (and he gives you the verse in John that they were reading, in verses 16 and 17), and look at 18: ​Now this caused us to marvel, for it was given unto us of the Spirit.

The Spirit cannot lean upon you and cannot focus your mind upon the revelation that you are entitled to receive unless you use the scriptures as they were intended to be used—as a Urim and Thummim; as the basis from which you draw out the truths of God. And the best version of that is, of course, the Book of Mormon.

You can look at D&C 138, and you’ll find that Joseph F. Smith sat in his room pondering over the scriptures. He’s near death—it’s about eight weeks before the death of Joseph F. Smith. The Church had a lot of challenges going on at that time. Fortuitously for us, the man who sat at home—infirm and worried about death—happened to happily be the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And so when he got an answer (not to his inquiry about leading the Church), when he got an answer to an inquiry that had nothing to do with his position or budgets or anything else that manages an organization—it had to do with his own concern, about his own deepest apprehensions, his impending death, which would follow about eight weeks after this—the scriptures opened like a Urim and Thummim to his view, and we get a vision of the redemption of the dead, which we’ve now canonized.

It entered… [this is back—verse 12 of the Joseph Smith History], ​It entered [into his heart] with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again. Now that’s an interesting statement, because it doesn’t appear that this “labor” was a one-off event, but it occurred over and over as he sought more understanding, searching deeper and deeper into trying to understand what it was he ought to do and how it is he ought to accomplish it.

… ​again and again knowing… if any person needed wisdom from God, I did. You should be asking God so that you can understand scripture. You shouldn’t be trusting the expositions of anyone, myself included. These scriptures have a message for you. God has a message for you. God would like to talk to you​, not through me or any other man. God would like to talk with ​you​. You’ll be saved by knowledge, and the things you need to know are uniquely situated; the things you have the right to get from God are uniquely situated.

I got an answer from God. That’s why 40 years ago today, I went in, and I got baptized. Elder Brian Black baptized me. During the baptismal service, because it was approaching twilight, the sun was beginning to set, the moon had emerged, and the first stars began to shine. And Brian Black commented in the talk that was given by him before laying on hands that all the signs of heaven—the sun, the moon and the stars—had been visible during my baptismal ceremony. I have felt the presence of God with me from that moment through today. Just this morning I checked into my office before coming here, and when I arrived at my office, there was a dove on the lawn to meet me, and she stayed there as I went by. Now it’s a small thing, but if you’re acquainted with the scriptures, you understand what such a symbol can mean, and to me, did mean.

Your lives should be filled with wonder. Be not faithless, but be believing. And be of good cheer. He knows you better than you know yourself. I was belly-aching about an idiot friend, and as I am wont to do, it was prayerful.

The Stake President asked me a few weeks ago about whether I was praying at the time that I had one of the encounters he and I discussed, and I said: “It’s not a fair question. I wake up in the morning, and I start to pray. Throughout the day, I will take care of a thousand things. And whenever I am free, my mind will revert back to the prayer, and we’ll continue the dialogue.” And it goes on all day. There’s not a moment in my life in which I am not being prayerful. And so the answer to the question is, I suppose, Yes, I was praying. Because there’s hardly a moment when I’m idle when I am not praying.

Well, God intends to speak to each of us about us and about what matters to us and about what matters to you. He, unlike us, is not bounded by the linear existence that we have. All things past, present, and future are continually before the Lord.

In fact, it’s really sort of an interesting study. If you take and you look at what the Lord does in 3 Nephi, He has this agenda that He’s been assigned by the Lord (or by the Father), and Christ discharges the agenda. And He goes through, and as you read the chapters in 3 Nephi, it’s really structured, and it’s really orderly. And then He announces: “Now I have finished what the Father has told me to deliver to you”, and He just begins to talk; and as He begins to talk, what unfolds is non-chronological. It’s topical, but it’s past, present, and future. His thoughts are not like our thoughts. They aren’t. They’re nonlinear. And sometimes that’s not easy.

At length, he says in verse 13: ​I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. And so it is for all of us. You wanna know the truth of a proposition? You ask God. And don’t be fearful! If you ask, He’ll answer. But you better be prepared for the answer. Because the battle that is already upon us is going to require valiance. Cowardly, effeminate, hen-like behavior can never, never obtain the promises of God. Christ asked: ​What went you [forth] to see? A reed [shaking in] the wind? (Matthew 11:7). That’s what you want? I don’t think John the Baptist cried on demand. And Zion isn’t a bank.

So, [it is] in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally. After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed… finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.​ (Joseph Smith History 1:14-15)

You know, we have Orson Hyde’s account of this thick darkness, and I want to read it to you. This is Orson Hyde writing about the incident we just looked at:

He, therefore, retired to a secret place, in a grove, but a short distance from his father’s house, and knelt down and began to call upon the Lord. At first, he was severely tempted by the powers of darkness, which endeavored to overcome him. The adversary benighted his mind with doubts, and brought to his soul all kinds of improper pictures and tried to hinder him in his efforts and the accomplishment of his goal. However, the overflowing mercy of God came to buoy him up.

You know, if salvation consists in obtaining knowledge, you can’t afford to clutter your mind with the kinds of things which can readily summon up improper images, improper thoughts, improper ambitions. In fact, it doesn’t matter what you ​want.​ There’s only one thing that matters. And that is: What is the Lord’s will for you, with you. And that will is always the same—to bring about your happiness; ultimately, to bring about your joy. He tells you that His burden is light, because however it may seem in the direful circumstances of 1838 in the life of Joseph Smith,​ this ​statement of faith,​ this testimony of truth was worth the price that Joseph was called upon to pay to obtain it.

The things of God are infinitely preferable to anything that can be offered to you here in this world. You may indeed be able to buy anything in this world for money, but don’t let that ever be the case with your heart or your soul. Zion will not have an economy, because they have all things in common.

So Joseph, in verse 16, tells you that it is some marvelous power from the unseen world. Let me take you back to that statement: “A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power.” Well, apply that quote in the context of what Joseph is experiencing there and realize this is not merely something that will happen after you depart this world. It’s something that, in fact, does happen here. I mean, being blinded here is part of being captured by the captivity of the adversary of your soul.

Awake and arise! Shake off the scales that blind you (scales which, like contact lenses, on the one hand; but scales like judging wrongly, on the other hand). You have to judge a matter aright. And if the judgment that you judge is not just, then the scales of your eyes are darkness indeed.

And so he called upon God to escape this being from the unseen world, and he saw ​a pillar of light exactly over [his] head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages (​vs.17)​. We’ll get into this more in Idaho Falls. He saw two “Personages.” Note the word. Joseph knows what he’s talking about. He was in the presence of these Beings. He will later describe them—as a doctrinal exposition which the Church accepted as doctrine, and which was, for a season, in your scriptures. That’s why you need to bring your [Lectures on] Faith​ t​o Idaho Falls.

One of them spake unto me, calling me by name… ​I’ve mentioned this on a number of occasions, and I want to mention it again here. When God calls a person by name, it is not your full legal name. “Joseph Smith, Jr.” I mean, that’s my Cecil B. Demille version of ​The Ten Commandments voice of God—“Moses.” The casual friendship— I don’t know what Joseph was called at this point in his life. I don’t know if it was “Joey.” I don’t know if it was “Junior.” I don’t know what the name was that he went by. Whoever his most intimate companion was, that was what the Lord called him. If it was “Joey,” it was “Joey.” God doesn’t call you by whatever your Driver’s License says. So, He called him by name.

Do you know how comforting it is to have God call you by a familiar name? Instead of recoiling in horror, He is drawing you in. Instead of stiff-arming you like, “I am the Great and Powerful,” He wants you comfortable in His presence, so much so that when you enter into His presence, it is a matter of course that God invariably forgives your sins.

Isaiah, in the temple, saw God high and lifted up, and his first reaction is, ​Woe is me! … I am undone! … I am a man of unclean lips. I dwell [among] a people of unclean lips (​Isaiah 6:5)​. And a Seraphim, one of the “fiery ones” (we ought to know more about that), improvises an ordinance where they take a coal with tongs off the altar and touch his lips to purify them. And the Lord says:​ [Who] shall I send? And Isaiah says: ​Here am I; send me (​vs.8). The same man that is cowering, ​Woe is me, is now ​Here am I; send me.​ And what accounts for the difference? The compassion, the forgiveness, the integrity of the Lord. ​I know thou art a God of truth, and [cannot] lie ​(Ether 3:12)​. When He testifies to you that your sins are forgiven, only a fool will thereafter charge you with sin. The world is stocked with fools, though.

Well, here now we have this peculiar scene, where a young lad—put at ease by the Almighty calling him by an intimate name, putting him in the position where he’s been drawn into intimacy with Almighty Himself—is then given a pause. You see, They’re not quick to speak. In that respect, They remind me a lot of Enoch: “slow of speech.” You see, They’ll wait. And They waited.

And so now you have the lad: ​My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood before me (​Joseph Smith History 1:18)​—We don’t know how long this took. We don’t know how long it takes a lad to get himself composed. To God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, it didn’t matter. God is in no hurry. And He’s in no hurry to fix you. He will wait on whatever it is you need to be allowed to dispose of to come along. And He will wait.

And so when he finally recomposes himself and he poses the question: “Which should I join?” verse 19, ​I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” This is a mixture of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Paul all woven together—the words of scripture into a brief commentary, on the sweep from the Old to the New Testament, in language of prophets we all recognize, condemning the entirety of the Christian world.

Now Joseph is composing this in 1838. He’s putting into words of scripture the concepts that flowed into his mind from the Lord. Sometimes the Lord leaves it to you to put words to it, and sometimes the Lord gives you the words. Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants: the words were given. I don’t know which verse 19 is, whether these are the exact words that were given Joseph or if this was, instead, the concept that Joseph was left with the challenge of putting into words. Either way, it is light; it is truth; and it is true because it reflects the intention of God in the communication given to Joseph Smith.

What do you suppose it means: ​having a form of godliness… deny[ing] the power?​ How do you deny the power of godliness? How do you obtain the power of godliness? What does it mean to have possession of the power of godliness?

Let’s go back to that section 76 again; it’s got some nice stuff in it. I want to go to the very end because we’re going to run into this same notion in the First Vision and in section 76.

And 76 is a transcript that is given to Joseph that was dictated, transcribed, read back, approved, then the dictation continued until we reach the end. But look, at beginning at verse 113:

This is the end of the vision which we saw, which we were commanded to write while we were yet in the Spirit. But great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his kingdom which he showed unto us, which surpass 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 man 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 purify themselves before him; To whom he grants this 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.

Is this related to not denying the power of godliness? I mean, to have the ability to ​bear his presence in the world of glory, as we get farther along in our discussion about the topic of Zion, it becomes critical that you become able to bear His presence. For those who are unable to bear His presence will be destroyed at His coming. Therefore, whatever this power of godliness is, I think we need to get some.

If you turn in Joseph Smith History to the next verse—verse 20—he says: ​He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. That is always the case. Those the Lord ministers to invariably know more than they say. There are reasons for that. There are laws that involve that. And section 76 suggested that man is not even capable of making some things known. It’s really hard to convey into this linear world things that don’t relate well here.

Turn back to Mormon—in the Book of Mormon—Mormon chapter 9. I wanna begin in verse 2 of chapter 9. And this stuff really sounds ominous, so I’m gonna read it with an ominous voice, because I just want to make you feel. ​Behold. You know, this is Mormon; this is late in the gig. He’s lived an NC-17 life. Between the rape, followed by the cannibalism of the women that had been raped, and the murder and the mayhem and the torture, I mean, this is the guy who abridged the Book of Mormon, okay? That’s the life that he was subjected to. So look at these words:

Behold, will ye believe in the day of your visitation—behold, when the Lord shall come, yea, even that great day when the earth shall be rolled together as a scroll, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, yea, in that great day when ye shall be brought to stand before the Lamb of God—then will ye say that there is no God? Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your [own] guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws? Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell. For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God, and… the glory of God, and the holiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you.

Now I want you to read those verses and ask yourself, “Exactly what is it that God is doing?” The only thing that God is doing is ​being​. He simply exists. This is you. God ​is.​ And He’s simply revealing Himself to you. And this is your reaction. And why is this your r​eaction? Because you don’t have the power of godliness. And why don’t you have that? Because you need to repent. And what is it that you must repent of? The absence of knowledge about God. You don’t know enough yet to be saved.

The plan of salvation is the plan of education—the plan of knowledge about God and the principles of godliness and the basis upon which all of you can live together and be of one heart and one mind. And it doesn’t matter that some of you have strange political beliefs. And it doesn’t matter that some of you would like to see every gun in the universe recalled and melted down, so we could all, I don’t know, attack one another with the remaining butts of the guns that weren’t melted down, ‘cause they’re wood? I don’t know; I mean— And others of you would like every child issued their own concealed-carry permit and to be armed in kindergarten. None of that stuff separates you from being able to love one another and be one. Because much of what you think matters, doesn’t matter one whit to the Lord. And you know what? When you’re anxiously engaged in the right cause, you’ll be surprised how much of our deepest concerns are merely trivial. The things of the heart are what matters. The things upon which we are capable of becoming one, in love toward one another, are infinitely greater.

That’s why we really need to keep you distracted in this Telestial kingdom about all the crap that goes on down here. You’re worried about the Kardashians—it doesn’t matter. (I suppose at a certain level, it’s possible that the Red Sox don’t even matter. But we’re eight and a half games ahead in the A. L. [American League] East right now; and I’m telling you, it’s looking good.)

In any event, you mark that page—484 in your Book of Mormon—and you go back and re-read that, and you ask yourself: “What is God doing, other than merely being?” The only thing He does is “be,” and then you react. Because you are running around hysterically, doing a “pee-pee dance,” because you’re all concerned that your presence is unacceptable; you’re unclean; you’re unworthy—that’s what He came to fix. And when He fixes it, part of the fix consists of telling you: “Set it aside. Set it aside; be my child. Accept love.” And then, in turn, you love. Because what “fixes” is love.

Joseph Smith said (and this goes hand-in-hand with that Mormon 9:2-5), “A man is his own tormentor and his own condemnor. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone.” Inflict that upon yourself. The quickest way to achieve that is to act in this life like the coward who is unwilling to be valiant in the testimony of Christ. And to stand up when opposed by those who tell you it ought not to be so. Valiance is the only way by which you secure the blessings of God.

When Uriah was killed, he was killed with a message sent by King David, delivered by the hand of Uriah himself to Joab. In the integrity of his heart, King David knew Uriah could be trusted with the order condemning him to die. And Uriah, faithful to his King, carried the message to Joab. There are accounts—not the one we have in our Old Testament version—but there are accounts that suggest that when Joab opened the message and read it, that he read it to Uriah, and Uriah knew he was sent to his death. And in those accounts, the men who died with Uriah, died with him wittingly. It’s one of the few places in scripture where the word “valiant” appears. Those men went where the valiant men were. And the unworthy King forfeited something in his cowardice.

Don’t be cowards. Stand and be valiant no matter what it is. In the day of judgment you will find yourself wanting, and in this life you will find you lack the power of godliness, unless you obey the law upon which all blessings are predicated. You make sacrifices. You obey Him. ​And to obey Him is to find yourself oddly incongruent with everything about you. Not about​ you—​​about​ you​, meaning the external world in which you find yourself moving about within.

Well, why are they ​all corrupt​? You know there’s a line— I happen to like Luke; try and quote him when he fits. I gave a talk one time: ​On the Road to Emmaus​. It’s drawn out of the book of Luke. I think Luke was the other character that was walking. He names Cleopas; he doesn’t name himself. Well, Luke chapter 11, this is verse 52 (oh, I love this! We ought to carve this on the Utah Bar Office exterior and lobby on the interior, require lawyers to put it on their business cards): ​Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering… ye hindered. False teachers prevent others from obtaining salvation, period. And happily, they will be accountable for that. You’ve ​taken away the key of knowledge:​ [you enter] not in yourselves … them that were entering in ye hindered.

Well, there is another verse in D&C 121 (this would be one written in the year following the Joseph Smith testimony). This one is written— Joseph was sentenced to die on November 1st of 1838. The general who was supposed to carry out the execution rebelled and wouldn’t do that. Joseph ultimately wound up being kept in prison in Liberty Jail. While he was in Liberty Jail he writes a letter. We’ve taken out three excerpts from the letter, and we’ve canonized them, and section 121 is one of those three sections. I want you to look at verse 45; ask yourself whether this has something to do also with the​ power of godliness:

Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

Oh, that I had the ability to declare it. This is in the middle of one of the three great principles by which God governs and shapes the universe itself—it is not through compulsory means. The only way in which God works is by inviting and enticing. You break yourself against the laws that have been ordained. You condemn yourself by the things that you bring upon yourself. God just ​is.​ And He ​is to give you opportunity. And He opens opportunity to allow you to enter in ​if you are willing to enter in. But whether you are willing to enter in or not is predicated upon your own conduct, your own desires. And the best way to determine what your desires are are based upon what it is you do.

We are so situated that we have the inability to do two things at once. No matter who you are, you are only doing one thing at a time. Your entire life you are either focusing on one thing or on something else. And whatever it is upon which you dwell, that’s what you’ve chosen. Hence the saying: ​Let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God ​(D&C 121:45). Is the power of godliness related to that? Is the power of godliness related to the presence of God? Well, the Book of Mormon continually declares that to be the case. And anyone that suggests otherwise is flatly contradicting the message of the Book of Mormon. It is all about the ascent back to the presence of God. Testimony after testimony, experience after experience, that’s what the Book Mormon stands for. That is the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You encounter it almost immediately in the first chapter when Lehi rises up. And you encounter it in Nephi. And you encounter it in Jacob. And you encounter it in Enos and in Alma and in Mosiah. You just continually get the same message.

Joseph Smith said: “I advise all to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of godliness.” Turn to Doctrine and Covenants section 8. This is one of those interesting little notes. Oliver wanted to translate— This was in April of 1829; he had arrived to become the scribe to Joseph shortly before this, and he tried to translate. It didn’t work out so well. He told him in verse 2: ​I will tell you in your mind and your heart by the Holy Ghost and soon. He talks about a gift that he has, ​the gift of Aaron—​that’s the rod; he was able to use a divining rod. (We’re kind of embarrassed about that now, and we don’t really preserve that much anymore, because we think gifts like that are kind of wacky, and yet, here it is in scripture.)

And some of you probably have gifts that you find a little odd. And yet, you all have gifts. And not everyone has the same gift. And if it gives you access to information from a divine source, you ought to trust it. And it doesn’t matter that the way in which you do it and the way in which someone else does it is differently situated. No one had ever thought about a seer stone until Joseph Smith encountered it and then found it ratified in the Book of Mormon in the Book of Mosiah.

Well, in any event, I’m interested in verses 10 and 11 in the revelation given to Joseph in April of 1829 where it says: ​Remember that without faith you can do nothing; therefore ask in faith. Trifle not with these things; do not ask for that which you ought not. So okay, you’ve got to be careful—don’t you ask for something that you ought not be asking for! For goodness sake! Das es prohibido! Okay?— Followed immediately by this statement: ​Ask that you may know the mysteries of God. That’s a commandment. And anyone that tells you, You ought not be searching deeper and deeper into the mysteries of God, well, I think we just read about them in Luke, didn’t we? “You don’t enter in yourself, and you don’t suffer those that ​are entering in to be permitted to​ go,” because you do not understand the power of godliness! You deny the power of godliness!

I declare to you in the words of scripture: Ask that ​you ​may know the mysteries of God! That’s a commandment, given to us by revelation, enshrined in the scriptures that you folks claim to believe in. Stop denying the power of godliness. And stop falling for the sophists and lawyers who would deceive you by suggesting that you should not inquire into the mysteries of God.​ They a​re anti-Christ.​ They are opposed to the doctrine of salvation.​ They deny the power of godliness. And I do not.

Well, we’ve now gotten 20 verses into the history of Joseph Smith, and we’ve learned a bunch of stuff. And he’s told that there’s some things he can’t write. I want to know at this point: How do you know if Joseph is telling the truth? How do you know if what you are seeing here is a true testimony or not? How are you to fix that? How are you to know that? Doctrine and Covenants section 63—this is a reminder of the stakes involved in preaching falsely. This is Doctrine and Covenants section 63. Look at verses—beginning at verse 60 and going to verse 62: ​Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. 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.

And how do you know if someone speaks with authority? How do you know that Joseph is writing a testimony that is authoritative? How do we know if anyone opens their mouth and they speak, and God has approved the message that they are delivering? How are we to know that?

Go to Doctrine and Covenants section 5. This is March of 1829. Oliver Cowdery wouldn’t arrive until April 5th, the month following this. Oh, this is interesting; look at verse 3: ​And I have caused you [this is a revelation to Joseph] ​that you should enter into a covenant with me, that you should not show them except to those persons to whom I commanded you; and you have no power over them except I grant it unto you. At this moment in 1829, Joseph Smith is perhaps the only man alive who had a covenant with the Lord. “You have entered into a covenant with me.” Now, we are all the beneficiaries of covenants that existed from the beginning, but in terms of someone with whom the Lord has struck a bargain and made a covenant, at this moment in 1829— Our Lord is a Man of covenant making. Our Lord enters into covenants on a regular basis. To know Him is to covenant with Him. And Joseph, at this point… at this point has one.

And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this. Okay, now I want you to mark that. I want you to notice that Joseph is being told by God: “Don’t pretend to any other gift than this translation.” Why?

Go back to that verse 20 of the Joseph Smith History, which happened in 1820, in which Joseph had been tutored, and he had been tutored by the Lord with ​many other things did he say unto me at this time which I cannot write. Joseph already knew—he had already seen, he had already been endowed with—a certain understanding that reckons from the other side of the veil, as a consequence of which, Joseph knew a great deal more than what he was saying. But he had an assignment. And the assignment consisted of the obligation to translate the Book of Mormon. And Joseph was authorized to accomplish that work. Therefore, if Joseph stepped outside of the bounds of the assignment entrusted to him at the moment that he was doing this work, Joseph would be entertaining a pretense, because the errand given to him at the moment was confined to the Book of Mormon. Did he know more? Absolutely. Did he have more at his disposal that he could’ve entertained people with? Without any question. But he was asked to do a work. And in the fidelity of his heart, he confined himself to that work until it was first accomplished. And to do more than that would’ve been a pretense.

So then we get to the answer to the question about how you know whether Joseph is telling us the truth:

Verily I say unto you [verse 5], ​… woe shall come unto the inhabitants of the earth if they will not hearken unto my words. [This is Christ owning the words. It’s not Joseph.] ​For hereafter you shall be ordained and go forth and deliver my words unto the children of men. Behold, if they will not believe my words, they would not believe you, my servant Joseph, if it were possible that you should show all these things which I have committed unto you.

God owns the words. You wouldn’t believe the rest of it if you won’t believe what’s authorized to be spoken. Joseph confined himself to delivering what Christ wanted delivered, and it was up to those who heard to choose. And if they recognize the Master’s voice, then they’ve received a message from Him.

Behold, verily I say unto you,​ Oh, wait—I left out 8: ​Oh, this unbelieving and stiffnecked generation—mine anger is kindled against them. Behold, verily I say unto you, I have reserved those things which I have entrusted unto you, my servant Joseph, for a wise purpose in me, and it shall be made known unto future generations; But this generation shall have my word through you.​ Well, in another place—

Heck, we may as well get that out. This is also the letter from Liberty Jail, section 122 verse 2: ​The pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand. This is the Lord’s word to Joseph Smith about those who are wise, those who are noble, those who are virtuous—those are the ones who are going to seek counsel and authority and blessings under the hand of Joseph. And that is as true at this moment as it was then.

How then do we today receive blessings ​under the hand of Joseph?​ Well, if you look at the use of the word “hand,” almost invariably, it is associated with the words we find in scriptures. The Book of Abraham: under the hand of Abraham. The Book of Mormon: under the hand of Mormon. The hand of Joseph is still the hand we ought to be looking at if we want to know what God’s word was for our generation. You have no clue. ​You have no cluehow thoroughly we have supplanted the words given at the hand of Joseph Smith and what it is you entertain yourselves with each Sabbath day.

Well, verse 14: ​And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation, in this the beginning of the rising up and the coming forth of my church out of the wilderness—clear as the moon, … fair as the sun, … terrible as an army with banners. Clear as the moon.

Woman: What chapter… I mean, what section are you…?

Denver: Oh, I’m still in section 5 of the Doctrine and Covenants. I’m now at verse 14. This description will show up another time in the dedicatory prayer to the Kirtland Temple (in section 109). It is a description of the Lord’s Church. The Lord’s Church is ​clear as the moon, fair as the sun​. “Clear as the moon” means that those who rise up and attain to the status of being acknowledged by Him as His church, they meet the description that is given in Doctrine and Covenants section 76 describing those who have the glory of the moon as their inheritance. “Fair as the sun” is described in Doctrine and Covenants section 76, describing those who will inherit the celestial glory. That’s His Church. And they will be the only ones who are able to stand at his coming.

The minister for those in the terrestrial glory is the Son, meaning the Son of God—who intends to make many sons of God. And in the celestial glory, the fullness of the Father dwells. And so the Church—which He owns, which He calls “mine,” that He intends to bring out of the wilderness of darkness and confusion and into the light by which they can understand things of God—is necessarily composed of those who have sufficient knowledge to be ​clear as the moon, fair as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners, because—when we get to Grand Junction and we’re talking about the condition of Zion, we’re going to be looking at how very, very perilous it is to encounter this kind of glory when you are unprepared to be there.

Well, Luke chapter 9, let’s go there. This is my man. Luke 9:25-26: ​What is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come [to] his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels. You see, if Joseph is speaking the words of the Son, and if you are ashamed to own the words that come to us by the hand of Joseph, your shame is not toward Joseph. Your shame is towards Him who taught Joseph the words to speak. ​Of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed.​

Well, Joseph’s credential was his possession of Christ’s words. Did he come with authority? Did he speak Christ’s words? Had Christ entrusted him with a ministry and a message? If the answer to that is, Yes, then he came with authority. If the answer to that is, Well, no, but he had some quotable moments, you know? I liked him… a lot. You know? Just kinda “groovin up slowly, got the mojo filter.” I mean, it’s all vain; it’s all vanity; it’s all nonsense if he doesn’t have a message from God. And if he does, then his credential is that: His message. And how do you know that?

Oh, didn’t we stumble across that just a few minutes ago, James 1:5? Everything that’s is going on in the restoration comes back to James 1:5. Why don’t you ​ask God who giveth to all men liberally​? And he would like you to know a great deal more than you presently do. He doesn’t upbraid; He doesn’t scold you; He doesn’t say the mysteries are off-limits. He says instead come and learn of me. He says, I command you to ask and inquire into the mysteries of God. He says, Salvation itself is dependent upon knowledge. ​And this is life eternal that [you may] k​now​…Christ (​John17:3)​. How can you serve the Master you don’t know?

Well, let’s skip ahead to verse—this is Joseph Smith History verse 26. Well, I don’t know… I gotta look at 25, too.

So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, … they did in reality speak to me; … though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, … speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth?

That will always be the case if you know Christ. It will alway be the case, because those who know him not disbelieve that ​you ​know Him. There are laws ordained before the foundation of the world; they must serve their father. And you must serve yours. There is no other choice. There are only two teams; there are only two churches; there are only two ways. And it doesn’t matter if the particular whore you choose to follow is comely, tidy, well-mannered, and wearing a white wedding dress. There are only two churches. And one is Christ’s.

So verse 26: ​I had now got my mind satisfied so far as the sectarian world was concerned—that it was not my duty to join with any of them, but to continue as I was until further directed. Now, isn’t that interesting? Here you’ve got Joseph; he has now been given instruction, and he’s simply assuming that he goes his way until he get some further direction. And this will go on for years, mind you—​years​.

In the Joseph Smith translation of Matthew chapter 3 (we won’t look at that), he talks about the difference between what happened in the incident at the temple when Christ was 12 years old and then what happens when He begins His ministry. And it talks about ​many years​ pass while he labored as a carpenter—​the hour of His ministry drew nigh​ (vs. 26).

Well, so Joseph is waiting until he finds out what else he ought to do. Verse 27—oh, look at that: ​Twenty-first of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three​—this is another one of the corners of the earth. This is the autumnal equinox, when everything is in balance—the light and the dark; the moment that will soon be upon us, this being September 10​.
And he reflects in verse 28. He says (about halfway down, there’s this dash about the middle):

I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness[es] of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to anyone who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.

(As an aside, Christ has a cheery temperament. Joseph has a cheery temperament. Be of good cheer.)

You see, reading this testimony of Joseph Smith given in 1838, following the trial in April of 1838, at which the allegations of adultery were leveled against him by Oliver Cowdery. And the minutes of the High Council talking about—said they dealt with “the girl business” (the allegations about the girl business)—and Joseph was exonerated.

You know, we entertain a lot of false notions about Joseph Smith and the practice of plural marriage. Hales has been doing—and completed and is now out with a three volume set—in there he gathers together every single one of the existing source materials involving Fanny Alger. In the account dealing with Fanny Alger and the incident in the barn (that some people have blown up into Emma Smith catching Joseph Smith in the very act of intercourse in the barn with Fanny Alger), when you track it down and you read the account, what you find out is that Emma Smith witnessed “the transaction.” The “transaction” consists of Levi Hancock performing a wedding ceremony in the barn; Joseph Smith telling Levi the words to use; Levi performing the ceremony; Emma at the door listening in—and this is the “transaction” which has become subsequently embellished into all sorts of libido-driven license for those who would like a less virtuous prophet than the one we have.

No one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. It wasn’t in Joseph’s nature. And those who claim otherwise are looking for a license that Joseph didn’t think himself entitled.

Well, so ​on the above mentioned night of 21 September ​[this is verse 29 on the next page] ​I had retired to my bed for the night, I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God for forgiveness of all my sins and follies. So he had waited, but he had waited until he got to the point in which he had some apprehension about his standing before God, because it had been a long time. But notice that it’s Joseph who is driving the events that will occur now on the autumnal equinox, when he makes an inquiry involving his sins. And he’s asking—he’s supplicating—for forgiveness of his sins. And he also wants to know of his state and standing before Him, saying at the end of verse 29: ​I had full confidence in obtaining a divine manifestation, as I previously had one.

If Joseph Smith can go get a divine manifestation respecting his standing before God, so can you. If Joseph Smith can go out and inquire to know of God what Church to join, so can you. Moroni 10:4-5, particularly 10:5, tells you that ​by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things. The truth of ​all t​hings. There is nothing off limits. There’s nothing about which you are going to be upbraided and told: “Don’t ask. Don’t inquire. I won’t tell.” Now, you may ask for something that you are unprepared to hear the answer for because there is some preparation yet left. But if you ask, you set in motion—on the other side—permission to fix what’s wrong with you.

Have you read the Tenth Parable? If you’ve read the Tenth Parable, you know there is a time lag in which a missing virtue gets supplied as a consequence of real world experience. The answer gets set in motion as a consequence of the laws of God, upon which all blessings are predicated—which mandate (as we’re seeing here in this verse) that you must​ ask! And by the way, the answer to the question that you ask from God will always be “Yes.” However, if you’re not ready for the “yes,” then you’re going to go through a period of renovation and repair. How long you need to be renovated and repaired depends upon just how much of the toxic nonsense you’ve drunk in and how much of it you continue to drink in that opposes the ability of God to speak to you. So soon as you will lay down that nonsense and in faith be believing, so soon will God be able to plug the leaks, repair the hinge, fix the broken window. He really does have a house of order—or better put, a temple that is holy, which temple ye are. It’s not built by human hands. It was built by God in the womb of your mother. And you were endowed with it when you took your first breath. That—​you’re wearing it now—is His temple. The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple. But it must not be defiled. Clean yourselves up. If you want to know what your state and standing is, ‘cause you’re uncertain…

We’re reading in the Joseph Smith ​Testimony [History], look at the next verse: ​While I was thus in the act of calling upon God… ​In the act ​of calling upon God! If you are in the right way, with the right faith, looking for the right answers, you don’t even get to finish the sentence. God knows what ye have need of even before you ask. It’s in the Sermon on the Mount. Christ tells you that. That horrible aching, that longing, that hollowness, that emptiness within you is what Christ was designed to fill. That’s His purpose in coming to His temple.

So while he ​was in the act of calling upon God, [he] discovered a light appearing in [his] room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the [ground]​. As an interesting aside, I want to ask the question: Why? Why did Moroni stand in the air with his feet not touching the ground? It’s an interesting topic we’re not going to talk about here. It’s off subject; it won’t get us Zion anyway, but there’s “stuff” here.

Oh, and look at this:

He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, … his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, … it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.

Notice this. This is not ceremonial garb, as a consequence of which I can tell you that it’s okay to be buried without temple regalia, because you’re not going be wearing that stuff in the resurrection anyway (if you inherit what the angels of God, including Moroni—who is certainly exalted—wear).

You can read about the description of what Christ wears in the scriptures, as well. Ceremonial garb is just that—it is ceremonial garb. It is designed to teach you about the creation, to endow you with certain knowledge about the process of being exalted. But it is not the attire that you’ll see on the streets of heaven. I actually think… I think they look Egyptian. I think their attire looks Egyptian, but that’s neither here nor there.

This is a guy who was wearing only a robe. It’s not ceremonial. He doesn’t have shoes on his feet. He doesn’t have a bonnet on. He doesn’t have a variety of things that we would associate with ceremonial dress. You can read a description of Christ’s attire in 3 Nephi 11:8, and the description there is very much like the description that we have here—Christ and Moroni wearing the same kind of thing. And then, hey, just for the fun of it, let’s go back to Exodus 28.

Exodus 28. I want to revert back to my Cecil B. Demille-esque stuff:

And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office. And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen… ​(vs. 4-5)

…and yellow and green and purple and orange and mauve and… I’m sorry. You can read it; it’s in here. Ooh, the ​ouches of gold and ​the chains of pure gold (vs. 13-14). I mean, he dresses you in funny attire, okay? God goes through the ceremonial attire, and he dresses you up, and the purpose of the dress is ceremonial to communicate to you, ​through symbolism​, knowledge about certain things. But they are not an end; they are a symbol. Six days of creation: six articles of clothing, each one of which can be associated with one of the days of creation. Therefore, as you enter through the veil, it is as if the entirety of all creation is redeemed in your person. You represent salvation for the entirety of creation, because in you, should you be able to be rescued, creation itself continues. These are symbols. They communicate to the mind ideas—ideas that are eternal. They are not ends in themselves.

Well, keep that in mind, because you’re here to be trained. You’re here to learn something. You’re here to learn about the power of godliness. And by “here,” I don’t mean this room tonight, although I think that is certainly true. I’m talking about this lifetime in which you find yourself—this place, this terrible fallen world, this glorious opportunity in which sacrifice is actually possible. You don’t avoid it, and you don’t necessarily seek it out. But when it comes upon you, you face it down bravely. And you stand where God places you. And you don’t let any ​man ​move you from where it is that God would have you be, because therein lies salvation. You’re obeying a law ordained before the foundation of the world. You can’t lay hold upon such blessings, unless you obey the law upon which it is predicated. There will always be, in absolute numbers, only a few who will find that straight and narrow path. There will be an overflowing abundance of those who will fight against it. Because​ they serve​ their m​aster. You don’t have time to worry about them. You serve yours. And that Master needs to be Christ.

Well, we’re now just about getting to (oh, shoot) tonight’s topic. Once again, Joseph is called by name. This is verse 33. He was afraid. The fear soon left him. The reason he was afraid was because he was seeking forgiveness of his sins. A perfectly white, bright, lit individual appeared, who represents the cleanliness of heaven itself. Joseph, in contrast to that, he’s inquiring to know about his sins. Now a visibly cleansed being stands before him; he’s afraid. And why is he afraid? Because, once again, you see the remarkable contrast. I know what lies in my heart. I know what failings I have had, and I know this being can see through me. Therefore, I need something that will remove from me my fear. ​He called me by name. It’s the same thing. Moroni dispels it by letting him know, We have a brotherhood; we have a relationship. ​Fear soon left me ​(vs. 32). ​He called me by name ​(vs. 33).

Well, this is what we want to talk about. He tells him about the stuff, the accoutrements that he’s gonna be handed in verse 34 and 35. But then he gets, in verse 36, and this is where— ooh, this is where we’ve got something now. This is Moroni delivering a message. But his message is not like what we find in the King James version of the Bible. He says: ​behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, … all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they ​[they] that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

Root… branch.​ Genealogical words. ​They that come.​ Who are they?

Again, he quoted the fifth verse: “Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” He quoted the next verse differently, [he said]: “… he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.”

Oh, we’ll probably get this parsed about Spanish Fork in the coming year. Everything about this is telling you something that is remarkably different from where we find ourselves:

●  The day is coming that will burn them.​ When?

●  They that come​. Who?

●  Neither root nor branch. This is genealogical. Elijah and the priesthood—we’ll talk about that in another day.

●  Children get planted in their hearts​.

●  Promises made to the fathers​.

●  Children’s hearts turned to their fathers.

There is so much in that that we need to pick apart. We need to understand. And we’re going to go there, because understanding this is understanding the foundation of Zion. The foundation of Zion consists largely in reconnecting the children—as a consequence of the promises that were made to the fathers—back to the fathers, so that there might be a welding link that connects the children who are on the earth with the fathers who are in heaven—not your kindred dead that are in the Spirit world; they are in desperate need of your ministration to save them. Connecting yourself to them is to connect yourself with the, essentially, the damned, the dead, the disembodied. The fathers who are in heaven are the ones to whom you need to form the link. And I’ve written that paper on it which I assume some of you have read. And if you haven’t, just send a note to the blog, and I’ll email it to you. It’s ​The Mission of Elijah Reconsidered.​ But see, the whole purpose behind this is to fix this problem. Because if it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted—utterly wasted at His coming.Then he says: ​He quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled​. Okay, let’s go back to that 11th chapter of Isaiah, because man, have we made a mess of that. Okay, this is “about to be fulfilled.” ​There shall come forth [this is chapter 11 of Isaiah, There shall come forth] ​a rod out of the stem of Jesse. The Rod is a servant who is a descendent of Jesse—who is a Levite—and Ephraim, unto whom is rightly belonging the priesthood. Keep your finger there on that chapter 11 of Isaiah, and turn back to Doctrine and Covenants section 113, and you’ll see where these words are explained. Who is the Stem… spoken of… Verily thus saith the Lord: It is Christ. Verse 3: ​What is the rod spoken of in the fifth verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse? Behold… saith the Lord: It is a servant ​[a servant!] ​in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse… as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power.Well, look. Until you succeed, you’ve failed. I don’t care who comes along, claiming whatever they want to claim. Until the work is done, you can’t take credit for it—period. There’s all kinds of nonsense that circulates about who has the keys. “Button, button who’s got the button?” Look, someone’s going to do a work. When the work is done, you will know. Until the work is done, no one can be identified with the role—period. It is arrogance; it is pretentiousness; it is foolishness for anyone to step forward and say: “I, I, I am that man!” Do the work. Finish the course. Fulfill the covenant. You do that, you can take the name. Until you do the work, it’s just noise.

So there’s gonna come forth:

a rod out of the stem of Jesse… a Branch shall grow out of his roots: … the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. [Oh, thank God! Someone will finally fear the Lord more than they fear man! I look forward to that moment.] ​And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: … he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth. [In this context it is the word of God.] ​And with the breath of his lips [he] shall… slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, … faithfulness the girdle of his reins. The wolf … shall dwell with the lamb, … the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. [These things are shortly to come to pass.] ​And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. ​[You see, it’s knowledge, full of knowledge of the Lord. That’s what you have to lay hold on.] ​And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left.

Well, this shall shortly come to pass. Not then, not that day, but by and by.

You know, when a branch is spoken of, if you look at John 15:1-6 (I’m not going to do that because our time is far spent), but Christ gives a sermon about Him being the “true vine,” about how you cannot bear fruit unless you are connected to the true vine. Once again, that is a genealogical term. That is a “family of God” term. That is a “son of God” term. And He intends to make many sons of God.

Joseph is receiving, in this first interview with the angel Moroni, an announcement about the first indications of the restoration of God’s intent to restore a holy family. God is telling us what​ He w​ants. He—God—wants to have upon the earth again His family. But we must respond—​we​. This is your dispensation; this is your time. You came down here with the intent of living and finding the things that will bring you back. This is your opportunity. Don’t let some other group claim that it doesn’t belong to you. These scriptures are only going to be fulfilled when enough people awake and arise to realize that it is devolving upon you the obligation to find, to heed, to seek, to search, to pray, to obey, and to form what is necessary in order to fulfill the promises and the covenants that were made to the fathers.

Throughout the coming year, we’re going to try and lay that out. 2 Nephi chapter 3— Oh, boy—now, we could spend a day talking about this chapter 3. We don’t have that time. And tonight’s time is far spent. But what I want to do is to just look at some specific words for a moment. Because I’m telling you, the muddle that has been made of the Book of Mormon by the nonsense that we believe about its words is worse than a Gordian knot. And how you sort that out at this point… It’s a challenge that you ought to rise to by making it the subject of prayer and getting revelation. Because there’s a story being told here; there’s a covenant being described here. And there are things in play here that, until you awake and arise and realize what the duties are that are devolving upon you, you don’t have any chance of figuring out exactly what a mess we’ve made of the restoration of the Gospel.

Alright, verse 23. We’re just going to do a couple of verses: ​Wherefore, because of this covenant… [the covenant being described here is a covenant that was made by God with Joseph of Egypt. That guy, Joseph of Egypt] ​because of this covenant thou.​.. [Joseph,theson of Lehi] ​thou art blessed; for thy seed… [Joseph, Lehi’s son] ​thy seed shall not be destroyed, for they shall hearken unto the words of the book [that is, the descendants of Joseph, Lehi’s son]. ​And there shall rise up one mighty among them.

Ask yourself if “among” is genealogical or merely associational. It doesn’t say one “from” them, which would be genealogical. It says “among” them. Someone’s going to arise who’s going to do ​much good, both in word and in deed, being an instrument in the hands of God, with exceeding faith, to work mighty wonders, and do that thing which is great in the sight of God, unto the bringing to pass [of] much restoration unto the house of Israel, and unto the seed of thy brethren… blessed art thou Joseph.

In all that goes on in chapter 3 of 2 Nephi, dealing with the covenant about the Joseph of Egypt individual, the next chapter, which (thanks be to E. B. Grandin and then Orson because of the division of this into chapters—this was all one narrative at one point; don’t let the punctuation and chapter divisions fool you). Continuation of the statement. Verse 2: For behold, he… [that is, not just Lehi, but Joseph of Egypt] ​he… prophesied concerning all his… [​ Joseph of Egypt’s] ​seed.​ Which includes some of you.

Look, our time is spent. Our agenda is not. There was another prophecy that’s made by Moroni that’s repeated in Acts that has this, just, real complicated structure, because the past, present, future time and how it all fits together. We’ll pick it up there in Idaho Falls on the 28th.

About this time 40 years ago today, I was at a post-baptismal party at the Mortenson’s house—it would be breaking up probably another 10 minutes from now—in which Jim asked me to give the opening prayer. Jim, being the man of the house, don’t ya know, and Monty being the faithful wife and the descendent of the Bunkers, deferred to her husband in making that call. And I was rather giddy from, you know—I had never been baptized before. My mom wished me to be a Baptist, and she was worried that I was going to hell because I never joined any church. Then I got baptized a Mormon and removed all doubt, for her anyway.

And I was a little too jocular in my native, cheery temperament, being what it is. So Jim asked someone else who is a little more Mormon and reverent to give the damn prayer. And so someone else gave the prayer. And I felt a little chided, and I thought, “Man these Mormons are uptight.”

Anyway, as the evening ensued, there was a little more of my jocularity and a little less of the reverent. And some folks took offense. There was some jarring, there was some contention, and literally the Spirit fled from the meeting that we were having. And all these wonderful people, and all the stuff that they had put themselves to because I had been baptized— It was turning out to be a rather tragic evening.

And so I interrupted, and I insisted on the floor, and I made people listen. And I went around, person by person, and I talked to them. And I talked to them by the power of the Spirit, with the gift of prophecy. And I touched the hearts of everyone who was in that room. And I didn’t understand it at all that night. But when we get a little farther into the testimony of Joseph Smith, you find that on the occasion when Joseph and Oliver were baptized, they immediately were given the gift of prophecy. I could no more have given you the name for what happened— All that evening I understood was that I, by the influence outside and greater than me, was able to calm the disunity and reunite the hearts of the people that were with me. I can tell you now that I recognize what that was. But I was a few-hours-old-initiate into this restoration process.

It’s been 40 years. This is going to be a year in which I put on display my gratitude for the opportunity afforded to me to be baptized for the remission of my sins, and to testify about those things which I know to be true, and about the work remaining undone that is devolvingupon​yout​oaccomplish.Thisrestorationmerelygotitstoeinthedoorintheday of Joseph Smith—and hardly even that. The prophecies and the promises and the time and the opportunity are upon us. The question is: Is this generation gonna be just as careless, just as indifferent as the one when last a real prophet’s voice was heard among us? When Joseph Smith could tell you, “I know He lives, because I’ve seen Him.” When Joseph Smith could say, “God commanded me that I should bear record of Him, because I have seen Him.” It has been too long—too long—between that moment and today. And it’s time now that we stop running away from the conflict. It’s time for us to be valiant once again. Do not be fearful. Cowardice and fear are the opposite of faith.

If Joseph Smith, in the ruins of 1838, can write the testimony that we find in the history of Joseph Smith as an act of audacious courage and faith and confidence in the work of God that he was pursuing, despite the ruin that he saw the church existed in at that moment, if Joseph could do that, why can’t you?

I don’t care what a tattered ruin is that you see around you today. Zion can come. We’re still a few sessions away from encountering parts of that religion Joseph was attempting to restore that are really most interesting. But I’m telling you that if you’ll stay with this over the course of the next year, you’re going to realize just how much of the restoration is left undone.

There is nothing more delightful, there is nothing more delicious, there is nothing more exciting than the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We deliberately started this without an opening prayer. We’re not going to have an opening prayer on any of these talks until Sundays, and there’ll be a few of these on Sunday. One of these is going to be on Sunday in Logan. Another one’s going to be on Sunday in Centerville. It will be on October 6th. I haven’t announced that yet, but on October 6th, we’re going to have another one of these. For those that are on Sunday, we will have an opening and a closing prayer. For those that are not on a Sabbath, I’m simply going to talk.

But I’ll tell you that I know what I’m talking about. If you will ask of God and listen to the Spirit, you’ll be able to determine whether or not I speak His words. I don’t think it matters if I could reveal to you all things. If you won’t believe the things I ​can ​tell you, you certainly wouldn’t believe things I’m not telling you.

But I wouldn’t blame you if you don’t believe me. I really wouldn’t. It is so hard to be believing. This world is so acidic. This environment is so toxic. It’s very hard to believe. I think that’s one of the reasons why Christ’s account said it is a greater righteousness to believe when you hear than it is to know and to say. But I know what I talk about. And I bear testimony to you that Jesus Christ lives. He matters. I don’t. He can save you. I can’t. I can report on the glory of this Lord of ours, but only He can dispense it.

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

The post Be of Good Cheer appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This lecture by Denver Snuffer entitled “Constitutional Apostasy” was originally recorded in Highland, Utah on June 7, 2013, in front of a live audience.

Transcript

Sometimes the way you accomplish an objective is indirectly. You accomplish it as a by-product. You don’t stare into the sun. You take advantage of what the sun has to offer indirectly, because you’d get hurt staring directly at it. The clearest way to make this apparent is in our legal system. We have what’s called an adversarial system. The adversarial system has as its objective the byproduct of finding the truth. That’s not what you aim at. The adversarial system has an attorney who represents one side. And his objective is to tell you everything that is in favor of his side. And point out all the weaknesses, all the mistakes, of the other side. And the other side’s attorney has the exact same goal. Neither one of them is trying to tell you the whole story. They are employed, they are trained, and they are prepared to give you everything that can be mustered in the evidence, in the proof and in the testimony to support one side. The third party is the decision-maker. Whether that third party is a judge or a jury, the third-party decision maker listens to what both sides have to say, and they determine what is the truth. The truth is the by-product of this adversarial system. The alternative to that is an inquisitorial system. And we do not have an inquisitorial system. Because if you’re going to take directly the objective of accomplishing “the truth” then under an inquisitorial system as Torquemada demonstrated during the Inquisition – get out the branding irons, get out the rack. If we could get to the truth by an inquisitorial system then why not use torture in trying to discover the truth? So truth is not the objective of the adversarial system that we use in the United States. Truth is the byproduct of the system we use. Because you get far more truth through an adversarial system than you ever could obtain through an inquisitorial system, because people will lie to avoid the problems imposed upon them as a part of the Inquisition.

Well, the objective of the Constitution is really simple. There are a whole lot of things that are a byproduct of this one objective. But the one objective of the Constitution is to end tyranny. And so everything within the system is designed, in order to accomplish as it’s by-product, ending tyranny. Because if anyone knew what tyranny was, it was the colonialists who found it unbearable to live under a system of a foreign King ruling them and imposing taxes upon them disproportionately so that the colonialists were required to pay more taxes so that those back in the home country didn’t have to pay taxes, or pay a far less tax. Because although they were all subjects of the same monarchy, the monarch elected not to treat them equally and to tax them evenly, but to choose some to be benefited through the tax system and to choose others to punish under the tax system. And so they found that the system was intolerable. The reason why we wind up with those kinds of excesses is because of human frailty.

There is this interesting incident that happens, which we have preserved in the Doctrine and Covenants, in which Joseph Smith is in the Liberty jail. He’s been there for about five months at the time of the writing of this letter. He is groaning under the oppression of the state government that has arrested him using the state militia, accused him of treason against the state, and held him without trial in a Missouri dungeon for five months in conditions that were brutal. And in those circumstances he writes – and the writing is inspired:

D&C 121:39 We have learned by sad experience that it is 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.

What’s interesting about what we have in Doctrine and Covenants section 121 is that Joseph Smith is confined and oppressed by a government authority. And in the extremity of being subjected to imprisonment without due process, by the government of Missouri, Joseph complained. If you read the rest of the letter he’s complaining. What he’s asking God for is to avenge the governmental oppression. And, as the Lord often does, the purpose of putting Joseph through the oppression in a dungeon is to tell him something about the priesthood. The Lord ignores his plea to lay waste to the government and instead takes the occasion to say, (paraphrasing) “Okay Joseph, now maybe you can understand something. Here’s what I was hoping you’d understand:”

D&C 121: 34-37, 41-2 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And 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 is 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. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood… 

You have no authority just based on holding the priesthood.

…only by persuasion…

There is your tool…persuasion. And since that is not going to work, here’s your second tool…

…by long-suffering…

Which is: I can’t say “because I’m the authority…you need to do this.” “I’m the authority…the thinking has been done.” If all I’ve got is persuasion then I’d better be long-suffering because I’m not going to bring you on board with the truth anytime soon.

…by gentleness….

I don’t care how frustrated you get.

…and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul.

So these are the tools. So Joseph is suffering from governmental oppression, complaining about the government, and the Lord says “Good! Now maybe you can understand the way Priesthood works, because this crap you’re going through – if you think it’s bad when someone has a militia, Oh you just wait Joseph! As this rolls forward and people have possession of priestly office, you’ll see what happens.” We’ve been through that, it’s called Catholicism. The Lord’s focus, as is often the case, is not on the thing that Joseph was asking about. It was about what the Lord wanted us to understand.

Now there are other reasons why the Constitution matters to Latter-day Saints. Doctrine and Covenants 101: 76 tells us:

And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you—

So the Lord didn’t say, “based upon the Missouri persecutions, and the loutishness of Governor Boggs, dispatch Orrin Porter Rockwell and take this guy out.” He says, “importune those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you.” The solution doesn’t lie in the end of the barrel. Petition and do it:

D&C 101:77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

That’s what the Constitution was designed to accomplish. And when the Lord says that it is established for just and holy purposes, we ought to be approaching constitutional issues with the same sense of the sacred, as D&C 121 talks about respecting the rights of conscience and belief. So the Constitution is just and it is holy.

D&C 101: 78-80 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

So what I want you to know [is] that what we are told in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 101 in the Revelation to Joseph, is [that] the Constitution was established by the Lord’s hand, through men whom he raised up for that purpose, to establish just and holy principles to protect the rights of all men. But what it does not say is that having raised those just and holy men up, that you have a guarantee that forever thereafter you will have in a position of authority over you, running the government of the United States in perpetuity, “just and holy men” whom the Lords has raised up. He put it in place, he put it in operation, and he turns it over to us. Then the question is, “what are you going to do with it? What are you going to do with what you been entrusted?” That’s the question. The Lord did his part, now it’s up to us.

The Constitution gets mentioned again – it gets mentioned in the dedication of the Kirtland Temple in Section 109: 54. And Joseph says in the prayer:

Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.

Well, we have a declaration of belief on how governments ought to behave – that’s Section 134:1-2:

We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society. We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

It’s interesting that we have in 134 reference to property. John Locke talked in terms of “Life, Liberty and Property.” In the Declaration it was reworded to be “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” You have to understand the Scottish Enlightenment and what happiness meant. That was a very specific phrase. The word “happiness” doesn’t mean, “I got an Xbox and I got a noggin full of cocaine and I’m happy now.” That’s not what happiness meant. Happiness had a highly specific meaning. It meant that you were living your life in conformity with the will of God. They believed in natural law. Natural law was ordained by God and was given to all men. And when you brought your life into harmony with natural law, with the will of God, then you became happy. So “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” means life, liberty and you are living your life in conformity to the will of God, which would bring about happiness. John Locke cut to the quick, which was property.

Well, in First Nephi 13 there is a series of verses that’s giving the prophetic foreshadowing…the foretelling of what’s going to happen when the Gentiles became the inheritors of this land. Beginning in verse 12:

And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.

There’s your answer to the question, “Can people get the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands?” This was inspired.

And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.

So it wasn’t just Columbus… it was your own ancestors who were wrought upon by the Holy Ghost to come and occupy this land. Even though two of my ancestors were children in the Liverpool area who accepted a free afternoon boat ride from a captain who was loading the boat up with children, and then proceeded to sail from Liverpool to the United States – to the colonies – where he sold the children off as indentured servants. One of those was a boy and one of them was a girl who were sold to the same family as indentured servants. And when they worked their way through the indentured servitude and were free, they married one another. And so I guess the Spirit works directly on some and through captains on others.

And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten. And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

Which tells you what he’s talking about is, the ones who were the designated inheritors match a specific description that fit within a certain ethnicity called “Gentile”.

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them. And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them. And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle. And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.

Well, you have to know a lot about our early history to know just how very true that is. Sometimes you ought to look into the battle of New York, and how Washington managed to escape. He was the last one to leave. He wanted all of the troops withdrawn before he would leave and enter the boat himself. But for the intervening fog bank, the American Revolution would’ve ended that day. And the hand of God was throughout that. In fact Washington talked about the hand of Providence ruling throughout.

Then we have Jacob’s teaching in Second Nephi chapter 10. Jacob was the one that Nephi thought so much of as a teacher…that he gave chapters of his own writing over to his younger brother, Jacob. Jacob teaching in chapter 10 and beginning in verse 10 says:

But behold, this land, said God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land. And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles. And I will fortify this land against all other nations. And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God. For he that raiseth up a king against me shall perish, for I, the Lord, the king of heaven, will be their king, and I will be a light unto them forever, that hear my words.

Well…we all know the story of the Book Mormon, how there were kings and there were kingmen. It doesn’t mean that there will not be, at least temporarily, those that manage to establish temporary monarchies and oppress. It just means that they can’t make it permanent, and therefore they’re gone.

So we now know what the background is. And we know that there is this effort to create systems to guard against tyranny, that have as their by-product the freedom of the people.

And so we look at the Constitution and say, “how exactly is it then, that the Constitution managed to establish a framework inside of which it is possible to preserve freedom?” Article 1 section 1 of the Constitution says that:

All legislative powers granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

Then article 1 section 3 tells us how the Senate operates:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six years. And each Senator shall have one vote.

So the Senate of United States consists of this group, two Senators, and they are chosen by the legislature of their state. Now, you might say, “Well, we fixed that.” Yes, we kind of did. Now we don’t have any problem with the idea that there are positions that are held within the United States which have extraordinary authority granted to them, but who are not elected by the people. Every United States federal judge is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Every sitting member of United States Supreme Court is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. We don’t elect federal judges. We elect men (or someday women) as Presidents who choose the judge, the Senate confirms, and none of us sit back and say, “Wait a minute! We didn’t get to vote!” None of us question the authority, or the dignity, or the legitimacy of their power. And the Supreme Court becomes the court of last resort for the country. Somehow, however, when it comes to the legislature of United States, since the United States Senate was a creature of the legislatures rather than being elected directly by the people, we found it so intolerable that we amended the Constitution in order to provide for the direct election of United States Senators.

Well when they were putting together United States Constitution and they had a skeptical public, they published a series of articles (Madison and a few of his cohorts, anonymously) called the Federalist Papers. And the Federalist Papers 62 and 63 explain the purpose behind the way in which the Senate was organized. This is just talking about the United States Senate. And the mechanism used to choose the United States Senate:

It is recommended by the double advantage to favor of the select appointment and the giving to the state governments such an agency and the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former.

“Secure the authority of the former” – the state government…

And may form a convenient link between the two systems.

The United States Senate was designed to be a link between (on the one hand) the state authority – that is the state legislature, and [on the other hand] the federal government, because the Senate was the creature that was selected by, appointed by, chosen by the state legislatures and therefore answerable to them. 

The equality of representation in the Senate is another point which was evidently a result of compromise between the intentions of the large and small states. Among independent and sovereign states bound together by a simple league. The parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils. They’re trying to protect the identity of the various states as independent and sovereign. They allow each state a constitutional representation – an instrument preserving individual sovereignty – to guard by every possible expedient against an improper consolidation of the states into one simple Republic. It was never the objective to have the United States of America become correlated so that they’re all singing the same hymn, preaching the same message every week, in uniformity from sea to shining sea. That was never the intent. It was always the intent that there be independence and recognition of the sovereignty of each of the individual units who were entitled to elect their own state representatives, and then to have the representatives choose the Senator who would be at the beck and call of the legislature – to go back to Washington and guard the rights of the state. So, [it’s] a simple system if you think about it. Dividing the power is a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security of the people by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation, whereby the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principal and now so well understood in the United States…

See here’s the way it works. The way in which you choose the House of Representatives is by direct election. And by direct election you can be inflamed by all sorts of passions and prejudices, trends and stupidity, fads all kinds. All kinds of things can be briefly inflame the passions of those people who are elected by the public directly. But the legislature, out of which the United States Senate grows, the legislature is a completely different kind of body. The legislature in the states only turns over so often. And the legislature is the one who is holding the reins on the Senators. So when the Senators go back there, the things that they care about – the fashions of the day, the passions of the people – are quieted, are mollified, are subdued to some extent, because the Senate doesn’t have that same problem with direct election as does the House of Representatives. And this is a wise purpose, because of the improbability of sinister combinations in proportion to the dissimilarity between the House and the Senate. Therefore what you want is dissimilarity. What you want is for them to come from different gene pools altogether. What you want is the Senate to be something far different than the House of Representatives.

Now why are we trying to create such disparity between the two bodies? Because at the time of the Constitution was being discussed…

No small share of the present embarrassments of America is to be charged on the blunders of our government. And that these are produced from the heads, rather than the hearts, of most of the authors of them. A good government implies two things: First, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people. And secondly, a knowledge of the means by which the object can best be obtained. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, [laughter] or so incoherent that cannot be understood, if they be repealed or revised before they are propagated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be the rule of action. But how can that be the rule which is little-known, unless it be fixed? Great injury results from an unstable government. The loss of confidence of the public councils dampens every useful undertaking. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not what that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they be executed. What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors will not rendered him a victim to an inconstant government.

The United States Senate was designed to be chosen by the legislature in order to prevent the incessant changing of the law. And to provide a stability by which the government could become predictable, it’s laws known. Change would not be rapid. There could not be an agenda: “Here’s my platform. I got this here agenda. We are going to transform America. We are going to make us a new one. We are going to implement. And if we can’t get implementation in any other way…then we’re going to “executive order” our way through.”

Now wait a minute…hold on. [laughter] I thought it said that all legislative power granted, should be vested in the Congress. We are in Article 1. We don’t get to the executive branch until Article 2. If the Senate was doing its job, we wouldn’t be faced with those issues.

In the next circular of the Federalist papers, Federalist 63, it’s still talking about the United States Senate. [It] says:

The people can never willfully betray their own interests, but they may possibly be betrayed, by the representatives of the people. And the danger will be evidently greater when the whole legislative trust is laws lodged in the hands of one body of men rather than the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies as required in every public act.

The purpose was not merely to make them separately elected and to divide them into two terms one for two and one for six years. It was to make them dissimilar. The creature that is called the United States Senate and the creature that is called the House of Representatives [were] designed on purpose to be dissimilar. And so anything you do to break down the dissimilarity, and anything you do to create similarity between the two bodies, is designed to undermine the very purpose that the system was established and was designed to guard against.

Well, they talk about how you can transform and corrupt our country. But in accomplishing that:

It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny. Without corrupting the state legislatures it cannot prosecute the attempt, because the periodic change of members would otherwise regenerate the whole body. Without exerting the means of corruption with equal success in the House of Representatives, the opposition of that co-equal branch of the federal government would defeat the attempt. Without corrupting the people themselves, a succession of a few representatives could easily restore all things to the pristine order. Is there any man that can seriously persuade himself that the proposed Senate can by any possible means within the compass of human address arrive at the object of the lawless ambition through all these obstructions?

Yes, if you remove one of them. If you get rid of the legislative control, because then you aggregate power at the federal level, and then the legislatures of the various states become servants, not sovereigns. They become servants to a homogenized single federal unity.

The federal Senate will never be able to transform itself by gradual usurpations into an independent and aristocratic body.

The Idaho reaction to that would be…My ass!

You know, the United States Constitution was amended. In the 17th amendment of the Constitution it provides:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state elected by the people thereof for six years.

If you want to do one thing to change the course of United States, repeal the 17th amendment. Overnight the issue of whether or not the states have legislative authority and independent sovereignty would be reestablished with that one change. And it’s never going to happen. Because the monied interests at this point are so far entrenched in this system, and the political parties are so behind this manner of taxing, and the gathering, and the paying, that Washington is simply off the leash. And the leash came through [the] United States Senate. And the 17th amendment cut the leash, and therefore what we have are the exact problems that we face today.

Well, never question the wisdom of the folks that the Lord raised up. These holy men that the Lord raised up in order to establish a system. And just realize anytime you tinker with the system – any system – that God put in place, you’re going to yield… well, I was going to say “unexpected consequences.” But really you are going to apostatize from the purpose, and you deprive yourself of the intended blessing God hoped to bless you with. That’s the first point.

There’s one other point I want to talk about. When the United States of America was established, the United States had about 200 years of slavery that had been built into the core of the country when the United States was a colony, and it had no right as a colony to resist the importation of a slave class. And so when United States of America gained independence from England, slavery was an existing economic fact that had been built into the society itself. It’s interesting to read some of the debates that took place during the drafting of the Constitution. Because one of the theories was that it was impossible to produce the required educated and idle class – and by “idle class” that means someone who doesn’t have to go labor in the field with the strength of the body in order to provide the means to feed and clothe and house themselves. You cannot produce the required idle class unless you had slavery because there was no historical precedent for it. And they debated that. And the problem was that history suggested that that argument was an argument that could be made, and could be considered. So when independence was achieved, independence was achieved against the existing reality of slavery.

Now Washington, who was the only man considered to be President of the United States – in fact the office of the President was written and designed for one occupant, and that was George Washington – he was the indispensable man in creating this country. Washington was the one who presided over the Constitutional Convention and contributed almost nothing to the debates, other than his presence. And when they reached an impasse the only way they solved the impasse was when Washington let it be known which side he favored. When they took the Constitution out to sell it to the public, the salesmanship that was done was that George Washington presided over this. Everyone trusted that man. Therefore they adopted an office for that man and he filled it for two terms. And then he resigned and walked away. Something that everyone would respect by mirroring his example until it was necessary after FDR to amend the Constitution because he didn’t follow that example. Washington, when he died, freed the slaves. He didn’t do it while he was alive but he did it when he died. If everyone followed the example of Washington at the time there would have been no more slavery.

Here’s the problem, however. Since the institution had been imposed upon the United States as a colony, and since it represented wealth – it represented capital – however offensive to you it may be today, the economic reality was that slaves were capital, and they represented investment. So the question becomes how do you extract yourself from the institution of slavery when you have an economic system in which people have invested capital in human slaves? How do you bring that to a conclusion? Because quite frankly, if all you do is terminate the practice, you would bankrupt the South.

It is probable that the cotton gin alone made the end of slavery inevitable, because it became a problem with the coming Industrial Revolution, and the leading edge was the cotton gin. The coming Industrial Revolution made it no longer necessary to have human bondage to order to accomplish things. It wasn’t just the ownership of African slaves in the South, it was indentured servitude in the North. Indentured servitude and was a way to selling yourself to someone else for a period of time. And servitude was an economic means for producing goods and services. Well how do you extract yourself?

Joseph Smith published, when he was running for the presidency of United States, “General Smith’s Views of the Powers and Policies of the Government of the United States” in Nauvoo in 1844, and this is an excerpt from his campaign:

Petition also the inhabitants of the slave states legislators to abolish slavery and save the abolitionists from approach and ruin and shame. Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands. And from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man and hire him to labor like other human beings. For an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole eternity of bondage.

Joseph Smith proposal in 1844 was (paraphrasing): “Here’s how we end slavery – we buy them. We pay the purchase price, we purchase their freedom.” Now think about that for a moment as a matter of economic reality. If you are a slave owner, and someone offers a fair price to you for your entire group of slaves, and you sell them and free them, you now have capital – the capital that you spent buying them. And now with your capital, you can hire them. And the people who were formerly merely a commodity now become wage earners. But what happens if, instead of doing as Joseph Smith proposed, you simply destroy the capital of the South by saying no more slavery? Instantly you bankrupt the South. Instantly you doom the freed slave, because now no one has the capital with which to employ them. Instantly you leave the South in a position where out of economic reality what you do – since all you own is land – is you start a sharecropping system, in which the risk of crop failure falls upon those who can least afford to bear the risk of crop failure – that is, the former slaves.

What Joseph Smith proposed would not have required Reconstruction. What Joseph Smith proposed would not have caused the Civil War. What Joseph Smith proposal would’ve accomplished was the end of slavery. And what Joseph Smith’s proposal would have accomplished with the end of slavery was the economic means by which the former slaves could rise up out of poverty, through labor, because that’s all anyone was doing at that time – and through their own labor accomplish, through their employment, the dignity of holding a job and earning an income. But what we accomplished instead was another revolution that has constitutional implications.

The deadliest enemy the United States has ever faced is another American, and the Civil War proves it. There is no more effective and warlike people upon earth than the Americans. And when the Americans faced another American, and blood was shed, we punished ourselves for slavery. And in the wake of the Civil War – the Civil War amendments… If you take a look at what happened with the Civil War amendments, once again it was a power shift. The way in which slavery was designed to end was gradually. And in a way that made economic sense. The way in which it did end, imposed another century of slavery upon the liberated slaves in the South as a matter of economic reality. It just was. All you had was land, so what do you do? You let them farm the land. And with sharecropping, you doom them the poverty.

Well, if you look at what happened in connection with the Civil War, in contrast to the wisdom of what Joseph Smith suggested as an exit strategy to terminate the practice of slavery, you realize that the choice that we made between the two of them not only resulted in another century of problems following the Civil War and the freedom of slaves and bankruptcy of the Southern the slave owners, it also resulted in oppression of the former slaves. They were freed into an economic environment in which it was impossible for them to make a living from what they had to offer, which was their labor.

The amendments were designed to curtail the rights of the states and to impose upon the individual states the same due process of law through the 14th amendment that we have in the federal government. You see, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion in the First Amendment. However that didn’t apply to the state legislature, which is why Thomas Jefferson as President of the United States refused to acknowledge Thanksgiving as a national holiday because it was religious. But when he became Governor of the state of Virginia, he not only celebrated Thanksgiving as a state holiday he also had a day of fasting – religious fasting – the day before. The United States could not have a state religion, but the states could and did. The 14th amendment ended that. What that really meant, at the beginning, was that independent sovereign and equal states could experiment. You could have the state of Utah with a state religion called “Mormonism” or “Latter-day Saintism”. And you could have, like they did with the citizens of Massachusetts, a tax that was imposed by the state, collected by the state, to be turned over to the church. You could do like the LDS church used to do with employees of ZCMI – that is they had a payroll deduction for tithing, and they deducted it directly and paid it to the Church. They could do that to all of you in the state of Utah if we still had what we had originally. And if you didn’t like that, then you could go to Idaho – because in Idaho they worship the potato [laughter]. I know because I grew up there. And if you found it detestable to worship a potato, you could go to Wyoming and worship a cowboy. But every state was intended to be an experiment in sovereignty and in freedom, and the aberrations that would appear – the strange concoctions that the states would create of themselves – is just fine, because the citizens of Vermont could say, “I am sick of this government” and they could pack up and they could move to Rhode Island. Or they could move to Virginia. Or they could go to Ohio. And sooner or later, some state – like Texas is doing now – could say, “come here! We’re not going to tax you out of existence. We’re going to issue you a side arm when you come into the state, and were going to let you shoot, out of your car, every road sign you see – and we will replace them because we have oil money and we can buy new road signs. Come to Texas!”

And so people from Massachusetts can look down their nose at the folks in Texas. And they could say, “They are ne’er-do-wells – they’re hicks.” And the people in Texas can say, “Thank God we’re in Texas and not in Massa-damn-chusetts” [laughter]. We should be so diverse, we should be so dissimilar, we should be so non-uniform, that growing up in the United States there should be, at this moment, 50 different experiments underway using the freedom the people have to choose, to design for themselves the way in which they would like to be governed. And those 50 different ways will ultimately – some fail, some succeed, some turn into Nirvana. And the states are going to look around and say, “Hey that’s good!” And they are going to form their own experiment in democracy by what they see working, and they are going to form their own experiment in democracy by seeing what’s failing, and by saying, “Well, that didn’t work! Look at that mess!”

Instead what you have is a national uniformity in which, when we make a mistake in economic policy, when we make a mistake in the way in which we try to regulate and tax and govern, when we make a mistake in taking those who are most productive and confiscate money from them in order to subsidize behavior that we would really like to see end – when we make a mistake, we make a mistake on a grandiose scale. We make a mistake that is so threatening that it is possible to defeat the sovereignty of 50 states and to defeat the sovereignty of Union itself, and that was never what the Constitution set out to accomplish. The Constitution set out to accomplish, as a by-product of a system, your freedom. Your rights. And the way in which they accomplished it has been tampered with.

Therefore, I don’t care if you’ve got scriptures as a Latter-day Saint that you can thump on and say, “The Constitution was divinely inspired!” So what! Because every time you tinker with it, every time you change it, if you are not informed by the same degree of inspiration as was evident in the original creation, uninspired men who do have a tendency to become tyrannical – uninspired men who DO want to exercise control and compulsion and dominion – can take any gift given by God to any of us, and they can pervert it into something in which savage uniformity oppresses the hearts and the souls of men, and renders it incapable of securing, for the benefit of you and your posterity, the freedom which we find in Christ – the Original Revolutionary.

Well, I’ve talked long enough. I was told by email, that I ought to allow some time for questions.

Question: Can you draw a comparison between the checks and balances of our political government and the original form of Church government that is mentioned in Section 107? What was it originally?

Answer: Joseph Smith never called, a single member of the Quorum of the 12 into the First Presidency of the Church. The Quorum of the 12 is a traveling High Council. Essentially they were missionaries. The First Presidency of the Church was a different operation. All the congregations were locally controlled, locally elected, locally governed. General Authorities came to moderate the election. It was a Congregationalist model. Common consent meant something. Instead of handing out appointments from higher-ups, the local people knew who the local people were and they chose who they wanted. The General Authority came to moderate the ballot. They would take nominations. They would usually get a slate, they would then vote, [and] whoever got the most votes, they would ask, “will you sustain him?” And if it wasn’t unanimous, they would go to number two, and they would ask, “will you sustain him?” No. They go to number three, “will you sustain him?” And if he got the votes, and this was the guy who people had confidence in, then he became the stake president, he became the Bishop, he became the whatever. Usually that guy would then ask for the other people who got votes to be counselors. And usually in an act of magnanimity everyone would say, “Well, he’s in charge – and if he wants them, I’m good with that.” It was a local model.

At the time that Joseph Smith was killed, he was presiding over the High Council in Nauvoo. The way that the Doctrine and Covenants reads, you can have the President of the Church be the President of the High Council. Now William Marks was President on a number of occasions, but it was Joseph Smith primarily who presided over the High Council in Nauvoo. Joseph Smith, presiding over the High Council [in] Nauvoo, regulated and held the Church Courts that went on in Nauvoo. When he held a Church court, he learned a lot of stuff about what was going on inside Nauvoo, because people brought in their issues. Joseph Smith gave a talk that can only be justified by what he was hearing by presiding over the High Council in Nauvoo. His intimates were the Stake High Council. His associates – the guys who knew him best during that time period – was the Stake High Council. If a guy or gal didn’t show up for their High Council court, the court wasn’t held. If someone said, “I need more time,” they were given more time. If someone’s showed up and said, “I’m sick,” the High Council wasn’t held. Almost any reason would do to get the High Council hearing continued.

Joseph Smith was killed. The Quorum of the 12 came back. If you look at D&C section 107, the First Presidency form a quorum equal in authority… If you get down through all the “equal in authorities”, you get to the High Council. And the High Council forms a quorum equal in authority to the First Presidency.

So that succession moment, the Quorum of the 12 pulled it off. They became the body triumphant. And then during the excommunication trials of Sidney Rigdon, over which Marks presided, was rather a Kangaroo Court. Brigham Young was the one leading the charge, making the accusations. But he realized he didn’t have jurisdiction to get rid of Sidney Rigdon. So it had to be the High Council who did that. And so in the Rigdon trial, in marked contrast to how the High Councils had been conducted with Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon said he didn’t feel well and he didn’t want the court held. And Brigham Young said, “We’re holding the court anyway.” The High Council went along with that. Brigham said that if Rigdon was well enough to attend a meeting earlier that day, he was well enough to attend his excommunication trial, and so we ought to proceed. And so they proceeded in the absence of Sidney Rigdon. And then after he succeeded in getting Sidney Rigdon excommunicated – because he was considered the number one rival – he said, (paraphrasing) “Well, you know, we might as well hold court and excommunicate a whole list of people who were sympathizers with Rigdon, because we are going to have to get rid of them sooner or later anyway.” So those guys didn’t even get notice that there was going to be a High Council court, and they got excommunicated too because they were guilty by association.

So things changed. And when the Quorum of the 12 became the presiding center of political authority… I mean you look at what he did: In order to move the High Priests out of the jurisdiction of the Stake High Council and the Stake President, who was William Marks, who was also considered a rival to Brigham Young, he called every High Priest on a mission. Because when you’re in the mission field you are under the jurisdiction of the 12. And so every High Priest in Nauvoo was assigned a mission somewhere in the United States. Now that didn’t mean you had to leave Nauvoo, fut they were called to that. What that did was to change the authority structure from the Stake President and the High Council into the Quorum of the 12 running things. And we’ve read articles celebrating the reorganization or the re-empowerment of the 70 by Brigham Young, which is also another political move made at the time.

The ripples from the succession crisis that occurred in 1844 is comparable in scope and magnitude to anything we’ve done with tinkering with the Constitution. And so today we don’t have a congregational model anymore. And we are savagely uniform. From Buenos Aires to Tokyo, you can feel comfortable [that] no matter where you go you are not [going] to miss the same Relief Society, Sunday School, Elders Quorum and High Priest lesson. And when we have our monthly “whatever that thing is” where we select some talk, everybody’s going to ruminate about what someone recently said. But, you know, what’s a little bit of uniformity among friends? But that wasn’t what I came here to talk about. You derailed me.

Question: Joseph Smith went to visit President Van Buren and was told, “Your cause is just but there is nothing I can do for you because I would lose the vote in Missouri.” Not only was he expressing his desire to remain President but he was also expressing the political reality at the time, because until the 14th Amendment the state could violate the civil rights of the people. So the 14th Amendment corrected what Joseph found was a fundamental flaw in the Federal Constitution.

Response: Yes. At the expense of a whole lot of other things.

Question: How would you have done it differently?

Response: You can have cheese, but you only get cheese. And you get a whole lot of cheese. And you don’t get broccoli to go with it. What we are trying to guard against is tyranny. And what we have is either separate sovereign experiments in which some things may go awry, and that’ll inform forever in the future whether or not the state of Missouri ever again gets one penny of patronage or one bit of help from an entire community – that has been alienated. An entire growing body of politically active and wealth producing and successful Latter-day Saints, by their failure to behave reasonably. Or we can just homogenize everything and now say, “The President can do anything.”

There was this incident that happened during the Korean War. President Truman sent the National Guard in to operate a steel mill during a strike by the steel workers. And the federal judge sent them home because he said the President has doesn’t have the authority to do that. Oh for the good old days.

Question: Why do you think many General Authorities think that President Lincoln was inspired? 

Response: I’m certain he was an inspired…there’s no question about that.

Question: But whom was he inspired by?

Response: Well… Therein lies the rub. Look, the problem is this: What in the end do you prize the most? Do you prize all of the risks, all of the responsibilities, all of the potential for failure, all of the individual accountability? I mean, I read you the scripture a moment ago: What was the purpose of the Constitution? It was make you free so that you could exercise moral agency, and you get the opportunity to succeed or fail. The purpose of the Constitution is to set you in a position in which it was possible for you to accomplish either one, so that you become accountable, not someone back in Washington, not someone to whom you have surrendered your choice, not someone else to run your life, not someone else to tell you comings and the goings, the when’s and the where’s and the why’s. The Constitution was designed for you to become morally accountable, because you are the agent that gets to choose.

And what the original structure did. You can say it was errant, it was excessive, it was just too much freedom there, it was licentious. I mean, for goodness’ sake, look at what happened: Slavery was doomed, period. Slavery was doomed. If the Federal government didn’t do anything about it, it would’ve come to an end, and the way in which it would have come to an end would probably not have involved the loss of so many lives and so much treasure. Nor would it have propelled the country into the circumstance in which for the next century the former slaves paid a very dear price for the way in which they exited from the institution of slavery.

You know, Lincoln was a Republican, and the Republicans wanted to end the twin relics of barbarism. I mean, when he got done with the Civil War, he probably would’ve sent Johnson’s army out here a lot earlier. Look, every one is a mixed blessing. Every leadership dilemma is an opportunity for wisdom and prudence, or excess and failure. When you consider the leaders that we have in this country, there’s no question that George Washington fashioned a way of wielding power that was selfless and not self- centered. He was interested in being a servant to the people. When Jefferson became President – this is the guy who invented the embargo – he was looking for a peaceful way to obtain agreement using peacefully coercive means. The way in which the founding fathers proceeded was an extraordinary balance of prudence and wisdom, caution and daring. They proceeded through a landmine field without blowing themselves up.

Ask yourself this question: Let’s assume we have Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe… Let’s assume we have all those guys at the time of the Civil War, and we say, “Slavery’s got to end and it’s got to end now.” Do you really think the route that those men would’ve taken would be the same one that Lincoln chose?

Look, Joseph Smith had a way out. It was part of his platform when he ran for the Presidency. I mean, if Joseph was inspired as a prophet, and he chose a means diametrically opposed to the one Lincoln chose, then…?

One way was to fix things by a peaceful method – preserving life, preserving property, and creating freedom. And the other one manages to accomplish it by brute force, by the deaths of three-quarters of living Americans, and by the impoverishment of those whose capital was lost because they had to pay just compensation if they wanted to take your property. And at the time, whether you like it or not, slaves were the definition was property. So yes, I agree Lincoln was inspired.

Question: I think that the Constitution has all but been destroyed. My question to you is: In the short term of 1 to 3 years, how do you see this playing out? And in a longer view, how do you see things playing out with most of the population apparently asleep?

Response: We have a really fortunate confluence of scandal right now back in Washington. We are blessed and we are protected, not by the wisdom of our leaders, but by the foolishness and vanity of our leaders. And we have now, potentially – because of the seriousness of the groups that have been offended – we potentially have a three-year lame-duck president, which would be highly useful, because the aggregation of executive power is something that…

Look, Nixon’s the poster boy for the left to say, “Look at that – look at that excess!”, when in fact Nixon doesn’t even hold a candle to the administration we have now. I’m hoping that this confluence of scandal will hamstring them, because even still – what we have is a balance between the egos of various political offices back there, and that was one of the purposes of the Constitution. It was to establish a way in which you could take politically ambitious people and put them back there and let them fight with one another and leave us alone. So what I’m hoping is that we have enough scandal going, and enough egos, that they will brutalize one another and leave us alone. It’s like Mark Twain said, “No one is safe in their life and property while the legislature is in session” [laughter]. They may be in session…and hopefully what they are fighting over is one another so they will leave us alone.

Question: When the Supreme Court Judge Roberts made the decision on the “un”affordable healthcare, somebody said it was a wise decision because it allows the states to stand up against it. But they are not doing that. What is your opinion?

Response: Here are the horns of the dilemma I have. I am a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court and I’m not supposed to say anything that would reflect dishonor or discredit on a member of the United States Supreme Court. So I will say nothing about Justice Roberts, the Honorable Chief Justice Roberts. But I can say something about the opinion. It makes no sense at all to me. Quite frankly I believe it was motivated by the notion that if you turned it into a tax you could write the majority opinion and the tax would be so offensive that the upcoming election would be swung against Obama and the act would be repealed. I think the opinion was an attempt to engage from the bench in determining the fortunes of the next election. And it didn’t work. You can’t go to the legislative history of the enactment of Obama-care and find anyone – you can’t find anyone – that advocated it as a tax. That wasn’t the purpose. In fact, it’s a damnable lie to stand up in oral argument, as the solicitor general of the United States did, and advocate that it is an act that can be upheld because of the taxing power of the country, if the country never sought to invoke the taxing powers as the basis upon which to adopt the act. And I think Robert’s opinion is a lesson in the disadvantages of trying to be, from the bench, a politician. It’s a bad opinion in my opinion.

I understand this might go up on the web and one of the things I like to do when things are going out there is to say things like “jihad” and we are going to “avenge Waco”. “Muslim Brotherhood” and “Homeland Security…go screw yourself”.

I have a client who is in Europe right now and we talk on occasion. And whenever I’m talking to him I’ll say, “Okay I have to say something now because this is international, so I can help out our folks at Homeland Security, and I go through the list of taboo words.

Question: Do you know of anything that was compiled on Joseph Smith and his platform to end slavery?

Response: Actually if you Google “Joseph Smith Presidential platform” you’ll pickup a copy of the platform and an article in Mormon Dialogue magazine that deals with it. And it’s not a bad article. Just Google that and you’ll find the Mormon Dialogue article.

Question: You didn’t answer the second part of the question, of “where do you think we are going after three years or so?” [laughter] I’m still waiting for that part.

Response: Well you know, “Ohmmmmm” [Denver starts to hum as if in meditation] [laughter]. When the Lord says, “My peace I give unto you”, He coupled that with, “Not as the world gives, give I unto you.” In this world you get to enjoy all of the benefits of a Telestial atmosphere. Perhaps right now, for one of the first times in history, we have a politicized economy. We have a politicized stock market. All I can say is, there was a Taylor Swift concert my daughter went to – that song about trouble, trouble, trouble… Sometimes it’s like that song by Simon and Garfunkel said, “the words of the prophets are written on the subway wall”, and sometimes they are written by country-western singers. So, we are in trouble. That’s obvious, don’t you think?

Question: So we are morally bankrupt and we are about to be bucked off our horse…?

Response. Well there’s always the possibility that we repent. But the agenda suggested by the Book of Mormon is, that’s unlikely.

Question: Your talk is entitled “Constitutional Apostasy.” So, my question is: What’s the consequence of our Constitutional Apostasy?

Response: You lose the blessings. What the Lord intended to confer upon you – what you might have had – you lose. This isn’t the responsibility of God. He’s not doing this to you. He gave you, as a gift, an opportunity. What you do with the opportunity is up to you. And when you walk away from, and you decide that you would not preserve, for any reason, what it was that God had intended to bless you with, you can’t obtain the blessing without conforming to the law upon which the blessing is predicated, and that was established before the foundation of the world. And if you decide that you will not conform to the condition upon which the blessing was predicated, then you get to enjoy the absence of the blessing. And you get to mill around in darkness, because blessings confer light. That’s why they call it “enlightenment.” That’s why the founding fathers were enlightened, because they were gathering, to themselves, light. And when you throw that away, then you get less of that – and darkness. But you’d be surprised how long we can run into the darkness with just our flashlights. Until it ends.

Question: It was said that the Elders of Israel would save the Constitution. How do you see that happening?

Response: Ezra Taft Benson is making that statement in reliance upon Joseph Smith’s comment upon the Elders of Israel. If the Constitution is to be saved, it will be the Elders of Israel who did it. And the comment about the Constitution lasting on into the millennium – My view is that if the Elders of Israel have a role in preserving the Constitution, that role is not by legislating. That role is by converting people to the truth, because the Constitution is to designed to govern a moral people. It is entirely unfit to govern any other kind of people. Therefore if you want to fix what’s wrong at the Constitutional level, you need to go out and preach the Gospel and convert people and change their hearts. Because right now the hearts of this nation – the hearts of this people – are harder, are more strident, and are more resistant. I mean look: What’s the tool? Gentleness, meekness and persuasion – that’s the tool. That’s what you get to use. Why do you think the Savior took a beating and forgave them? I mean, he shows you how to use the tool. He revolutionized the world ultimately, simply because he was unwilling to return, to brutality, anything other than kindness and forgiveness that would break the hearts of anyone who hears the story of who this man was. The Elders of Israel need to convert the people.

Voice: Glenn Beck’s an Elder.

Response: Yes…just change the hearts of the people.

Question: We have a pretty big movement across the nation right now…the nullification movement. Could you tell us what they thought about nullification?

Response: The pragmatics of it are, you need enough people with the right sentiment. Right now you have a legitimate effort to split Colorado into two states because of political differences and rights issues. There’s talk about the same thing in parts of California. Texas was a sovereign nation before it joined the United States and it has the right to split into separate states. And if it were to do so, it would probably do so to increase the number of Senators. Look, I don’t think there is going to be anything dramatic or succeed politically until you get enough people who are no longer interested in the Kardashians and who become interested in the erosion of their freedom. And that’s a tall challenge.

I’ve gone longer than I ever thought I would. We need to wrap it up.

Question: You mentioned Joseph Smith’s quote about how an hour of freedom is worth a whole eternity of bondage. I was wondering what your comments are about that.

Response. We have this really unique opportunity in mortality. This is the only place where you could come, where you can bleed, and you can die, and you can sacrifice for a cause. Cowardice is unbecoming anyone who is trying to lay hold on the riches of heaven. Because down here, in this dark world, you have an opportunity to prove who you are. You have an opportunity to prove what you are. And you don’t prove that you are anything worth preserving into eternity if you don’t live with nobility. And I don’t care who it is that is pressuring you or what means they think they can employ. That statement, “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country” is not the language of a slave. It’s not even the language of a captive. There is a man who is free indeed, even though he’s about to be killed. You know, we lack the fortitude – we lack the self-confidence – to hold on to our freedom. You surrender to fashion. You surrender to peer pressure. You surrender to those people who you think are respected members of society. You surrender, but you don’t have to. Freedom is still possible in this day and age. Thank you.

The post Constitutional Apostasy appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This lecture by Denver Snuffer entitled “The Temple” was originally recorded in Ogden, Utah, on October 28, 2012, in front of a live audience.

Transcript

Unlike Latter Day Saints, in the Christian world at large, the subject of the temple is simply a matter of theoretical and historical discussion. Margaret Barker has elevated that discussion to a new level and she has done so, as something more than merely an honest scholar, because her views are not merely controversial. Her views are opposed by many Christian academics. The reason why she is so compelling to Latter Day Saints, is because she reconstructs the first temple period, which is the period during which Lehi’s family departed from Israel. They departed at the very end of the first temple period. She reconstructs the first temple period in a way that has a look and feel very much like what you find in the Book of Mormon and she did this without any knowledge of Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, or our faith. It takes integrity and it takes courage for her to put together what she has put together. Among Latter Day Saints, when WE have scholars who speak about the temple, we can be vulnerable to pride and to self-satisfaction and to try and collect recognition and acclaim for our scholarship. Pride is invidious. It creeps in everywhere, inadvertently; and sometimes the Latter Day Saint scholar suffers from the ill effects of pride. But Margaret Barker, to the contrary, required a great deal of meekness and honesty and humility to do what she has done. That’s not to say that I am condemning anyone or judging anyone who is going to speak tomorrow, in fact I have reviewed some of what is going to be said tomorrow and there are some great things; well worth your time to go and hear.

We have a tendency, all of us, to take concepts or pictures or ideas and to put them in our heads and then to rely upon those pictures as we go forward learning new things. The object being to fit what we learned that is new into the framework of what we already know or we’re already familiar with. That can be handicapping. In 2 Nephi 28, Nephi cautioned us about permitting, what he called, the traditions of men to override, what he calls, whisperings of the spirit. And he suggests that you run into mistakes, you run into errors, some of them terrible errors, when you permit those traditions, or those pictures you already have inside your head, to be the framework from which you reconstruct new information that you learn. It is hard to do so, but when it comes to the gospel of Jesus Christ, you would be best advised to start with a blank slate and to allow it to inform you as if you are hearing it for the first time because those words in scripture don’t necessarily mean what the picture in your head suggests that they mean.

Let me pull an example. If you’ve got your scriptures, you’re welcome to pull them out, and turn the pages and make all the noise you want finding the Joseph Smith History. You are NOT in a Sacrament meeting and therefore your scriptures are welcome to be used. In the Joseph Smith history, it’s the 8th verse. It’s about halfway through that 8th verse. “In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them” Once again, this is high praise for Margaret Barker, a Methodist scholar. But laying that aside; during the time of this period, there was a, particularly in the revivalist part of Methodism, there was a group called The Shouting Methodists; and The Shouting Methodists had a tradition. That tradition was to go into the woods alone to pray, and when they prayed alone in the woods, they were looking for some experience that would bind them up and when they got bound up, they knew that they had had an experience with God and The Holy Ghost and they came back converted. The miracle of The First Vision of Joseph Smith does not consist in the fact that he went in the woods alone to pray, nor does it consist in the fact that when he’s alone and praying that he got bound up by some darkness which entirely overcame him. The miracle of Joseph Smith is that when that happened, he rejected it as the source of conversion. He did not allow his fears to control him. He did not allow the tradition to control him but calling upon God, he then pressed through to receive what lays on the other side of the fears and of the darkness and of the things that put you off the trail to God. And he tells us about the vision of the Father and the Son telling him that he was to join none of them. He goes on for some space of years, and during that space of years, he talks about how he frequently fell into many foolish errors displayed by the weakness of youth and the foibles of human nature and then he talks about he was guilty of levity and sometimes associating with jovial company. One of the pictures you have in your head about me, if you’ve read what I’ve written and you’ve read my blog, is that you may entirely misapprehend, One, how difficult it is for me to get up here and do THIS. Two, how incredibly irreverent I am by my native nature. I am not a stoic religious person. I undertake to do what the Lord asks, what I think pleases Him; at the cost of personal convenience. I don’t like being up here and it’s being recorded by my voice and not by a camera because I don’t want people recognizing me. I don’t want to be a celebrity. I want my privacy. And when it comes to a native cheery temperament, I have, I suppose, a wicked sense of humor.

Well, he called upon and he had confidence because he had previously received an answer, in verse 29, he had confidence that he would have an answer and a divine manifestation as he had previously had one. Then, he gives the account, in some detail, of the appearance of the angel Moroni, how it occupied the night and he passes through the events of his life until we get to the time in which, during the translation of The Book of Mormon, beginning in verse 68, they come upon the ordinance of baptism. They went into the woods, they prayed in May of 1829, and John the Baptist appears and confers authority upon them, and immediately after conferring the authority upon Joseph Smith, the angel says to him:

70. He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter.

And then we get to verse 73, which is a description of what happened after being baptized:

73. Immediately on our coming up out of the water after we had been baptized, we experienced great and glorious blessings from our Heavenly Father. No sooner had I baptized Oliver Cowdery, then the Holy Ghost fell upon him, and he stood up and prophesied many things which should shortly come to pass. And again, so soon as I had been baptized by him, I also had the spirit of prophecy, when, standing up, I prophesied concerning the rise of this Church, and many other things connected with the Church, and this generation of the children of men. We were filled with the Holy Ghost, and rejoiced in the God of our salvation.

74 Our minds being now enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never could attain to previously, nor ever before had thought of.

Now, here are the questions: He saw God the Father and he saw Jesus Christ in a vision. And if you read all of the accounts, you find out that it was a vision that included a view into heaven for he saw the heavenly hosts because The Father does not appear without a heavenly host. The Son can appear alone, but The Father never does. If you see The Father, you are going to see a Host.

And thereafter he is visited by the angel Moroni and he is tutored; not merely through the one night but in successive annual nights for four years; AND YET the first time his testimony mentions the Holy Ghost is after baptism, and after baptism, using authority which the angel told him HAD NOT the right to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. That would happen at some subsequent occasion. Why then, without the laying on of hands by one having authority, did Joseph Smith receive the Holy Ghost? Not merely as a visitation, mind you; read the words. It lingered, it persisted. Because after they were baptized, “we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us.”

That required scripture study over the ensuing weeks, months, years. There we encounter a word: Mysterious passages. You know that

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20–21)

The scriptures were given by the power of the Holy Ghost, and now Joseph Smith is explaining that he could unravel their mysteries by the power of the Holy Ghost and things that did not make sense before, began to make sense. If you’ve read The Second Comforter, in the chapter “Becoming as A Little Child”, there is an excerpt taken from a book, Godel, Escher, Bach, a brilliant mathematical book about Bongard problems. Bongard problems are designed to test a certain kind of reasoning using symbols in order to test the person evaluating them. And invariably, Bongard problems are solved by children and they confuse adults; because the children’s minds have not become cluttered by the kind of mathematical complexity that we have bouncing around in our heads. As a consequence of such, they look at it simply. They see things simply and they can solve the Bongard problems in a way in which adults fail to grasp. The gospel is adapted to the simple mind. The statements that are contained in scripture are giving in simplicity and in plainness. So, when we encounter Joseph Smith, speaking to us now about having the mysteries of the gospel laid open to his mind as a consequence of having the Holy Ghost, I am reminded of a statement that he made that you find in The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith about the Holy Ghost on pages 149 and 150, which I am going to read an excerpt from:

“There are two comforters spoken of, one is the Holy Ghost, the same is given on the Day of Pentecost and that all saints receive after faith, repentance, and baptism.”

And by the way, Joseph Smith is saying this at a time when the authority for the laying on of hands had been restored, but his list is: faith and repentance and baptism, and that produces the same effect as on the Day of Pentecost. If you listen to the words of the ordinance that is performed in the church, the words of the ordinance are an admonition to you to receive the Holy Ghost. It’s telling you to do something.

“This first comforter, or Holy Ghost, has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful and expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge.” 

Did you get that list of things? The effect of the Holy Ghost is pure intelligence. I can watch Lawrence of Arabia, and when they’ve successfully knocked the train off the track, and the group he is leading has charged and overcome the enemy, and Lawrence is walking on the tops of the trains with the flowing robes, I can get goose bumps. It is moving; it is stirring. That’s not the Holy Ghost. I can have that same effect with Les Miserables. I can have that same effect with some of the scenes with Joseph’s Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. Moving and stirring things can delight your senses. That’s not the Holy Ghost. It has no other effect than pure intelligence; expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, storing the intellect with present knowledge. I’m not here to entertain you. I am trying to inform you of doctrine that will save you. I don’t care if any of you are stirred, or like one of our MSNBC folks, had a tremor run up his leg at the president’s speaking. I don’t care about that. I care about your salvation. I care about your souls and I care about you understanding the things that will save you. Joseph Smith gave the list: pure intelligence, expanding the mind, enlightening the mind, storing the intellect with present knowledge.

In the translation of the Book of Moses, which was Joseph correcting the Book of Genesis, he gives a list there of the Holy Ghost as well. Moses 6:61: 

…the comforter, the peaceable things of immortal glory, the truth of all things, that which that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.

This is the Holy Ghost. Joseph Smith returned from the first vision and didn’t talk about the Holy Ghost because that incident, quite frankly, was not understood by Joseph Smith at the time it occurred. When he explained to his mother, “Never mind, I’m well enough off. I’ve learned for myself that Presbyterianism isn’t true.” And I think that is a candid description of what Joseph got out of it that day at that time. He had been converted and he knew now not to join the Presbyterians. What Joseph Smith learned from the angel Moroni, also did not confer upon him the Holy Ghost. Faith, repentance, baptism, and then he notes the Holy Ghost. And what are the effects that he reports, immediately? #1. Prophecy; one of the hallmark signs. Paul lists it in Corinthians. Mormon and Moroni list it in Moroni’s book. The list of what the gifts are, you can find it in D&C section 46.

11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God. 12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby. 

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. 

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful. 

15 And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men. 

16 And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the Spirit may be given to every man to profit withal. 

17 And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom. 

18 To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge. 

19 And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed; 

20 And to others it is given to have faith to heal. 

21 And again, to some is given the working of miracles; 

22 And to others it is given to prophesy; 

23 And to others the discerning of spirits. 

24 And again, it is given to some to speak with tongues; 

25 And to another is given the interpretation of tongues. 

26 And all these gifts come from God, for the benefit of the children of God. (D&C 46:11–28)

The list of the gifts; prophecy is always included as one of the hallmark signs of what it is that the Holy Ghost does. And then secondly, allowing Joseph to understand the real intent of what is in the scriptures. How much of a blank slate was Joseph at the time that the Holy Ghost allowed him the pure spirit of intelligence.

I would suggest that if Joseph Smith can pass through the first vision and can pass through the incident of the visits of the angel Moroni and if he can even translate The Book of Mormon, which was then underway at the time this occurred, by the gift and power of God, but not attribute anything to the Holy Ghost until after he is baptized, that it is equally possible for you, good people, to go through everything you have gone through in your life, and yet not have experienced the thing that Joseph is talking about, which comes as a consequence of FAITH, REPENTANCE, and BAPTISM.

The subject of [this talk is] the temple, which is the only thing I’m talking about tonight. Everything I have said so far bears only upon the temple, and that’s the purpose of getting here; is to discuss about what the temple’s purpose is, what it means, and what it is trying to convey to us. Is the temple an end or the temple a means? If the temple is an end, then everyone who goes through the temple obtains everything the temple has to offer by virtue of going in and participating in the ceremony. Even more so, those who have conspired to break their temple covenants and gone in and recorded the temple ceremonies, and then transcribed those ceremonies and put them on the internet, have made it possible for everyone who goes to the trouble of finding and reading the temple ceremony that is now available on the internet. If the temple ceremony is an end, then all of those people are the beneficiaries of it as well. But if the temple ceremony is instead a means, a means of trying to take you somewhere, then it doesn’t matter who sees the ordinance, you can’t steal the ends. You can’t come in by some unauthorized way and attain the end, because that is a matter that exists between you and God. If it is a means, then what is it a means to? Because one possible meaning that you should come away with, is that it is a means to inform you that there is a veil and not a wall to permit you to talk through and to touch through and to feel your way through to the symbolic presence of God and then, that veil is not a wall, but something that can be, with merely the brush of the hand of our Lord, drawn aside so that you may enter into his presence. And the way you get there is by being prepared in all things, having been true and faithful in all things, coming to learn something from Him; not coming to tell Him something, not coming to impose upon Him, but coming to learn from Him. Our Savior was, and is, first and foremost, a teacher. By HIS knowledge, Isaiah and Nephi wrote, he shall justify many. By His Knowledge. He possesses things, which we do not yet comprehend. He possesses things which He would like us to comprehend. How then are we to comprehend the things which only He can teach? By permitting Him to do so; by coming to Him.

In the ceremony, there is an account given of the man Adam, and I have a question for you… WHO, in the ceremony, is Adam? Is this a history lesson about the first man who lived on the Earth or is this, instead, a symbolic rendering of the lives of every man, or is it instead YOUR life. Are you being told that in the beginning, you came here in an innocent, even a paradisiacal state. And in that state, everything was possible to the innocent mind. I mean, we impose, as adults, upon the credulity of our children by teaching them about the Easter bunny, and then to pull off the fraud, we have to go the trouble every Easter of acting the role of the Easter bunny, always out of sight; and we impose upon them Santa Clause, and they believe in these things. That faith and that trust that those children have, comes as a consequence of where every one of you began; in a state of innocence, in a state of purity, in a state in which it is possible for that mind to comprehend and to accept the things of God. But there comes a point when you become accountable. There comes a point when you grow out of that and you are expelled from that innocence and then in order to return there, you have to make certain sacrifices and you have to be willing to obey, and you have to be willing to pursue the gospel. Because there is a difference between the age of 8 when you begin to become accountable and puberty; at length, the range of temptation that will confront you will require you then to engage and obey the law of chastity. And then as you grow into adulthood, when you realize that this world really has very little to offer, you learn that the way to happiness does not consist in popularity or wealth or acclaim, it lies exclusively in consecrating yourself to the things of God. And when you have developed through that course and you have come to the recognition that consecrating yourself is the only thing of value.

In the ceremony, it only takes some 2 hours before you are called true and faithful in all things. Well, if that’s an end and not a means, then in 2-1/2 hours in sitting and occasionally standing and agreeing to some things, you have become true and faithful in all things. I would suggest that the temple rite is an end, makes that notion preposterous because you are the same person walking out of the temple as you were walking into it 2 hours earlier. You are no more faithful in the temptations that you face on the street, you are no more lovely in the way that you deal with your family, you are no more honest in your business dealings with your fellow man then you were 2 hours earlier when you walked in, but the ceremony is saying you have been true and faithful in all things. I would suggest that’s a means and it’s an admonition. And it’s an invitation, even begging you to recognize that the challenge you face in your life requires you, invariably, to lay aside those things that pull you away and that you always turn and face the Lord. THAT’S WHAT REPENTANCE MEANS. It means to turn and face the Lord. And you know when you face him the first time, you’re just not going to be that good or that different than you were the moment before, but if you’ll face him, he’ll work with you. It does not matter how badly damaged you are. That’s irrelevant. He fixed the apostle Paul. If you don’t think the apostle Paul suffered from pride, than you don’t understand the malignancy of pride. He fixed Alma the younger and the sons of Mosiah, whose deliberate purpose was to overthrow the things of God. I don’t care what you’ve done, the malignancies of those men are highlighted in scripture in order to assure that you can all be reclaimed.

Turn and face Him and then walk with Him. He does all the guiding and most of the heavy lifting. When it comes to the idea of being True and Faithful…. By the way, I don’t care if you buy a quad, your scriptures are not complete until you get the Lectures on Faith. They were voted in and sustained as scripture and then they were removed without a vote. In the Lectures on Faith, 7th lecture, 16th verse, talking about the Savior:

“These teachings of the Savior most clearly show unto us the nature of salvation; and what he proposed unto the human family when he proposed to save them — That he proposed to make them like unto himself; and he was like the Father, the great prototype of all saved beings: And for any portion of the human family to be assimilation into their likeness is to be saved; and to be unlike them is to be destroyed: and on this hinge turns the door of salvation.”

Jesus Christ IS the prototype of all saved beings. SO WHAT was our Savior if he’s the prototype? He was a blasphemer. He was a sinner. He worked on the Sabbath and he encouraged his disciples to do so. He associated with the tax collectors and with the publicans and sinners and the harlots, and he let harlots toooouuuuch him. This is the prototype of the saved man. This is the One who was rejected by His people. This is the One who was called unclean. This is the One who was rejected, persecuted, and ultimately killed by those who held religious rank and authority in His day. This is the prototype of the saved man. This is the example of Joseph Smith. This is Isaiah and Jeremiah. WAS Christ true and faithful in all things? If so, to what, to whom was He true and faithful? Was it the law? I mean, he never spoke ill against the law. The Sermon on the mount is simply taking the law and showing what it really meant. He took it to another level. If he took it to the level in which he took it, Caiaphas would not have been sitting there in the robes of the priesthood, which by that time, had been elevated to the status of wealth itself. If you had merely the attire that Caiaphas had on during the trial of Christ, just his attire, you would have been a wealthy man.

The Lectures on Faith 6:7

“A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things.” 

It’s through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. And then we get to this verse 8: 

“It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to obtain eternal life, unless they, in like manner, offer unto him the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted of him.”

What did the Prototype of the saved man offer in sacrifice? I mean, we jump to the end of the story and we point to Gethsemane and we point to the cross and we say, there it is, His life. But He was a living sacrifice for many more years than the week that was spent coming in, confronting them in the temple, celebrating and implementing the sacrament, going into Gethsemane and suffering, being tried and crucified, being laid in a grave, and 3 days and 3 nights later arising from the grave. He spent some 30+ years prior to that as the prototype of the saved man.

In the ceremony, you come asking for further light and knowledge from the Lord, and when you enter into the Lord’s presence in the ceremony, it hints at something which the scriptures themselves make plain. In John 14:18 The Savior said, I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you. John 14:23 “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and WE will come unto him and make our abode with him.” Well, that promise in the 23rd verse suggests something beyond the Lord simply coming and visiting someone. The notion that the Father and The Son will take up their abode… I mean, we have that hymn, and that hymn creates a picture; Abide with me Tis Eventide, so abiding means you come and you spend the evening and there we have taken care of the abode. But the suggestion here is that there is a greater kind of familiarity that attaches to the relationship that is more enduring.

In Revelation 3:20-21 there is a promise that John records, Behold, I stand at the door and knock… In this description, it’s almost a flip. It’s not you knocking to get in, it’s the Lord knocking to come to you. It’s the Lord who is the eager One. The One who would like to have this relationship take up. He is the One knocking. He is the One trying to get into your life. And so, in this account the Lord is speaking: “I stand at the door and knock. If any man hear my voice…” See, His sheep hear his voice. Do you hear His voice? “If any man hear my voice and open the door…” because you’re the one who shut it. You’re the one who is saying, “uh, no thanks, I’ll pass. I mean, I’ve got a skeptical mind now. I’ve been to college and have received training to practice law. I’m an engineer and I understand formulas and equations. I’m a mathematician and I know some things add up and some things don’t, and I also know that I’ve been leading a reasonably decent life and I have never had Jesus in MY car.”

Our minds are skeptical. WE have to open the door, because almost invariably the door that we configure to keep him out from our construct is something that has come about as a consequence of what has happened in your life. From the time you left that state of innocence as a child in the Garden until today. Every painful experience you have been through, every humiliation you’ve suffered, everything that has gone on in your life that has led to where you now construct a door…. Some of oak, some of iron. Whatever it is that has happened to you, you use THAT to keep Him out. “Well if he really cared, he would….”

You know, the notion that He doesn’t care is the greatest lie of all. If you knew what he suffered, you would NEVER say, “If He cared….” But if you will open the door, He says I will come into him and will sup with him, and he with me.

The reason why in 10 Parables I drew upon the tree and the fruit and the neighbors who were fighting with one another, sharing the food as one of the traditions in that community of sharing in one another’s lives, is drawn from this very example the Savior used; because to share a meal with Him is to become one with Him. Exodus 24:9 – This is a group going up onto the mount where they meet with the Lord.

9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: 

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

So on the mount, in Exodus, chapter 24, you have the Lord supping with them. And in the account of Genesis of the visit with Abraham, there’s a sacral meal. In D&C 27:5 where the Lord talks about when He returns: This is not without its controversy. You probably don’t know the full history of this. D&C 27:5:

Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness [of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;]

He gives a list of all of those that he’s going to have this meal with and verse 5, he’s going to sit down and he’s going to drink of the fruit of the vine and He’s going to have fellowship with. And here we have in Revelation 3:20, the notion that He wants to come in and He wants to sup with you. Well, you think about how long it takes and what goes on at a meal? I mean if you’re not confining that meal to the ceremony that we have in the sacrament, but you say this is actually sitting down to sup with someone, that is a setting in which it is convivial. In which there’s an exchange of friendship and discussion and ideas and you have prophets in The Book of Mormon talking about how approachable the Lord is and about how He visits and speaks in plain humility as one man speaks to another.

We have this absolutely schizophrenic set of pictures in our head about the Lord. On the one hand, He is this limp-wristed, happy-go-lucky, permissive chap who sashays about blessing everyone with fairy dust. And on the other hand, we have this stern, unapproachable, distant, galactic ruler who just can’t be troubled by any of us and He says, This is His work and His glory, to save you. Not merely to save and preserve you, but to bring about your eternal life and your exaltation. THAT’S WHAT HE’S ABOUT. Get rid of the junk in your heads and let the scriptures speak to you. As Joseph said, Look, everything in them can be a mystery if what you have done is barred the information from getting through to you by the door that you have erected from the traditions that you have been handed. Many of you have been handed traditions from very good and very well meaning and very honorable Latter Day Saint parents who ought to be commended and praised for the effort that they made with you.

However, I don’t care if your parents were nigh unto God or the devil himself, the fact of the matter remains that we all have the freedom to choose to leave behind whatever it is that becomes the door against which the Savior has to knock, hoping that you’ll hear his voice. We have to become as a little child, because it is only the little children who are willing to open themselves up and become vulnerable enough to believe and then hopeful enough to act on that belief so that they develop faith and then persistent enough to ask again, and again, and again… are we there yet, are we there yet?

In the parable that Joseph was given in the D&C about the unjust judge and the aggrieved woman, it was a CONSTANT petitioning. Little children not only don’t know a lot of things, they know that they don’t know and they ask persistently, incessantly, because they desire to know what they don’t know. They’re like sponges and we’re like rocks. You can throw a rock into the water and pull it out again and it’s still a rock. But you throw a sponge in and you pull it out and it is GREATLY increased. Children are like the sponge, they’re porous, and we are not.

D&C 93:1 “Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and 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”

Moses 6:57 “Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.”

So, in order to come into the presence of the Lord, we have to be clean. Well, in the ceremony of the temple, the way in which you become ceremonially clean is by borrowing things from the Lord through the ceremony. You are washed, though not quite as vigorously as you may have been in Nauvoo. You are anointed, though not perhaps as thoroughly as you might have been in Nauvoo. The next time you have a Word of Wisdom lesson about strong drinks and they’re talking about strong drinks and the washing of the body: they used cinnamon flavored or included mixed whiskey to wash in the Kirtland and then again in Nauvoo. And, as it turns out, for washing the body, it’s really a pretty good antiseptic. One of the things that Joseph talked about in Nauvoo era, was about how angels sometimes have a hard time visiting with men because they stink, and that we really ought to clean ourselves up because we’ll offend the sensibilities of the angels. There’s a notion for you. One of the doors to barring entry…

In the temple you borrow cleanliness through the ceremony itself, which washes you, which anoints, which dresses you in new and clean clothes, and then progressively confers upon you symbols that suggest all of creation. Symbolically the entirety of creation comes through, and is redeemed as a consequence of your own redemption. Because if you are redeemed, you are infinite and eternal and creation itself goes on. But here, no unclean thing can dwell there or dwell in His presence, which leads to the reason for the temple.

The purpose of the temple is not merely to inspire you with the conviction that it is possible to rend the veil, to pass through the veil, to see and meet with our Lord, who has promised us repeatedly that the stories in The Book of Mormon are stories designed to tell you over and over and over again about coming back into the presence of the Lord. Even wicked Lamanite converts many of them have what we, in our scholarly language would call, a throne theophany, and they did so upon conversion because their conversion was with real intent.

Therefore, The Book of Mormon is a text about The Second Comforter. But what is being talked about in this verse, Moses 6, is about dwelling in His presence. Moses 6:57, It says when it comes to dwelling there, no unclean thing can dwell there because He is the man of holiness. This presents the real message or the real meaning of what the temple is trying to convey to us in our day. And we’re just about running out of time to accomplish that in our day.

And if we don’t then, you know, He passes on and maybe starts this up with another people in another day, as he has so often done before.

To come to the veil and to meet with the Savior: He can clean you up. He, through His grace, can give you all that you lack. To dwell in the presence of God requires something more, something different. It requires that you grow from where you are now, to the place where the Lord intends to lead you. He intends to have you BE true and faithful in all things. Because in the ceremony in the temple, once you go through the veil, you don’t come back. You stay there and the purpose of going there in this day, in this setting, is to enable the return of Zion. We don’t need a profoundly new and far reaching economic system to make us have all things in common in order to bring again Zion, and we don’t need possession of the real estate in Jackson County, Missouri to bring again Zion. We don’t need any of the implements or locations or infrastructure to have Zion return. We need one thing and that’s YOU. You to be clean. You to be holy. To leave behind you, not only the door, but the house in which you dwell that you established that door to bar Him through. You need to come and live with Him. It is possible. These are not cunningly devised fables, as the apostle Paul put it. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Look at the definition that Lord gives of salvation in Ether 3:13. This is the definition that the Lord gives.

Ether 3:13 “…behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.”

This is the meaning of salvation. This is the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is contained in The Book of Mormon, which has the fullness of Jesus Christ in it. The Lord showed himself unto Him and said, “Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.

Look at D&C 76, in which a description is given of those who inherit the celestial kingdom or those who have celestial glory. I’m not going to go through all of it and parse it, it’s really interesting, it’s worth doing; but included among the definitions of those who are celestial, are descriptions of the present tense; Now, Here. I mean there’s past tense in here and there’s future tense in here, but this is the present tense. And I believe that this was wittingly done because this is the transcript from heaven. Joseph Smith would recite the words of the vision. Sidney Rigdon, when it was read back, would say, “that is correct.” Therefore, the tenses of this language were given by heaven and not by the person dictating.

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. 

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things— 

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fullness, and of his glory; 

57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son. 

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God— 

59 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. (D&C 76:54-59)

Now if that sounds a lot like the language that is contained in the oath in the covenant of the priesthood, it’s because it mirrors the language that you find in the oath in the covenant of the priesthood; where once again, it talks about the priesthood being connected to God Himself; the powers of heaven, if you will.

If the temple is designed to lead you to the presence of the Lord, the presence of the Lord is intended to bring you to the presence of The Father, and the purpose of bringing you to the presence of The Father, is to have you clean every whit. Because when there is a group of people with whom it is possible for the angels to dwell, there will no longer be any reason for angels to stay aloof. There will be no reason for the Lord to delay the bringing of Zion because the Lord is going to dwell there. One of the definitions of Zion, when you get past having all things in common, is the fact that the Lord will dwell there and we all know that to dwell in the presence in the Lord, if you are not prepared to do so, you would be more miserable to dwell with the holy and just God under a conciseness of your filthiness than you would to dwell with the damned souls in hell; that’s Mormon 9:4. Really, you ought to read 2 through 5; see five talks about your nakedness before God.

You know, the Lord suffered the things that He suffered so that He could redeem us by leading us back but there isn’t any magic fairy dust to that process. It is by the things that He knows that He fixes us. There is no defect in any of you that the Lord did not experience and heal from. He knows that way back to the Father because He found His way back to the Father by the things that He suffered in the agony of Gethsemane. He learned what it was to be sinned. There is nothing you have, however malignant or deeply hidden, that He hasn’t experienced and then healed from and found His way back to peace and justification and holiness before His father. The way in which He works the atonement is to teach you if you will receive it, what you need in order to overcome what your flaws are.

On the 13th of February 2003, after a long search for the Lord, which I had almost forgotten about because I was so busy with other things in my life, the Lord made himself known to me. And I thought I had received everything the Lord had to offer. By the time we got to the Christmas season of 2008, but just before Christmas of 2008, I had some serious medical issues compounded by the fact that I had had a hernia fixed some 18 years before and I had a problem that had grown into an infection of that site and it required surgery, which they were going to do laparoscopically, which meant nothing to me then and probably means nothing to you now, but that involves puncturing and sending in robotic arms to fix things but it didn’t work out that way, and after they’d had a lot of fun exploring with robotic arms, they pulled all that out and they simply opened me up from the navel to the pelvic bone. 

Boy, I probably shouldn’t say this…… Ok, I was on the high council at the time. This goes back to what I was telling you at the beginning about a wicked, even despicable, sense of humor. They removed, like eight inches. It’s a circulatory loop, they have to take the entire loop and then pull it together. They removed the loop, they took approximately eight inches of the colon out, and when I got back, I was on the high council, I sent an email to the other members of the high council in the stake presidency saying I’d “been through surgery, they removed eight inches of my colon, I’m recovering, but on the bright side, I’m less of an asshole than I’ve ever been before.”

In any event, when they do surgery that radical, and when they remove and flush; because there was infection, they had to tease apart a lot of internal stuff. The repair doesn’t get stitched up, they just put staples in you and I had staples, which required time to heal and it required me to take off and replace bandages and change the dressing two or three times a day. During that time period, I was still speaking in sacrament meetings on going into the office on occasion and I would wear a suit coat, but I had pajama bottoms on so I was sort of a curious looking fellow. But you really couldn’t put on a belt. Well, I bled and I kept track of it, but it was months later when I went back and looked at it. I bled for 40 days, and after the 40 days, I learned yet more from the Lord. And I can tell you that covenants traditionally involve cutting and covenants in the Old Testament involve the shedding of blood and covenants with our Lord, at some point in some context with some reaches, require that we suffer. 

Now I tell that as background because I recently had another experience in which I spent, as it turned out, once again, 40 days in pain. And while in a great agony, I could not take pity on myself. I couldn’t. What I thought about was the suffering of our Lord in Gethsemane. And I found myself measuring my own physical misery against what I know our Lord went through there. And I lay in bed praying and thanking the Lord for what He had done on our behalf. Thanking the Father for sending His son and standing down to permit it to go forward. And while in prayer, 

I saw a great mountain and upon the top thereof was the glory of the fathers. To reach the top, all were required to enter through a narrow pass. In the pass was a great beast, cruel and pitiless. The Lord brought people whom he had chosen to the mouth of the pass, and there He told them to wait for him, and He went away. The people did not wait for Him, but began to move forward into the narrow pass. The beast killed some and injured others, and none were able to pass through.

After great losses, many deaths and terrible suffering, the people chosen by the Lord withdrew and departed from the mountain. After four and five generations, the Lord again brought some few back to the pass and again told them to stay at the mouth of the pass and wait on Him. But again, there were those who tired of waiting, for they could see in the distance the glory of the fathers, and they desired to be there. These, being overtaken by their zeal, did not wait, but moved into the pass where again the beast killed or hurt them.

Among those who waited, however, was a man who knelt and prayed, and waited patiently for his Lord. After a great time, the Lord came to this man and took him by the hand, and led him into the pass where the great beast guarded the way. As the Lord led, however, the beast was ever occupied with attacking others, and therefore its back was turned to the Lord and the man. And so, they passed by unnoticed, safely to the top. The Lord sent the man to the fathers, who when they saw the man inquired of him, “How came you to be here and yet mortal; for the last who came here were brothers who had been slain, and you are yet alive?” And the man answered: “I waited on the Lord and He brought me here safely.”

Well, for some reason, that was given in time to be read here for some reason. I can’t say who the man is, maybe it’s President Monson, maybe it’s President Packer, maybe it’s one of you, I just can’t say. But the fact of matter is, that it is the glory of the Fathers which Joseph was trying to explain in the last two talks he gave in Nauvoo. 

The promise made by Elijah is about reconnecting us to the Fathers. Joseph called them the Fathers in heaven. These are not our kindred dead because our kindred dead are required to be redeemed by us. These are the Fathers in heaven. Among them would be Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and because of this dispensation being what it is, Peter, James, and John. The purpose of the Holy Ghost is to allow you to see things in their true light with the underlying intent behind them and to allow you to do that without distortion and without confusion. The temple is a ceremony designed to teach you about the path back to God; the very same thing that The Book of Mormon teaches repeatedly. The path back to God is so that you can meet with and be instructed by our Savior. The purpose of our Savior is to prepare us in all things so that we can, at last, become Zion. Because if your heart is right and my heart is right and if I’m looking to God and God only, and you’re looking to God and God only, then the trivial things of having things in common are of so little import that they matter not.

If you’re faithful to the Lord, you have no reason to pick a fight with anyone else. Our Lord was a peacemaker. We ought to be peacemakers as well. I have nothing but appreciation for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They publish the scriptures that make me wise to salvation. They build the temples in which we can go and learn about the mysteries of God. They delivered to me through the voice of some Utah boys; I mean they were about the same age as I was, but they were so young and naïve in my universe, that I considered them boys a testimony about the restoration of the gospel through the prophet Joseph Smith and I have a stronger testimony of the restoration today than I did the day I was baptized. I believe it more fervently and I know a great deal more about the mysteries of God than I ever thought possible. I don’t think I’m special. If you really knew enough about me to realize that this preaching is not the full definition of who I am. You would probably agree that you’re better people than I am. But I wanted to know Him. And I was willing to give away anything and everything and I am still willing to give away anything and everything. There is nothing that I value above the Lord. And I hope that everyone here understands that statement.

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

The post The Temple appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This lecture by Denver Snuffer entitled “Brigham Young’s Telestial Kingdom” was originally recorded in Salt Lake City, Utah on April 18, 2012, in front of a live audience.

Transcript

On March 4, 1849, Brigham Young summoned a convention to draft a constitution for the proposed State of Deseret. The convention’s work was rapidly completed and an election held eight days later. Voters approved the constitution and elected Brigham Young, Governor, his First Counselor, Heber C. Kimball elected Chief Judge, and Second Counselor, Willard Richards, Secretary of State. All 674 votes approved each.

There were discrepancies between the constitutional officers and the slate of elected offices. Further, the constitution set the initial election to occur on “the first Monday in May,” not eight days after the convention. This departure was because Brigham Young and the Council of Fifty predetermined the outcome. Voters ratified President Young’s actions and ignored the constitution. Leonard Arrington attributed this discrepancy to “the informal manner in which Brigham Young and his coterie of associates ran things.” That “informality” was possible because of the unique roles of Brigham Young. 

The Council of Fifty was a shadow government originally established by Joseph Smith that influenced the thinking of Brigham Young throughout his time as Governor. The story of his 1851-1858 governorship therefore begins in 1844 when Joseph Smith first organized the Council of Fifty. The full name of the Council of Fifty was “The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and Power[s] thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ.” The name was too long for convenience and therefore was not widely known or regularly used. The two most frequently used names were “The Kingdom of God” or “The Council of Fifty.” Today, most Latter-day Saints aware of its existence would recognize it as the “Council of Fifty.” However, the early Church leaders generally called it “The Kingdom of God” or “The Kingdom.” It was the venue where Joseph Smith established his own “Kingship” by being chosen as “our prophet Priest, & King by Hosannas.” When Joseph Smith spoke in the late-Nauvoo period about “the Kingdom,” or “the keys of the Kingdom,” he was referring to this council. It was to this council Joseph Smith gave “the keys of the Kingdom” so his inner group of followers could perpetuate this “Kingdom of God” after his death. 

Joseph’s anointing to king was the early culmination of salvation. God intended to “exalt” those who were worthy, a status associated with kingship in this life and godhood in the next. The revelation recorded July 12, 1843 states: “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; … then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” 

Joseph lived and died in stratified antebellum America. Slavery was divisive. Nevertheless, a religious idea of subservient angels obeying the commands of a worthy and exalted man in a stratified afterlife was easy to understand and accept. We may find it conceptually hard in post-Civil War/post-Civil Rights America but Joseph and his contemporaries lived in a differently ordered society. Like his predecessor, Brigham Young was also ordained a “King, Priest and Ruler over Israel.” Remarks by Governor Young clearly indicate he viewed his status to rule over others as God-given and kingly. In a sermon delivered on June 19, 1853, two years into his initial term, Governor Young addressed the saints in the Salt Lake Tabernacle as the church president. He explained: “We have got a Territorial Government, and I am and will be Governor, and no power can hinder it, until the Lord Almighty, says, ‘Brigham, you need not be Governor any longer,’ and then I am willing to yield to another Governor.” Arrington’s explanation for the “informal manner in which Brigham and his coterie of associates ran things” is best understood against this other, less public Mormon practice. Brigham Young felt comfortable contradicting the draft Territorial constitution because he was king, and could therefore exercise kingly rule. He called the convention, gave them the mandate, and wanted Territorial recognition from Congress. He knew they would not approve a Rocky Mountain monarchy; therefore he at least wanted the appearance of democratic rule. 

Kingship in the Americas is disapproved in the Book of Mormon. It directs: “[T]his land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon this land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.” Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon; Brigham Young was converted because of it. Therefore, we should consider the meaning of this limitation on kingship. Joseph Smith was anointed “king” before Brigham Young, but Joseph’s kingship was entirely theological, private, and non-governmental. His precedent did little to support the form of “kingship” implemented by Brigham Young. 

The earliest events in Utah combined church and state in the person of Brigham Young. Without him there was no order – social, religious or political. Everything revolved around the church, and after December 1847 the church revolved around him. Colonizer, Governor, Church President, Prophet, Apostle, Lion of the Lord, American Moses, orator, and first citizen; the society of saints were overshadowed by this leader in a way which mirrored, if not exceeded, the way colonial America respected and followed George Washington. Either man could have cut corners, had they elected to do so. In the case of Washington, we have no instance of him doing so. In the case of Brigham Young, however, corners were cut beginning with his initial election.

States have a monopoly on the power to take property, fine, punish, imprison, and even kill its citizens. Brigham Young’s religion, however, held no such authority. “[W]e do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.” When analyzing Brigham Young’s tenure as Territorial Governor, it is impossible to distinguish between his role as head of state and head of church. Parsing his conduct on the basis of the kind of power used (i.e., the power to punish beyond fellowship) clarifies these two roles merged, for he ruled as if there were no separation between the two.

When the church members who followed the Quorum of the Twelve were expelled from Nauvoo mid-winter, they governed themselves through the church. “[C]hurch authorities believed that the Kingdom of God was a political as well as a spiritual kingdom, and that the Priesthood was directly responsible for the effective conduct of civil government.” Before the United States provided any recognized appointments the church filled a vacuum. The church’s existing structure was capable of governing. It only made sense the church would provide the structure of both church and state. 

Despite all the practical reasons, and obvious necessity for the church to step into the void, the distinction between church and state does matter. 

The power of the state is derived from the right of an individual in a state of nature to punish and retaliate for offenses to the individual. As John Locke stated in his Second Treatise on Civil Government:

[That,] he who has suffered the damage has a right to demand in his own name, …the goods or service of the offender, by right of self-preservation, as every man has a power to punish the crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things he can in order to that end: and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, …and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security…”

John Lockes’ explanation of state power and Brigham Young’s views were similar. The Book of Mormon has little to recommend combining both the office of “High Priest” over the church with “Chief Judge” over the land. Alma refused it, ceding the power of government to Nephihah and retaining the office of “High Priest over the Church” for himself. Likewise, Joseph Smith, by revelation, gave Hyrum the priesthood and made him co-President, as Joseph assumed the office of “king.” Unlike Alma, Governor Young chose to remain both with such tenacity that it required an Act of Congress, the Commander in Chief, and the US Army to pry the governorship from his hands. 

The application of becoming United States territory was controversial. Debate lasted for nearly a year in the US Senate. When finally passed, President Millard Fillmore signed the bill on September 9, 1850 and appointed Brigham Young the first territorial governor of the Territory of Utah. He was officially sworn into the office of territorial governor on February 3, 1851. “Brigham Young, Governor of Deseret by popular vote, was now Governor of Utah by presidential appointment[.]” This only confirmed the existing reality. Here is an illustration of the problem with holding two roles: 

On June 15, 1851, speaking as Church President about horse theft and Indians, Brigham Young said, (after explaining Indians are taught to steal from birth and whites were taught not to steal): “[W]hile they are in their degraded state, it rests upon us to use wisdom and judgment in their behalf. I say to the Saints, kill every white man you see stealing and not kill the Indian for it, for the white men know better. I speak to the Saints not as the Governor of Utah, but you and I are sent to save Israel not to kill them.” Killing (an impermissible penalty for the church) is being advocated to an audience of “the Saints,” yet he stressed he did not speak as “Governor of Utah.” Six days later he told the Saints: “[W]e are a kingdom and must bring the kingdom in subject to the will of God.” He conflated the two, because the two conflated in him. 

President Young gave a definition of “liberty” in a sermon on June 29, 1851, some of which reads like John Locke:

The spirit of liberty is the spirit of submission. If you wish to enjoy liberty in your fullness you must submit to the rule to the land of liberty. The privilege of living in liberty to all eternity adopt every holy principle and gather together every thing on earth and make you happy… You are not at liberty to infringe on the rights of your neighbors. If a man injure me, I am at liberty to make him pay for it. Every person in heaven is at liberty when they have the privilege to organize a kingdom for themselves, but unless they are submissive to their presidents on earth, they never can have the privilege to the last day of eternity. If they are faithful here, they will be make gods in eternity.

Submission to “their presidents on earth,” meaning church leaders, was the price of godhood in eternity. The prize offered for submitting to the earthly president will be eternal godhood. The bounds of the Mormon kingdom were never limited to the Great Basin. Governor Young explained: “All things will have to bow to Mormonism or eternal light and truth. We have the true government of all the earth.” If Mormonism had the right to govern “all the earth” and Brigham Young was its earthly king, then it follows there should be no conceptual end of his kingdom. 

Fiery rhetoric from Brigham Young was commonplace. Initially it was more alarming in tone than in effect. However, continuing fiery rhetoric combined with deteriorating environmental circumstances did finally result in unfortunate events which were only possible because church and state merged in Brigham Young.

In January 1852, Governor Young spoke to the Legislature about slavery, sin and punishment. Borrowing from the Law of Moses, he declared: “The time will come, that if a man will take the name of God in vain, he will be hewn down without judgment or trial!” He added: “The time will also come when if the parents are sanctified before the Lord, and their children rise up in disobedience against them, they will be hewn down.” This talk contributes to controversy still within Mormonism today, that a man must be killed for his own sins. 

In the days of ancient Israel, justice was dealt out in a manner that showed they understood principle, and revered the commandments of God. It was a mercy to many to have justice and judgment executed upon them on the Earth, even to be slain and have their blood poured out upon the Earth, that it might be tolerable for them. God made a covenant with Abraham and his seed, that He would save them. When they committed sin, He slew them, that He might save them, by their spilling their blood as an offering. Had they lived in sin, they might have sinned so as not to have been forgiven or saved. It was mercy to slay them.

The next day he added: “It is the greatest blessing that could come to some men to shed their blood on the ground, and let it come up before the Lord as an atonement.” Brigham Young, as king, thought it his burden to create righteous people, even if it required some to die to accomplish it. A few years later this kind of rhetoric would bring about the Mormon Reformation, which was the beginning of the end for his governorship. 

In an address to the two houses of the Legislature on January 29, 1852, he commented: “we find it is a hard matter to enact human laws to govern a divine kingdom.” The governor and church president, or ‘priest and king,’ saw the challenge. The Legislature were stewards over “human laws” but he was steward over “a divine kingdom.” The solution to the challenge, he explained, was to “draw out from the laws which God has given for His divine Kingdom. And make enactments to control all people, to a certain extent under the divine control of His own Kingdom on Earth, this I also believe.” To clarify that his ambition was not limited to the Territory of Utah, but would expand to dominate the whole world, Governor Young declared:

For as the Lord lives, and as this people lives, they have this to do sooner or later. They have to usher forth their enactments, to govern the Jews and the Gentiles, and all the nations which are included with Israel, and with the Gentiles, that every professed Christian, every religious denomination, and every government under the whole heaven may find shelter under this broad banner which shall be spread over them by the Lord Almighty. That I also believe.

If God owns this world, then His Kingdom ought to rule over all of it. As he put it: “Jehovah is my king. I care not what can be said to the contrary. The Lord Jehovah is my king and instructor, and I wish you to serve Him. That is the way I would do it if I was in the Legislature[.]”

Non-Mormon federal appointees left Utah accusing Governor Young of being a dictator. He responded that he had the right to dictate. There were no traditional American constraints because he answered to a much higher authority. God and the Council of Fifty made him king. 

I am accused by our honorable judges who have left this Territory last fall of entering into the Legislative Hall and there dictating them. That is an objection that will be raised and will be presented to President Fillmore; that I entered into the Halls of Legislature and there dictate them. I do dictate and I never expect to see the day while I am Governor amongst this people that I don’t do it, and I want it published abroad for it is what I believe in, and it is what you believe in. …I want these Gentlemen to realize, to be fully sensible of, is simply this; that when they meet here in a legislative capacity, not to forget that they are Elders in Israel, Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, that they are Saints of the Most High God, and I hope and pray that a feeling to the contrary of this may never arise in the bosom of anyone of these men. …[Referring to pre-Territorial days] We then legislated for the benefit of the inhabitants of the State of Deseret. The most of them belonged to the council that is called the Council of Fifty.

On the possibility the he could be removed as Governor by President Fillmore, he added: “They may send another governor here, but I shall govern the people by the Eternal Priesthood of the Son of God.”

Brigham Young wanted it so that even if a man wanted to apostatize from the religion their economic survival prevented it:

If any man is in darkness through the deceitfulness of riches, it is good policy for him to bind up his wealth in this Church, so that he cannot command it again, and he will be apt to cleave to the kingdom. If a man has the purse in his pocket, and he apostatizes, he takes it with him; but if his worldly interest is firmly united to the Kingdom of God, when he arises to go away, he finds the calf is bound, and, like the cow, he is unwilling to forsake it. If his calf is bound up here, he will be inclined to stay; all his interest is here, and ever likely the Lord will open his eyes, so that he will properly understand his true situation, and his heart will chime in with the will of his God in a very short time. Were we to dedicate our moral and intellectual influence, and our earthly wealth to the Lord, our hearts would be very likely to applaud our acts. This reasoning is for those who do not feel exactly to subscribe to all that has been said this morning, with regard to dedicating ourselves to the cause of truth. This is what you must do to obtain an exaltation. The Lord must be first and foremost in our affections, the building of His kingdom demands our first consideration.

President Young envisioned merging Saint to church, church to state, and himself in control of it all. One great beehive, united and working for one purpose: to support the king’s efforts to further his King’s will. There was something much bigger going on. “The Millennium consists in this — every heart in the Church and Kingdom of God being united in one; the Kingdom increasing to the overcoming of everything opposed to the economy of heaven, and Satan being bound.”

As criticism from all sides continued to mount, President Young declared in October 1852 how futile it was to consider removing him:

What says the United States? “Let us send a governor there; let us send our judges there.” But what do they cry? “We have no influence or power, for there are other men there who rule, and we cannot help it; they have the reins of government and turn the people whithersoever they will, and we cannot help ourselves.” What did a gentleman say to Mr. Fillmore? Said he, “You need not send anybody there, for Brigham Young is Governor, and he will govern the people all the time; and there is no other man that can govern them.” If there is any truth in this, it is, he will do so as long as the Lord lets him.

He said exactly what he meant. Later events, including removing him from power over the state, the abolition of plural marriage, domestication of the church by the nation, all influence the way Mormons now interpret his words. Consider for a moment on the literal meaning of this: “How are this people to be ruled, to be dictated in their future course. The Lord Almighty had built up his kingdom, here is the church and kingdom of the Lord [God] Almighty upon the earth. This is the kingdom [the church] to this kingdom [the world].”

Five days later, speaking of those who killed Joseph Smith, including the governor and militia who were involved, Brigham Young said, “[if they] had come and had us to cut off their heads and let their blood be shed on the ground to atone for their sin. The nation might have redeemed themselves, if they had taken those murderers and spilt their blood, but they have held their peace.”

In June 1853, President Young addressed a church conference complaining of Judge Brocchus, the Territorial judge appointed by the federal government who abandoned his position and returned to Washington to complain. “It is true, as it is said in the Report of these officers, if I had crooked my little finger, he would have been used up, but I did not bend it.” He went on to caution “apostates, or men who never have made any profession of religion, had better be careful how they come here, lest I should bend my little finger.”

He explained his right to remain head of state: “I have no fears whatever of Franklin Pierce excusing me from office, and saying that another man shall be the Governor of this territory.” Referring to the history of Utah, he said that he told the original delegation “I will be Governor still, after you have done everything you possibly can do to prevent it.” It was his right. God, and the Council of Fifty, had made him king. Therefore, “We have got a Territorial Government, and I am and will be Governor, and no power can hinder it, until the Lord Almighty says, ‘Brigham, you need not be Governor any longer,’ and then I am willing to yield[.]”

By 1856, Willard Richards had died (March 11, 1854) and was replaced by Jedediah M. Grant in the church’s First Presidency. Brigham Young had been Governor for five years. Political conditions were complicated by increased criticism in the territory and the nation. Plural wives had not been welcomed. The kingdom was struggling. A new national political party was emerging whose popularity was driven by its opposition to both slavery and polygamy. 

In addition to political and social differences, President Young was also confronted by natural disasters beginning in 1855. “The first major calamity was a grasshopper plague. On April 30, 1855 Brigham Young noted that ‘grasshoppers have made their appearance and are doing extensive damage.’” A drought was underway, and the grasshopper plague added to crop losses. Food became scarce. “The drought was followed by a severe winter. In an effort to find more suitable grazing, it was decided to move many cattle, including more of the church herd, northward to Cache Valley. Biting snow and extreme cold soon proved this to be an unwise decision, and the loss in stock was extensive. Brigham estimated that two-thirds of all church stock had perished, while Wilford Woodruff recorded that only five hundred cattle remained from a herd of twenty-six hundred.”

The entire kingdom was threatened. These disasters “in one year, wiped out the entire social surplus and placed the 35,000 persons in the territory in the same position of semistarvation in which the early Salt Lake colonists found themselves before the Gold Rush.” How was the king to view a kingdom being rebuked by nature’s God? Where was the blame to be placed? What was to be done?

Although there were two possible explanations, Brigham Young only considered one. He did not consider the leaders had brought this onto the kingdom. Instead, it was his subjects who had failed. What followed was a “Mormon Reformation” designed to “rekindle faith and testimony throughout the Church.”

Here is a semi-official explanation for the controversy:

The era of the Reformation is often regarded as a controversial period. Some critics have claimed that Blood Atonement was practiced at this time. While President Young did preach that forgiveness for certain sins could come only through the sinner’s shedding his blood, such comments reflect his style more than his intent. Many of Brigham Young’s utterances were rhetorical and designed to encourage (or even frighten) saints into gospel conformity. While publicly he threatened, privately he instructed Church leaders to forgive those who expressed sorrow for sin and repented.

Here is a contrary view by Polly Aird, which begins by quoting Peter McAuslan:

“With all their [the Mormons’] honesty, they have often been led to do wrong, even to the taking of the lives of their fellows. This I know by my experience in Utah. Two prominent instances of such you will remember when I mention the names of the places at which they occurred, Springville and Mountain Meadows.”

George A. Hicks, to whom Peter reported in the Nauvoo Legion, wrote later that in this period “a spirit of secret murder stalked abroad among the people, and many of the ‘undesirables’ lost their lives by being murdered by unknown assassins, unknown so far as the general public were concerned.” And Peter wrote, “I know from my experience in Mormonism that to give it [the church] the power it would rewrite the world’s history with the blood of its inhabitants. This you may think is strong language but it is in accord with the spirit of the leaders of the Mormon Church when I was in Utah.”

The first explanation is drawn largely from Mormon academics employed by the church. Their description relies on characterizations and subjective interpretation, and their sympathies are understandable. When choosing between these two opposing views, even though it is biting, the second appears more accurate. Polly Aird took statements from those who lived through the events. She is non-Mormon, but not anti-Mormon, and therefore can report what she thinks true without being accused of unfaithfulness. Faithful Mormons like me are often regarded as weak in the faith if both believing and candid. But human failure does not make any religion false. Governor Young’s rhetoric, following the trials of 1855-56, put the blame for God’s judgements onto the subjects of his kingdom. Something needed to be done to appease an angry Deity. Here are excerpts from his March 2, 1856 address, given as the kingdom was emerging from that difficult winter, facing starvation again in the early spring:

I will tell you what this people need, with regard to preaching; you need, figuratively, to have it rain pitchforks, tines downwards, from this pulpit, Sunday after Sunday. Instead of the smooth, beautiful, sweet, still, silk-velvet-lipped preaching, you should have sermons like peals of thunder, and perhaps we then can get the scales from our eyes. …

I know the condition of this people, I know what induces them to do as they do, I know the secret springs to their actions, how they are beset, the temptations and evils that are around them, and how liable they are to be drawn away, consequently, I tell you, brethren, that you need to have the thunders of the Almighty and the forked lightnings of truth sent upon you, to wake you up out of your lethargy…

The time is coming when justice will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet; when we shall take the old broad sword and ask, “Are you for God?” and if you are not heartily on the Lord’s side, you will be hewn down. I feel like reproving you; you are like a wild ass that rears and almost breaks his neck before he will be tamed. It is so with this people…

To understand how direful circumstances were at the time, fourteen days later Brigham Young advised members of his kingdom to go no more than five days without eating something. 

His followers were severely suffering. He made the diagnosis and he prescribed the cure. Mormonism needed to be reformed with repentance strict enough to remove God’s ire. Brigham Young intended to set that in motion using fiery rhetoric and, failing that, fiery enforcement. As to his status as kingdom leader, he was confident the hand of God upheld him. Therefore, any anger he provoked from the US government was inconsequential:

I shall be Governor as long as the Lord Almighty wishes me to govern this people. Do you suppose that it is in the power of any man to thwart the doings of the Almighty? They may as well undertake to blot out the sun. I am in the hands of that God, so is the President of our nation, and so are kings, and emperors, and all rulers. He controls the destiny of all, and what are you and I going to do about it? Let us submit to Him, that we may share in this invisible, almighty, God-like power, which is the everlasting Priesthood.

The subjects of the kingdom needed to be purged. If they were unwilling or unable to conform to the demands of righteousness, then they would need to be cut off like a dead branch. Clearing away dead branches would only benefit the remainder. The entire Utah legislature was re-baptized as an official act. The purpose of the Reformation was twofold: Either increase devotion to the kingdom or scare all disloyal subjects into fleeing. The Utah Legislature increased devotion. Hundreds fled.

By September 1856, Jedediah Grant was preaching “Reformation.” In the Reformation, Brigham Young linked salvation and killing sinners together. Here is an excerpt from one of his earliest sermons on the subject.

There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground… I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.

I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism states: “Many of Brigham Young’s utterances were rhetorical and designed to encourage (or even frighten) Saints into gospel conformity.” The recent book co-authored by assistant LDS Church historian Richard Turley states: “From [Brigham] Young’s perspective, the reformation accomplished a great deal of good, though tough talk about blood atonement and dissenters must have helped create a climate of violence in the territory, especially among those who chose to take license from it.” D. Michael Quinn observes: “Despite the suffering imposed by anti-Mormons on them, despite hearing repeated sermons about blood atonement, despite singing hymns of vengeance, despite receiving patriarchal blessings promising them the privilege of taking revenge on their enemies, the historical evidence indicates that most early Mormons avoided violence and were saddened by the news of such incidents.”  By the time changes in 1890 abandoned polygamy and made statehood at last possible, Mormonism reached a point of “abandonment of its violent culture and the beginning of its selective memory of a turbulent past.” Paul H. Peterson explained, “[A]s the Reformation progressed, it became clear to the church leaders that not all would reform and that community purity would never become a reality until all polluting elements were removed. Thus, getting rid of incorrigibles came to be nearly as important as purifying those who were earnest in their desire to do better.” 

We will not understand the full implications of Brigham Young’s kingship unless we are also willing to recognize the trends of his administration. If we accept his words, he believed sincerely in his kingship. If we accept his rhetoric at face value, he intended to either frighten his wayward subjects to repent or flee. Failing repentance or removal from the kingdom, he fully expected some to be killed. The question is left to each of us to decide how much or how little we will allow of Brigham Young to be taken at face value. In the Reformation, “[s]uccess could also be measured by the plans of a certain class of people to leave Utah in the spring. Brigham Young summarized these indications of successful reformation in January 1857: ‘the reformation still continues …Meetings are frequent and well attended. You may believe that it makes the ‘Sinner in Zion afraid, and fearfulness seize the hypocrite, and we trust it will be too warm for such characters to remain in our midst.’” 

The New York Times reported in August: 

We have another arrival from Mormondom. An emigrant train, containing a large number of women and children – one hundred persons in all — has just reached this city [Lawrence, Kansas] …The members of this company are, or rather were, professors of the Mormon faith, but they have fled from the holy land, partly to escape from the relentless tyranny of the Brigham Young oligarchy, and partly to improve their pecuniary affairs. When they left, there was great dissatisfaction among the Saints, and about a thousand persons abandoned Utah at the same time. Several trains departed for the States, and nearly four hundred started for Oregon. It was with difficulty that they escaped, and many threats were made that violence would be committed upon them if they attempted to leave the country.  The large number of those who left is believed to have been their protection.

The exodus was deliberately provoked. The Reformation, including a twenty-seven question interrogation put to all the saints by inquisitorial Home Missionaries, included issues such as “betraying your brothers or sisters,” committing adultery, or shedding innocent blood. These three sins were grounds for blood atonement. The questions brought into the homes of every resident of the kingdom the reality that their unfaithfulness may not be viewed with continuing tolerance. 

In his August 17, 1856 address he [Brigham Young] proclaimed how complete surrender must be: [Either] surrender and follow the kingdom and its leader, or leave it. But he warned: If you leave, you will ultimately be destroyed by God; completely annihilated: 

The moment a person decides to leave this people, he is cut off from every object that is durable for time and eternity, and I have told you the reason why. Everything that is opposed to God and His Son Jesus Christ, to the celestial kingdom and to celestial laws, those celestial laws and beings will hold warfare with, until every particle of the opposite is turned back to its native element, though it should take millions and millions of ages to accomplish it. Christ will never cease the warfare, until he destroys death and him that hath the power of it. Every possession and object of affection will be taken from those who forsake the truth, and their identity will eventually cease. 

Beginning in mid-November 1856 through April 1857, President Young forbade the entire church from receiving the sacrament. In October and November, the Willie and Martin Handcart disaster happened. On December 1, 1856 President Young’s fellow counselor and Mormon Reformation advocate, Jedediah Grant, died prematurely at age 40. The second terrible winter not only claimed livestock but several Salt Lake homes collapsed under the weight of the snow. The roof of the Bowery on the temple block also gave way. These signs reconfirmed to Brigham Young the need for rigor within his kingdom. He added a new threat: “frequently giv[ing] warning that if the people did not reform, they would be left without their leaders and lose the higher (Melchizedek) priesthood.” To emphasize the threat, Brigham Young went into hiding for over a month. 

Daniel H. Wells replaced Jedediah Grant in the First Presidency of the church. Wells was also the Lieutenant General leader of the Nauvoo Legion. Like Grant before him, his fidelity was to Brigham Young and the kingdom, not the United States. On February 8, 1857, President Young instructed his kingdom: 

I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up – conquers death, hell and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. … If you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.

Two days prior to this talk, as he emerged from hiding, Governor Young issued letters on February 6, 1857 instructing violence be used to punish several targeted individuals known to have violated the law. One letter was addressed to three recipients, including stake president Isaac C. Haight at Cedar City. The letter stated: 

Be on the lookout now, & have a few trusty men ready in the case of need to pursue, retake & punish. We do not suppose there would be any prosecutions for false imprisonment, or tale bearers for witnesses… Make no noise of this matter, & keep this letter safe. We write for your eye alone, & to men that can be trusted.

The letter resulted in the Santa Clara Ambush, which is the topic of Parshall’s article in The Utah Historical Quarterly. News of the ambush found its way into newspapers throughout the United States. Parshall explains: 

The Santa Clara ambush was not what Brigham Young intended, in that it was not two backsliding felons who were attacked in the dark. But the ambush was the result of events he set in motion. He directed subordinates to take extra-legal action under specified conditions, knowing that innocents might suffer with the guilty because no “tale bearers” were to be spared. If he did not intend Dame and Haight to read his instructions as they have been interpreted here, that reading is justified by the indirect phrasing of his letters. If residents of southern Utah went beyond the mark in implementing his instructions, no effective chastisements occurred. All of the men to whom letters were sent retained their church, civil and military positions as though nothing untoward happened. But something had happened, with repercussions beyond the injuries and losses to Tobin and his companions. News of the attack spread quickly through the nation, heightening tensions on the eve of the Utah War. When the wounded victims were carried to San Bernadino, rumors flared that endangered the lives of Mormons living there. Lack of accountability following the Santa Clara ambush did nothing to allay a local impression that violence was a suitable response to a perceived threat, an impression, which seemingly played a role at Mountain Meadows later that year. Most chilling to contemplate, survival of the Santa Clara victims and their public exposure of the attack may have strengthened a determination at Mountain Meadows to spare no competent witness. 

The Santa Clara ambush included unintended victims. It may have been beyond the intent of Brigham Young when he wrote the instructions. However, Parshall’s explanation is inadequate. If Brigham Young wrote the letter as a king, heading both church and state, then the process was not “extra-legal” at all. It was a sovereign’s right to issue the letter to impose order. As 1857 continued, the king’s ire spread from “reigning pitchforks” from the podium, to the fruit of his rhetoric which cost lives. After Santa Clara the violence spread. As it spread, neither the church nor the state over which Brigham Young presided displayed any inclination to hold a single person accountable for the deaths. Beyond that, there was no curiosity to identify those involved. Parshall describes the events of that turbulent year: 

Failure to hold anyone responsible for the Santa Clara ambush foreshadowed the silence to follow the Potter-Parish murders in Springville the next month, the massacre at Mountain Meadows in September, the October bludgeoning death of Richard Yates in Echo Canyon, the murders of the Aiken party near Nephi in November – a catalog of bloodshed without accountability in the surreal year of 1857. 

The United States was buzzing with alarm. The Utah Territorial Legislature issued a proclamation claiming the Territory’s law was superior to Federal Law. New First Presidency member and commander of the Nauvoo Legion, Daniel Wells, issued General Order 1 at the beginning of April. This order was “notifying Nauvoo Legion members that they now belonged to the armed forces of God’s Kingdom.” “President Buchanan in late May decided to unseat [Brigham Young] as governor and ordered the US Army to escort his successor to Great Salt Lake to restore federal authority in Utah.” Given Brigham Young’s widely reported refusal to surrender the governorship unless “God Almighty” would tell him to submit, President Buchanan concluded the US Army was necessary to install a new governor. This has been called The Utah War, or The Mormon Rebellion. 

The Utah War has been characterized as a “bloodless” event. Recent scholarship has revisited the war, and at least one scholar changed his view from being “bloodless” to being quite bloody. His revised view is now: 

Overlooked or intentionally excluded from these views is the Mountain Meadows Massacre as a wartime engagement on September 11, 1857. It was an atrocity in which a detachment of the Utah territorial militia (Nauvoo Legion) supported by Indian auxiliaries executed about 120 disarmed men, women and children, the largest organized mass murder of white civilians in American history until the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

That author goes on to conclude that the Utah War rivaled “Bleeding Kansas” in fatalities. A recent description by [an] LDS Church assistant historian explains it this way: 

Scholars who have investigated violence in many cultures provide other insights based on group psychology. Episodes of violence often begin when one people classify another as “the other,” stripping them of any humanity and mentally transforming them into enemies. Once this process of devaluing and demonizing occurs, stereotypes take over, rumors circulate, and pressure builds to conform to group action against the perceived threat. Those classified as the enemy are often seen as the transgressors, even as steps are being taken against them. When these tinderbox conditions exist, a single incident, small or ordinary in usual circumstances, may spark great violence ending in atrocity. The literature suggests other elements are often present when “good people” do terrible things. Usually there is an atmosphere of authority and obedience, which allows errant leaders to trump the moral instincts of their followers. Atrocities also occur when followers do not have clear messages about what is expected of them — when their culture or message from headquarters leave local leaders wondering what they should do. Poverty increases the likelihood of problems by raising concerns about survival. The conditions for mass killing — demonizing, authority, obedience, peer pressure, ambiguity, fear, and deprivation — all were present in southern Utah in 1857.

Of these conditions, Brigham Young’s leadership supplied the demonizing, authority, obedience, peer pressure, ambiguity and fear. He said his purpose was to create this very environment. Brigham Young’s own son would characterize the Reformation as “a reign of terror.” One woman who lived through that time reflected: “it was a fearful ordeal, and fear is a slavish passion and is not begotten by the Spirit of God!” 

Brigham Young declared he understood exactly how to govern to accomplish what was needed. He explained how few men were qualified, as he was, to accomplish what he wanted: 

There are but few men who know how to govern in temporal things, fewer still who know how to control the feelings of the people, how to guide the power of any kingdom that was ever organized on the earth. Nations and kingdoms of this world rise up and flourish only for a season. What is the difficulty? They contain the seeds of their own destruction, sown therein by the framers of human governments; those combustive elements are organized in their constitution from the first. …Why are they thus led to sow the seeds of their own destruction? Because the kingdoms of this world are not designed to stand. When men are placed at the head of government who are not actually controlled by the power of God by the Holy Ghost they can lay plans, they can frame constitutions, they can form governments and laws that have not the seeds of death within them, and no other men can do it.

If we take him at his word, then the deathly harvest of 1857 was what he hoped to accomplish. There is another rhetorical milestone immediately prior to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. In August 1857, Governor Young knew the Army had been dispatched to install a new governor. He learned on the 11th that the Army had arrived 118 miles below Laramie. On the 16th he gave a talk about the Army, his intent to fight them, and the direful results the nation should expect if they persisted in moving forward into combat with the kingdom. Only 26 days prior to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Governor Young warned the United States: 

Now if the United States send an army here and commences war on us, their travel across this country must stop; their train cannot cross. To accomplish this I need only say to them for the Indians will use them up; and they will do it. …I warn them and fore warn the United States, that if they commence war upon us, they need not expect me to hold the Indians while they shoot them. … Had it not been for the “Mormons” in these mountains, nineteen out of twenty of this seasons emigration would have been cut off by the Indians. Had it not for our settlements here, overland emigration would have been stopped years ago, and yet they turn around and condemn me and this people for conniving with the Indians. This people have always done good to the travelers; they have kept the Indians from injuring them and have done all in their power to save the lives of men, women and children, but all this will cease to be, if our enemies commence war upon us. 

Twenty-six days later a Mormon-led attack killed over one-hundred twenty men, women and children. The slaughter was both staged to look Indian caused, and reported as an Indian attack; as if the event was quick proof of the Governor’s warning about the perilous boast of waging war against his kingdom. The proximity of the talk and the attack appeared to be swift vindication, but did not deter the United States’ determination to remove Governor Young. As the Army approached, Governor Young warned not only that Indian uprisings afflict the United States, but God would also come out of His hiding place and fight for the kingdom. He predicted a spectacular defeat, with the unseen “soldiers of the Lord” defending the kingdom. The threatened war made Governor Young pleased at the prospects of the kingdom defeating the coming Army. He proclaimed: 

I do not know that I have ever felt better in my life, more satisfied, more rejoicing in my heart, or had more of the testimony and witness of the Spirit within, than when I have said, You Latter day Saints may be driven to move, if you will take your own part, and “I the Lord your God am with you, and I will help you and I will fight your battles.” It is rather a bold statement; it is rather a bold step for a handful of men here in the mountains to think that they can cope with the extensive government, the government of the United States, the powerful kingdoms of darkness. Upon natural principles we cannot, but we can fight them in the name of, God Almighty, and with his aid we can keep them off from us.

He warned them [the United States] not to come because they risked utter defeat. The whole world was watching the conflict, making God’s Kingdom renown. The outcome of this conflict was certain. Brigham Young asked, “Cannot this kingdom be overthrown? No. They might as well try to obliterate the sun.” It was not the kingdom Brigham Young led that was vulnerable, but the United States which was at peril and about to be destroyed by God. The destruction of the US Army was, according to Governor Young, part of God’s design to acquire a respected name and a fearful character again in this world. 

As King Brigham preached to the Utah Legislature during the winter of 1857, the US Army was quartered down for winter still hundreds of hard miles away. He said his kingdom was not only going to win the conflict, but the triumph would lead to control over all nations by God’s kingdom: 

The Lord should reign and rule over us in all our business transactions The Kingdom of God is one thing, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is another, yet it is one, and when the Kingdom of God is set up upon the earth it will be a temporal Kingdom, and that is the Kingdom Jesus referred to, and which his saints would fight for. The Kingdom of God is a temporal Kingdom and the Church of Jesus Christ is His Church and Kingdom. The Kingdom of God will enact laws that will govern and control all people whether Saint or sinner, whether they worship God, the Sun, Moon or Stars. The Law that will issue forth, from Zion will control the nations of the Earth, and give to each one his rights in the free exercise and enjoyment of his[.] …Here is the Kingdom of God in embryo, which will enact laws for the Government of all people, nations, kindreds and tongues upon the face of the whole earth, and in our deliberations our eyes should be single to this point, that this doctrine has been preached and acted upon, and the Kingdom of God was organized in the days of Joseph [Smith], and was called the council of Fifty, and that was the commencement for to issue forth laws for the nations of the earth.

But no higher authority rallied the Indians, nor came out from His hiding place to destroy the US Army, nor caused unseen soldiers to slay US forces. Instead, the Army came and Brigham Young negotiated an end to his earthly rule over the Utah Territory. He served a total of seven years, although appointed only for four because the act allowed him to continue “until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States.” Governor Cumming peacefully assumed office in April of 1858. 

A Telestial Kingship

Mormonism may have ended at the death of Joseph Smith if not for Brigham Young. Because he acted decisively, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remains a body of believers, perpetuating the structure established through Joseph. Mormonism was preserved in structure, but altered in content by Brigham Young. History has acknowledged his great contribution in preserving the faith, but it has not adequately acknowledged how greatly he changed its content and practice. 

Almost every religion has some doctrine beyond man’s capacity to implement. Catholicism doubted man’s ability to live the Sermon on the Mount for over a thousand years until Saint Francis accomplished it. Few have repeated his achievement. Nevertheless, the ideal remains firmly a part of Catholicism with Saint Francis a symbol of that ideal. 

Kingship is perhaps both the greatest concept and worst temptation in Mormon theology. Its difficulty is on public display in the governorship of Brigham Young. He is a cautionary tale for us about the greatest challenge faced by faithful Mormons who hope to be sons of God and joint-heirs with His Son. 

John Locke wrote in his Second Treatise of Civil Government that “all princes and rulers of independent governments all throughout the world, are in a state of nature[.]” Brigham Young as God’s earthly head of an independent kingdom conformed his conduct to that view. Therefore, as John Locke would expect, his behavior was like man “in a state of nature” where he had the right to “restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to [him].” Locke’s description is apt. 

If, during Brigham Young’s lifetime, America viewed Mormonism as one of the “twin relics of barbarism,” like the Republican platform Abraham Lincoln ran on described it, subsequent events domesticated Mormonism. Mormonism went from being a Great Basin monarchy to becoming an uber American, flag-waving, rock-solid red state on the most conservative side of the ledger at present. Both the state and church Brigham Young led have become ‘house-broken’ to Americanism. This years’ Presidential election reflects the long road Governor Young’s people have travelled.

The explanation for violence in Utah during the tenure of Governor Young is usually stated in these terms: “the point here is not to claim that no vigilante crimes by angry Mormons protecting their interests ever occurred in territorial Utah. The point is that over attention to such activities obscures the fact that they were very rare compared to elsewhere in the West, where no concerted effort to undermine a popularly supported government was going on as in Utah.” This measure concedes too much. It presumes to compare God’s kingdom to how others in this world behave; or in Mormon vocabulary, the standard is Telestial. 

When Christ spoke of His kingdom, He declared it was “not of this world.” The inspiration for Brigham Young’s ambition to be king came from Joseph Smith and the Council of Fifty. But Joseph Smith surrendered his own life, “as a lamb to the slaughter” even when he had the largest militia in Illinois, the Nauvoo Legion, at his command to prevent his arrest. Christ was killed, Joseph Smith was killed, and both claimed an otherworldly kingship. 

The form of kingship is approved in the Book of Mormon. In this form the king is servant, and not a master. This form of king is in God’s service while kneeling and laboring to serve others, without boasting and without imposing grievous burdens. In other words, the Book of Mormon approves a Celestial kingship, which serves through self-sacrifice and meek example as the model of leadership, but utterly rejects control, compulsion and dominion by an earthly king. Hence the sad observation made by Joseph Smith that it is the nature of almost all men as soon as they have a little authority to begin to exercise unrighteous dominion over others. 

Mormon apologists do not apply a Celestial standard for the Reformation. Nor do they use the Book of Mormon to measure Governor Young. Consistently, they compare the kingdom’s conduct to gentiles elsewhere in the West. By that standard, Governor Young presided over a violent Telestial Kingdom and measured only an above average grade in the number of killings. In the end, whether you are sympathetic, dispassionate, or critical of this era of Mormon history, all writers, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, concede it was a Telestial Kingdom over which Governor Young reigned. By that standard he did well enough. However, is it enough to say he could have been responsible for more deaths if he had been brutal? Is Mormonism to be measured against its highest ideals, or instead it’s better-than-average performance? If we use the steep incline in the number of killings beginning in 1857 as a trend, then the fruit of the Mormon Reformation was an ominous harvest. Had the US government not intervened to remove Governor Young in 1858, the trend suggests something even more dreadful was coming.

For President Young, in the absence of the Lord appearing “and personally dictat[ing to him] in the management of the people,” hearing “the voice of Almighty God” was a matter of common sense. He told the kingdom, after learning that President Buchanan had ordered the Army to go to Utah, how he was able to conduct the kingdom’s affairs: “I am not going to interpret dreams; for I don’t profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser[.]” From our vantage point, we can question why he did not hear God’s voice in the early death of Willard Richards, nor in the drought, grasshopper swarms, crop failures, bitter winters, livestock deaths, buildings collapsing under the weight of unusually heavy winter snows – including the church’s Bowery, in the handcart company disasters, premature death of Jedediah Grant, nor in his own life-threatening illness in February 1857. God’s voice throughout those difficulties only said to the Yankee guesser that God condemned the subjects of the kingdom for their lack of fidelity to the earthly king’s righteous leadership. 

The Book of Mormon promises the American continent was to remain a place of liberty. This land is not for kings and kingdoms. The gentile occupants are warned to never establish a king here, or they would be cursed. The collision between Brigham Young and the United States could be interpreted, using the Book of Mormon’s teachings, as a conflict between God’s decree against a kingship and Governor Young’s insistence upon it. In that sense, the arrival of the Army to remove Governor Young was, at last, the voice of God Almighty, relieving Brigham Young of his kingship. 

Brigham Young faced greater challenges than we do. We can no more view ourselves living in antebellum America than we can view ourselves in the shoes of Brigham Young. Therefore, even if we think we can understand him, we should hesitate to judge him. That judgment remains best left to God. The most we ought to offer is gratitude we were not given his responsibilities because that would expose to public view and history’s memory our own assortment of human failure. Governor and President Brigham Young was a colonizer, leader, religious symbol, and American icon. He rightly deserves a place in American and Mormon history, even if some of the praise and criticism given him is both too little and too much. 

Thank you. 

[1:01:27] Introduction of Thomas G. Alexander

[1:04:08] Thomas G. Alexander: Actually, I would consider this a comment rather than a rebuttal. These will be things that I’ll be dealing with. In considering Denver’s paper I will frequently refer to the ideal of the expected and the actual of, an approach that was suggested by Robert Burkholder.

Denver argues that the Counsel of Fifty operated the government in Utah with Brigham Young. This may have been the ideal but it wasn’t the actual. He cites Mike Quinn’s excellent article but Mike points out that most of the time the Counsel of Fifty didn’t operate at all. Rather, Quinn points out, “it symbolizes (and I’m quoting) the other worldly world order that would be established during the Millennial reign of Christ on earth.” Mike says that after the initial flurry of activity from 1848 to 1850 in Utah, the Counsel of Fifty was a virtual relic during the remainder of Brigham Young’s leadership. When it functioned, the Counsel was a rubber-stamp for the First Presidency and Twelve, who actually provided continuous leadership for the Mormons in religious, economic, political, and social matters.

Brigham Young outlined the ideal when he explained that the Constitution of the government of the kingdom of God. He called it both a republican theocracy and a true democratic theocracy. Young argued that the kingdom of God would “differ but little in form from our national, state, and territorial governments but its subjects will recognize the will and dictation of the Almighty. Everyone,” Young says, “will be free to exercise religious and other civil rights that they should have been able to exercise under the Constitution.” 

In 1855 he said that the kingdom of god was not fully organized. In 1856 he said we’ve got to be rightly prepared to go to the spirit world in order to become kings. In 1863, in speaking to the shadow government of the State of Deseret, he used the future tense: “We are called the state legislature but when the time comes we shall be called the kingdom of god.” In a sermon in 1866 he spoke of the kingdom of god as in the future. 

Now, some of his sermons are inconsistent. In 1861 he said that Joseph Smith had organized the kingdom of god as prophesied by Daniel. In 1857 he spoke about the kingdom of god as being on the earth. In trying to reconcile these inconsistencies, it seems to me that the term “kingdom of god” as it relates to the organization on our telestial earth, was an ideal, symbolically embodied in the church. In the future however, he expected that it would be an actual organization governed by God and Christ. This is consistent with his view of kingship. In a sermon in June 1866 he said, “This kingdom is governed and control[l]ed by him who knows all things; and he will bring forth the righteous, the just, the humble and the meek of the earth, all those who serve him and keep his commandments to the enjoyment of the fulness of his glory.” In 1874, in promoting the United Order, he announced an uncannonized revelation from God, he called on the people to join the United Orders for the furtherance of God’s Kingdom on earth. 

Assertions that Young considered himself a king occur frequently in Denver’s paper. For instance, the author inserts the words “priest and king” when he certainly makes clear that Young is speaking about God’s own kingdom on earth, not Brigham Young’s kingship. The general rule historians follow is to give evidence. Frankly, I’ve searched Brigham Young’s sermons in vain for any place where he referred to himself as a king. Rather, he said, “the Lord Jehovah is my king and instructor.” Moreover, the portions of Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants that Denver quotes, especially verses 19 and 20, refer to future conditions after the resurrection, not the condition on this Telestial earth. 

The way Brigham Young functioned in this world is best understood as a territorial governor and church president rather than as a king. In fact, I would argue that in every place in his [Denver] paper where the word “king” appears in reference to Brigham Young, except where it is used symbolically it should be replaced by terms like president, governor, or prophet, depending on the context. Denver’s discussion of the Book of Mormon is interesting in the ideal but it bears little relationship to the actual. In actuality, as governor and church president, Brigham Young made executive decisions in counsel with his close associates, generally members of the First Presidency and Counsel of the Twelve. These were similar to president’s cabinet meetings and Andrew Jackson’s kitchen cabinet. 

The saints established a provisional government of the State of Deseret and applied for admission to the Union. The leaders drafted a constitution as Peter Crawley has shown, without a convention. Brigham Young and his advisors clearly decided to hurry things along, and they held elections in a public meeting two days after the convention. We should note that such voting was not unusual in the 19th century and secret ballots were unknown until 1888. In 1888 Massachusetts was the first state to adopt the secret ballot. Kentucky was the last in 1891. Previously, states used systems where people announced their votes at the polls or parties drafted their own ballots. 

The Mormons lived in what Joseph Smith called a theodemocracy. The First Presidency and Twelve acted under God’s direction. God, not Brigham Young, was the king. Given the insignificant role of the Counsel of Fifty and the general perception that God governed the kingdom, I would argue that the crowning of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor was symbolic, that is an ideal rather than actual. Denver acknowledges that Joseph Smith’s kingship was entirely theologic, private, and non governmental. In fact all three – Smith, Young, and Taylor – functioned as prophets, seers, and revelators rather than as kings. 

With regard to relinquishing power Brigham Young says, as Denver indicated, that he would serve as governor, again not as king, and “no power can hinder it, until the Almighty says, ‘Brigham, you need not be governor any longer,’ and then I am willing to yield to another governor.” He offered on at least two occasions to yield his governorship voluntarily. He volunteered to relinquish the governorship to Edward Steptoe in 1854 when he thought that President Franklin Pierce would appoint him as governor, and Steptoe declined the appointment. He actually relinquished his authority to Alfred Cumming in March 1858, when Thomas L. Kane brought him to Salt Lake City. Cumming said everywhere that he was greeted as governor when he came. 

Significantly, the Army did not force Cumming on Brigham Young and the people of Utah. The army was still bivouacked at Fort Bridger when Cumming arrived in Salt Lake City. Since Brigham Young relinquished the governorship before the army arrived we should analyze the installation of Alfred Cumming and the dispatch of the Army as separate issues. We need to understand that the Mormon people, not just the leaders, feared the advancing Army because they had experienced state run armies in Missouri, and organized armies functioning outside of the authority of the state in Illinois. My own great-great-grandfather and his family lost property in their expulsion from Missouri and Nauvoo. Numerous Mormons died in Missouri and Illinois, either killed by the Army or by weather and starvation. 

As the army advanced on Utah the people heard stories of the soldiers threatening to murder them. The Mormons used violence to hinder the Army’s advance and many abandoned Salt Lake City and moved to Provo in a very expansive venture. They wanted to stop the advance of the Army and they wanted assurance that the soldiers would not molest them. President James Buchanan’s Peace Commission offered both amnesty and promises about the role of the Army. Brigham Young said that he accepted the amnesty even though he believed that he had done nothing to deserve it. 

Utah was not in rebellion against the United States. Rather, the people of Utah wanted to avoid a murderous army, and instead to secure admission as a state into the Union. They did not want to escape the Union. Here we can separate their ideal, which was the kingdom of god on earth, from the expected, which was formal admission into the Union. Because of their theodemocracy and the practice of polygamy the actual was continued territorial status. In failed attempts they drafted constitutions and applied for statehood in 1849 and in 1856 while Brigham Young was governor. The territorial legislature also sent a number of memorials during the same period asking for admission as a state. Afterward they applied in vain four more times before they finally achieved admission in 1896. 

While we acknowledge the Mormon theodemocracy we also need to understand the 19th century United States was a Protestant theodemocracy. Ernest (Tuckson?) argues that the United States owes more to the Protestant Reformation than to the enlightenment. On this subject I suggest Edward Digby Baltzell’s books. Baltzell argues rightly, I believe, that in the 19th century “this class of Protestant patricians not only held the vast majority of positions at the very heart of the national power but also set styles in the arts and letters, in universities, in sports, and in the more popular culture which governs the aspirations and values of the masses.” You may remember that when Methodist layman James B. McKean came to Utah in 1870 as chief justice of the territorial Supreme Court, he made it clear that he believed that God had sent him on a mission to Utah. 

President Ulysses S. Grant turned over the operation of most of the Indian reservations in the United States and territories to religious organizations. He even included some Catholics but he excluded the Mormons. A number of states had established churches in the early American republic. Until the adoption of the 14th amendment, the provision of the US Constitution prohibiting establishment did not apply to the states. Connecticut had established a congregational church until 1819, and Massachusetts did so until 1833. Until the 20th century atheists couldn’t hold office in eight states. In 1961 the Supreme Court ruled in Torcaso vs Watkins that the prohibitions prohibiting atheists from holding office in those states were invalid religious establishments. Beyond this, to argue that churches have nothing to do with secular matters and that these are another matter altogether, simply ignores the historic function of churches. Even today many Protestant and Catholic religious leaders continue to dictate political decisions to their congregations. 

Regardless of the ideal laid out in Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants, as an actual matter, churches have always involved themselves in state affairs. Religious leaders give advice to members, to governments, and pressure both on all sorts of secular matters. Religious pressure often induces members of churches to support or oppose political candidates, secular issues of importance, and even questions of life and death. In the Mormon theodemocracy, the church leadership decided who should run for political offices and the memberships sustained them. Between 1870 and 1891 the LDS Church sponsored the People’s Party and the membership generally voted to support the people’s party line. As Denver indicates, the LDS Church did not separate the temporal and spiritual but neither did contemporary Protestants. In actual practice, most people opposed religious interference in secular affairs unless it is in behalf of issues that they support. For instance, what would have happened to the civil rights movement in the United States if the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. had not spoken out and acted so forcefully as a religious leader? Right now the Catholic clergy are resisting the inclusion of birth control in medical plans for their employees. 

Now let me turn to the Reformation. As Denver points out, Brigham Young favored the death penalty. Well, this isn’t unusual. Thirty-seven states have the death penalty today. What is outrageous, however, is that Young’s ideal was that private organizations and individuals should exercise the death penalty. I would be the first to agree that both general authorities and members made many serious mistakes during the Reformation. Significantly, the General Authorities today recognize that even Church leaders can make mistakes. In his April 2012 sermon, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said, “We consume such precious emotional and spiritual capital clinging tenaciously to the memory of… an incident in Church history that proved no more or less than that mortals will always struggle to measure up to the immortal hopes placed before them.” 

It seems clear that Brigham Young’s ideal was that if people were righteous God would bless and protect them. Instead of measuring the actual by the expected, Brigham Young measured the actual by this ideal. Since Utah experienced grasshopper plagues and a drought, and harsh winters, he concluded that they must be unrighteous. As leaders tried to determine the level of the righteousness we can understand why home missionaries and block teachers asked the questions that they did. 

What is impossible to understand, especially given the Book of Mormon doctrine that Christ’s atonement is infinite, is the doctrine of blood atonement. In 1899 the First Presidency and Twelve repudiated blood atonement in an official declaration called “The Manifesto of the Apostles”. Nevertheless, whether we perceive Brigham Young’s sermons about blood atonement as ideal rhetoric or actual expectation, they are unacceptable as Church doctrine and practice. Unfortunately, the sermons may have had actual consequences. His sermons may well have influenced the decision of Bishop Aaron Johnson of Springville to order the murders of William and Beason Parish. Some historians have wrongly concluded that Young sent a letter to Johnson ordering the murders. (?) Marshall found the letter that Young actually sent and it has nothing to do with the Parishes. Young did not order those murders. 

This brings us to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Given the available evidence it seems unlikely that Brigham Young ordered the massacre. It has always amazed me that authors could blame Brigham Young for ordering the massacre when Laban Morrell and others on the Cedar City High Counsel refused to go along with Stake President Isaac Haight’s plans. They made him agree to send James Haslam north to ask Brigham Young whether they should punish the immigrants. If Brigham Young had ordered the massacre, and he held as much power as critics say he did, why didn’t President Haight simply tell the High Council members to get into line? Instead, Haight worked behind their backs to make sure that the murders took place. He’d already sent John D. Lee out to begin the raid without informing them, and even after he agreed to send Haslam north he didn’t recall Lee. Later in the week he induced militia commander and Parowan Stake President William Dame to authorize the massacre, in spite of the fact that the Parowan Stake High Council had forbid it. Stake President Isaac Haight, not Brigham Young, bears the immediate responsibility for the massacre through his deceitful actions and orders. 

Historically we expect that some people in any organization will consider themselves more orthodox than the prophet and will act in ways that damage the organization as Haight’s actions did. In fact, as (Jeffrey N.) Walker (et. al.) have shown the immediate causes of the massacre were local disputes. We understand, however, that the caution of Elder George A. Smith to prepare for possible conflict may have contributed indirectly. If so, Brigham Young may also have contributed indirectly by sending Smith south to warn the saints to prepare for war. Significantly, conflicts took place in Utah Valley and in other places as the Baker-Fancher party came south. Smith had warned others also about the possible war but their actions did not lead to massacres and the conflicts in Cedar City should not have lead to a massacre either. Responsibility for this massacre lies with Stake President Isaac Haight, not Brigham Young. Thank you. 

[1:25:40] Moderator: I would like to ask first Brother Snuffer, perhaps, if he would like to comment or respond to comments presented by Brother Alexander, if that changes in any way his opinions or conclusions as to Brigham Young’s kingship assertion. 

Denver: I would say no, because all of the instances he gave in which Brigham Young was back walking the concept of kingship were posed in 1860, 1861, 1865, 1867, 1870. These are after he’s been deposed as governor. 

Thomas: All of them are.  

Denver: All of the dates that I recall hearing were deposing him. In fact, the title of the talk is based upon the mixture of church and state from 1851 to 1858. Therefore, anything that happened, that was learned as a consequence of being deposed by the arrival of the Army, which was the only reason why Governor Cumming was treated as he was… There’s another narrative but it doesn’t appear in this talk because I was limited in the amount of time that I could take. 

In 1847 when they arrived in the valley, Brigham Young said, “If they’ll give us ten years of peace I will ask no odds of the government.” If they give me ten years I ask no odds of them. In 1857, which was ten years hence, when the army was sent out to put in a new governor, Brigham Young repeated that: “I said if they gave me ten years I would ask no odds of them.” Brigham Young fully intended to remain in charge of the government and his dialogue suggests that. The comments that get made post governorship, post resignation, informed Brigham Young by the course of history, the Yankee guesser could guess something as a consequence of that, that informed him. My view of his status as king runs from 1851 to 1857 and is derived from the things and the views that were held in that time period. In fact, a great deal changed in Brigham Young’s mind after 1858. 

Brigham Young was of the view, for example, the closer that they got to the establishment of an actual functioning temple, the closer Brigham Young came to the realization that part of what Joseph was doing in Nauvoo was beyond their grasp. They needed to have answers to questions in the temple that he didn’t have answers to. His solution to that was the expectation that the resurrected Joseph Smith would come and deliver what was missing because the return of Joseph Smith as a resurrected person, with Jesus in the clouds of glory, was an expectation that Brigham Young held for his own lifetime. The closer he got to his death in the 1870s the more he modified that view as well. The idea that the kingdom would go on post his lifetime was an idea that didn’t service what he was talking about early in life. It didn’t answer to the question of the dilemmas that it was faced early in life, just as his views changed when he was no longer governor. 

I readily agree that the Counsel of Fifty turned into something far more symbolic but the power, the influence, the keys, the status, the concept aright, and the authorization to establish it, derived wholly from the Counsel of Fifty. But just as Brigham Young became disenchanted with sharing leadership with the Quorum of the Twelve, after the successful campaign and vote in August of 1844 he determined he needed to be elected to be church president in 1847. Now, this was a move that was opposed by John Taylor, that was opposed by Parley Pratt, and Wilford Woodruff suggested to him he ought not do that in the absence of a revelation. Brigham Young spent a couple of days arguing with Wilford Woodruff over whether you can elect a church president in the absence of a revelation authorizing it. Ultimately the vote was held and Wilford Woodruff stood down from the argument, and he was elected, at which point one of his first comments was, “I can’t wait to get back to Salt Lake and have John Taylor and Parley Pratt confess they’re not Brigham Young.” 

Well, the ideal at the moment of the election in August 1844 was that the Quorum of the Twelve was going to run the church. But the practical implementation of that was that Brigham Young did not do well with opposition in order to garner a consensus; that was more difficult. Therefore, the Twelve became a source of frustration to him and he wanted a First Presidency because then he could confine the debate to three instead of twelve, and he succeeded in getting elected, and he succeeded in organizing the presidency, and he succeeded in establishing a precedent. But you must not confuse what Brigham Young would learn through sad experience after being deposed, with what he said he meant during the time that he was reigning as the governor.  

[1:31:00] Q&A: We are out of time and we wanted to take questions, and there is another group following us at 3 o’clock. Does anyone have a question for either Brother Alexander or me that we can answer briefly? 

Question 1: Why wasn’t the name of John D. Lee ever mentioned in either discussion of the Mountain Meadow Massacre (cross talk).

Denver: Today, in this talk? This talk is an excerpt from a paper. This is about one-third of the paper, and I intend to release the paper on my blog. I wanted to hear the comments today before I clarify a few things, and I do intend to clarify. But the focus is not upon what Brigham Young learned as a consequence of these incidents, but that the focus was upon what was going on in real time at the time, and John D. Lee’s name is in there, and it’s in there more than once. You can read that. The paper will come out on the blog. 

Question 2: You mentioned a Santa Clara Massacre. How many people were killed? 

Denver: At the Santa Clara ambush no one was killed. There was an attempt to kill them. There were four victims that were involved with that. One of them was a relatively faithful member of the Church, I think he got shot in the nose and he was taken down to San Bernardino. He survived, and he lived through it all. He was a faithful member of the Church but the whole ambush left a bad taste. You’ve got to understand, Utah was big news back in those days, so all of the stuff that went on found its way to the national press. Impressions matter more than reality, particularly when these events were unfolding in Utah. 

Brigham Young’s own rhetoric is, in part, responsible, for what happened to him being removed as governor. He just said some very inflammatory things. I think he believed the church and kingdom were going to be delivered by God, and when it didn’t happen, he learned from that. He went to school on it, and he adapted his understanding as a consequence of that. He would make statements later in light of what he learned from that. Just like I think the Black Hawk War was another bit of tuition in the education of Brigham Young, in which he envisioned, as a result or as a consequence of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants prophecies about the Lamanites. The Lamanites are not supposed to go to war against the kingdom. The Lamanites were supposed to join in and protect the kingdom. The Black Hawk War taught Brigham Young something that he didn’t know before that. 

Brigham Young was a work in process, but the focus of my talk was the work of Brigham Young and the status that came from 1851 to 1858, not that he may have matured into it at a later time. 

Thank you very much.

The post Brigham Young’s Telestial Kingdom appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This lecture by Denver Snuffer entitled “The Mission of Elijah, Reconsidered” was originally recorded in Spanish Fork, Utah on October 14, 2011, in front of a live audience.

Transcript

Well, if technology works, we’ve begun. 

When you run into a phrase in which you find agreement between John and Paul and Moroni, and they use virtually identical language in what they’re saying, then that sort of leaps out, because these divergent personalities converge on a thought, and the thought suggests something, I think, profound. I’m going to take the one that John wrote, which is in 1 John 4:15, and since this is not a sacrament meeting you won’t offend me if you get your scriptures out and you choose to turn to 1 John 4:15. The statement that all three of them make is: “there is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.”

When it comes to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which according to Joseph Smith comprehended all truth. It is our own fear that limits our capacity to gain from what’s being offered. It’s a measure of our ingratitude, when declining the invitation that Joseph extended to search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of God, we elect to withdraw fearfully and conclude that we’re just not interested in what might have been had. 

It’s actually a trick of the devil to get people to close their minds and close their hearts, because they fear what they may be learning will do damage to them. You see, when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit and then Satan called to their attention the fact that they were naked, that’s the beginning of the mischief that gets visited on humanity by the adversary who seeks to bind and control and to limit the freedom of all mankind, to imprison them. He pointed out to them that they ought to be ashamed. And when therefore they heard the voice of God speaking they withdrew, not because of shame, but because the shame triggered within them – fear. They were afraid to come into the presence of that being who they knew to be just and holy, because now they were in a state in which fearfully they were naked. Their “nakedness” came to them as a consequence of understanding the difference between what they were and what they are, and that knowledge came to them by partaking, out of season, of the fruit that they weren’t scheduled to receive a command to part of, until after a day of rest had been observed. So now, not only are they naked before God, they are also violating the Sabbath and beginning the labor of the mortal existence out of time, out of sequence, out of season. That’s the way a great number of errors are made in humanity. 

You see, we’re commanded not to partake of some things out of season, and then we are commanded to partake within season, and when we get the timing wrong we wind up with difficulties and problems that ought not to have been visited. The other references on that same statement, about the opposite of love is fear, is 2 Timothy 1:7 and Moroni 8:16. 

Repentance is a critical thing. It is the message of the Book of Mormon. It is the greatest message that’s contained within the Book of Isaiah, and it is the message of all the true prophets. The thing that stirs you up to repenting is actually two things: the first thing is to awaken to your awful situation, and the second thing is to arise, and that is to connect with the source which will cure what is wrong with you because we are not self-curing. We are filled with that same shame that came to us in the beginning as a consequence of doing what we were not supposed to be doing. The greatest way in which the adversary keeps us in a state of slumber is to prevent us from looking about and becoming awakened to the awful situation in which we find ourselves. Hugh Nibley commented on more than one occasion that there is nothing quite so terrible as being awaked out of a deep sleep. No one really likes that. When it comes right down to it, unconsciousness is a very good thing, particularly when what you are looking at is what we have here. 

Alma the Younger, a fairly expert source on the subject of repentance, after he had been seasoned by his experience in being converted and his experience in preaching the Gospel, and his experience in fatherhood, gave some advice to his own children. After giving them a talk and an explanation about the demands of justice on the one hand, and mercy on the other, and how they are balanced with one another, and how mercy can overcome the demands of justice but it is not by robbing it, it’s by satisfying it. It’s just a brilliant doctrinal discourse. Then he turns in a series of statements at the end. This is in chapter 42 of Alma, beginning in verse 27. He says: “Therefore, O my son, whosoever come may come and partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not come the same is not compelled to come…” It is free, and it is not only free, it is non-compulsive. It is purely voluntary. Anyone is free to accept it, and anyone is free to reject it. But in the last day it shall be restored unto him according to his deeds. That is, offered freely, available to all, non-compulsory, but you are accountable. Therefore, when you elect to decline what is offered to you, then you receive at the last day the recompense that you merited. Those who refuse receive whatever it is that comes as a consequence of their refusal. Those who receive, receive what is offered. 

28 If he has desired to do evil, and has not repented in his days, behold, evil shall be done unto him, according to the restoration of God.

29 And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance.

Don’t trouble yourself, unless it is motivational, to have change. Repentance simply means change. Repentance actually means you turn from the way, the direction, you are facing. Whatever the direction is you happen to be facing, change from that and face God. When you turn to God and face Him, when that is the object of your focus and your attention, then you’ve repented. 

30 O my son, I desire that ye should deny the justice of God no more. Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least point because of your sins, by denying the justice of God; but do you let the justice of God, and his mercy, and his long-suffering have full sway in your heart; and let it bring you down to the dust in humility.

Well, that’s a graphic expression: being “brought down to the dust.” Dust is something that is below, it’s beneath, it’s on the ground. You’ve got to grovel in order to get there but that’s the point. “Awaking and arising” begins from a position in which you are in the dust. You are in the dust anyway, we all are. It’s only by virtue of waking up and discovering that you happen to be rather dusty that you decide to get up and dust yourself off. That is the condition in which we find ourselves. 

Therefore, when we look at the voices that would like to call attention to whatever it is that they are trying to draw your attention to in this world, one of the things that Alma suggests might be helpful are those voices that happen to be saying that there is something amiss, there is something that deserves your attention; to repent, to change the course you are on, to turn and face God, and to allow the only one who can offer salvation to offer salvation. 

In Ten Parables there is a story of “Hope and Tarwater” – which by the way is a parable that has multiple meanings, but the intended meaning is that both Hope and Tarwater are the pre-existence, but you run with that when you read it. Tonight what it’s about is the attitude that you bring with you. You bring it from the pre-existence, but, the attitude that you bring with you to anything. You see, what Lance found in the forest was exactly what Lance thought he would find in the forest. What James found in the forest was exactly what James thought he would find in the forest. Neither one of them could escape the view that they brought with them into the condition in which they find themselves. It’s a painful experience to have the suggestion made that the way in which you have always entertained the world view is, in fact, skewed, amiss, ugly, wrong, deceived, malevolent even. 

When I was 19 – actually it started even earlier than that – but when I was 19 they succeeded at last in overcoming my opposition to the message that the missionaries brought to me. I expended with liberal abandon the quantity of missionaries who came to teach me. I was a “golden contact” because the mission field was a scurvy lot of hard-headed New Englanders who had no inclination to listen to what Mormons had to say about their religion. I made the error of complimenting a fellow and it was mistaken as interest, and so they were fetching me with pamphlets. I literally showed up with, “Hey, come in please.” I literally showed up to missionary discussions with a six pack of beer. I asked if I could light a cigar in the living room. They were a BYU graduate, a Molly Mormon; I look back now and I cringe. I was a cretin and I had no idea. Eventually something happened which got me to pay attention and to entertain the criteria that they were saying was the correct criteria by which to measure the message that they were offering. The message they were offering required an entire shift to my world view. I’d been raised from my youth in Idaho to understand that Joseph Smith was a charlatan and a fraud, and that Mormons were deceived, mislead, and worshipped a false god, on and on, all the ridiculousness that you hear in the political debates of our country even now. 

I had to make the leap from the world view of ‘Lance in the forest’ to the world view of ‘James in the forest’ in order to say, “There might be something to this.” That’s the problem, after all, of the restored Gospel – there really might be something to this. If there is something to this, then how important is it, and if it’s that important, then how thoroughly ought we to examine it? How relentlessly ought we to search into it? And, how carefully ought we consider it? If there is some additional light that can be shed about any topic, how freely, how openly ought we to discuss it? I have no fear whatsoever about examining Joseph Smith from top to bottom, through and through, every minute of his life. I don’t have any concerns about that. 

I think anyone who is unwilling to entertain a thorough going examination of the life and the ministry of Joseph Smith is demonstrating fear, which is the opposite of love. We don’t have details about the life of Moses. We don’t have details about the life of Peter. We have an extraordinary limited vantage point from which to examine either one of them. We don’t have much in the way of detail about the life of Nephi. In fact, everything that we have about him is autobiographical. Therefore, to some extent, Nephi is going to tell us a narrative about himself that doesn’t give a full, fair, and impartial accounting of why it was his brothers continually found themselves not persuaded by the message that Nephi was delivering. I understand there are those who are hard-hearted, and I understand there are those who resent and envy the younger brother when the younger brother supplants the older brother, particularly when the supplanting takes place very early on in a difficult life’s journey, when he returns with the emblems of kingship, with the possession of the sword of Laban, with the brass plates, with all of the indicia that he is the leader. Then during the trek in the wilderness he actually assumes the role. By the time they get to the coast, now he is the one, and not his father, through whom the revelation is coming about the construction of the boat. The supplanting has been complete by the time they get to the coast. When Lehi dies in the new world, you’ve now taken off the one governing rallying point and the rebellion is in full swing, but what might have been done in the way of a list of legitimate criticisms of Nephi by Laman and Lemuel, if we were willing to hear their side of the story, we don’t know and we don’t have that. But when it comes to the Prophet Joseph Smith, I do have that! You see, I have the written accounts of those who hate him. I have the written accounts of those who conspired to kill him. I do not have autobiographical material. I have a wealth of information about him. 

I can still choose to be ‘Lance entering the forest.’ I can say I want to hear every word of criticism that anyone ever fabricated against the Prophet Joseph Smith, because it salves my conscience and it makes it easier on me. I needn’t “awake” and I needn’t “arise,” I needn’t do anything about a message that may be authentic and comes from God because I find flaws in the messenger. Praise Philastus Hilbert and those other ones; good for them. Even Sidney had some helpful things to add. 

When you have the opportunity to take and reckon the stature of a prophet from both those who love him and those who hate him; both those who merely admire but are not converted by him, and those who resent and are unconverted by him but feel no need to turn violent on the topic; when you have a mix of those various personalities, those various viewpoints converging on the meaning of the Joseph Smith; the more of that that I can gather in one place and consider – particularly as I consider it in light of the disposition of the person involved – the more of Joseph’s humanity comes through. Joseph Smith was not a deeply flawed human. Joseph Smith had a great deal about him that was downright commendable. But he was too eager to take some people into his confidence and he was oftentimes misled because he attributed motives to people that reflected what his inner motives were. 

You see, I have the virtue in my life of having been hired to handle the problems of other people as their attorney. The shine has been taken off of the business leader, the Church leader. The fraudulent purveyor of a security scan whose entré into the trust of those that give him their money is the fact that they are an LDS bishop, or they are a stake president. I taught a course at BYU Education Week on fraud in one of their Education Week cycles many years ago. I offered it as one of the “badges of fraud,” and a bad deal. If the person who is trying to get you to part with your money tells you in the first fifteen minutes what their religion is, and what their calling in the Church is, that is an indicator. The purpose behind the “sheep’s clothing” always is to mislead. The only reason you don the clothing is because you hope that by appearing superficially to conform to an image you mislead and you deceive. It is always the substance that matters. It is always the underlying message that matters. And, in general, what matters is: does it cause you to awaken? Does it cause you to arise? Relentlessly, the condition in which we find ourselves is one in which it is absolutely necessary that you awake and arise and that you shake off the dust and that you get out of the slumber in which you find yourself. Now, there are those who have awakened only to find themselves in a nightmare of their own making because the reaction to awakening is violent. 

I don’t swim in the shallow end of the pool. The only end I’ve ever been in is the deep end of the pool. It began when, indoctrinated by a Baptist mother, I knew these missionaries were out to perpetuate fraud and I had to overcome that. By overcoming that and by putting it to the test I got an answer to prayer. There is no argument you can advance that will succeed in altering that reality. Therefore, when someone coming to me after that point says, “Yeah, but they didn’t tell you that Joseph Smith had wives! Plural!” My reaction is, “Well, okay.” I grew up in Idaho, mind you. I’ve said, translated into – I guess I’ve read on a blog that even this is offensive: “No crap!” But you know… “I’ve gotta look into that! Well sure enough, there it is, right there in Section 132! (gasp)” I suspended judgment on the entire plural marriage issue from the moment that a critic trying to dissuade me from conversion first raised the issue. I have to tell you it was a real low priority for me. It’s weird, okay. I don’t care if you’re an advocate. I don’t even care if you practice it. It’s weird, okay? I love my wife. I don’t want another one. In fact, my view is that the more you love your wife the less you want another one. The more delightful the relationship is the less need there is to multiply complexity or try to find… If Joseph was willing to take that on then some day I’ll look into it and try and figure it. I suspended the judgment on the issue and I actually didn’t reach closure on that topic until maybe four or five years ago; it just wasn’t that important. 

I’ve reached closure on the issue and you have the benefit of what it is now that I view the correct view of that topic is in the last book, Passing the Heavenly Gift, and why Joseph practiced it. It’s not what some folks suggest. There was news on this topic while I was still in manuscript form and I could have added the DNA testing that had gone on, because they’ve been updating that, and there was another study. My recollection is that the source that reported it was the Salt Lake Tribune and not the Deseret News which again, is a reflection somewhat of fearing to broach some topics because the circulation of the Desert News is a different demographic. We ought to be very open and we ought to be very fearless. Nevertheless, they’ve been trying to figure out all of the genetic markers that relate to Joseph Smith and his purported prodigious sexual exploits with the plural wives. Even as of a year and a half ago, the last remaining trail that could have led to Joseph Smith as having sired a child came to a dead end. Right now the only children that Joseph Smith has ever been able to demonstrable have fathered by genetic markers are those children of Emma Smith, and that’s it. Now we have that story about Eliza R. Snow and the pregnancy, and all that, and we don’t have any progeny from that. Therefore, you can put that one on the “you probably ought to investigate that further.” Nevertheless, Joseph Smith fathered children with Emma Smith. 

Joseph Smith – as  I walk through my thinking on the topic in Come Let Us Adore Him – got the answer to his inquiry concerning plural wives in 1829. It came to him as they were translating Jacob chapter 2. Just like Joseph Smith, as they’re translating the Book of Mormon, he encounters the topic of baptism and he goes and he inquires, and John the Baptist appears to him. It is translating the Book of Mormon that is the trigger for the inquiry. He translates the Jacob chapter 2 material. Now, keep in mind, he began with the record of Lehi abridged by Mormon, and he went all the way through 116 pages, at which point he entrusted Martin Harris. The 116 pages were lost and Joseph commenced the translation from the point that it stopped after the 116 pages to the end. When he got to the end then he was told, go back and take the small plates of Nephi that had been included for a wise purpose, and translate them. So he translated the small plates of Nephi in which we find from First Nephi, the words of Mormon. Therefore, in translation you pick up after that period King Mosiah, King Benjamin, to the end of the Book of Mormon, and then you move to the beginning of First Nephi. The translation and the raising of the topic in the translation of Jacob 2 occurs very late in the process. The Book of Mormon is all but finished. You still have some of Jacob. You still have Enos. You have Omni and the rest of those through Words of Mormon left to do, but the work is essentially complete by that point. 

He inquires and he gets an answer to his inquiry. The answer that he gets informs him about the eternal marriage covenant. First of all, when something provokes a person to inquire of the Lord, particularly when what they are inquiring about is something that really matters to them about which they would really like to get an answer, they’re struggling; an interior lighting problem with your barges, for example. That’s a pretext used by the Lord in order to get you in a circumstance in which you are petitioning and open so that He can tell you something that really matters. We’ll take care of your interior lighting problem right there. Now what did you see? Okay, let’s get after it. Now let’s talk about redemption of you, Mahonri, from the fall, taking you back into my presence, and then let’s give you a plenary tour through the endowment so that you can know how everything fits together. But the problem that he approached Him with was interior lighting. 

Now, Joseph is approaching about the plural wife thing, and the answer that he gets begins with the eternal marriage covenant. The eternal marriage covenant, as we walk through in the book, “a wife,” “a wife.” Everything is phrased in the singular through all the beginning of this in which it is the mandatory commandment that must be obeyed, and then appended to the end of it is then the answer to the question that he posed. “Oh yeah. On that, we let some people do that under two specific circumstances that are outlined in the book.” 

We get Section 132 on July 12, 1843 when Hyrum asked Joseph to put it into writing so that Hyrum could take it to Emma and he could persuade Emma. When Joseph Smith dictates the revelation on July 12, 1843 he includes not just that first answer but he includes revelations generally on this topic all the way down through events that were then unfolding in Nauvoo. There are at last five different revelations contained in Section 132 but there were at least six revelations on the topic of plural marriage, one of which Joseph didn’t bother putting into the narrative of Section 132. The one that is missing is the one in which Joseph was commanded by an ‘angel with a drawn sword’ to practice this, which he found to be detestable. Joseph Smith complied, after he had been told to comply, and after he had been told. Eliza R. Snow’s account of that is the correct one, the most accurate one. He was told that he would forfeit priesthood if he did not comply with the requirement. Therefore, Joseph complied. It was a dreadful ordeal to him but he complied. After having complied, the revelation and his dictating picks up again, and Joseph is rewarded for having laid on the altar the thing that he did not want to lay on the altar. Against the Lord’s commandment he complied. Joseph’s calling and election is made sure. Joseph was given the sealing power. All of that happened before 1831 because Joseph uses the sealing power in 1831 in his ministry. 

Which leads us then to the topic I intend to talk about tonight, which is The Mission of Elijah. We have a narrative on Elijah that you are welcome to accept. I’m going to explain only how I understand it. You are free to choose. You can “take the waters of life freely and whosoever will not come the same is not compelled to come.” You don’t need to come with me. You don’t need to come with any man. You can be content as you are. 

Well, the story of Elijah actually begins a long time ago. (I’m checking my recorder when I do that. I want to see what it does with that.) “Three years previous to the death of Adam he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah who were all High Priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing. And the Lord appeared unto THEM. And they rose up and blessed Adam and called him Michael the Prince, the archangel. And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him, I have set thee to be at the head, a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince forever over them. And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generations. These things were all written in the book of Enoch.” (D&C 107: 53-57, emphasis added.) He was one of the seven who were invited. He was one of the seven who participated.

Here you have an interesting setting in which on the earth, previous to the death of Adam, we have a gathering in which there are seven people who are correctly qualified to stand before the Lord. The Lord comes and appears unto THEM. These seven who are present with Adam are now lineal descendents of Adam, members of the same family. Therefore, I would suspect they had all things in common. And the Lord came, even if only for this ceremonial moment, and dwelt among them. 

One of the participants in that moment, on that day, in that group, was Enoch. Enoch is the one who records it. It will be testified of at the proper time.  

Here we have the definition of Zion. It is diminutive, it is temporary, and it is tightly confined to a narrow group, and it is not this thundering congregation of 3.7 million temple recommend holders, all crowding like we see right now on Wall Street. (For goodness sake, get some Porta-Potties there.) It’s a very small group. It is a group to whom it is possible for the Lord to come and dwell among them. Among their number, then, is Enoch. So we have Zion. 

If you want the criteria, and we have a description, part of what we have in the Book of Moses given to us by Joseph Smith. By the way, I was reading in Doctrine and Covenants Section 107, verses 53-57, in the account of the appearance with Adam-ondi-Ahman. In Moses 7:16 we find this: “From that time forth there were wars and bloodshed among them. But the Lord came and dwelt with his people and they dwelt in righteousness,” which is an interesting contrast. Here you have wars and bloodshed on the one hand, but then you have the Lord, and the Lord dwelling among people who are living in righteousness. “The fear of the Lord was upon all nations so great was the glory of the Lord that was upon his people.” (Id. v. 17). It was the “glory of the Lord upon his people”, it was not the glory of the Lord, it was the people that intimidated. The Lord doesn’t show Himself to the wicked except unto destruction, but the Lord shows Himself unto those who are prepared. And then the “glory of the Lord upon them” that others find intimidating. That was the case with the people of Zion. 

“And the Lord blessed the land and they were blessed upon the mountains and upon the high places and did flourish.” (Moses 7: 17.) That is literal. Zion is not in a valley. “And the Lord called his people Zion because they were of one heart and one mind, dwelt in righteousness, and there were no poor among them. (Id. v. 18) ― and the Lord dwelt among them. It’s a socio-economic problem for us. 

Let’s take a look at Enoch then, because Enoch becomes the next figure that is important to understand Elijah. Again, I am explaining my understanding of the relevance of Elijah, which is not the story that other people tell concerning Elijah. You are free to accept what other folks say because, well, who am I? 

So, we have Enoch in D&C 107:48. Enoch was 25 years old when he was ordained under the hand of Adam. And he was 65 “when Adam blessed him.” That ought to tell you something right there. In Passing the Heavenly Gift one of the things that I suggest is useful to understand is that ordination is an invitation. The invitation is authoritative and available through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and it is the mechanism by which an authoritative invitation is extended to mankind after the days of Joseph Smith. You do not get an invitation elsewhere. 

However, when you walk through the lives of all these men, whose lives have some import, even Nephi’s brother Jacob, who was ordained by Nephi, talks about his ordination by his brother, and then later confirms, “I got my errand from the Lord.” (Jacob 1:17.) There’s a difference between the invite that is extended by ordination, and the blessing that comes when the authority is conferred, and when the power is conferred. You are seeing that dichotomy because Enoch was 25 years old when he was ordained under the hand of Adam. He was 65 when Adam blessed him and “he saw the Lord, and he walked with him, and was before his face continually; and he walked with God 365 years making him 430 years old and he was translated.” (D&C 107:49.) So, he is ordained, he is blessed, he is “continually before the Lord”. Then we pick up the story back again in Moses 6:25: “And Enoch lived 65 years and begat Methuselah.” 

Enoch had been ordained to the priesthood. These things matter. They matter more than you can possibly imagine unless you comprehend the Gospel of Christ. He is ordained at 25, he is blessed at 65, and he fathers a child at 65. There is something coincidental with Enoch becoming approved by the Lord and Enoch becoming completed as a person; because there is neither the man nor the woman separately in the Lord. They are both together. The narrative assumes that you might know something about the Gospel, and therefore assumes when you see this that you’ll take note of it, because man cannot be saved separately and singly. Man is saved in a union that’s designed, like God, to produce progeny. Without the woman there is no salvation. There is no happiness without the woman, and when you manage to cajole, intimidate, berate and belittle and to finally get reluctant submission by a woman, you haven‘t produced anything worthy of eternal preservation. You haven‘t produced anything that God will take note of and say, “Hey! This looks like Heaven. Let‘s hold on to this for all eternity. Because this is an environment inside of which we can produce progeny and they will grow up to something other than street hoodlums in the Kolob sector.” It doesn’t work that way. 

If you have read the Tenth Parable, the thing which caused the stirring to begin was the notice the angels took that here on the ground, on the earth, there was something that looked like Heaven. There was a man and a woman whose experience and circumstances mirrored the same kind of things that the angels, who are watching, recognized from where they come from. They went and they got the Lord, and the Lord came and He evaluated, and he said, “We’re going to save this one. Here’s the to-do list. Now get busy.” Eighteen years later they got busy. 

Here we have in Moses. [Enoch] has fathered a child and “Enoch journeyed in the land among the people, and as he journeyed the spirit of God descended out of Heaven and abode upon him; and he heard a voice from heaven, saying: Enoch, my son, prophesy unto this people.” (Moses 6:27.) It goes by real quick, but God just took ownership of Enoch as His son. You ought to note that. That means something, too. “Enoch, my son.” He said, “Prophesy unto this people, and say unto them—Repent, for thus saith the Lord: I am angry with this people and my fierce anger is kindled against them for their hearts have waxed hard, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes cannot see afar off. And for these many generations, (ever) since the day that I created them, they have gone astray, and have denied me, and have sought their own counsels in the dark; and in their own abominations have they devised murder, and have not kept the commandments, which I have given unto the father, Adam.” (Moses 6:27-28.) 

“And when Enoch had heard these words, he bowed himself to the earth, before the Lord, and spake before the Lord, saying: Why is it that I have found favor in thy sight, and am but a lad, and all the people hate me; for I am slow of speech; (that doesn‘t mean what you think it means) wherefore am I thy servant?” He is not slow of speech. He was a brilliant man; he was an articulate man. He was a capable man. He wrote the record. He is envisioned as the Great Scribe. He is thought, he is the one that brings wisdom, that brings knowledge. 

He is “slow of speech” because, quite frankly, he’s rather think about it than talk about it. He would rather consider it than speak about it. He would rather be left alone than to be made public. He would rather have his privacy and his family than he would to minister to people who don‘t give a damn about what he has to say, and who think that he is a wild man come among them, because he has no business delivering the message. 

Well, the Lord wouldn‘t take that. “Go forth, do as I have commanded thee.” (Id. v. 32.) The Lord says, “Open thy mouth, and it shall be filled, and I will give thee utterance, for all flesh is in my hands, and I will do as seemeth me good. Say unto this people: Choose ye this day, to serve the Lord God who made you. Behold my Spirit is upon you, wherefore all thy words will I justify.” (Id. vs. 32-34.)

Enoch is told at this point that in this walk that he is assuming, being a person “slow of speech,” and a reluctant draftee, that the mountains will flee before him and the rivers will turn their course and Enoch will abide in Him. Enoch will abide in the Lord and the Lord will abide in Enoch. 

This is a statement that is made when he is 65. But you have to understand that it is some several hundred years later before the word of Enoch has the effect that the Lord says will take place at this point, because the Lord, who has all things in front of Him, can see where this is going. But Enoch, who is down here, though a seer, isn’t there yet. It’s not “pixie dust.” It is acquired in exactly the same way in every generation, by everyone who acquires it, and it is acquired through the exercise of faith. The way by which people exercise faith is to conform their actions to the things that they believe in, even when the actions that they take are difficult. Even with what the Lord asks of you is something which you are very reluctant to lay on the altar. Even when everyone will hate you for what it is that you do. Nevertheless, he did what he was asked. This is interesting. His ministry gets covered there in Moses Chapter 6 – really interesting, but we’re not going to have time to go through all that in detail. 

The Lord gives to Enoch a description of the Holy Ghost. The description that he gives in Moses 6:61 are these words: “Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.” That is the definition of the Holy Ghost. On the list was the word “Comforter.” It is a definition that Jesus will endorse later. I don‘t know if He had the record of Enoch in front of Him when He made that endorsement. But it was Jesus speaking to Enoch at the time that this revelation was given, so that shows up as a common thing. 

If you take verse 61 and you say, this is the definition of the Holy Ghost: The Holy Ghost is the “record of Heaven.” The Holy Ghost is the “Comforter.” The Holy Ghost is “the peaceable things of immortal glory.” The Holy Ghost is “the truth of all things.” The Holy Ghost is “that which quickeneth all things which maketh alive all things.” The Holy Ghost is “that which knoweth all things and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.” You will get a lot closer to understanding about why it is that the Holy Ghost is a “personage of spirit that dwelleth within you” and is not a personage of tabernacle because otherwise it could not dwell within you, and other such interesting things, 

Well, Enoch launches his ministry, and at some point in his ministry he does do what the Lord said he would do some hundreds of years earlier. In Moses Chapter 7 now, we are a whole chapter later and this is verse 13: “And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him.” That is one of the unique attributes about the existence of Zion. When you have Zion in place then it is the Lord who fights the battles against it. You do not need to have a weapon‘s budget in the Zion camp. It doesn‘t happen. The battle to be fought is fought by the Lord. In the descriptions given through the Prophet Joseph Smith about the last days the people decide that they will not take on Zion, because Zion is too terrible because of the Lord. It is not their munitions. In fact, the description includes a statement that those who will not take up arms against their neighbor are the only ones that flee to Zion and the only ones that aren‘t out killing. 

Which then raises the conundrum: Why does the remnant which will build Zion “tear in pieces and trample under foot” the gentiles? Why do they do that? Oh, stop thinking with a damn howitzer in your hand, and start thinking about the image of Babylon that is going to be torn in pieces and be trodden under foot. You do not need anything other than the truth to tear in pieces the Gentile‘s kingdom. And it will be trodden under foot by the truth. 

Zion‘s final development says: “The fear of the Lord was upon all nations, so great was the glory of the Lord, which was upon his people. And the Lord blessed the land, and they were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish.” (Moses 7:17.) That’s where you’ll find Zion. Not on a plain and not in a valley. You will find it in the high places on the mount, not merely symbolically. No one will have a height from which to peek down into the goings-on in Zion. They will be beneath, and Zion will be above. Zion‘s presence will be terrible. I’m not going up there. You going up there? I’ve got a flak vest and I’m not going up there. It’s the same problem Israel had before the mountain when Moses was up on the mountain communing with the Lord. 

Mountaintops are acceptable substitutes for temples. I doubt the people of Zion are going to have a budget with which to build what needs to be built. Well, the Lord has a way of making do. “The Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart, and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.”(Moses 7:18.) There were no poor among them physically; there were no poor among them spiritually. They did not compete, they cooperated. They did not envy, they shared. They did not look to pass a zoning law. I will tell you how to ruin Zion, how to keep it from coming – pass a zoning law. Let’s ̳police the neighborhood. Let’s get some restrictive covenants. The instant you start to regulate Zion it’s gone. It’s slipped right between your fingers. No man need say to another: ‘know ye the Lord; for they’re all going to know him who dwell in Zion.‘

I’ve thought about writing a fictional account of this curious city in which people who have children live in big houses, and people who have no children live in small houses. No one has a job or a schedule but everyone works. One day the lead character gets up, walks outside, and notices that the lawn could use mowing. So he goes and finds a lawn mower and he starts mowing. He mows from one place in his house across the city to the other side. Everywhere he goes that he finds grass, he mows. When he finishes after a couple of weeks he returns to his house and says, “Hey, the grass has grown.” So he starts mowing again. He does this because he feels like mowing the grass for the time being. 

Then after a season he notices that there is only one person working in the bakery. Well, he’s never worked in a bakery, but he decides he’ll go see what it’s like to work in a bakery—and he rather likes that. So he spends a year in the bakery doing that. And he wonders whatever happened to the lawns. They’ve have been cut, but he doesn‘t know who has been cutting them. On his way to try and find someone who is cutting the yards, because he liked doing that, he has something in common with them. He would like to know how they liked it and what their pattern was. “How did you do that?” But on his way, he gets distracted by the orchard that needs harvesting, so he spends the fall harvesting that. 

So the story just ends, with complete chaos. A total ungoverned society, in which everyone is at peace, and no one has a job, and everyone works, and the only thing that motivates is what needs doing. “Hey, let‘s go do it.” And let’s do it for as long as we feel like doing it, and then let’s do something else. 

Our vision of Zion is regimented, regulated. “This is your assignment. We have called you; we are going to sustain you. We’re gonna put your ass in this position, and you are going to park it there, and you’re going to do this stuff, and you magnify that job!” Now, we’re not sure what “magnify” means, but I can tell you, you better be calling attention to yourself so that everyone notices, because we can‘t have the invisible lawn mower. We can‘t have the invisible baker. We can‘t have the invisible in harmony with everyone around them orchard harvester because this is the “Zion Reich!” As soon as you do that, it is gone. It’s slipped between your fingers. Zion is without compulsion. Zion will occur when the Lord brings again Zion. And it will happen perfectly naturally. 

We’ve got to get after this because we’re trying to figure out what the role of Elijah is. 

(Moses 7:20-21, 23): “And it came to pass that Enoch talked with the Lord; and he said unto the Lord: Surely Zion shall dwell in safety forever. But the Lord said unto Enoch: Zion have I blessed, but the residue of the people have I cursed. And it came to pass that the Lord showed unto Enoch” and he saw everything. And “…Zion was taken up into heaven, Enoch beheld, and lo, all the nations of the earth were before him;” and so on. So Enoch and his city depart. 

Now we have not only the example from Section 107 of the appearance of the Lord with… (Yee-haw! We’re going to build us some Zion!)

Enoch and his city were taken up. Noah remained behind. Again, here I am offering you my view. I am not offering you something which has been endorsed by anyone, although there are those folk on the fringe who have suggested the same thing that I think. But it is my view that Melchizedek is the new name given to Shem, and that Shem is the son of Noah. When it’s talking about the priesthood through the fathers unto Noah as the basis for a doctrinal interpretation, that that means that there were generations separating Noah from Melchizedek; that’s not how I read the verse. I read it to say, “Through the fathers, that is, from Adam down to Noah,” and the connection between Noah and Melchizedek is immediate, father and son, and Shem is the son, which is why then the next appearance of Zion happens as a connection. These initial appearances of Zion in this world are connected, because the first one in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman occurs, and Enoch is present. The second one occurs with Enoch, who was present when the Lord had dwelt with people before. The third one will occur when Melchizedek, who was acquainted with those on the other side of the flood – he’s an adult when they enter the Ark. He knew of Enoch, and the option. At that moment in history, here’s the dilemma: God is going to destroy the world but a group inside the world had attained the status of Zion. Since they are in the state of being Zion the world cannot destroy them. It is fair game for the wicked to destroy the righteous. The wicked are allowed to destroy the righteous all the time. If you don’t believe that then go ask Amulek, whose suggestion to Alma was rejected because Alma was saying, “Oh, no, this is a good deal. Let them burn. The Lord is getting mad right now. Something’s going to happen.” These people are received up in glory. These people being killed by the wicked, the wicked get to kill them! And they get to kill them because then God will judge the wicked by the taking of the lives. That’s the system. The most righteous man who ever lived was allowed to be killed by the wicked. In fact, was indispensable that the wicked get to kill the righteous because otherwise there could not have an Atonement then made. Therefore, Christ was slain at the hands of wicked men. But we have a problem with Zion because when the Lord sets about to destroy, the Lord cannot destroy the righteous, and He’s going to obliterate life on the earth except for those who were in the Ark or those in Zion. The wicked can’t come against them and all are going to be destroyed. 

So what do you do? Well, we’ve got a new status for humanity. The new status is you take them into heaven. But you don’t take people into heaven without an associated calling. There is no reason ever to take a person off the earth, even if they’re righteous. Abraham died and was buried. Christ died and He was more righteous than any who ever lived. You don’t take them off the earth unless they have a calling to minister, so we have a calling to minister. Enoch and his city could not be destroyed when the Lord was going to destroy. [He] and his city were called and they were given two callings: Their first assignment is as ministering angels, not only here but elsewhere. Their second calling – I don’t want to appear irreverent but really they’re the crowd – they’re the cheering group backing up the Lord at His Coming. They are the ones when He comes in the clouds with the angels. That group is Enoch’s people. They are the certifiers, they are the testifiers, they are the chorus, they are the entourage. 

There is a reason why our tinhorn dictators and our phony idols have an entourage. It’s to mimic the real deal, because when the Lord comes again in His glory he’s going to come with an entourage. So they got the job, Enoch and his folk. 

Melchizedek, who was acquainted with that condition, in my view had to be offered the option. Going on the Ark and staying down here when there is a group that are going to be leaving and going elsewhere, Noah was qualified to leave. All of them were qualified to leave and they had to be willing to stay. When you are allowed the option, and when you are going to stay but you know that there are those who are taken up, it seems like a reasonable request for Melchizedek to make, that after he finishes his ministry here that he also should be allowed to take a people with him. 

In the course of events Melchizedek established a city, a City of Peace, a city of righteousness. He was the king and he was the priest, and he presided over his people in righteousness. Abraham, who was converted to the truth, came to Melchizedek. They had a ceremonial get-together in which, among other things, there is a sacral meal. Melchizedek, who has been waiting for this moment, ‘hands the football’ to Abraham and says, “At last! Me and my people are gone!” And so, once again, Zion flees. 

When Zion flees again, now we have the people of Melchizedek. Notice, if you will, that the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God has been renamed the Priesthood of Enoch, and then renamed again the Melchizedek priesthood. That name has become rather more enduring because in each case they came and they established Zion, and when they established Zion they were taken with their people up into heaven. 

Now we have…I was going to read this stuff about Melchizedek. You’ll find that in the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis Chapter 14. It’s a long enough section that it’s back in the back of your bible, beginning with verse 25: 

“And Melchizedek lifted up his voice and blessed Abram. 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 an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,” (Vs. 25-27.) He‘s got the same covenant as had been previously made with Enoch. That tells you something if you’re paying attention. “It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by 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 (received) his name.” (Vs. 28-29.)

Joseph Smith tells us when he got the Melchizedek Priesthood, in my view. And in my view it was not an incident that occurred in which Peter, James and John were present. But it was “the voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmer, in Fayette, Seneca county” (D&C 128:21) when Joseph received the Melchizedek priesthood. Peter, James and John, like other angelic ministrants, came to deliver keys but not Melchizedek Priesthood because the priesthood of Melchizedek comes but of God. “It was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name. We can ordain people all day long, but the manner the ordination assumes power is by ‘the calling of God‘s own voice’.” That‘s the description given by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the translation of Genesis 14. He tells us that event took place from the voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmer, as referred to in D&C 128:21. 

D&C 128 is a letter Joseph Smith wrote in Nauvoo. It’s late in his ministry. It’s a letter that Joseph wrote while he is in hiding in Nauvoo and he’s trying to stay in contact with the saints. I make no reference to this in Passing the Heavenly Gift but it is another example, just as it is a glaring omission from the testimony of Oliver Cowdery, that he makes no mention of Elijah’s appearance in what we have in D&C Section 110. So also, in the listing of the angelic ministrants who came to Joseph Smith, in a letter that he composed in Nauvoo in 1842, six years after the appearance of Elijah. To our current way of informing one another he does not include Elijah in the letter or the list. And throughout the time period that he’s speaking in Nauvoo – you can look at the Nauvoo talks, and we will look at some of them – Joseph speaks of the return of Elijah as a still future event. If the return of Elijah is a still future event in 1842, 1843, and 1844, then the appearance of Elijah in the Kirtland Temple cannot answer to the mission of Elijah. 

But now we’re ahead of the story. Let’s go back to Melchizedek for a moment. In the case of Melchizedek, once again we see a repetition of the pattern in which there is a prophet-ministrant and a people who respond to the message of repentance, and people coming up to the state in which the Lord can come and dwell with them and then they are taken up into heaven. And then the narrative of the appearance of Zion evaporates from the scriptural record. Now, we do have the Nephite experience where the Lord came and He dwelt among them. They were not taken up into heaven. For a moment I want to stay on the idea of Zion’s ascent up the heavenly corridor. Just like the first Zion with Adam, all of those, including Adam, died, except Enoch and his city, and they did not die, they were taken up into heaven. Then we have Melchizedek, and his city was taken up into heaven. The subsequent experiences where the Lord visited with people, whether it is in Jerusalem or whether it is in the new world, did not result in Zion going up and ascending into heaven. It didn’t happen. But there is another incident which occurs when Moses is taken up into heaven. And then there is yet another incident that occurs when Elijah is taken up into heaven. 

Let’s turn to some of what we have going on with Elijah. Elijah is an interesting fellow. He raises someone from the dead. He helps the widow. This is in 1 Kings Chapter 17. He helps the widow of Zarephath, miraculously saved. He goes up on the mountain. On the mountain he encounters the Lord. The Lord tells him the way in which he can recognize the voice of God forever thereafter. He confronts the priests of Baal and he calls down fire from heaven. It’s a rather remarkable demonstration, after they have dumped water all over – this is in 1 Kings Chapter 18 – and fills the trench with water after they’ve made the sacrifice. He calls down fire from heaven and then kills 400 priests of Baal. All of this going on rather testifies that Elijah is now in possession of some of the power and spirit of God, and at this point in his career he’s developed to becoming quite adept at its use. He’s also stopped being inhibited about its public display, and so Elijah kills 400 of these guys. 

Then the moment comes when Elijah is going to leave. It’s interesting because… Well, I don’t know how much of that to get into. Elijah’s coming departure is not a secret. When Elisha and Elijah are on their way to the place at which, on the day on which Elijah’s going to be taken up into heaven, as they’re going along there are folks saying, “Hey, Elisha, you’re losing Elijah today.” This is the day he’s going. It’s not a secret. It’s going to happen. So Elijah’s on his way and Elisha’s with him, and Elijah wants to know, “Hey, you know this priesthood you’ve got and this thing you do.” (There’s a movie about that.) He’s saying, “Can I get some of that?” Elijah, recognizing that this is not a connection which men form among men but this kind of connection is one that requires a connection to heaven, tells Elisha, “If you’re with me when I’m taken up.” The heavens are opened; the presence of God is there. The witness will be there and the power will be conferred. “So if you witness it, it will be yours as well.” Elisha was with him when he was taken up. In a sign of benevolence and charity Elijah cast his mantle down and Elisha picked it up. When he got to the River Jordan he struck it with the mantle and the river stopped and he walked over on dry ground, and Elisha knew ‘now has that descended upon me,’ and then Elisha’s ministry continues from there. 

This, in my view, is the reason why Elijah must return. In the last days that system that began at first with Zion going up to heaven is going to invert. It is going to open again but this time instead of Zion leaving, Zion is going to stay and it is going to be joined by those who went away. They will come again. There is this marvelous description of how, when they return, they will fall on one another’s necks and they will kiss one another, because Zion below and Zion above will be joined. 

The purpose of the return of Elijah, which Joseph talked about being a yet future event in Nauvoo, has everything to do with the return and the Second Coming. You can look at the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I have a copy of those with me. The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith are really based upon the diaries of those who were present and recorded what they heard in their diaries on the days that Joseph gave the talks. Then they took an amalgamation of what was said from the various note takers and compiled them into a consolidated version, edited it for grammar, punctuation, and spelling, and that becomes the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. But if you want the actual journals or diaries, that is found in the Words of Joseph Smith… (It’s a Harley engine. I have this Pavlovian response to a Harley engine and I’m somewhere else for a moment.) In the Words of Joseph Smith – which is now out of print and extravagantly expensive if you decide to buy a copy. The last I heard they were going for over $300 for one in not very good condition. You can find them in an LDS electronic library, there are those that are available, but I understand that there is work underway to bring it back current in print and to add a second volume to it that will be the same kind of thing, the public addresses of Joseph Smith from the Kirtland era. The Words of Joseph Smith in its current version is the Nauvoo era discourses and I think it is going to come back as a two volume set. Andy Ehat is the one that is working on that. 

In January of 1844, this is some eight years post Kirtland temple, Joseph is talking about Elijah and he said:

This is taken from [a talk] in front of Robert E. Foster’s hotel nearby the Nauvoo temple, then under construction, from Wilford Woodruff’s journal. (He put quotes in it too. Good for Wilford. He’s better than my transcription machine in that respect.)

“The Bible says, “I will send you Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord (of course, he misspelled “dreadful”. He spells it like “dreadlocks” instead,) Come that he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children & the hearts of the Children to their fathers lest I Come & smite the whole earth with a Curse,’ Now the word turn here should be translated (bind or seal) But what is the object of this important mission or how is it to be fulfilled, The keys are to be delivered the spirit of Elijah is to Come, to be delivered, to come, the gospel to be established, the Saints of God gathered, Zion built up, & and the Saints to Come up as saviors on Mount Zion but how are they to become Saviors on mount Zion[?] by building temples erecting Baptismal fonts & going forth & receiving all the ordinances, Baptisms, Confirmations, washings, annointings, ordinations & sealing powers upon our heads in behalf of all our Progenitors who are dead & redeem them that they may Come forth in the first resurrection & be exalted to thrones of glory with us.”

Then Joseph laments. This is the only guy. This is an important talk, and this is the only guy who records this, Wilford Woodruff. Woodruff records Joseph saying: 

“I would to God that this temple was now done that we might go into it & go to work & improve our time & make use of the seals while they are on the earth & the Saints have none to much time to save & redeem their dead, & gather together their living relatives that they may be saved also, before the earth will be smitten.” 

This is the place where Joseph says – he is talking about Elijah. He is talking about the seals being on the earth, and he’s talking about preparing for Zion. In this context, in January of 1844, this is where Joseph says:

“Their has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation it has been like splitting hemlock knots with a Corn doger for a wedge & a pumpkin for a beetle, Even the Saints are slow to understand I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God, but we frequently see some of them after suffering all they have for the work of God will fly to pieces like glass as soon as any thing Comes that is Contrary to their traditions, they Cannot stand the fire at all, How many will be able to abide a Celestial law & go through to receive their exaltation I am unable to say but many are Called & few are Chosen.”

In March of 1844 he picks up the subject again; on March 10, 1844. This time, when he is talking about Elijah, he says, “The spirit & calling of Elijah is ye have power to hold the keys of the revelations ordinances, oricles powers & endowments of the fulness of the Melchezedek Priesthood & of the Kingdom of God on the Earth & to receive, obtain and perform all the ordinances belonging to the Kingdom of God even unto the sealing of the hearts of the fathers unto the children & the hearts of the children unto the fathers even those who are in heaven.”

The hearts of the fathers who are in heaven; that’s the mission of Elijah. If you will receive it, this is the spirit of Elijah – that we redeem our dead and connect ourselves with our “fathers which are in heaven.” Our dead through us, us to our “fathers in heaven.” Who are our “fathers in heaven” to whom we are to be connected? We want the power of Elijah to seal those who dwell on earth to those which dwell in heaven. Those who are in the spirit world, our dead, the ones that need redemption from us, are not redeemed. They cannot be in heaven because they need us to be redeemed. We need to be redeemed by our connecting to the “fathers who are in heaven”. The dead have to be redeemed. The fathers are in heaven. Joseph understood this doctrine. 

It is my view that the notion that you go to the temple and do genealogical work to answer the coming of Elijah does not conform to the description we are reading here from Joseph Smith. Our ancestors, our kindred dead, they need to be redeemed. They all have an interest in you and your life. The work that is being done needs to be done. But the gulf that needs to be bridged through the work of Elijah, in the words of Joseph Smith, is “to form a bond or connection.” Who was the last one who lived on the earth, not to hold the sealing power but to ascend to heaven and to draw together heaven and earth by his ascent, representing the opening of that way through which Zion above and Zion below will be connected with one another? Who was the last guide, as a mortal man, to have walked this path? When the Lord comes He is coming with an entourage, and the path needs to be opened beforehand. The path, once it’s open, allows men on the earth to be prepared for the coming again of those who are Zion above. Elijah answers, because Elijah is the one who made that connection. 

The doctrine of sealing power of Elijah is as follows: “If you have power to seal on earth & in heaven then we should be Crafty, the first thing you do is you go & seal on earth your sons and daughters unto yourself, & yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory. 

“Unto your fathers in eternal glory.” That is not your kindred dead, they are relying upon you to be redeemed. The connection that needs to be formed is between you and the fathers who dwell in glory. 

Who are the “fathers who dwell in glory?” If we go back to the revelation in which Joseph Smith received the sealing power, he received the sealing power some time before 1831. In that portion of the revelation known as D&C 132:49: “I the Lord thy God will be with thee even unto the end of the world and through all eternity for verily I seal upon your exaltation. Prepare your throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.” (Emphasis added.) “I say unto you whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth in my name by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens. Whosoever‘s sins are remitted on earth shall be eternally remitted eternally in heaven” and so on. 

Just before that portion of the revelation, in verse 37 he talks about Abraham, he talks about Isaac, and he talks about Jacob. Concerning those three, the Lord says to Joseph: “Because they did none other things in that which they were commanded they have entered into their exaltation according to the promises and sit upon thrones and are not angels but are Gods.” (Emphasis added.) 

This is Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These are the ones who are Gods. 

I think that Christ is deliberate about everything He says, about the analogies that He uses, and about the stories that He tells. When Christ takes occasion in a parable to tell someone about the status of heaven, the story that He tells is about Lazarus and a Rich Man. It says concerning the beggar, Lazarus, when he died, he was “carried by the angels into Abraham‘s bosom.” The dead man Lazarus, with an angelic accompaniment, is taken to Abraham‘s bosom when he dies. The definition of a reward in the afterlife is to go to “the bosom of Abraham.” 

The rich man is dead and he cries. The rich man, who is now in a state of torment, he cries out. He does not cry out, in Jesus’ story, to God. He cries out to Abraham. 

When Jesus is describing positions of authority in the afterlife, a person He puts into a position of authority in the afterlife to answer the petition of the dead rich man for relief from his torment, is Abraham. “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.” 

“But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime received the good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou are tormented.” There is an equation. Everything will balance. The things that you suffer from, it is the Lord’s intention to wipe away every tear. And, if you are one that chooses to inflict tears then that will be recompensed as well. Because what will be restored unto you is exactly, as we began with Alma, what you send out. It is an equation, after all. 

The rich man cried out, “I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father‘s house: (Send Lazarus to my father’s house.) For I have five brethren; that he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham said unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham; but if one went into them from the dead, they will repent. He said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead,” foreshadowing of course the rejection of the Lord’s resurrection and testimony as well. 

One of the things that we’ve got going on in our Elijah theology is the notion that on the Mount of Transfiguration there came Elijah and there came Moses, and there was this get-together rather analogous to what happened in the Kirtland Temple. Out of that mix came forth the sealing power keys to Peter, James, and John and so on. One of the reasons why the narrative we have concerning that ought to be something you think about is because, take a look in Matthew chapter 17 where the account is given, where after six days He took Peter, James, and John and takes them up on the high mountain. He is transfigured before them. There appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with them. “Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall come and restore all things. But I say unto you, Elias is come already, they knew him not, they have done unto him as they listed. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:1-13.)

And so on the Mount of Transfiguration the “Elias” that is suggested here is John the Baptist, not Elijah. An even clearer account appears in Mark chapter 9 beginning in verse 2:

2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.  

3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow;  

4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.

In the Joseph Smith translation he says – this is Joseph’s Smith’s insertion: “or in other words, John the Baptist and Moses.” Who appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration, according to Joseph Smith in the Joseph Smith translation of the incident, just like Matthew attributes it to being John the Baptist, so also Joseph Smith in the Joseph Smith translation attributes it to John the Baptist. In fact, he clarifies the text. 

Therefore, when I consider these things, I reach a different conclusion than the Elijah narrative that we generally talk about. The conclusion that I reach is that when it comes to Elijah‘s role and Elijah’s mission the purpose was, in the last days on the cusp of the Lord‘s return, in order to open the channel through which the Zion that has been taken above can return, there will be a ministry, just as Joseph put it, still future in 1844 – March, April, May, June, three months before the death of the Prophet, yet future – the purpose of which is to make possible the reuniting of those that dwell above with those that dwell below, formed by a people who are capable of bearing the presence of the Lord, coming back into His presence and not withering at the sight. Coming back into His presence and being able to dwell at peace. 

I would suggest that the peace of Zion has much less to do with whether or not the outward hostilities of those who will be burned at His coming are fighting with one another and those inside the city are not taking up arms, but it is rather the peace that comes as a consequence of having shed your sins and being able to endure the presence of the Lord. These are those people who have “let virtue garnish their thoughts unceasingly because their bowels have been full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith.” Imagine that. Can you imagine that it’s necessary that you have charity for those who are within your own household of faith? Can you imagine that I need to tolerate and even love those inside my own community of belief who think me an emissary of the devil? Who think me an apostate? Toward them I must show charity? 

And “let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly.” Because you see, if you are not so constituted within your own heart – where there can‘t be any lies – if within your heart you are not at peace in charity toward those who would in the name of your own religion despitefully use you, then your “confidence [cannot] wax strong in the presence of God.” And all of this is connected to “the doctrine of the priesthood.” 

“Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly, then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distill upon thy soul as the dews of heaven.” It will just condense there because when you do that, you reach ‘dew point.‘ (If Neal Maxwell were here he’d write that down. He would use it, too. I might send that to Cory. Say hey, hey! Go ahead and put it in his book and give him credit.

“The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth;” I want a scepter! Because can‘t you use those things to bash people in the head and say ‘big me, little you?’ Scepters have nothing to do with ruling and reigning. Scepters have to do with serving and kneeling. He who thought Himself the least, kneeled and washed the dirt from the feet of those who in every respect He excelled. He wanted to give them the chief seats. He didn‘t envy those He raised. He didn‘t envy those that presided over Him. He declared the truth and He declared it boldly because He knew what the truth was. To the extent that He could do so diplomatically, He did. When the moment came and it was necessary to lay it out, it was He who chose the moment of sacrifice. It was He that went up to Jerusalem to be crucified, and it was He who drove the fury that resulted in the sacrifice at the appropriate moment because the fullness of time had come for the offering on that Passover, and He knew that. [I talk about that in Come Let Us Adore Him.] Because when the time had come, the time had come.

The peace that is in Zion is the peace that Joseph is describing in the letter from Liberty Jail, from which I have just been reading (D&C 121). 

It is in the account from Enoch as well. The statement that’s made concerning the Priesthood, Moses 6:7: “Now this same Priesthood, which was in the beginning, shall be in the end of the world also.” That statement, “the same Priesthood that was in the beginning, shall be in the end of the world also,” when you take that and put it together with the statements that say, “as it was in the days of Noah, so shall also it be at the time of the coming of the Son of man,” every time you encounter the existence of Zion, the Zion that we read about, the first one had seven High Priests within it. There was a residue associated with them who were righteous but among them you had the seven High Priests. I have to assume that they each had families, and I have to assume that the families were the ones that were raised by these High Priests in righteousness. I have to assume that that included multiple generations, and so that collection of people was essentially seven families. 

The Zion that was established by Enoch thereafter, we don’t have any geographic description or numeric description apart from the statement that we get in the book of Jude, which is really quoting from an earlier text of Enoch about the return of Enoch with his ten thousands, “with his ten-thousands” of angels. If that is a representation – and those kinds of things are not particularly reliable, because ten thousands, given the way in which the numeric compilations occurred in those days – the error, if there is one, is an overstatement not an understatement. In other words there would not be millions described as ten thousands; but there could be hundreds described as ten thousands. 

The area occupied apparently by the people of Melchizedek and his city, in an agrarian setting, could have been located on something that is as small as 20 city blocks of our current type of area. 

The significance of Zion is not its numerosity. The significance of Zion is its spiritual endowment. It is the power of heaven, and not the voting block. It’s not that you’ve got big numbers here that intimidate the ungodly. It’s that even a handful is sufficient. 

Remember from the account of John that when they came to arrest the Savior and He declared, “I am He,” the guard stumbled backwards and fell down. The imposing figure of the righteous Lord was enough to intimidate those who came with swords and with shields, protected and armed, and Him clothed only with the garments that He had upon Him. At that moment in that garden, in that presence confined to the person of one individual, there was Zion. I do not think the picture that we have in our head of the role, mission, ministry and purpose of the return of Elijah in necessarily the one that is accurate. Nor do I think that the role, mission, ministry and the effort of Elijah is something from our past. Just as Joseph predicted the future return in January and March of 1844, I think the role and mission of Elijah is intimately connected with the immediate return. An opening up the capacity for the salvation of a group of people who will be greeted at the return of those that last went through that opening when they come and they fall upon one another’s necks, and they kiss one another. 

No rivalry, no disparity, no hierarchy. All things in common are rather difficult when you’ve got “big” and “little” people; when you’ve got important and wealthy, and you’ve got obscure and poor, when you have those who are mighty and wonderful and those who are nothing.

Hugh Nibley used to talk, I think rather tongue in cheek, about how he would be content to be nothing more than a doorkeeper in the House of the Lord, because if he were he would be standing next to “the keeper of the gate who is the Holy One of Israel who employeth no servant there.” (2 Ne. 9:41.) 

Well, I wrote a book and I made some people angry, but I also returned some people back to activity. I don‘t want there to be any mistake about my view of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If anything, I feel more strongly now than I did when I was baptized at age 19, of not only the relevance but the importance of the Church. It is the body that was set in motion by the hand of the Lord through the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is authorized by commandment to administer in the ordinances of the Gospel. It has been commanded to preach, teach, exhort, expound. It has been commanded to baptize. It has been commanded to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. It has been commanded to bless and pass the sacrament. If you want to get baptized then you need to leave the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Catholics and even Reverend Lovejoy‘s “Presby-Lutherans” and you need to come to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Dallin Oaks gave a talk in General Conference just a few years ago [April, 2006]. He was talking about the presence of revelation in the Church and the presence of the workings of God, the hand of God in the affairs of the Church. All of the examples that he used in his General Conference address were drawn from the experiences of those in the lowest level of the Church. It is at the lowest levels of the Church that I have always resided. And it is at the lowest levels of the Church – if you’ve been on a mission and you’ve bourn testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and you’ve had someone read it and get a testimony themselves, you know the hand of God is still over the work that is going on within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is, and it will continue to be there. 

Any of you who choose to preach the Gospel as a missionary in the Church, and interface with people, and bring them aboard, you will find the hand of God is still working among the saints. But it is my view and it is my conviction to my core that if I were to encourage any of you to stop short of pressing forward to finding your Lord that I would risk damnation. Because it’s my view I would do that at the peril of contradicting the invitation extended to every one of you through the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations contained in the Doctrine and Covenants. You read D&C 93:1 and you tell me who has a right to say to you that you should not press forward to see His face and know that He is — not believe, not trust, not hope, but know. Know that He is.

There should be an entire chorus of Latter-day Saints who are able to say these words as their own testimony, and not just a quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith: “I had actually seen a light and in the midst of that light I saw two personages and they did in reality speak to me. And though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision yet it was true and while they were persecuting me and reviling me and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying I was lead to say in my heart, Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, and why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.” (JS-H 1: 25.) 

It is not the purpose of the restored Gospel to have you get a testimony of the Book of Mormon, and then be co-opted into depending upon anyone other than God for the knowledge of the truth of all things. “And when you shall receive these things I would exhort you that you would ask God the Eternal Father in the name of Christ if these things are not true. If ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ He will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost and by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things.” (Moroni 10:4-5.) All things. 

It is a terrible thing for anyone to presume they can proscribe and limit the scope of truth into which any of you can inquire and get an answer for yourselves. It is a terrible responsibility. I would suggest that anyone who tries to keep you from inquiring of your Father to know the truth of all things is, like Satan, trying to use fear in order to eliminate your approach to that Being who loves you more than life itself. Who would gather you as a hen gathers her chicks. Who would have done that and brought again Zion time after time after time, but WE would not. I know that there are people that write books about the coming of Zion, and I know that they use quotes from those who think differently than I do. I’m not trying to persuade anyone of anything. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. I only attempt to explain what I believe and why I believe it.

In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. 

The post The Mission of Elijah, Reconsidered appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This lecture by Denver Snuffer given at the “Chiasmus Conference” was originally recorded in American Fork, Utah on September 18, 2010, in front of a live audience.

Transcript

χWe all know that the name of “chiasmus” comes from the Greek letter “χ” [Kai], which is an X. We know the date on which Chiasmus was discovered in the Book of Mormon to the exact day: it was Wednesday, August the 16th of 1967. And it was a missionary to the Church in Germany who made the discovery after going and attending some lectures about the subject where they we were using the Bible as an example, and the account of that you can read in an article that is available online. The title of the article is The Discovery of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon: Forty Years Later. If you just do a word search—“Discovery of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon” or “Chiasmus Forty Years Later”—you can… It’s in the journal “Book of Mormon Studies”; the article is written by John Welch, and it’s about his discovery.

In there you’ll learn that the first occasion in which the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon occurred as the consequence of a revelation. He [John Welch] quotes a voice that spoke to him, and these are the words: “If it’s evidence of Hebrew style in the Bible, it must be evidence of Hebrew style in the Book of Mormon.”

And so, as a consequence of a revelation, John (our young missionary at the time) went out, pursued the subject, and found, among other things, the largest single chiasmic passage in literature in Alma chapter 36, that we’re now all familiar with.

He also wrote an article about determining criteria for identifying and evaluating the presence of chiasmus, and that also appears in the general Book of Mormon Studies. And he gives a list of some fifteen criteria that can be used to determine the presence or absence of chiasmus. And throughout the day today, there will be those who are speaking about how this pattern has been located in a variety of places. 

And I’m more interested in the issue of why. It’s really interesting to note its presence, to study it—and the theory that underlies the presence of chiasmus in the Hebrew text is the idea that this made it easier for people to memorize it. If you have this progression and you have this regression and there’s a single point at which it flips, then it makes it easier for people to study and memorize and preserve things in oral tradition. But juxtapose that with the statement you find in Abraham chapter 1, verse 28 about how the records have come into mine hands (see also Abraham 2:3 RE)—and the records that he’s talking about are those that run back to the beginning of the creation— and that’s in Abraham chapter 1, verse 28. And then the comment that is made, also, in the book of Moses about Adam keeping a record. And if the record keeping—see Moses chapter 6, verse 5: And a book of remembrance was kept, in the which was recorded, in the language of Adam, for it was given unto…many as called upon God to write by the spirit of inspiration (see also Genesis 3:14 RE). By then the children were taught to read and write, having a language that was pure and undefiled—this is chapter 6, verses 5 and 6. So if writing was with us from the beginning (that is, at the time of Adam—the language of revelation was not transmitted orally), then perhaps the pattern has nothing to do with the ease of which one can memorize and preserve passages of traditional understanding from one to another. It may have another deeper and more profound underlying purpose behind it.

See I— I want to skip right to some things that are important, in my view. I’ve written a paper that will be published as part of this thing, and you can read all those words in there. I want, given the fact that it’s an opportunity to talk live— I really detest reading talks to people. 

I have a theory that underlies the reason why we find this pattern that appears over and over.  And this pattern appears: it’s a progression, and then it’s a regression. And if you take those and you close them in, what you wind up with are two triangles—one pointing upward; the other pointing downward—with the suggestion that if this relates to the heavens and God, then it suggests the notion that God is actively in the process of reaching down to man. And if this suggests mortality, then implicit in that is that it’s the obligation of man to reach upward to God. And that implicit in this may be embedded a message about the point at which—the contact at which—the “X” crosses one another is at that moment, that instant, a revelation—that point at which we get perfectly aligned with heaven and heaven is able (because of that alignment) to reach down and make contact with us. And perhaps implicit in the message of why this would appear is the suggestion that it’s the obligation of man to reach upward because God is permanently in a state of reaching downward in order to make the contact with man.

The progression and the regression—if you look at the pattern that you find in the menorah, “ABCDCBA,” what you’re seeing in the pattern of menorah (which was a deliberate symbol located within the holy place of both the tabernacle and later the temple of Solomon and down from there) this symbol is suggesting in another way the exact same pattern of progression and regression and convergence in the center. See, those that take the chiastic literary form and explore why it was done—in addition to the ease of memorization—they say the point that you locate in the center of the chiasm is the point at which the central theme of the idea is presented. 

And if you go into Alma chapter 36 and you look at Alma chapter 36’s suggestion of what the center point is, it’s that moment which the conversion occurs; it’s the moment which the contact between the man and God occurs; it’s the conversion point. And so it would also be consistent with there being an underlying why to chiasmus that’s perhaps more important than detecting its presence elsewhere. Because if Alma (or Mormon, and I think the greater light is that it was Alma and not Mormon that wrote that chapter because of its literary form—that’s beyond this, but I think it was Alma that wrote it) experienced it and understood the underlying why, then of course the central theme would be the point of contact between God and man, because that is the point at which redemption occurs—the point at which the process goes on.

Well, the other thing that this does is, particularly here, this progression and this regression is the process of walking you backwards; it’s the process of returning you to somewhere, as opposed to going somewhere. You’re already somewhere—you need to get away from where it is you are and back to something which was better and preferable and earlier. And so the regression is a question about, What is it that regression would deliver to you, would fetch for you, if you were to take it seriously? 

Matthew chapter 18 has this little incident in it:

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:1-3; see also Matthew 9:10 RE)

And so the idea of progression and regression and becoming something converted from what you are today—where you find yourself at this extremity—back to where you once were at the other end of the scale may also be a reminder that, although your mind is currently filled with all of the issues and all of the experiences of adulthood, there was a time when, previously in childhood, you were capable of much more and much different kinds of things. Christ’s comment that you— 

The question that drove the answer was the question about who’s the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. So the issue on the plate was: “Where do we find something that is great; show us one of these; tell us.” (And I suppose they were hoping for some mention of themselves.) But instead, what Christ did was He asked for a little child. And the narrative suggests that this is quite a young child—a toddler, the younger that could toddle over the better. So He has the little child, and He puts the child in front of Him, and He says, “This—here is an example—this is what the greatest in the kingdom of heaven is like.” Well, why is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven something that has regressed from the complexity and the sophistication—particularly of our kind of thinking—back into a point at which there is this child-like faith, there is this child-like approach to whatever is out there?

We put away childish things. In fact, Paul in one of his passages makes a comment about childish things and putting them away. 

King Benjamin had something to say about the character of a child, and he gives this in his big talk, beginning in Mosiah where they’re all together for his farewell address. This is Mosiah chapter 3, verse 19: The natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child (see also Mosiah 1:16 RE). Then he elaborates—what it is about the child that is so useful in yielding to the enticings of the holy spirit, putting off the natural man, becoming a saint through the atonement of Christ—all of those are driven by these kinds of characteristics, which are childlike: submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. Those are the characteristics of a child that manages to change their mind or to facilitate their development.

I heard again (people keep trying to calculate this and come up with a new number all of the time)—but I’m sure all of you have heard it said that most of what you’re going to learn in your entire life you learn by the time you’re five years old. The personality of a person is fully developed at five. There’s another study that came out and said almost all of the education that a person is going to receive in their lifetime has been completed by the time they’re in fourth grade, then they simply reapply and reapply the same techniques as they had acquired by the fourth grade, repetitively thereafter, to increasing levels of complexity; but nevertheless, it’s the same tools. Well, why is it, then, that at the early front-end there is this capacity for absorbing everything there is from the universe around them, and then that begins to quiet down or slow down or to become resistant thereafter? It’s because, by its very nature, the mind of the child is open. Submissive is a characteristic that says:

• I am open to, will submit to, and looking forward to something you can give to me.  
• I don’t come here with a hard attitude.
• I don’t come here with my predisposition.
• I don’t come here with a bundle of things that, if you’re going to present a truth to me, it must fit within the boxes that I have constructed.

[Speaking as a hard-headed adult] “I… if you want…wait a minute, wait a minute—how do you reconcile that with… well wait a minute, I…Now Elder McConkie wrote in this book—we have to have bibliography okay?” 

Here’s an idea: It’s a truth, but it’s truth that you must relax, open your heart, open your mind, and accept and see if it contains light and truth. 

[Speaking as a hard-headed adult again] “No, no, no, no, no, no, no I want a bibliography; if you don’t fetch a bibliography for me, and I want footnotes. Then…”

See, I have been so tempted— I have been so tempted to write a book without a single footnote in it. My wife just thinks that’s a terrible idea. The most important chapter I ever wrote had no footnotes in it when I wrote it, and it’s my wife’s fault that it’s now riddled with footnotes, because she says, “You can’t do that; they won’t— You’ll get in trouble! You won’t…it’s not….” And she’s right. She’s right because the reader—the typical reader—is not at a point where the typical reader will simply relax and say, “Is it true? Does it resonate with light? Is there something about this that is fulfilling?” 

I’ve been able to put more information about God and man into ten short parables than I’m able to put into 170,000 words in The Second Comforter, simply because parables don’t require you to vindicate or justify; but what it does impose upon the reader is the obligation, then, to open themselves up and say, “Well, how do we do that?”

Well, there was a time— There was a time and it was back here in your life, there was a time when you did not need to go down to the firing range and have a skeet machine firing off a clay pigeon and a 12-gauge [shotgun] loaded with birdshot in it to be able to enjoy yourself. If you had a stick— If you had a stick, it was enough, because your mind was alive with the kinds of things that allowed you to have just as much—if not more—joy pretending, as does the adult with the gun and the ammunition and the skeet range and the machine and the clay pigeon and the thing blowing up in the air, and “Oooo, isn’t that fun, and don’t you wish there was more of that from Hollywood.” Too bad we can’t load blood in clay pigeons; then we’d all be at the firing range.

The idea of submissiveness is another way of reckoning into the idea of openness—the same with meekness; the same with humility and being humble; the same with patience—and we ought to clarify the point about the child and patience, because at first blush, you look at a child, and you say there is nothing less patient than a child: “Can we…? Can we…? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Can I, can I, can I…? Please! Please! Please! Are you sure? [speaking as a child crying] Aaaahhhh! ([internal thoughts of the child] Crap, how does this work?) Can I? Can I? Can I…? Okay, what if I give this, can I get that?” See, they go through all of the tantrum stuff until they begin to negotiate, and sometimes that negotiation thing works, particularly if the kids are bright. (And we’ve been playing with really bright kids, so they tend to go and negotiate everything.) They are not patient in that sense. They are— Children are patient in the sense that relentlessly, endlessly they are studying to learn more. They want to know more.

I write a blog, and on it I ask more questions than I give answers, because what people need are not a bunch of answers. And answers end the discussion. Once you’ve got the answer, then that’s the end of that. What you need is a question, and you need a question so that you’ll open your mind. And you need to open your mind so you can become like a child. And you need to become like a child so that you’re a suitable environment in which revelation can take place. And you need to have revelation take place in order for you to reconnect with heaven. And you need to reconnect with heaven so that you get to know who God is. And you need to get to know who God is so that He can, in turn, make you a member of His own household and redeem you from this current plight in which you find yourself: in darkness and distrust. And what people want from me are answers, and I can hand you an answer and cripple you. Or I can teach you to ask and turn you into, potentially, someone that can make this trek backward, that can make this climb.

When you take the symbols and overlay them upon one another, you wind up with the symbol that was adopted by David as one of the symbols of Ancient Israel, United Kingdom, Priesthood, the Star of David. When you place them side-by-side, if you read the account given by Lucy Mack Smith of the Urim and Thummim, the Urim and Thummim were similarly these two triangular-shaped (and this is in the stuff that is going to be published, you can find the sights and description in there) set in a bow that he would look through. And you ought to ask yourself again the question of: If the Urim and Thummim has that symbol contained within it, again the question becomes, Why? Why would we wind up with it embedded in the Urim itself, an instrument in which the contact between God and man is to take place? Why would it bear the symbol that appears there? 

The Urim and Thummim becomes another interesting issue to think about as a device, as a mechanism. Joseph Smith would begin the process of translating the Book of Mormon, in using the Urim and Thummim, [he] found that it was so filled with light—his comment was that “I can see everything in looking through it.” It was so filled with light that he wound up having headaches because it was physically painful using the device. Later, Joseph would use a seer stone, and he would block out light because it was less painful to make the process. And later still, towards the end of the translation process, the book wasn’t even open, the seer stone wasn’t even used, because this “prop” had resulted in Joseph acquiring this capacity. And at the time that we get Joseph in the section 76 revelation, Joseph’s just sitting in an upper room dictating the transcript from heaven while in open vision, without possession of any instrumentality, because the process has changed the person into being in contact with the heavens, which was the purpose behind it all.

Well, there is another statement made by King Benjamin that I want to suggest, too, as another way to look into the same meaning. Mosiah chapter 2, verses 20 and 21: I say unto you, my brethren, that…

(Oh that’s right, we’re not in sacrament meeting—you can actually open your scriptures if you have them. By that I mean no disrespect. I’m honoring the letter from the First Presidency that says, Stop opening your scriptures in sacrament meeting.)

I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another— I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another— (see also Mosiah 1:8 RE) 

Then he goes on to say that you’re still unprofitable after all of that.

So, if you find yourself out here at the extremity of the mortal condition, you are still supported from moment to moment. The breath that you are taking in is loaned to you by God who gives you the power to live and breath and move and sustain you from moment to moment. So if that’s where you find yourself, then the deeper you look inside yourself—the farther in you go—the closer you will come to the point of contact between yourself and God.

We have a very coarse kind of intellect in the West. We have a “give us a rule; give us a formula—if I follow the steps, then, as a result of following the steps, I will produce the relevant gas, explosion, fire, compound, cake, cookie, whatever. So, all I want from you, therefore, is a list. And if I follow my list, I will produce, at the end, the fire I want, the taste I’m looking for, the whatever-it-is-that-I’m-trying-to-build.” And so when we pick up the scriptures, it ceases to be for us a Urim and Thummim, and it turns into a rule book. It ceases to be a contact point between God and us, in which God, himself, can be speaking, and the manner of revelation that He gives to us are the words contained by other prophets elsewhere. It ceases to be that, and it turns into a bibliography for our behavior; a justification for what we’re all about; a way to say, “I’m right; you’re wrong.” It becomes clutter and noise and nonsense—and useless.

What is inside you, sustaining you from moment to moment, is God.

What organized you and keeps you intact, moment to moment, is God.

What lies at the deepest core inside you is God.

What you should be trying to regress back to, and find within yourself, is God.

“The kingdom of heaven is within you,” said Christ. Well, if the kingdom of heaven is within you, if—in your core—there is a contact between you and God, then our rule books don’t do us a whole lot of good. 

There’s another way of looking at the mangled mess that we find in the minds that we have with us. And, by the way, the vision of Daniel (where it was necessary, in the last days, to grind up Babylon into dust)—despite the fact that Babylon has been gone for 2500 years—is because Babylon’s still alive and well and running around inside your head. That’s the manner in which you think. You’re the product of Babylon; you’re the product of the Medes and Persians; you’re the product of the Greeks; you’re the product of the Romans. You’re the product of all those things, as they’ve accumulated and been handed down. Therefore, IT must be ground to dust in a regression back to a point where—within you—you find that simplicity.

There’s another tradition: it hails from the East; it is, in fact, the tradition out of which Christ Himself came, and that was one that focused upon the transcendent. The Gospel of John was written by someone who fully bought into the notion of transcendence, that there is this great and powerful and over-governing word (or order or truth or light). And that the greatest embodiment of that word (or notion or truth or light) finds itself embodied fully in the person of Jesus Christ. And that great light, that great truth, came down here in the person of Jesus Christ and dwelt among us. 

See, there’s a statement rather on point with that in the scriptures as well. Doctrine and Covenants section 88, beginning at verse 6:

He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in…and through all things, the light of truth; Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; [And] the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. And the light which shineth, which giveth…life, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&C 88:6-13, emphasis added)

When we read that, we say, “Cool, wonder how that science works? Wonder what rules we’ve got to learn in order to have that happen?” But an Eastern mystic would say, “Yes, I have seen that; yes, I have felt that.”

I have stepped outside the door of a house, on a perfectly still day when there was no wind, and the temperature outside was the same temperature as what is in my body, and there was no difference in the feel between myself and the air all around me. And I was, at that moment, connected by my body and by my mind to all that is and all that ever was. And I felt behind me a bird flying, because the pressure of the wings of the bird in flight touched me, though it was distant from me; because I was it, and it was me, and the light in it and the light in me were all one. And I could feel the freedom of flight, and in that I saw God. And we would say, “Oh I get it, it’s poetry! Okay, so now, let’s see; that’s probably ‘free verse’” [audience laughter]. And we miss what is going on. We miss the Divine connection that exists. To stand in the presence of God results in people feeling inadequate and ashamed. Isaiah’s words were, Woe is me! …I am undone; …I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell [among] a people of unclean lips (Isaiah 6:5; see also Isaiah 2:2 RE). Well, why is that? Because the accumulation of junk that exists inside the clutter of our minds—and the inability to see in the simplest of things.

I’m sitting at a baseball game, and my son is playing on the Alta Hawks, and there’s a bird overhead making a relentless noise, and it’s distracting. And I’m the scorekeeper, and I don’t spend much time paying attention to those things. But I finally look up between innings, and it’s a hawk; and there aren’t many hawks that fly in Sandy, Utah around baseball diamonds. And I think, “Huh, that’s strange.” Then I thought [internal dialogue], “What are you doing?  This might be a message. There might be something to this.” So I thought, “What on earth could the meaning of the hawk be? If it’s a message, what is it?” And I came up with nothing, as is almost invariably the case. When I come up with a good question, I usually have to get a lot of help to get a good answer.

Well, the next time I look up, there are two hawks circling the ball field at the Jordan baseball field—so we’re on hostile territory—this is being a [BYU] Cougar up at Utah State: we’re on “evil” ground here. And there are two hawks circling the field above, going in a clockwise fashion. So it occurs to me: “I know clockwise generally means blessing; counter- clockwise generally means cursing. So, two hawks circling the field—a blessing of some sort.” And I think, “What on earth— what on earth could that mean?” We make it a regular habit to pray for our kids, no matter what they’re doing, and on this particular occasion, we’d been praying, and my son is involved in a baseball game, and there’s a hawk overhead—which is the symbol of his team, and there were two of them—and my kid comes up to bat, and I look up, and the hawks are gone. And I think, “Huh, that’s strange.” But we’d been praying about everything, including our kid. My son hit a double. And I thought to myself: “Okay, so that I would not miss the point that God answers prayers. So that I might not miss the point that God’s hand is in everything.”

One of the greatest baseball movies ever made is The Last Samurai, which all you good Mormons have not seen because it’s rated R. It is a terrific baseball movie, because when this Western, alcoholic, civil-war veteran soldier gets immersed into this Eastern culture and tries to assimilate to their method of warfare, he’s completely unable to master the art, and he’s beaten every time he goes up against the fellow who is his chief nemesis. Until finally, the kid with whom he had been residing comes up to him and says, “Too many minds; too many minds. One mind.” And so the character, the soldier, he finally gets it, and he ceases to worry about anything other than the reaction to the moment in which he finds himself.

One of the reasons why skiing is appealing—snow skiing—is appealing to people is because you can’t plan for tomorrow, and you can’t worry about yesterday, because if you take your mind off this moment, if you’re anywhere other than the now, you’re going to go down, and you’re gonna get hurt. Riding a motorcycle’s rather the same way. If you take your mind off— Skiing and riding a motorcycle are both very childlike experiences. God is in everything. He’s absolutely everywhere. It’s necessary for you to pay attention to that, in order to open yourself up to that. Because the process of revelation— In the East, what people would do to try and get a revelation would be to ponder, to meditate, and to open themselves up. In the West, what we would do to get a revelation is to fast and pray and offer God commitments of 50 different things if He—

Please, please, please, please, please, please, just this one time, just oh, please, please ever so much this, and I’ll do that; I’ll do that, and I’ll agree to do this. And okay, what am I not doing and why… What else could… I didn’t wear a white shirt to sacrament last—I’ll always wear a white shirt every time I go… and I believe they ask for dads to volunteer to bless the sacrament with their sons, but I know it’s something I need to do… I’m gonna bless the sacrament…  and there’s a list of 50 things I think, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can…

And God’s up there saying, “Hey I put the answer to the prayer right there—it’s in the front yard, ya know.”

Oh, ooooh! I gotta bake some bread and go make some bread and take it to the neighbor and welcome him to the neighborhood, and this next door neighbor who’s got this attitude problem… I’ll go over and tell them how wonderful sacrament meeting is—I’ll get it done, I’ll get it done, I’ll get it done—Give me the revelation, will ya! [audience laughter]

And the revelation was sitting right in your front yard, waiting for you to come out and to notice.

And we look upon those things and we keep ourselves distracted from, disconnected with, and incapable of opening ourselves up to the revelation which God, at all points, is offering to us. The world is filled with revelation. And our problem is that the manner in which we choose to go about asking for and opening ourselves up to it is so limited in scope, so poor in quality, so alien to the teachings of Christ, that it doesn’t matter that the Lord is shouting at us all around. We simply won’t pay any attention or give any heed to what it is that He has been offering all along.

Full of love. By the way, “patience of the child” is the relentless openness that a child has to instruction—to receiving more—the perpetual walking about with the empty cup. “I would like my cup to be filled.” It is always— The child is always standing with the cupped hand, asking for you to fill it. And we go about saying, “I’m gonna offer a prayer now—what’s that formula? Oh, we thank thee; we ask thee.” We close ourselves off, when the child would open themselves up and extend a hand in a petition asking for God to give them something. And it doesn’t matter how many different ways the Lord goes about trying to teach us that, either with scriptures or symbols or signs—it doesn’t matter. We, nevertheless, remain committed to closing ourselves off from—and refusing to open up and receive—what things the Lord would offer if we simply would be patient, humble, submissive, and come to Him with an open recognition that we lack.

Full of love. Full of love is one of those things which— It’s really a reflection of how close you’ve drawn to the center point. John, who we call Beloved, seems to have had his eyes opened as to the Savior, because at one point he defines the Lord as love. God is love. You draw nearer to that—and it’s not a process of drawing nearer without difficulties. When you read, in particular, the strugglings that Enos had in the Book of Mormon, the closer you draw to the center point, the closer it is you reach to the point of love. And you begin to realize that there are people you don’t love; indeed, there are people you despise. But the nearer you approach to God, the more you realize that—despite the fact that you have legitimate reasons for harboring resentments or grudges or attitudes about others—it is, nevertheless, the case that if you love, you can’t hold onto those things. I could say “I hate it, I just hate this love that I have to show to other people, but I can’t resist it [audience laughter]. You know, that guy, he deserves to get what’s coming to him, and here I have no more disposition to give it to him. I can actually look upon him with compassion.” And yet in my rational mind, “I sure hope the Lord doesn’t because he deserves to get stomped on at some point. I’m not going to do it. You know, live and let live; let him go. I bring no accusation against him.”

And then the phrase, Willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father (Mosiah 3:19; see also Mosiah 1:16 RE). That’s a long phrase that’s capturing one idea; that is, that from the vantage point at which the connection is made between the two, at the moment in which the clarity comes, at the moment when you realize what it is God would have you do, it ceases to be a question of whether or not you’re willing to do it. If you knew God wanted you to do (I don’t know, choose the “thing”)—sell all you have and give it to the poor? That was what was asked of the rich young man, and he didn’t do it. But I commented on that fellow in Come, Let Us Adore Him and what he would have been involved with had he sold all he had and gone with the Lord. He would have been there for those—that final trek into and all of the events that occurred at Jerusalem. He said, Come follow me—sell all he had and give it to the poor and come. In essence, “You’re gonna be right there for the greatest moments in history. You’re going to ride alongside of me.” Now, we look at that as kind of a fool’s bargain, because he went away mourning because he had great riches, and he didn’t want to give them up. But what he didn’t know was this was the last opportunity he had to see Christ alive, and he would have and could have been there for everything—all the way from there to the resurrection—had he been on board and done what he was invited to do.

Well, I’m running out of time. There are portions of the endowment (if you’ve been through the endowment) that suggests this chiasmic pattern. But the biggest problem is that as adults, we don’t see things that children can see because our minds are cluttered with craftiness, cunning—we are suspicious of other people; we can be mean; we can be manipulative; we can be jealous; we can be skeptical. Much of the clutter that’s in our mind we learned as we entered into and participate in adulthood and the adult services. In order to go forward, we need to go back. In order to get back in contact with God, the regression that is shown in the symbol of chiasmus is part of the process of going back to both an earlier point in time (that is, your childlike attitude) and a more open and a more spiritually-welcoming portion that lies only deep withinside you, at this point.

You know I think enough of what I’ve said is what I would be willing to stand on in the presence of God and defend, and so let me end by bearing testimony to you that this stuff and this symbol and this meaning and this process is, in fact, the path back to God. When you go all the way out to the farthest reach of the universe and you find God sitting upon His throne, one of the shocking realizations that you’ll make when you meet God is that God has always been with you, and that He is as close to you as the very next breath you take.

In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

The post Chiasmus appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This lecture by Denver Snuffer, given at the “Zion Symposium”, was originally recorded in Provo, Utah on February 23, 2008, in front of a live audience.

Transcript

See, that’s the purpose behind the voice, it’s easier to feel the spirit during singing than it is during someone speaking, because our voices were only intended for singing. They don’t talk in the Spirit World, they don’t need do and the voices get used there for singing. You can hear each other without the voice. If it were up to me, I’d have nothing but singing go on today, because I’m using the wrong instrument. See you have to feel the Spirit while I’m using my voice to talk instead of sing.

As Nephi paraphrased Isaiah in the concluding chapter of Nephi’s use of Isaiah and his material, he left out a phase that appears in Isaiah 29 and I believe he did it very wittingly. I believe he did it so that as you look at the material, you’ll ask yourself why did he leave that out? And you’ll think about the omission. “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed.” He left out “the vision of all.” Well, you’re talking about Zion here, yesterday and today, and as is usual any time you get to a substantive topic that’s worth paying a lot attention to, the Book of Mormon has something to say. In fact, while it doesn’t comment at extraordinary length, the substance of what it has to say on this subject is really quite startling, and that is described for us in 4 Nephi.

But before 4 Nephi picks up, the last verse of Chapter 30 of 3 Nephi is a precaution to us– that are going to inherit this book, which Mormon made sure was inserted at this point in the narrative. What’s remarkable as you look at that verse is how it then ties into the description of what where going to receive of about the practice of Zion among those in the Book of Mormon, “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” (3 Nephi, 30: 2 ).

Keep in mind that list of defects as we look into the things that are right and proper in the Zion that we find in 4 Nephi. In 4 Nephi, verse 2, it tells us that, “the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites [and that’s all good and well, but it goes on to say] and there were no contentions and disputations among them [which you have to add, because if you’ve been to any gospel doctrine class or any High Priest group meeting Elders Quorum or Relief Society, there’s always that fellow or gal or group, who have an incapacity to depart from contention. So it’s not just being converted, see they’re narrowing it down, you get converted, but then you reach at some point a unanimity or an agreement upon what the Gospel really means. And, well take a look around] “O ye Gentiles, turn from your wicked ways,” and ask yourself, ok confine it to your own ward, to your own quorum to your own Relief Society group, to your own Stake, confine to whatever you want it to be confined to – are there no contentions of disputations among them?

It’s a serious defect, it’s a serious challenge and it’s one that we aren’t meeting very well, and it’s one of the reasons why we tend to neglect the Book of Mormon, because the Book of Mormon is always stepping on our toes. The relentless message of the Book of Mormon is – hey repent, you suck, you’re just a mess, YOU, not them, I mean it’s not a matter of I’ve got religion, I’m safe, I’ve got a recommend, I’m on the IN club, I can get into those buildings that other people can’t – that doesn’t matter, you still, you’ve got to repent. You’re a defective item incapable of resonating at the right frequency and receiving the Spirit of the Lord and finding– not contention, but love in bringing people together and coming to become ONE. You can be absolutely in disagreement over a doctrine, and lovingly, and gently, and patiently persuade them to come unto Christ. Or, you can hold a Council, and kick them out.

So, after they manage not only to have the same faith and to eliminate from him contentions and disputations, then they go on and, “every man did deal justly one with another.” See, there’s a difference between mercy and justice. Justice is a tougher standard. We don’t want justice. We want a merciful Redeemer, who will come in and who will make up for our defects. But this is saying, “Every man [Me, inside me, this is the stuff we’re talking about], did deal justly [the higher standard] with one another.” You don’t have to give me mercy, because I’m going to give YOU justice. I’m going to be tougher on myself. It is fair that I do this for you. Oh no, no, you don’t have to do that. No, no, no, the standard by which they are evaluating their conduct internal to themselves is the more difficult standard. They’re going to deal justly with one another. I will break my heart, I will break my wallet, I will break my life before I will not deal justly with you and give you everything that you’re entitled to. See, it’s putting the shoe on the other foot and it’s not the more relaxed and kindly and gentle standard, because when they’re dealing with one another they want to deal justly [a real problem for all those car dealers among us].

So after we fixed the religious diversity and we fixed the contentions and the disputation and we’ve grown enough now that we’re willing to treat ourselves as the one upon whom justice has reign, then they get to the point that they had all things common among them. Anytime in the Book of Mormon, they’re ticking off a list and they do it everywhere in the Book of Mormon, this and this and this, and this– generally what the writer is doing, because they’ve had a lot of time to reflect upon it and they’re etching on metal plates, which is a difficult thing to do, they are being extraordinarily careful with the material that they’re committing to you. So when you count a list, you ought to look at it and say to yourself, is this a progression? Is what they’re doing is telling you here is how you get from one point to another and we’ve encountered that already in 4 Nephi, you encounter it throughout. The Book of Mormon is a manual on how to return to God and we read it like, well, like we do in gospel doctrine, when we’re cover 8 chapters in 50 minutes.

So now that we’ve gotten to the point that we’re able to do these things, then and only then did they have all things common among them. Therefore, [and this as a logical result of what happened before], as an inevitability, there were no rich and there were no poor, and there were no bond, and there were no free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. This is NOT a description of a social-economic order alone. The foundation of Zion shows up here yet again – it’s the heavenly gift. It’s the presence and the abundance of the things of the Spirit. It’s not that we have now solved the social-welfare state, because the social-welfare state is the arm of flesh effort to try and imitate something that we all, in our gut, think is probably a fair thing to do, to have everyone be on an equal plane and have everyone deal with one another so that there are no rich and poor, or bond or free, but it doesn’t work and it doesn’t work, because to get where you need to get in order for the things to work, it has to be the heavenly gift. It has to be people in harmony with each other, because they are in harmony with the Lord. By getting in harmony with the Lord you find that, well, YOU are a lot more tolerable to others and others are suddenly more tolerable to you. Even defective others are more tolerable to you, if you’re in harmony with the Lord. Because if you can see them as the Lord sees them–they are beautiful, they are wonderful! Everyone you have ever met is a child of your Heavenly Father and if you can get the heavenly gift then you stop seeing things through the lens of this world and you start seeing things as they really are.

So, now we’re in the 37th year. If you skip over you’re going to find that this stuff is going to break down in verse 24 at the 201st year, so really we’ve got this 169, or 168 year interval in which we have the appearance of Zion and we’re going to cover all of the events of that entire period beginning in verse 4 and ending in verse 24. And while you might think that’s an abbreviation, it’s actually everything we need to know and it’s startling in what it tells us. There’s an abundance of information that is downloaded in a rapid-fire fashion. So, look at verse 5 at what happens once you have the presence of the heavenly gift. In verse 5 you find that they healed the sick, they raise the dead, they cause the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, the deaf to hear; and all manner of miracles did they work among the children of men; and in nothing did they work miracles save it were in the name of Jesus, as the song just mentioned, it is about Him and it is about His work and is about bringing about His will. And why was it then, His will that the sick among them be healed and the dead rise again? Why is it that during this period of time it was in conformity with His will that the lame walk and the blind receive their sight and the deaf hear and all manner of miracles occur? Why during this time period, when they’ve got the heavenly gift, and when you would say, you know, that’s sort of unfair, I mean, they got all things in common, they’ve solved the problems of the social-welfare state, they’ve got this great societal thing going on, you know, don’t they need cripples? Don’t they need the blind? Don’t they need people to whom they ought to be ministering to? Shouldn’t there be a group of them, who, unlike the verse mentioned earlier, are in bondage to the ailments of the body? And the answer is — well, apparently not. Apparently, we need it. Apparently it serves an extraordinarily useful purpose for us, but in their setting they’ve got bigger things to do, they’ve got more important things to do and it will tell us what that is, tell us about it repeatedly. We’ll come back to some of this, because I don’t know if we have time for all of it.

Verse 10, it says, “The people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast.” In verse 11 it says, “And they were married, and given in marriage, and were blessed according to the multitude of the promises which the Lord had made unto them.” And on page 467, it says they multiplied exceedingly and they filled the whole land. So, at first blush you say, “whoa there’s a lot of sex going on during that Zion thing,” and I’m reasonably confident that no matter what I say someone is going to walk away from here and say, “hey, what did brother Snuffer talk about…Zion and the Book of Mormon?” And someone is going to say he talked about a lot of sex that goes on during the time of Zion. But that’s not the point; the point is what is the bigger fish to fry, what is more important? What is it about Zion that results in this baby boom? Anyone got any idea? Audience answers: “Plural marriage? Well, there’s plural marriage, that’s part of it. There’s no fear when people are devoted entirely to the Lord, then they can have another child? There’s no sickness and death–you’re going to get rid of the infant mortality problem, yeah. It provides a purpose of the Lord to bring spirits to the earth? Yeah, family life. Would you like to see Zion being practiced right this minute? I don’t care where you go in the world; you can find it inside the family. That’s the little microcosm of Heaven, that’s the little…do you expect, well I don’t know, there might be some Dickensian folk here…do you expect child labor, you know how stuff…there we are…do you expect child labor for your kid to earn the right to be clothed and housed, and fed? Audience: “They should have jobs.” They should have jobs, but if your child needs food and your child needs clothing and your child needs shelter…when Christ used in His analogies the idea of the Father – which of you if his child asks of him for bread, gives him a rock? Speaking to some fairly hard-headed people, many of whom would conspire together to cause His death and He is saying to them–I know how you can relate to the principles of the Gospel—think about your own children. And these people in this setting [Zion] have as their priority, the family, the nurture and the raising of children. And the family is the place where, if we don’t find it anywhere else, we will find the presence of Zion, even in the hovels of third-world countries.

See, as a consequence [and we’re going back to verse 7], as a consequence of the way in which they were living, the Lord did prosper them exceedingly in the land insomuch that they did build cities again, where there had been cities burned. These people are busy, they’re engaged in activities…they’re not just sitting about, they’re accomplishing something, but they’re not accomplishing something in the way in which we accomplish something. If you wanted to rebuild a city among us, the way in which we set about to rebuild cities is extraordinarily inefficient. We divide up the capital that’s used to finance the construction and we create a whole industry and people out there that never produce anything, except let people use their money, and that’s all they do and they become really quite wealthy as a consequence of that. There are some people that do some small component and all they do is that small component and they sell it at a high price and whether it’s easy or whether it’s difficult, the purpose behind that is their own self-interest and we have managed to figure out how to get along in a society with every single person working for their own self-interest, and we’ve never come together to say, how might we benefit one another by the contribution of whatever our unique gifts are [by the way when the Lord talks about gifts in section 46, He talks about gifts as the property belonging to, not the person who has the gift, but the church itself. It’s not a commodity that someone owns; it is the presence of God in the life of a person that is intended to elevate and to benefit and to bless everyone and they are proceeding on the basis that – the presumption is– everything is to be done for the benefit and the glory of Zion. Well, they talk about the destruction there.

In verse 10, “Behold it came to pass that the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast, and became an exceedingly fair and delightsome people.” Exceedingly fair and delightsome people, one of the themes the early saints in the valley talked about was the children that were given to those who were practicing plural marriage, were exceedingly fair and delightsome, their children were blessed and they were benefited. And from what we now know about genetics, the more diverse you get into a gene pool the more healthy is the progeny of those that are there. What is happening here, is that the children are being blessed and the children are turning out to be these wonderful, delightful children, but this process is happening not in some violation of the laws of biology, they’re happening in conformity with the way it would always happen if we were living in a certain fashion.

Verse 11 says, “And they were married, and given in marriage, and were blessed according to the multitude of the promises which the Lord had made unto them.” The multitude of the promises, “the married and given in marriages,” – think about that for a moment. We have just had the fulsome restoration of the benefits of the Gospel by the coming of the Christ in which He has restored some things that are too sacred to be committed into the written account of the events and now it says in passing, “they’re given in marriage and He blessed them according to these promises.” Well what’s He telling us? It’s the covenant of Abraham… it’s the temple marriage. He’s saying that these people enter into the covenant of marriage and as a consequence of the covenant of marriage they realize the benefits of the promises made and what are the promises made that you associate with the covenant of Abraham? Well, it’s not just benefits that pertain to this life; it’s benefits that pertain to all eternity. It’s the promise of exaltation. It’s the promise that you become part of the Church of the Firstborn, you become part of the General Assembly, you become part of the citizens, not just of a society here on this earth, but a society that includes a heavenly body and you have the right to commune with all of those that are participants in this larger organization. You need to go through and read the descriptors of those in D&C 76, beginning at verse 66 and I apologize, I do have a set of the D&C from the RLDS church, but it’s at home and I didn’t bring it with me, so I can’t give you the cross reference, but D&C 76 beginning at verse 66, “these are those who are come unto Mount Zion [see Zion in this context is a mount, because it’s up, a symbolic elevation of the way folks live], and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all” [Oh my]. “These are they who have come to an innumerable company of the angels, to the general assembly and the church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn. These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are judge of all. These are just men made perfect.” Now while this is a description in section 76 of the afterlife and ultimate arrival, the description as is often the case, is not merely a description of the afterlife alone, because, well as we are signing off, verse 117 of this same revelation, after talking about those who love Him and purify themselves before Him, it’s added: “to whom he grants this 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.”

So, keep that in mind as you read verse 11, “blessed according to the multitude of the promises, which the Lord made unto them.” These now are citizens with dual citizenship. They may be born in Mexico, but they have a work permit in the United States. They are still confronted with the obligation of enduring to the end, but they have a residency prepared for them elsewhere and these folks, tying the marriage covenant and the blessings, according to the multitude of the promises, which the Lord had made unto them, should not be constricted. Oh, and they didn’t walk anymore after the performances and ordinances of the Law of Moses–very useful—animals were pleased to hear that. I imagine during the Millennium when the lamb and the lion lie down together, we’re not going to be eating both of them. “…but they did walk after the commandments which they had received from their Lord and their God, continuing in fasting and praying, and in meeting together oft both to pray and to hear the word of the Lord.” You know, fasting and prayer and in meeting together oft, meeting together oft, meeting together on the Sabbath? It doesn’t say that. Meeting together in order to correlate the activities of the Stake, as we do at 0630 in morning every Sunday. Meeting together to hold some presidency meeting or other–none of that. Meeting together oft and what were they doing when they got together? They’re fasting, they’re praying, they’re meeting together, they’re bearing testimony, and they’re listening to the word of God. Listening to the word of God. Oh, oh I know what that is, that’s the scriptures, they’re reading the scriptures. It doesn’t say and reading together the scriptures. They got together to hear the word of God.

Used to be [or if you’re from Alabama, used to “was”] when we baptize folks, we expect the abundance of the gifts of the Spirit to be manifest and quite often in the journals of those in the earliest part of the Restoration, folks would prophecy as they came up from the waters of baptism. You read the account, well we can, turn to it in Joseph Smith History, verse 74, this after the baptized, well back up to verse 73: “Immediately on our coming up out of the water after we had been baptized, we experienced great and glorious blessings from our Heavenly Father. No sooner had I baptized Oliver Cowdery, than the Holy Ghost fell upon him, and he stood up and prophesied many things, which should shortly come to pass. And again, so soon as I had been baptized by him, I also had the spirit of prophecy, when, standing up, I prophesied concerning the rise of this Church, and many other things.” And then look at verse 74, “Our minds being now enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never could attain to previously, nor ever before had thought of.” I don’t imagine they were getting together to rehash and reiterate a limited and redundant correlated curriculum, that tends to make high priests of us all, that is to put us to sleep. I imagine there was something exciting about it!

When I first joined the church, I was astonished at all of the flood of new information that came and I was astonished in reading those old, New Testament passages that had been pounded into my head by a devoted Baptist mother, who never succeeded in making a Baptist of me, despite her best efforts. I’ve said this a number of times and apologize if you’ve heard it before, my Mom was always afraid I was going to hell, because I didn’t join the Baptist Church and then I became a Mormon and removed all doubt. I was astonished at how much new information there was and the Gospel was exciting, it was delightful. They word that gets used by Lehi is delicious and it was, and it took about 5 years and then, it was Hamlet’s soliloquy about flat, stale and unprofitable and redundant, and what happened? We’ve reached the end of the road – Can you tell me more? Can you tell me more? I was in search of a mentor. I was in search of new information and I knew more than anyone in any group that I sat in. I read everything I could get my hands on–there was nothing new. What just happened? We crossed a threshold. Now we’re going to idle, endure to the end? That does not mean to be bored until the end! And I searched, I searched for 7 years before I ran into a guy, I don’t know his first name, I know that he worked in the church office building and I know that he was one of the good guys and he taught as part of “Know Your Religion” series in Sandy. At the time I was living in Utah County and had to drive up there, but I drove up there and I found someone that could teach me and I was astonished, because there was the guy. And he taught, and he seemed to really dislike the audience, but he taught. And he told a story about when he first became a member of the high council and they were holding a church court and he showed up at the church court and when he arrived, he was the only person in the room that was ready for what was about to take place, that was in the Spirit and in tune and ready to confront the difficult issues that were going to be laid in front of them. And how the rest of the room took forever to get up-to-speed, and get the Spirit to the point that they could judge the matter. And he wasn’t talking about the high council; he was talking about the infernal room. Well, he endured and I had him as a mentor for a few years and was so grateful for that, but he announced he was quitting, and there was a big groan from the audience, because he made life easier for a lot of them, they could bring their notepad and they never had to do any work and he just handed it over, but he was through with that. He had been through with that for a long time. You know, as I think back about that moment, some things about that are really quite poignant, that probably ought not be shared, but I went up and I talked to him–this was the first time I had spoken with him, in the entire time I had been there learning for a number of years learning from the fellow— and I shook his hand and said, “you know I’ve never spoken to you, I’ve always sat on the back row, but I really appreciate what you’ve done.” He looked me in the eye and held my hand longer than, you know it was almost French, it was uncomfortable, and he said to me, “the only reason I have been here for the last year is the back row.” You know, sometimes you can look out at an audience and you can see who’s getting it.

Well, these guys did not find what was going on unhappy, unpleasant, unexciting–this was an eager thing, so eager in fact that they met together oft and they pursued things. Joseph Smith said, “I would encourage you to search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of God.” He does not say, I would encourage you to keep your feet on concrete at all times, so as not to sink deeper into anything. We tend to have a real aggressive view about doing exactly the opposite of what the Book of Mormon invites us to do, which is to search into the mysteries of God. In any event, so they’re meeting together, both to pray and to hear the word of the Lord, and I would not read, “hear the word of the Lord,” as a limiting expression of a monotonous repetition of a limited curriculum, but something that is just delicious.

“…There was no contention among all the people, in the land; but there were mighty miracles wrought among the disciples of Jesus.” So we lose some of them, except the three [Disciples] and verse 15, “And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.” See this is now the third time that they’ve mentioned, “no contention.” They mention it back in verse 2, no disputations, and no contentions among them. They mention again in verse 13 and they mention it again in verse 15 and they talk about “the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.” Etching is hard work. There’s absolutely no reason for redundancy, therefore, you have to conclude that while they thought they had gotten rid of contention, they found another level of harmony among them. And then when they thought they had achieved a perfection of that harmony, they found yet another level of harmony among themselves – Oh, three degrees.Well, that’s interesting. “Because of the love of God, which did dwell in the hearts of people.” The love of God: Faith, Hope, Charity – these three, well such irony. Here we have Charity now, where we have finally arrived at the point where there is such a fulsome elimination of the problem that you have to use the word, but you don’t have to mean the same thing with it.

So, look at what we got rid of in verse 16, “there were no envyings.” Well, go back to that (last chapter of 3 Nephi], turn all ye gentiles and repent of your crap you’re doing and it says, in that long list of stuff, it associates, “and your priestcrafts and envyings.” Ew, now I’m uncomfortable, because if envyings get associated with priest-crafts, well I don’t like that at all, and yet what a wonderful system we have. We have upward mobility in the church. We have your elders and you have your elder’s quorum presidents and you have your wards and you have your bishops, and you have your stake presidents who rule and reign over your bishops and you have your area presidents, who rule and reign over your stake presidents and you have your general authorities and you have your first presiding authorities in the quorum of the twelve and the first presidency and then you have your first presidency and then you have your president. And all along scattered in there, there’s lot’s and lot’s of opportunity for envyings, because we’re suffering from the defect that the Savior noted among His own disciples about wanting those chief seats. A Savior, who knelt and washed the feet, the most menial act that you can engage in, in that society, is dealing with the problem of disciples, an inner circle, who want recognition, they want those seats, and He says, look, look, don’t do that, don’t even think about that. Go sit in the back of the room, get called up. And I think about Nephi in the crowd at the temple Bountiful and how the Lord had to call him up. Nephi wasn’t up there saying, “the great and wonderful, His holiness has appeared, I’m here to introduce him.” Because really all that is, is a diversion of attention to the one—(like Chaucer in Knight’s tale). Nephi did not make of himself Chaucer; he sat in the back, blended in with the crowd, and required the Lord to call him up. Christ addressed this problem directly. I know people, well, I mean I know people, you know people, we all know them, whose life’s ambition is to have some office in the church. And my life’s ambition, I had an opportunity to substitute in my little daughter, Carson’s, 7- year-old primary class. My ambition is to be a 7-year-old primary teacher if I can ever get that calling, that, that is wonderful. I can’t imagine dealing with the affliction. Neil Maxwell talked about it, he said yeah, it’s out there, but you just don’t inhale. But the way my wife has characterized, and I think it’s the perfect characterization, is the curse of celebrity- dome. We turn them into celebrities; we want to turn them into Britney Spears, because that’s the ultimate end of celebrity-dome. It is hollow, it is stale, it is flat and it is unprofitable–there is nothing to it. Why do you think Britney Spears is the mess she is? Because fame and fortune is nothing. And I suspect those who enjoy the envy of position, who ultimately wind up in a position in which “they are now there,” they managed to weasel or brown-nose their way to where they thought it would be great, arrive at that point and look around and say, “well this is just like where I was, nothing has changed;” because the change has to be a change internal to the person and not a mere geography or topography—going from the third floor to the tenth floor, it doesn’t change you. You’re still that same hollow, miserable, envious chap.

So there’s no envyings and there’s no strifes, and as a result of that there are no political conventions. I mean that’s all a tumult is; it’s just a lot of noise in a concentrated collection of folk, in which, we have a revival, we have a Republican Party breakout just all of a sudden, no tumults. And, despite all of the rapid increase in the population and the familial life that’s going on there, there is no whoredoms. Well, tumults, politics, and whoredoms, they go hand-in-hand. The only guy in the entire assortment of folk that were running as candidates that had not had more than one wife was the Mormon, and he’s not running anymore. Nor whoredoms. What was that headline about John McCain in the New York Times? Well, if we’re going to have whoredoms, of course we have its corollary, lyings, because those go together, and there are no murders or any manner of lasciviousness. Now take that list and ask yourself, upon which any of these things is our culture, is our society, is our economy based? You can’t, Viva – yeah, it’s no longer Las Vegas, it’s Viagra [laughter]. Ok, take that list of stuff and say, we’re going to eliminate this from the storylines of prime time television. What’s left? The only thing that’s left is, “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader,” because everything else, this is the stuff we eat, this is our daily fare, this is who we are, this is the definition of us. You know what, we’re going to make you envy with each year’s new car model. Why do we buy new cars? Why would anyone ever buy a new Dodge truck after they’ve gotten a Dodge truck that has a lifetime warranty? And do you know why Dodge can give you a truck with a lifetime warranty? Because it’s only for the life of the original owner and guess what, you’re not going to own that vehicle past 50,000 miles, because you’re going to envy the new model that they’ve got on the drawing board. Envy is the stuff that Wall Street uses. Lusts, and whoredoms—I mean we don’t sell chewing gum, without sex. Everything about our society; take that verse and photocopy it, so you’re not messing your scriptures up, take that verse and sit down and watch an evening of primetime television and start crossing it off, you probably won’t be 15 minutes in before you’ve recognized in the story that they’re telling you and the commercials that interject themselves, you’re going to check off everything on that list. THIS IS US, Oh Ye Gentiles! So we’re here and we’re talking about Zion and we’re wondering why it’s not here in full bloom at this point. This garbage is in our DNA. We have a hard time even thinking in terms that would allow us to relate to these people. The plot lines of all of our great western stories involve this stuff – “nor murders, or any manner of lasciviousness.” The story of the latter end of the Jaredites is full of murders, lyings, and all manner of lasciviousness. The ultimate end of the Nephites is going to be a repetition of that. And we don’t learn from the patterns that were shown that says, here’s the road to hell and here’s the road to Zion, and we march down the road to hell and we talk about Zion.

So then it says, “and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.” To us, in our cultural setting that seems really incongruent, because everything that drives us, everything that our economy is based upon, everything that our entertainment portrays in front of our minds is based upon these kinds of conflicts and tumults, and envyings, and whoredoms, and desperate housewives. It’s all tied into this stuff. CSI, how many murder-based shows are there on TV? The only thing that’s interesting anymore are the murder shows, because the forensics of Crime Scene Investigation ultimately get you to the real guy and you notice in the background, there’s always pole dancer or two, because they just presume we’re all in to that stuff. You know and among lyings and this stuff, the Marriott hotel in which we’re currently talking, owned by the Marriott Corporation, the CEO of which is a Latter Day Saint and whose father built the Marriott Center at Brigham Young University, has enough pressure on them from those who use their hotels, that they offer X-rated movies in the privacy of your room as part of the services provided. I haven’t checked, but I assume it’s true in Provo, because if it’s true in one place, it most certainly would be true everywhere. Because they will actually lose patrons, they will lose customers if they don’t offer that garbage in the hotel room. And so, market-driven forces require them to offer this kind of stuff, and we sit back, scratch our head, and say, “oh those decadent Romans with that Coliseum,” – What? Whoa, what’s the difference between Jaws [the movie] and the boat battles in the Coliseum that the Romans were notorious for flooding, and killing, and mayhem, and carnage? Now, ours is a mechanical shark, and Roy Scheider is just so ineffective anyway, but the blood in the water is the real color and your mind cannot tell the difference between what you take into it in a fictional way, and what you take into it in a reality way. That’s one of the reasons why I don’t read fiction, because I hate messing up and remembering something that was out of a novel instead of out of some bit of history that I’d read and boy, history is much stranger than fiction. Should you read history, it’s perverse, man. It will twist you.

But these people who have been separated from our common fare, there could not be a happier people than among all the children of God, because you know what? There comes a point when you have separated yourself from the crap, that your capacity to incorporate more and more truth and light, allows you to say, “well, this is more interesting than that was anyway.” There’s something more engaging about truth and light and there’s something more fascinating about the things of eternity than there is about any of this stuff. We are all weak, we are all vulnerable, we are all carbon-based mud-piles at the moment and this carbon-based pile of mud around which my spirit has been wrapped into, it gets tired, it has appetites, it has weaknesses, but the reason why they threw fasting in there was to subordinate that body and to teach it that the spirit is something that ought to be in control. There comes a point at which if you’ve allowed the spirit to have its way, you find that the things that are fascinating to this pile of mud that you walk around in, are far less interesting than the things of the Spirit. And whatever principle of intelligence you attain to in this life is going to rise with you and if it does, then you’re going to have so much the advantage in the world to come. And why is that? Because in the world to come, the crap that’s here has no utility, it has no value. It’s here to test you, it’s here to try you, and it’s here to give you an opportunity to overcome it, but it’s not here for you to revel in, it’s for you to dig yourself out from.

So, there’s no robbers. Ok, there goes the banking industry, the law industry, yeah; there goes the government. Nor murders neither were there Lamanites, or any manner of -ites. But they were all in one, the Children of Christ and heirs of the Kingdom of God.

We’re running short on time, so I’m going to skip forward and talk about what happens to Zion. In verse 24, “…two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, [see it starts with this pride] and wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world. And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them. And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain.” So, institutionally, as soon as you get the mischief going, as soon as you begin the process of corrosion, the very first thing we want to build, the very first thing we’ve got to fetch for ourselves is churches. That ought to sit sort of as a curiosity to you. Now why is that? Why is it that as soon as this process of degeneration begins to unfold, the first thing they want to get is churches? [Audience answers: “I think it’s because you feel insecurity right away and you want security back again”]. Yeah, because you know you’re wrong. Well, let’s take one step back from that statement. Everyone who has a body, everyone who is here in mortality, knows Christ, chose Christ, accepted the plan of the Father, and came down and inherited this estate as a consequence of having kept the first estate. Whether they are in tune enough with their spirit, whether they are in tune enough with the voice of God in this life, or not, they know at some very fundamental level that what they’re doing is wrong, when they are doing wrong–everyone does! That’s why a convert to the church feels like they’re coming home, they feel like there’s something familiar. They feel like in the teachings of the Gospel of Christ that have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith there is a resonance there with something inside them that was empty that this now fills. And when you take a step back from that, when you reject that, when you say I’m departing, even though at this point they may be departing so little, that to us these people at this point in this decay of Zion, would be our superiors–they know that they’ve lost something. And because they know they’ve lost something they have to repair that damage. So what do you need? To repair the damage you need someone to tell you, “don’t worry at the last day God will beat you with a few stripes but it will be ok, all is well in Zion, Zion is prospering. Check out the wardrobes in our congregation, things are ok, we’re building a lot of new chapels, there’s a lot of brickwork going on, things look economically viable. If we were ranked among the Fortune 500 companies, we’d be right up there, all is certainly, certainly well in Zion. And with a 1.53 percentage rate growth increase in the United States last year, the LDS church qualifies as being one of the top growing churches in America, because so many of the others are in state of decline–whoosh, all is well in Zion.”

So they build up churches when they’ve divided into classes, because the first institution you want when you know that you’re racked with guilt is religion. It’s always about false religion. The entire story of the Book of Mormon, all of the anti-heroes, have religion. Even the Rameumptom folks are steeped in religion, devoted to religion. The problem is not the absence of religion; it’s the presence of false religion and the presence of things within the religion that is false. “…unto themselves to get gain and began to deny the true church of Christ.” See, churches [plural], true church of Christ [singular]. Why plural, why singular? Well, because churches [plural], there’s different personality types, there’s different kinds of ego trips, there’s different kinds of folks wanting to salve a peculiar form of sin that they’re participating in, and so they need different kinds of churches to tell them, “that’s ok, that’s ok.” But if you look at what began the process of degeneration in verse 24, it all begins with one particular problem—pride. “I’m proud of my church, I’m proud of my neighborhood, I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished, through hard work, through a capitalist, and protestant, and Elizabethan and puritanical tradition that has managed to come into an even flow to the consciousness of us as Latter Day Saints and by damn I’m proud of it.” And so, look here now were I a resident in Zion at this point, verse 24 shows you where I’d show up, I’d be right there saying, “let’s break this mold, let’s…this harmony, it’s incessant, I mean, look at us, we’re wearing uniforms, we all look alike, you all sound alike, let’s do something new, let’s do something different. I found this plant and if you smoke it, that’s really…and the music here sucks, have you noticed that, it’s all hymns, I mean why can’t we have some rock and roll, and we have rock and roll and we have rock and roll stars and we have rock and roll stars and get limos and more pearls and costly apparel, and it’ll be fine, it’ll work out, this is going to be nice” – pride! I mean pride manifests itself in so many divergent ways, that just the word alone tells you something about the insidious nature of the decay. See, if the Book of Mormon is only part history and is also prophecy, that is, they selected from their history those portions, which most relevantly bear upon us and our condition, and if you would like to know what is going to happen in the Millennium at the end of that season when Satan has been bound, and the beginning of that little season when Satan is loosed and how we managed to wind up then with the loss of Zion at the end of the Millennium, before that great tumult that is described in the book of Revelation, after the Millennium, the word pride, ought to resonate with you. Pride suggests that you know better than God. Pride suggests that at that moment when everyone has been resurrected and everything has been wrapped up and everything is now at “post-second resurrection” state, that you can look about and say, “I know better than God,” that is, “His judgments are unjust,” that is “Satan was right all along, because look, I’m Telestial, look I’ve been quickened by a portion of the Terrestrial world, well look, I’ve been quickened by a portion of the Celestial world, but my friend was quickened only by a portion of the Telestial world…and it’s not fair, it’s not right.” And what is that, at the end, that’s pride, which is what we’re really here preparing to confront is that argument at the end of the Millennium. And so, when you arrive at that blessed day and you’re confronted in that moment and you want to know how we’re going to get from where we are at that moment to the end of the war that is about to unfold, yet again, before they are cast out into their place and the saints inherit the earth–check or calibrate your pride, and realize that the God and Father of us all has been right all along, His plan has been perfect all along, He is merciful, and He is just and it is not our place to judge Him, but it is our place to be judged by Him.

Well, if you go through [we’re out of time], if you go through and look at the rest of the description of the decay into where they wind up with, you are reading once again a re- introduction into that society of our cultural mores–they are becoming progressively more like us. So, we still weep for Zion, it has fled. There are two models that you can consider from the scriptures as possibilities for Zion in the last days. The one model is the Book of Mormon model in which Zion gets introduced after destruction and after the return of the Lord and after folks have a season to incorporate the information and the teachings, the ordinances that Christ restores at His coming. Under that model, we will not see Zion until sometime post-Second Coming. There’s a second model that we find in the scriptures, however, and that model is the one that Christ suggests, He says “as it was in the days of Noah, so also shall it be at the time of the coming of the Son of Man.” And what was it that was going on contemporaneous with Noah? – it was the city of Enoch, in which a people, separated themselves, and they found Zion. Melchizedek was able to do the same thing. The people of the Nephites were able to do the same thing. Whether the model that will actually apply is the model that Christ suggested about the City of Enoch and a righteous people ready to meet the Lord, or the model that the Book of Mormon suggests –a post- holocaust, a post-second coming establishment of Zion, is YOUR choice, and that ought to be the most sobering comment of all. Let me end by bearing testimony to you that what I’ve been trying to do today is the same thing I’ve been trying to do in every book I’ve written and that is – to remove the condemnation under which we labor, because we don’t take the Book of Mormon seriously enough. Joseph Smith did not write that book. It is a gift of God. It is the Vision of All. It is the message for the last days. You can get closer to God and closer to understanding Him and His ways, by abiding by what is in the Book of Mormon than you can in any other book. It is NOT a watered down version, it’s not the Gospel-lite and “ooh, we can’t wait for the rest of this stuff when they break the seal and bust it out.” If you’re attentive to what you have now, you’re going to find out that all that’s going to happen when the seal is broken and you read the rest of it is, “yeah, you were right, you did pick it up, because it’s all in there.”

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

The post Lecture at the “Zion Symposium” appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This lecture by Denver Snuffer entitled “Christ’s Discourse on the Road to Emmaus” was originally recorded in Fairview, Utah on April 14, 2007, in front of a live audience.

Transcript

Christ’s Discourse on the Road to Emmaus

Actually, it’s Denver Snuffer, Jr. My grandparents are responsible for the name. Both of them pre-deceased me, so I’ve never been able to hold anyone to account for naming me that. 

I was asked to talk today by a rather insistent Doug Mendenhall. If you know him well enough then you know that he’s nothing if he isn’t insistent. I’m not really here as a volunteer, I’m here as a draftee, and a reluctant one. 

I’ve given some thought to what I would say if I were sequestered in a room with people who were interested in the subject of the Second Comforter. I don’t want to promote the book and I’m not here to talk about the book, except indirectly with some material that I think yields some additional light on the subject. What I looked at today is something that I don’t think anyone who is LDS has commented on before. If they have I’m not aware of it, so as far as I know this is original material. 

We just finished the Easter celebration last weekend. As a result of celebrating Easter, I wanted to take some comments from the account of that very first day when the Lord came out of the grave. The fact that Easter is in the springtime I don’t think is any accident. I think it’s intended to align with the testimony of nature about the promise of eternal life, the promise of the renewal that comes every spring, and I think the Lord intended that His death and His resurrection should associate with spring. I think it’s appropriate that that be the subject that we look at today. 

The incident that I want to look at is recorded only one place in scripture. Even though it only appears one place in the scripture I think it’s one of the most thought-provoking and potentially rewarding discussions about the Lord that appears anywhere else. I’m talking about the incident that Luke records of two disciples who were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus on the day that the Lord rose from the dead. I’m going to be using the Luke material throughout this as the exclusive source if Luke talks about it. If someone else talks about it and Luke didn’t then we’ll look at that. The distance that they are going to walk is beyond what was then viewed as a Sabbath days’ journey so they couldn’t take this walk on the Sabbath. They had to wait until the first day of the week when the Sabbath was over, which was also the day on which the Lord would be resurrected. The incident appears in Luke chapter 24 and it begins in chapter 24: 

“Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared…” (Luke 24:1). He doesn’t tell us this but there’s a detail you can find over in John chapter 20: “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark” (John 20:1). All that Luke says is it was very early in the morning. John lets us know that this was not only very early in the morning, it was still dark out. If you brought your scriptures it might be useful to use them as we go along. So there is a walk that’s going to take place in which two disciples–we have the name of only one of the two–are walking back to Emmaus and this is what the account reads, beginning in verse 13: 

Luke 24:13-32

13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. 

That’s about seven miles, which clearly, under their tradition, would have been too far. 

14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 

15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 

16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 

Their eyes were holden. The Lord is with them. He’s resurrected. He’s walking along with them and they don’t recognize Him. Christ has the capacity to withhold His identity. As Paul reminded us in Hebrews 13:2: “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” From this incident, on this day with the Lord, we learn that the strangers can include the Lord Himself. When He says to be careful how you treat “the least of these my brethren”, you ought not be surprised if, on the day of judgement, one of those “least” was the Lord Himself and your eyes were holden that you should not know Him. 

17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?

Clearly a rhetorical question. This is the risen Lord joining this fellowship in their walk and He’s asking them, “What are you talking about?” That ought to tell you something about Him. The Lord doesn’t make any effort to displace their attention from the subject they’re discussing. He joins them right where they are, on the subject they’re focused on, as a ready participant in the subject that’s already on the table. That tells you something else about us. He really does want to help us where He finds us. Our concerns are really His concerns. 

18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas,

I think that’s interesting. I don’t want to read too much into that but I think it’s very interesting that we have a name given to one of the two of them, and the name that’s given to the one of the two is Cleopas, which is the male–it’s like Stephanie and Stephen; the female is Cleopatra, the male is Cleopas. This is a male version of the name, Cleopatra, which we all think is an Egyptian name, but that’s not true because Egypt was dominated at that point by the Ptolemies. Ptolemy was one of Alexander the Great’s generals. He got that quadrant of the empire after Alexander’s death. So it’s really a Greek name derived from the Greeks. I have a slight suspicion that the presence of that Greek name tells us something about him, maybe tells us something about his parents, may suggests that this guy was Helenized and, if so, because he has kind of a Greek viewpoint it explains why he’s going to omit from the text, or from his testimony, or from Luke’s account of it anyway, the thing that I want to talk about today. You can’t be sure of that, and I don’t want to read too much into it because Jesus is a Greek name as well, and He clearly was non Greek. Yeshua (or Joshua) would have been his given name but it was turned into the Greek name Jesus, and we call Him by that. A truly Hebrew mind, however, would have been very interested in something different than what the text is going to tell us about. In any event:

…Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem…” 

That’s kind of an amusing thought. See, Christ is not well informed about the local issues, he thinks. 

[…Are you] a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? 

19 And he said unto them, What things?

This is the Lord: What “things”? Tell me about it. 

At the time of the First Vision the Lord says to Joseph: “This is my beloved son, hear ye him.” And then you have the Father and the Son, and a pause. “No sooner had I collected myself than,” Joseph writes; he goes on and asks his question. You have the controlling power of the Universe on standby, waiting for Joseph to formulate and ask the question. That ought to tell you something. 

“What things?” Christ asks, although He clearly knows. The Lord clearly prefers a dialogue with us. He doesn’t pontificate. He talks, He communicates, He wants it to be… He insists upon prayer for a reason; He’d like to hear from you, because in the process of hearing from you, you expose something to Him and you expose something to yourself about yourself. He almost insists on treating us like we’re equals, even though clearly we’re not, and that ought to tell you something about yourself as well. All of these things are extraordinary revelations that the Lord is giving to us about whom we are and who He is. 

…And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 

20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 

21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. 

22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; 

23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. 

That’s not what happened. That’s not what happened. This is a stranger they’re talking with, and this is what they’re willing to say to the stranger that they’re talking with about what happened. Now, I don’t know if they’re filtering the story because they don’t want to come right out with it, or if, in fact, the way they heard it omitted the appearance of the Lord Himself, or if they heard the version that was told about the Lord Himself appearing but just couldn’t bring themselves to believe that. But in this account they admit that certain women went, that they made at least these two astonished. They were early at the sepulchre, no body was found, and they had a vision. That’s all the further they’ll go. But the vision, the “angel”, said He was alive. 

I have to assume that what Luke is setting out in this story is the version that Luke got from these people. It’s also possible–in fact, this is a good text to go to, to answer one of the criticisms about Joseph Smith. One of the criticisms is that he wrote multiple versions of the First Vision. Yeah, he did, and they’re all instructive, and they’re all useful, but we’ve canonized only one of them. But there are multiple versions of what went on, on the very first day of the Lord having risen from the dead. In one account we know that the Lord Himself appeared, and that among other things He told Mary not to hold Him. The King James version says, “Don’t touch me,” but Joseph changes that in the Inspired Version to “Don’t hold me.” I think implicit in the Joseph Smith change is that she did touch Him. She was not just a witness but she was someone who felt free to embrace Him, and He said, “Don’t hold me, I have to go appear to my Father and your Father,” which is different than the version we’ve got here where women are seeing the vision of angels and they omit the Lord. Well, Joseph gave a version of the First Vision in which he discusses angels but he omits the Lord. Now, is Luke lying? No more so than Joseph was. But we ought to be consistent in our treatment of scripture anciently and modern and as fair with Joseph as we are with Luke. 

The first witnesses of the resurrection were women. This is another confirmation that the Second Comforter is not inhibited by priestly office or limited in His ministry to the brethren. The first witnesses were women and that should tell us something. I am constantly amazed, however, at our ability to ignore the obvious. We tend to read into texts things that aren’t there and we tend to read out of texts things that are glaringly apparent. We have encumbered ourselves with a trailer hitch to the Catholic legacy of what it means to have a priestly class among you. We tend to say, well there’s been a restoration and that means something new is going on, while at the same time, putting on the same spectacles that cripple all of those in historic Christianity that needed the restoration to occur. So we ought to feel required to read the text and let it inform us without any predisposition. In verse 24: 

24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.

Sure enough, the tomb was empty, He wasn’t there any more but they didn’t say anything. So far you see the men have only the witness of an empty tomb and the testimony of the women. I would suggest that if law governs all blessings, and it does, the statement isn’t just some, the statement is all. We probably ought to read it: “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” (D&C 130:20-21). If there is a law, and if it is inviolate and it governs, then perhaps there were those who needed to grow more in their faith before they could encounter this experience, and the Lord was working to furnish witnesses who were already predisposed or prepared in order to help others come along as well. Perhaps faith needed to grow in the brethren before they could get what the sisters had already themselves witnessed. 

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 

This discourse would probably rival the Sermon on the Mount if we had it. Other than mentioning the subject we don’t have anything left of this talk that He gave. What they will tell us is: “He Lives!” The headline news is He lives; He’s come out of the grave. Okay, what did He say when He came out of the grave, because he’s going to take a seven mile walk and He’s going to begin at Moses and all the prophets and expound unto them, in all the scriptures, the things concerning Himself. That’s sort of an odd way to spend the day with the Lord, until you think about it. That’s what He does. That’s what angels do. That’s what… Which church should I join? Whereupon, in a mingling of Isaiah and the apostle Paul, the Lord essentially quotes scripture to Joseph Smith. “I undertook to find out what my standing was before Him because I had every confidence of obtaining a vision as I had had one before.” A column of light comes down, the ceiling opens, a man with a robe comes and appears and quotes scripture. And here we have the Lord taking a seven mile hike, beginning at Moses and all the prophets and expounding the scriptures. Well, these disciples are more interested in the physicality of His rising from the dead, “Look! It’s a body and it’s animated again!” because that solves the problem that the Greeks had, and it also proves that the Pharisees were right, so the headline news is: “Pharisees got one up on the Sadducees in this little cultural setting.” What the Lord wanted was to impart some intelligence about the scriptures so that understanding the scriptures they might be believing. And if they by being believing through understanding what the scriptures had to say about Him, they might then be able to move to where He would like them to go. He wanted them to understand how these things foreshadowed everything about His life. 

28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.

The Lord is going to leave them now. He’s talked to them for seven miles, He’s told them about the scriptures, and He’s going to leave. He’s going to leave unless something happens. They either constrain Him to stay with them and abide with them or He’s gone. That ought to tell you something else about the Lord. If they hadn’t constrained Him, He may very well have just left. Verse 29:

29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.

That inspired a hymn, you know. So they have been walking, we don’t know how long, but approximately seven miles, and the discourse says taken the better part of the day as they have walked. And towards evening they are getting ready to pull over. It may be that this was one of the reasons why Cleopas never attempted a reconstruction; it may have overwhelmed him even at the thought of trying to reduce to writing everything that was there, although that’s the purpose of the Holy Ghost, to enable you to be able to do that. But we are the poorer for not having this talk preserved. 

…And he went in to tarry with them. 

30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake [it], and gave to them.

Now what does that sound like? Yes, it sounds like an ordinance. It sounds like the Lord has slipped seamlessly into the role of presiding High Priest and it sounds like, at the moment that He begins priestly officiating, these people are finally able to see what it is that’s going on. The breaking of the bread is the signal to them for the opening of these disciples’ eyes. 

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

In The Second Comforter I wrote about their heart burning within them. Today I’d like to talk about the second part, which is not in that book: “While he opened the scriptures to us.” I want to look at what would necessarily have been included in the talk that the Lord gave on the road to Emmaus as an example of what it is the Lord would have us understand, preparatory to our eyes being opened. We cannot now recreate that talk without revelation but we can, I think, isolate the things that are necessarily included within it in order for these people, who had just witnessed the events of the last few days, to understand. So what I want to do is turn to Moses and all the prophets and try and determine what was necessarily included in the Lord’s remarks. 

I’d like you to image as we do this a newly risen Lord in the throes of celebrating the resurrection, walking on a dusty back road and trying to persuade people that the scriptures testify of Him. The ordinances of the Old Testament, beginning with Exodus, were revealed through Moses and so when you speak about “Moses and all the prophets” you should expect Christ would necessarily begin with the ordinances of the Law of Moses. When those ordinances are their most relevant they are talking about the sacrifices that took place there, and they point to the great atoning sacrifice which He would perform. And when Christ asked: “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things?” in His discourse, He’s talking about the things that were necessary for Him to fulfill the Law of Moses. 

In the tabernacle, and subsequently in the temple that was built by Solomon, the temple divided up into three areas. (You know, I do think I want that microphone so I can go back on the board and use it. Do I have to shut this one off in order to turn that one on?) There was an outer court into which was welcomed all of Israel. You had to enter Israel whether you were a priest or not a priest; all of Israel entered into the outer court. There was a Holy Place into which, on a rotating basis, the priests alone were allowed to come. They would come for the morning service and they would come for the evening service. And then there was the Holy of Holies, into which one priest, the presiding High Priest, would enter one time each year for one specific ordinance, on Yom Kippur, or the Holy of Holies. So you had, as a matter of separation, you had everyone, and then you had a smaller group, and then you had a single person. Or, if you were to draw it out in terms of how the divisions looked, you create in the structure of the temple itself the mountain of the Lord’s house. 

In the Holy Place there was a separation between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies by a veil. In front of the veil there was an altar on which incense would be burned. On the one side there was a menorah or a candlestick. On the other there was the table of the showbread, and this is the structure into which the priests would pass for their ordinances. In the Holy of Holies was the Ark of the Covenant, together with the Mercy Seat and the symbolic presence of God the Father and Christ. These represented ascending levels of holiness which were symbolically separated by who got to enter. The three degrees, the three levels of holiness, are represented there. It is inside the Holy Place, this spot right here [refers to white board visual]. That is the place in which the New Testament begins and the New Testament ends. It begins chronologically in that room and it ends in its narrative in the Book of Revelation where Christ appears in that same room in John’s vision of Patmos. 

I want to turn back to the beginning of the dispensation in which Christ will come, and turn to Luke chapter 1, beginning in verse 5: 

Luke 1:5-25

5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judæa, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:

This is what James Talmage wrote about this course: 

“About fifteen months prior to the Savior’s birth, Zacharias, a priest of the Aaronic order, was officiating in the functions of his office in the temple at Jerusalem. His wife, Elisabeth, was also of a priestly family, being numbered among the descendants of Aaron. The couple had never been blessed with children; and at the time of which we speak they were both well stricken in years and had sorrowfully given up hope of posterity. Zacharias belonged to the course of priests named after Abijah, and known in later time as the course of Abia. This was the eighth in the order of the twenty-four courses established by David the king, each course being appointed to serve in turn a week at the sanctuary…

“During his week of service each priest was required to maintain scrupulously a state of ceremonial cleanliness of person; he had to abstain from wine, and from food except that specifically prescribed; he had to bathe frequently; he lived within the temple precincts and thus was cut off from [his] family association; he was not allowed to come near the dead, nor to mourn in [any] formal manner if death [occurred to] rob him of even his nearest and dearest of kin. [They select daily] the priest who should enter the Holy Place, and there burn incense on the golden altar, …by lot; and… we gather, from non-scriptural history, that because of the great number of priests [and] the honor of so officiating seldom [this honor] fell twice [in] the same person.” (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ: Deseret Book: Salt Lake City, p.71.)

Not only was it seldom, later Jewish tradition has it that a person, a priest, who got to go in there and to do that in this room was considered rich, having been allowed to do this on one occasion. Zacharias is well stricken in years; the lot hasn’t fallen on him, he spent his lifetime hoping for it, and now the lot falls onto him, and by the way, there are no coincidences. This was, at it turns out, exactly the right time. 

…his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Both sides of this family are Aaronic, Levitical, so that there’s no doubt about the right, the inherited right, that John will have to officiate in the ordinances that he will later officiate in. 

6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 

7 And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. 

8 And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course, 

9 According to the custom of the priest’s office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. 

So his job was to come with coals from off of the outer altar and bring it in to the inner altar, and put the coals [on] the altar, and then put on top of it incense, and then he had a job to do, and his job was to offer a prayer. The altar of incense, which had horns at its corner, would have burned with the smoke of the incense ascending upward in the Holy Place. When it hit the ceiling it would then move outward, the rising of the incense column being a symbol of the prayers ascending to God from the Israelite nation. When it hit the ceiling and began to spread out it represented as well the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden with the trunk and with the upper limbs extending. This was a symbol of the original Garden of Eden setting, all of this occurring within the Holy Place. 

10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. 

11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 

This veil was fastened hard on the left but ended on the right in front, and behind it, it was fastened hard on the right and ended on the left, so that a person could pass through. But if you passed through and you came from inside the Holy Place, or the Holy of Holies into the Holy Place, you would be standing, as it turns out, on the right side of the altar. Symbolically that meant that this person who has now come to stand on the right side of the altar has just emerged from the symbolic presence of God. We tend to think of things as being non-physical, but when these encounters occur it gets very concrete and very specific. There we have the right side of the altar of incense and that description fixes the angel in the right location for him, inside the temple, to have emerged from this symbolic presence. But look what he says: 

12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. 

13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard;”

Well, what was his prayer? 

…Thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

You shouldn’t leap to the conclusion that he’s praying for a son, because a man and a woman well stricken in years, sent into the temple to officiate in an ordinance with people standing outside, everyone knowing what he was going to be praying, everyone knowing the timing that would be involved with that prayer, had a certain expectation of when he would come back out. He wasn’t in there freelancing. He wasn’t in there just praying. He wasn’t in there saying, “And… I’d… like you to invent the Porsche… and I’d like a Porsche. My friends all drive Porsche’s; I must make amends.” 

Alfred Edersheim tells us what the prayer would have been. Here is an excerpt from the prayer that Zacharias would have been offering: 

“…Be graciously pleased, Jehovah our God with thy people Israel, and with their prayer. Restore the service to the oracle of Thy house… So preserve us and keep us, and gather the scattered ones into Thy holy courts, to keep Thy statutes, and to do Thy good pleasure, and to serve Thee with our whole heart…Bless us, O our Father, all of us as one, with the light of Thy countenance… And may it please Thee to bless Thy people Israel at all times, and at every hour with Thy peace.”

And the angel says, your prayer has been heard. Your prayer has been heard, and your wife, Elizabeth, is going to bear a son. Which means the Lord is about the bless Israel with the light of His countenance and as a part of that process your wife is going to have a son. His prayer has been heard. Israel was to be gathered. Israel was to be visited by the Lord. The angel’s association of gathering and visitation on the one hand, with the promise of a son on the other hand, would have been, at a minimum, unexpected. Now angel… You know I’m an old man, right? My wife’s old, too. You’re here to tell me you’re about to visit Israel with the countenance, the light of Your countenance, that the Lord is going to shine upon us. I get that.  But this whole son thing, you’ve got to back up on that. 

The angel continues: 

14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 

You know, there’s no record of that. In the context of the statement that’s being given here, it’s saying that “many” are going to rejoice at the birth of John the Baptist. We don’t know that. We have the testimony of an angel that that is going to happen but it’s omitted from the scriptural account. Later on–it will be about two years after the birth of the Savior, because they went to kill all the children that were two years old and younger, it’s going to be some later time–they will hunt specifically for John. In one account they come to Zacharias and demand John be surrendered three times before they finally kill on Herod’s order, Zacharias, for not surrendering the son. They knew about John. He arrived as headline news because his father had been officiating in the temple. Not at all like the One before whom he would go to prepare the way, who would be born in obscurity. John was someone whose birth would be heralded and this says that many will rejoice at his birth, which suggests that the publicity stunt worked. 

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He wrote: 

“Let us come into New Testament times-so many are ever praising the Lord and His apostles. We will commence with John the Baptist. When Herod’s edict went forth to destroy the young children, John was about six months older than Jesus, and came under this hellish edict, and Zacharias caused his mother to take him into the mountains, where he was raised on locusts and wild honey. When his father refused to disclose his hiding place, and being the officiating High Priest at the Temple that year, was slain by Herod’s order, between the porch and the altar, as Jesus said. John’s head was taken to Herod, the son of this infant murderer, in a charger. Not with standing there was never a greater prophet born of a woman than him!” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.261).

John was known. Herod targeted him. His reputation was known because of the circumstances of his birth and apparently there were those who rejoiced and clearly others who feared. The angel continues: 

15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost…

16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

17 And he shall go before him…

He, John, shall go before Him, the Lord their God:

…in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people…

In this context, what the angel is telling Zacharias is the “light of God’s countenance” is, in fact, about to break forth. So Zacharias asked the reasonable question, whereby shall I know this?

18 [And Zacharias said unto the angel,] Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.

It’s the elephant in the room. We haven’t been talking about this problem. We don’t have latter-day pharmaceuticals. This isn’t going to work. 

19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

I’m not walking through a curtain. I’m not coming from the symbolic presence of the room next to us. I’m coming from God Himself. Do you understand that, Zacharias? Do you get the picture here? I don’t think you should be disbelieving. Here’s a sign:

20 …thou shalt be [struck] dumb, and not [be] able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

Well, all the more publicity for John because you see: 

21 …the people waited for Zacharias. 

There’s a time involved in the visit and the dialogue between the angel and Zacharias. We tend to somehow think that spiritual phenomenon are outside of time and space, and while they are outside of time and space because we don’t control them in our environment, they control this environment, we don’t control theirs. The fact is that when they come to our time and space they are in our time and space and time lapses. This dialogue took a while. The people knew how long the prayer lasts, and it was taking longer, and this is an awkward moment for everyone because if the guy died in there, and he’s old and well stricken in years, no one else can enter until the evening sacrifice. When you clean the altar off and you shovel the dust into the bucket, you can grab the guy by his wrist and bring the bucket and the old guy out. But between now and then, what are we gonna do, because there is no ordinance for extraction of one each dead Zacharias. It’s a problem. 

So they are all sitting about talking, 

21 …[marveling] that he tarried so long in the temple. 

I don’t know, whaddaya think we oughtta do? 

Ask Ananias? 

Ananias is a jerk! 

You can ask him anything… 

So they wait, and they wonder, and they speculate. 

Do you think he’s in there eating showbread? I mean, he’s been waiting his whole life to get in there. 

He’s gonna have fingerprints all over the Menorah! 

I’ll bet right now he’s in there…he’s in the Holy of Holies and he’s rolling around on the floor. Right now. I’ll bet it. 

Zacharias, what’s he up to? 

22 And when he came out, he could not speak unto them:

Ooh! What do you suppose that did to the attention of the people? What do you think the reaction to that would be? He couldn’t speak to them. 

…and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless. 

And so the publicity stunt is afoot. Everyone knows something happened. There’s something going on here. We know that Elizabeth conceived and she hid herself, and so on.

The Dispensation of the Meridian of Time when the Lord is going to come begins right here in this spot. That ought to tell us something too about the terrible significance of tying into everything that the Lord does, the temple. So here we are, standing on this side of the veil with the Dispensation launched, with an angel who has emerged, not from just the figurative or symbolic, but from the literal presence of the Lord, and we’re going to have to, as part of this Dispensation, at some point pass through that veil and enter into the Holy of Holies. 

(I’m told we have to take a break at one point, so I’m checking my watch on that.)

When Moses passed through the veil the presence of the Lord was shielded by a covering of a thick cloud. The cloud operated as a veil to the onlookers of Israel but Moses was allowed to pass through or enter through the cloud into the very presence of God. We have an account of that in Exodus chapter 24, in verses 15-18.

Exodus 24:15-18

15 And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount.

16 And the glory of the Lord abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.

17 And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.

18 And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.

Just like in the mountain of the Lord’s house you have the pinnacle, the spot at the top of the mountain, at which when one stands there, they are no longer of the earth but they have become a part of the sky. That is one of the reasons why the mountain of the Lord’s house is the symbol that gets used in scripture to describe the phenomenon because it is no longer connecting you to the earth. The only thing that touches is the soles of your feet; you have become part of the heavens. Moses ascends up, and the ascension that is being talked about here in the cloud, at the top of the mountain of the Lord’s house, inside there is where we find the presence of the Lord. 

Similarly, as Christ asked, “Ought not these things to have happened?” One of the things that had happened was in the Dispensation of the Meridian of Time. Christ also passed through the cloud and entered into the presence of the Father. There were three disciples who were able to see, Moses [and] Elias, but they were not permitted to see the Father, though they heard His voice. They heard the voice speaking from inside the cloud; only Christ passed into the Father’s presence. That is recorded in Matthew chapter 17, verses 1-8. The relevant part: 

1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. 

(It’s intimidating.)

7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.

8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.

See, Christ tells these disciples to “tell the vision to no man until the Son of man be risen again from the dead,” (Matthew 11:9) while on the road to Emmaus He was risen again from the dead. There is no reason now to withhold the information about the Lord having passed through the veil on the Mount of Transfiguration into the presence of God the Father. So this would have been available subject fodder for the discussion on the road as well.  

In the rites of Moses there was one occasion when it was permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies. It took placed only one time each year on a specific day. The day is set out in Leviticus chapter 23 where it says: 

27 Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement…

28 And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement,

This orientation as to time and number orients us on the tenth day to remind us of the “Ten Commandments” at Sinai. Ten is whole, it’s complete. We use ten because of our fingers as the basis for our numbering system. And seven, on the seventh month, is a symbol of creation, or completion, or perfection. These two numbers combined in a symbolic testimony of the significance of the Day of Atonement, which is also testament of the perfection, the completion, the exactness of the timing of the actual atonement. It was no accident the Lord came and did what He did at the very moment that He did it, and it’s no accident that the angel appeared at the very moment he did. 

The Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) was originally associated with the deaths of Aaron’s two sons. That’s sort of an odd thing to think about. That’s where it comes from, where it gets started. They had taken incense into the Holy of Holies and burned it there in an unauthorized manner, and that offense, in entering into the presence of God in an unauthorized way, resulted in Nadab and Abihu being killed. Fire came out and devoured them. They were killed. The Day of Atonement was the day in which there was a method provided for Aaron to enter into the Holy of Holies without being destroyed. The entirety of the ordinance reaches out, first to cleanse Aaron, or Aaron’s successor as the High Priest, and then to cleanse the temple, and then to cleanse all of Israel. It was a progression in three degrees, as if the atonement were intended to include redemption for the celestial, the terrestrial, and the telestial. As if the mercy of God was intended to extend to every living creature regardless of their obedience to Him. It was intended to be all inclusive and all encompassing. 

In the context of the Day of Atonement there was a prescribed use for incense. It symbolizes the cloud covering the presence of God, just as the cloud covering Sinai when Moses entered the presence of God, and the full account of the rite is set out in chapter 16 of Leviticus. I want to take a look at what that says only for purposes of saying what necessarily the Lord had to suffer in order to enter into His glory. We don’t look at these old books any more. We tend to think that they were all done away with, and they were. We don’t celebrate them any more, but they were intended to give an orientation to who it was the Messiah was, and what the Messiah was intended to do. It is a testimony. See, if God knows all things beforehand, and He does, then He knows how to set out in a ritual all of the details of what it is He is about to do. 

So between now and the time that we get started again I want you all to have read Leviticus chapter 16, verses 1-34. Maybe you can mock up a Holy of Holies, and practice burning incense, and entering into the veil–and we’re going to need an animal because we’re going to need some blood. But ketchup will work if you can bring some of that over from the… 

It is fascinating to take a look at what the Lord suffered in the actual atonement in order to see what the rites were intended to reveal about it. You don’t understand the Lord until you understand what He set out in symbol to testify about Himself. (So with that we’ll take a break, as I understand it.)

I’m told I’m now hands free. No hands. I’m reasonably confident that we will arrive at Emmaus just about the time the tables are set. 

If we go to Leviticus chapter 16 verse 1: 

Leviticus 16:1-34

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron,

That incident occurred in Leviticus chapter 10 verses 1-3. 

…when they offered before the Lord, and died;

2 And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

So you don’t get to control the timing of events. The Lord reserves to Himself the timing of events. If you think that there are moments when you are ready for something, you may not be. It’s the Lord who decides and the Lord who fixes the time, and those things are determined according to the mercy and the wisdom of the Lord just as it was when Zacharias was surprised in the Holy Place. Verse 12 says he –that is Aaron when he goes in, and his descendants: 

12 And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil:

13 And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not:

So he’s supposed to bring from off of the altar a burnt sacrifice coals with him, and he’s supposed to bring a collection of incense with him, and he’s to enter into–through the veil–into the Holy of Holies, and there he is supposed to set the coals and set the incense in order for a cloud to be produced inside the Holy of Holies. So he’s inside the veil of the temple but he’s also being drawn into a further cloud, or veil, inside the Holy Place, “that he die not”. Well, unlike the room in which the altar of incense appears, the room in which this takes place is literally a cube. Every dimension is exactly the same inside this room. It is a perfect cube, and it’s significantly smaller than the room from which he’s traversed to get there. The incense behaves in a different way and the cloud that’s produced there does not become columnar, it fills the room because it’s a much smaller space. And so while he’s in there ministering he is inside the cloud and in the symbolic presence of God, just as Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration had accomplished that, and the elements from Sinai are brought as well. You have Moses on the Mount Sinai, you have Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, and you have an ordinance. And the ordinance is symbolically recreating these actual events, one that had occurred at the beginning of the Dispensation, one that will occur in the Lord’s own life, and it is to be modeled every year on the Day of Atonement. 

The Messiah’s life necessarily included an ascension through a cloud or veil into the presence of God. He was touching on one of the required elements of His ministry when this ordinance was established and when He said: “Ought not these things to have occurred?” One of the things that ought to have occurred was the incident on the Mount of Transfiguration. It satisfied one of the elements of the Law of Moses which would identify Him as the Anointed One, as the Lord, as the promised Messiah. In all things Christ was required to fulfil what had been foretold of Him. When He asked: “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things?” on the road to Emmaus, it’s the same sort of question that He and John the Baptist exchanged at His baptism. “Suffer it to be so because we need these things. There’s a pattern here. I must conform to the pattern. I am the one who will fulfil the pattern, therefore, I must do this, John. It’s necessary.” It’s essential, and if so for Him, then for us also. When He said, “Come, follow me,” I don’t think He had in mind merely walking around Palestine, much to the rather organic view of Islam about what we ought to be doing. The Savior was talking about things that were transcendent. 

The great Day of Atonement had elements included throughout the ritual which associate with the events of Christ’s life and of Christ’s sacrifice. This conversation on the road to Emmaus surely turned therefore to the Day of Atonement to show the necessity of what He suffered. Let’s look at how Luke described some of what happened in Luke chapter 22 verses 39-46: 

Luke 22: 39-46

39 ¶ And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives;

This is after He has introduced the sacrament ordinance, after Judas has disassociated himself. The Savior now goes out to the Mount of Olives. Luke chapter 22 verse 39: 

40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.

41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

45 And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,

46 And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.

Here Luke identifies three elements of the Day of Atonement. First, he orients us to the place involved. It’s the Mount of Olives. This mount, the Mount of Olives, was east of the temple. 

Second, he identifies the sprinkling of blood upon the ground. Luke tells us Christ, at the eastern location, suffers until “drops” of His blood are sprinkled upon the ground. 

Third, Luke tells us that Christ was left alone at the moment of these events. No man accompanies Him. Those who were “a stone’s throw” away have lapsed into sleep, so as the blood is sprinkled on the ground Christ is alone. Interestingly, the place that the priest would enter alone on the Day of Atonement is about a stone’s throw away from those that would be in the outer court waiting as he performed the ordinance inside the Holy of Holies. 

In our Dispensation the Lord confirms His suffering in Section 133 of the Doctrine and Covenants: “I have trodden the wine-press alone, and have brought judgment upon all people; and none were with me.” (D&C 133: 50). This had to be a solitary event. If we go to Leviticus chapter 16 and look at the Day of Atonement, look in verse 14. The High Priest, when he comes in: 

Leviticus 16:14-17

14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward;

He comes in to the east side of the mercy seat and he sprinkles there the blood of the sacrifice that’s been offered, just as Christ went eastward from the temple into the Garden of Gethsemane where he sprinkles the blood upon the ground. 

…before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.

15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place…

17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, 

Christ’s suffering and the “sprinkling” of His blood on the Mount of Olives was “necessary” to fulfil the Law of Moses. He needed to suffer these things in order to fulfil the symbols that identify Him as the Messiah, in the rights that He had established as the way to identify who He would be. It would be more correct to say that the rites needed to include these elements because the events would include the elements, because He foresaw the elements of what He would suffer before He ordained the ordinance itself, and the two of them fit together. 

Continuing with the events in Luke we read that Christ was taken before Israel and an option was given to Israel to either let Him or let another man go free. As Luke describes it in Luke chapter 23 verse 16; Pilate is speaking: 

Luke 23: 16-25

16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

18 And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:

19 (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)

20 Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.

21 But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.

22 And he said unto them the third time,

(Interesting that it has to be repeated three times):

…Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.

23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.

24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

25 And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

Well! Knock me over with a feather, if the Day of Atonement doesn’t do this exact same thing. And, one of the parts of the Day of Atonement that has generated, I would guess, more doctoral theses in the divinity schools of Christendom than probably any other speculative point. This account conforms to the Day of Atonement. 

First, you offer one to be sacrificed and one to be released. 

Second, the choice is made before all the congregation of Israel. 

Third, after the choice is made one is sacrificed for sin. 

Fourth, the one to be released is laden with sin when it is turned free. 

Leviticus 16:7-10, 20-22

7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.

9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a [sacrifice].

10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

He shall let the goat go into the wilderness. Confess over him all their sins, release him who “that for sedition and murder was cast into prison”, and so the one laden with sin is let go. 

The elements of the ritual in the book of Leviticus and the events in the life of Christ are not inadvertent. The Lord saw the events of the day when His own life was going to be laid down. The rituals of Moses were fashioned by the Lord in the revelation given to Moses to reflect the events that were actually going to occur. 

The “two goats” are alike in the ritual. Just so, too, are the positions of Christ, the Son of God, and Barabbas on the other hand. “Bar” meaning “the son of,” and “Abba” meaning “the father”. Whether that was his given name or the name he assumed as a zealot I don’t know, but this name title co-identified “The Son of God” and “the son of God, Barabbas”. So we have the actual Son of God on the one hand, and a man whose name refers to him also as “the son of God” standing co-equally before the congregations of Israel. “And whom shall I free?” And the lot falls upon the Savior. 

The “two goats” are treated differently in the ritual. One is killed. The other, laden with sins, is set free. Barabbas is set free. The similarities are striking. No doubt the risen Lord would have pointed these things out as they walked on the road to Emmaus, about how all these things ought to have occurred and were necessarily so. 

The next element was the location. Luke describes the place of Christ’s killing in Luke 23:33: 

33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

There is some controversy over the location of things. When Constantine converted… Actually, that really overstates the case. When Constantine determined that Christianity was going to become the state religion of Rome to help him govern an unruly group of people–he wouldn’t get baptized until about a month before his death many years later and presumably the reason, not withstanding the Catholic apologists’ reason for it, he just wanted an insurance policy on the off chance that Sol Invictus wasn’t going to help him, and on the possibility that this Jesus Jew boy might–he got baptized before his death and his final illness. But at the moment of his conversion he was more interested in the political advantages of having Christianity become the state religion of Rome than he was in a sincere belief that it had something to offer him. His mother, on the other hand, appears to have been rather converted and zealous in the cause. She was the one who went to Palestine and located all of those sacred sites, that we now have the Church of the Sepulchre and the Church in Bethlehem, the birth site. All of those areas were discovered by Queen Helen, the mother of Constantine. And she, too, fixed the place of the crucifixion which the apostles and prophets of the Restoration have never accepted. 

There have been no efforts by the Church to officially identify the spot where the crucifixion took place but there have been a number of statements, including one by President Spencer Kimball, about feeling by the Spirit that certain places were likely to be. No one’s ever tried to fix it. But in our scriptures, map #12 in the back of your scriptures gives you a probable location of Golgotha, and there’s a picture of it. The picture is back here, photo 13, Golgotha. “A prominent tradition holds the Lord Jesus was crucified near here, ‘place of the skull’,” and the skull there appears to be the features of the mountainside. Assuming for a moment that that orientation is correct and that Queen Helen was wrong, then the place where the crucifixion occurred would be to the north of the location of the temple mount. Inside the temple environment, inside the larger temple area, the place where the animals were killed on the grounds was the place of slaughter and it was located to the north of the altar for burnt sacrifice, and outside of the temple itself but in the court of the temple, just as the scriptures make clear it was outside the city wall and at a location to the north of Jerusalem. 

Leviticus 16:11, 15

11 And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, …and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself:

This site would have been in the northern part of the outer court of the temple, the location of the actual crucifixion corresponding to the location of the rites performed within the temple. Crucifixion outside the temple walls, or outside the walls of Jerusalem, corresponding once again with killing the sacrifice outside the walls of the temple building. Then once this has occurred, once this slaughter has occurred, it’s necessary to bring the blood. In verse 15:

15 ¶ Then shall he… 

(Aaron, or the successor High Priest) 

…bring his blood within the veil, …and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

So it has to come into the presence of and the attention of, symbolically, God the Father. The mercy seat is inside the Holy of Holies. It is inside the veil of the temple. It’s the most holy spot of the temple. When, therefore, the actual events of the Day of Atonement occur it should be necessary for the offering to be brought into the holiest place and offered to the attention of the Father. So in Luke 23:45, at the moment of Christ’s death, after He shouts with a loud voice and gives up the ghost: “And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.”

Matthew 27:51 says: “And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks [were] rent;”

Christianity says that’s because they did away with all that stuff, and it had now been superseded, fulfilled, and it was no more. The rites of Moses suggest it was necessary for the offering to be accepted within the Holy Place. And as no one who was officiating would draw aside the veil to allow the presence of God the Father to acknowledge the sacrifice, God the Father Himself drew it apart with an earthquake, renting the veil of the temple to accept the sacrifice. As Christ completed His sacrifice the Holy of Holies opened to acknowledge and accept the offering. It should not be a mystery to us why this happened. It completes the acts required under the rites to confirm that this was the Annointed One, to whom all the rites and ordinances pointed as our common hope for the One who would enter in and make atonement for us. 

Christ’s discourse on the road to Emmaus was not limited to the rites of Moses. He says, “Beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” It had to include more than just Moses. So there are a few other scriptures that I think we have to consider in order to conclude what was necessarily included within Christ’s dialogue. 

Matthew’s Gospel brings up details of Christ’s humiliation in Matthew 27, beginning at verse 33: “And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. And sitting down they watched him there; And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. (Forming rather a presidency of the damned and outcast and executed.) And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour [Christ] cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. 

“[And] when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; Now when the centurion, [there] that [was] with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.” (Matthew 27:33-54).

One of the prophets, no doubt, that Christ would have referred to is one that Matthew just referred to. If you get out Psalms:22 you’ll read this account: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel. Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them. They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. But I am a worm, and [not a] man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. …Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help. …They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. …I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of [the earth]. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, [they] cast lots upon my vesture. But be not thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me. …My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him. The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the Lord that seek him: your heart shall live for ever. All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the Lord’s: and he is the governor among the nations.” (Psalms 22: 1–8, 11, 13–19, 25–28).

Ought not these things to be, and for Christ to enter into His glory? It had to be. The disappointment and the confusion and the uncertainty of these disciples, walking after the apparent defeat of the Lord in Jerusalem, didn’t understand. Everything about these events was essential for the Messiah, if he be the Messiah, to accomplish. 

Isaiah 53:2-12: “For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: (As a root out of a dry ground there was no drier ground than that. It’s remarkable that the Lord was able to take root there.) He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.” (Isaiah 53:2).

“There is no beauty that we should desire him”, is the King James way of putting the verse. The Jewish Study Bible published by the Oxford University says there is “no charm that we should find him pleasing”. Avraham Gileadi in his Apocalyptic Isaiah renders it that there is “no pleasing aspect, that we should find him attractive”. If I were going to say what the gist of the idea is that is being communicated here, I would say: He was uncredentialed; there was nothing about him that made him bona fide. If you wanted to recognize the Lord it had to be in the content of His message. “Did not our hearts burn within us”, and not in the majesty of the office he held; for although He held the only true High Priest office of that day, at that moment all of society was otherwise oriented. He didn’t don priestly robes, He didn’t own possession of the temple courts, He didn’t come through the lineage of Aaron, indeed, not even of the lineage of Levi. He was uncredentialed. There is nothing about His lowly position inside a society that was organized as it was, that would recognize Him as being bona fide. Only those willing to “let their hearts burn within them” would recognize Him. As to everyone else, just another common man. 

Isaiah 53:3-10

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him;

Look away, look away. We still do that, you know. Walking alongside on the road to Emmaus we still hide, as it were, our faces from Him. 

…he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

It is popular to disrespect, to question, to doubt, to trouble over. I love the question someone called Doug with yesterday. I have no credentials. I am no one. I am a member of the Church with a testimony. I preside over nothing. I hold no keys, and yet I know Him. 

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried [away] our sorrows:

That’s not just a statement about what it is He’s accomplished. That’s a statement of trust. That’s a statement of your confidence in Him. Because if He’s borne your griefs it means you have to allow him to do so, and if He’s carried away your sorrows you have to permit Him to be the one who makes the carrying away. 

…yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

“Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). Or, as some think, can any good thing come of this Nazarene?

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;

We don’t like His way. We like to meddle with it, adjust it, adapt it, toy with it, alter it. We like to turn to our own way. 

…and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;

In a borrowed tomb from a rich man He was buried, but with two thieves He was hung on the cross, you see. 

…because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

When he said, “Tell me, are you the son of God,” and in response thou sayest (meaning what you’ve said, meaning that’s right) there was no deceit in His mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

It “pleased” the Lord to bruise Him. Fortunately we have an Anglican bishop who came to our rescue advocating, as he is, ordination of homosexuals among other things, and the utter nonsense of the sacrifice of Christ. He wants Christianity and the Anglican Church to become a homosexual social movement. How you turn Christ into that is sort of an oddity but if the dispensation began with an old man reproducing, I would rather think it is a heterosexual dispensation we’re talking about. This bishop argues, in an article he published within the last month, the phrase, “it pleased the Lord to bruise him” as absolute nonsense, but no less a prophet and seer than Enoch took joy in the Savior’s sacrifice. He describes it in Moses chapter 7 verses 45-47: “And it came to pass that Enoch looked; and from Noah, he beheld all the families of the earth; and he cried unto the Lord, saying: When shall the day of the Lord come? When shall the blood of the Righteous be shed, that all they that mourn may be sanctified and have eternal life? And the Lord said: It shall be in the meridian of time, in the days of wickedness and vengeance. And behold, Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, even in the flesh; and his soul rejoiced, saying: The Righteous is lifted up, and the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world; and through faith I am in the bosom of the Father, and behold, Zion is with me.”

It pleased the Lord to bruise him. It pleased Enoch that Christ was bruised. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and entered into his glory? It’s a delightful moment. It is the moment in which the atonement gets worked out. It confers such blessings upon mankind that it was a happy event causing actual joy for those who behold it with understanding, even now. 

Returning to Isaiah: “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:11-12). 

“Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory?” Enter into his glory. There is a statement that we’ve got, Jacob 4:4 in the Book of Mormon: “For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us.” 

Enter into His glory; a hope of His glory. What is His glory? “Behold, this is my work and my glory” (Moses 1:39). What is that? What is His glory? It’s you. It’s you. As He is talking to them about the things that He ought to suffer in order for Him to be able to enter into His glory He’s talking to them about them. He’s talking to you about you. 

I had a Baptist mother who suffered from all of the handicaps of not only being Baptist but devoutly so. She was always worried when I was growing up that I was going to hell because I never became a Baptist, and then I became a Mormon and removed all doubt. After I finally took the missionaries seriously one of the reasons my attention was drawn to the Church was because of Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It furnished a description of the afterlife unlike anything I’d ever heard before. 

In one of those passing religious colloquies that my mom and I engaged in after I was a Mormon and consigned to hell, and she was a Baptist and interested in reclaiming me, I asked her, “What do you think you’ll do in heaven?” It’s a great mystery to the Baptists. Mark Twain tried to help them out in an extract from Captain Stormfield’s Visit to Heaven, which if you haven’t read you ought to read; it’s really good doctrine. Joseph and Mark Twain had the same vision. Well, this was her answer, and it was a studied answer derived from the teaching of devout Baptist ministers who had been her friends over the years: She would spend all eternity blissfully gazing into the face of Jesus. Not that the Lord isn’t a good looking man and all, but I can’t imagine blissfully looking into the face of any person, object, animal, thing, for all eternity. It’s an oxymoron. I don’t get the bliss from that. Oh, he winked! Ah, did you see that? It will be another ten thousand years before something else happens. We’ll be blissful in the interim. 

The notion that Christ has a mission, has a destiny for mankind, the idea that His glory necessarily encompasses us, the idea that the temple anciently divided things into three levels of holiness, and the idea that His plan is robust enough, that His glory is robust enough to provide for both the immortality on the one hand and eternal life on the other hand, of mankind, suggests a Lord who is collegial, who is friendly, who is social, who is as interested in you as you may be curious about Him. A person who, in describing His own glory necessarily includes within it others, is the kind of being worthy of worship and worthy of admiration. 

Some interesting things unfold. I want to do a quick summary before I turn to those, though. From the little bit that we’ve looked at on this discussion that we’ve gotten to so far we can safely conclude the following: The Lord is willing to answer our questions. He’s never said, don’t ask that. On the contrary, He said, ask. He said, seek. He said, knock. And He hasn’t said, “es prohibito…” that stuff. You can ask about anything and probably ought to. He accepts us where we are, walking down a dusty road, confused and befuddled and thinking that He was a failure; He’ll come join you. There’s no elitist cabal. There’s no limitation. He went to the women at the grave, and now he’s associating with a couple of chaps tramping seven miles to Emmaus who needed Him. He accepts us where we are. We need to impose upon Him to have Him stay with us, otherwise He’ll move on. Places to go, fish to fry–literally–in Galilee. I have other fish to fry. He has a sense of humor, someone asked me about that. 

The Lord is a teacher, first and foremost. He is a teacher, that’s His great role, is to teach. When he says, if you want to be serving in the Church you need to learn how to preach, teach, exhort, expound, visit, associate… This is a very social being that we’re talking about, and first and foremost He’s a teacher. Should we render taxes to Caesar? Good question. Do you have a coin? Whose picture? What a brilliant and insightful little episode, an off the hand remark. I imagine it given with just absolute wit: “Great question! You got a coin? Hey, whose image is that? Look, give the things to Caesar that belong to him.” He is not necessarily able to get His message through to us, however, because we are not His equal as students. He does His best to compensate for that but the teaching agenda of any teacher is always limited to the capacity of the students. He would like us to understand and appreciate the wonderful mosaic of symbolic information that He took the trouble to build into the script of scripture, the prose of the prophets, and the rites of his religion. That’s some Maxwellian alliteration for those of you who miss Him. Oh, you know, I wrote this too: Elder Neil Maxwell’s sermons as an apostle were punctuated by his proclivity to produce prose with panache. Some of us delighted in his command of the language. 

He has appeared to women and to men in the flesh after His resurrection. He appeared to the women first, then to two disciples who required some considerable teaching and perhaps even an ordinance in breaking bread before them before they were able to open their eyes and see Him. He was unable to visit with his apostolic witnesses until they had been prepared to see Him by the testimony of the women first and the testimony of the two disciples second. Then they, the apostolic witnesses, saw Him third. If all things come in obedience to law then perhaps the apostolic witnesses needed the Law of Moses itself satisfied with two witnesses, or three, to come bear testimony to them before they felt obliged under the law of Moses to accept that testimony and to allow their faith to grow. From this we can also conclude that there is no controlling or managing the Lord through hierarchical limitations. You don’t have to get someone’s permission, nor does someone have to gain access simply by virtue of status, as was anticipated with the words, “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood”. The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven. 

One of the first witnesses of the resurrection was named Cleopas. Other than this single mention of him we don’t have any other reliable information about him. On the day of the resurrection, when the Lord took the trouble to walk seven miles as a companion with this fellow, we know nothing else but a name. Another of the witnesses of the Lord’s resurrection does not even have a name given to him. “Great in the eyes of the Lord” does not necessarily mean you or the world will ever even notice them. Notice or recognition, let alone fame, is not required of someone who has seen the resurrected Lord; indeed, it’s irrelevant. It’s possible that these witnesses withheld information about the Lord’s communication to them because they were asked to do so. Although there are scriptural limitations on what we may teach or disclose from personal revelation there is no limit on what the Lord may choose to reveal to any given disciple. 

All scriptures are focused on the Lord’s ministry and message. They are one, and we err when we fail to see a consistent overall testimony of the Lord’s great plan of happiness for all of us within it. Christ’s apparent defeat and death were but a prelude to His great triumph over death itself. For those who follow Him, defeat while alive is irrelevant and ultimate defeat in death itself is irrelevant, because if you follow Him here below you’ll be invited to follow Him to greater things above. 

Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to have entered into His glory? The answer is, of course, everything that He did was according to a plan. Every step He took and everything that He taught was intended to bear witness of the ministry and the mission that He had. He satisfied all of the requirements, not only of the Law of Moses but of the Law of the Gospel as well, which He was in the process of introducing to them. I find it always amusing to consider what was going on on Mars Hill when Paul arrived there. They were always interested in hearing some new thing, when in fact, what Christ, on the road to Emmaus, wanted was not some new thing but a clearer understanding of the things that had already been given, a clearer understanding of the testimonies that mankind had entrusted to them already; a clearer understanding that His work and His glory was intended to encompass not only Himself as the Father of all those who will receive Him, but also intended to encompass our own immortality and eternal life. 

In the spring of each year all nature reawakens from the sleep of winter to bear testimony of the resurrection, and similarly I want to add my testimony to those others that the Lord has risen. He conformed perfectly to the Father’s plan. His rhetorical question still remains, in my view, the best way to think of Him: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory? 

In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. 

Q&A Session

Denver: Now, Doug warned me about questions and answers but I’m a foolhardy fellow, and so for the last few minutes before we have our dinner thing set up here, if anyone has any questions I’d be glad to respond to them. I had decided, by the way, to put this stuff down in writing and I’ve done that. I’m working on a third book that I’m hoping to get out some time later this year. Even though it’s completely unrelated–well, nothing’s completely unrelated because it’s all one, but the book that I’m working on now is Book of Mormon material and this is New Testament and Leviticus stuff. I intend to put the talk as it was written into an appendix in the back of that, so if you’re interested in a hard copy of this it will be in the back of a book whose working title at the moment is Eighteen Verses. It takes eighteen separate verses of the Book of Mormon from widely separated spots and simply discusses what doctrines are contained within those verses. It’s all written up here and 80% of it is typed. I’ve got to get the rest of it down and hope to do that and get it to the editor soon, and have it out later this year, and this will be in an appendix in the back of that, if anyone’s interested in it. Not that I’m interested in trying to sell anything to anyone anywhere. I don’t do that, Doug does that. 

Q: [2:03:36] There’s a rumor about how long it took you to write The Second Comforter. Have you heard that? 

Denver: Now, I’ll tell you the truth. You shouldn’t know this before you read the book because you need to read it in order to get why it’s even significant. It took approximately 70 hours from April to July. It took a whole lot longer than that to suffer through the butchery of the publishing process in which I don’t know how many errors were introduced into the typing and the punctuation and there’s still… There’s a statement in the book that says as I wrote it, “I will doubt doubt itself.” Somewhere along the line the spell checker got rid of the second “doubt” because it’s redundant. But if you happen across that sentence it will be corrected at some point but it just hasn’t been done yet, again because of the violence of the publishing process. I started in April, was finished in July as a manuscript. It took approximately 70 hours. It took a whole lot more than that to get it into print because getting books into print–I’m absolutely convinced that there is no perfect book. In my copy of Rough Stone Rolling I found four printing errors and I wasn’t looking for them, so they’ve got to be glaring in order for me to notice them. But publishers are just horrific. 

Q: [2:05:35] You read a scripture in Isaiah 53:10: “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed.” Would you mind explaining that particular statement: “he shall see his seed”?

Denver: Who are the seed of the Lord? The seed of the Lord are those who accept Christ as their father; those who receive Him to be their parent and His offspring; those who become the begotten sons and daughters of God. They are spirit children of God the Father to be sure, but they have to come here and become born again and become the seed of Christ, who is both the Father and the Son, the seed of Christ. And so those who benefit from all this and who are the seed of the Savior are those who are connected with Him by adoption, by affiliation, and otherwise. There is a secondary meaning to that, and one that is a bit more controversial, which relates to the normal process of being a parent. You’ll have to appeal to Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code, Holy Blood Holy Grail, Orson Pratt and The Seer, and a few other sources, in order to sort out the literal meaning of the seed but boy, that sells a lot of books, that seed of Christ thing. 

Q: [2:07:38] Are you aware of the … translation that was made by ministers of …?

Denver: I have not read it [but] am aware of it. 

Q: [2:07:56] It picked out the very things you told us today about Christ not wanting to be …

Denver: Yes, it’s not important. John came with banners and trumpets. The enunciation of John’s birth came in the heart of the culture, in the building that was the capital of the culture, to a priest officiating too long and got noticed, and Christ came along in obscurity. 

Q: [2:08:38] The thing the author brings out in the book, it talks about the … I forget the name of the book now, but it’s about the people of Christ and …

Denver: The drama of the lost disciples. Yes, there is a lot on that. There is a whole body of literature, some of it real interesting. Who knows, some may even be true. 

Q: [2:09:12] … so John has a … bearing Christ’s name … talks a lot about patterns and all … what do you think about it repeating … ?

Denver: Interesting question. There was a hand here. [Audience laughter] We’re enacting ancient events. We’re part of a process that began a long time ago and is going on still. You read, what is it, Genesis chapter 49, the patriarchal blessings of the various patriarchs, you look at the lives of those men in the flesh. We’re just reenacting them on a grander scale, and with more of us, to be sure, but the patterns are there. The records of the prophets are not just history. As the Book of Mormon demonstrates very ably, it’s not history. It’s highly edited, very limited, highly selected. At one point they estimate less than one percent of their history even gets alluded to, material that has been selected on account of prophetic foreknowledge of our circumstance. And so it constitutes not merely a history but a prophetic pattern, in which they try to get us to see the process that we ought to be reenacting in our lives to do the things that they did that brought them to know the Lord. Nephi couldn’t have been more plain if he had said, “Here’s my guidebook. Here’s my rule book. Here’s my pattern recognition sequence. You go and do likewise.” He’s trying to get us to get our hands around, as Joseph Smith put it, the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ involves the path to and through the veil into the presence of God, becoming joint heir, becoming a son of God. [In the] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith page 375, he refers to (I don’t have a copy of it with me but I think I can quote it) “sons of God who exalt themselves to be God even before they were born, and all can cry Abba, Father.” 

Joseph wanted us to take the religion that he restored to the earth rather seriously and to search into and contemplate both the heavens and the darkest abyss. In a… I don’t want to use the word “evangelical”, I’ll use “evangelistic”. In a proselytizing church, in a church in which at any given moment the largest segment of the adult population are novices, introductory novices to a faith, you should never expect the church to forfeit the interests of the novices who rightly need to be fed and nurtured for the interests of those who are maybe a little more mature and have a little more robust comprehension of what the Savior was trying to teach us all. And it’s probably rightly so that the Church makes no effort to really address that, and rightly so that you’re left to your own. We have the scriptures. When the rich man said to Abraham in Christ’s parable, “Well send Lazarus back so he can warn my brothers,” Abraham’s response in Christ’s parable was: “They have Moses, and they have the prophets, and if they won’t believe them they won’t believe Lazarus, even though one rise from the dead,” which is a very interesting foreshadowing of how people would treat the Lord. 

Here’s the problem: People do not believe Him even though He rose from the dead, period. Today, us, you and I, do not believe Him even though He rose from the dead. It was not intended to be a one off event that occurred in the meridian of time. It was intended to be a gathering. The little seed grows up into the great mustard plant into which the birds, or as Joseph put it, the angels, were intended to come and watch. It was intended to be a super structure for housing contact between the divine and the mortal. It was intended to be the moment of intersection between all that is in eternity and the life of the mortal. It was intended to be the journey into the Holy of Holies, into the presence of God. 

In the ordinances as they have been restored in the temple today everyone who enters in is expected to come to the veil possessing certain knowledge, capable of identifying themselves as having been true and faithful, and be received in an embrace and then welcomed into the presence of God. It’s a normal and expected part of the ordinances as they have been restored. Those ordinances are supposed to be teaching us something. They are the Lord’s way of shouting in a multimedia presentation, “Here is how I did what I did, and what I would like you to do in the process of you becoming like me, a son of God, a daughter of God, a member of the household of faith, and part of the church and kingdom of the Firstborn.” You have to become the Firstborn. You have to become one with Him. You have to become part of that, not in an organized group think kind of way, in an individual way in which you connect up with Holiness, in which you become a vessel of Holiness. You are someone to whom sacred things have been entrusted and you become, in turn, sacred as the bearer of them. 

The Law of Moses prescribed the death penalty for a variety of offenses. One of the ways to avoid the execution of the penalty was to go to one of the safe harbor cities. Another way was to go and to come in contact with the altar because if you came in contact with the altar it was considered most holy. Things that are most holy communicate holiness. You can’t profane them. If you come in contact with them and you are unholy, you don’t make it unholy, it makes you holy because it is most sacred. Part of the rites in the temple are intended to communicate to you things that are most holy. They are intended to make you holy. They are intended to make you a suitable recipient for an audience. They are intended to make you a suitable companion for a walk down a dusty road with the risen Lord who is trying to get you to notice exactly who it is that speaks to you. It’s intended to have you understand that He lives, and that He’s willing to associate with you. And that it’s not, as Joseph Smith put it, relying on the words of an old book, the people who lived once long ago, that’s going to save anyone. It’s the dialogue that you engage in with Him now. It’s the living, breathing, vital–He uses the figure of the living vine and you have to connect to the living vine, and He’s the vine and you connect to it, and you get life through that. Words could not be more plain. 

What does it mean to be connected up with the vine and to derive sustenance from it? You have to be alive, which is not inert or an object that you move from there to there. If it’s alive it’s going to grow. It’s going to increase. It’s going to improve. It’s going to have connection with. Christ was extraordinary in His selection of the things that He wanted to use to communicate to us what He intended the gospel to be. We read them and say, “That’s cool. I’ll pay my tithing, I’m connected. I got a card, I’m connected.” It’s intended to be more than that, and the way that it becomes more than that is an individual journey in which you receive from Him and become a part of Him, and He does His best to try and use analogies and parables and stories to make it clear to us. The history of the events that are recorded in scripture are intended to try and make it clear to us but at the end of the day it’s up to you to have the aha moment and realize He really is talking to and inviting you. You, individually, whoever you are, wherever you’re at, whatever your confusion, whatever your doubts, whatever your uncertainties, He wants to talk to you about them. 

Q: [2:21:40] In the beginning you said that there was a woman first who saw Christ had risen. Was there any special reason you did not give her name? 

Denver: No, it was Mary. Any reason why I didn’t use the name of the woman? The reason I use the category is because we are categorical. Our defect and our impairment is we have the brilliant, the ingenious capacity for looking out over people and filtering out all the females. It’s a gift. I don’t know how we manage that but we do, we do manage that. The scriptures plainly tell a different story. And it’s that different story that’s our problem, not the personal identity of the woman involved, or her relation to the Lord, or her obvious reaction to Him. Joseph altering the text to say, “don’t hold me” as opposed to “don’t touch me”, which means that he removed “don’t touch me” from the text. She was touching Him, and tells you something else potentially about their relationship, because if she was embracing and attempting to hold Him, and He was saying, “I’ve got another appointment to keep, I’ll be back, but don’t hold me,” it suggests something else about what was going on there. Why was she there at that point in the morning? Why was it still dark? And why did He elect that moment to come and rejoin her? There’s more to that story but heavens, we’ll leave that to Dan Brown and the rest of them to get into. 

Q: [2:23:40] You made an interesting comment earlier about the Church and how, and I can’t quote you exactly, but it was something along the lines that it made no effort to get into more advanced understanding of some of these doctrines that may or may not be important. I am generally interested to know if you believe that the essential requirements exist within the Church today, all the members … ?

Denver: I think all of the tools are in the Church. I think that the Church has been organized for a wise purpose and it does its purpose rather well. I have no quibbling or qualms at all about the question asked in the temple recommend interview about whether we sustain the brethren, and in particular the President of the Church, as holding the keys, because the keys were restored and they exist. The Church is a repository and it has a job to do, and its job is sort of business-like and it does that job well. If it were not for the Church doing its job well it would never have come to my attention. I wasn’t looking for it. When it did come to my attention I wasn’t particularly interested in it. It was insistent and persistent, and you read a little about that in The Second Comforter. I wasn’t an eager volunteer to become a Mormon. The people I knew who were Mormon were weird. My Baptist mom told me they were, and I trusted her. It was only when I got a little older that I started saying that maybe my Baptist mom didn’t comprehend the entirety of it all. 

I have a testimony of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I take no issue with the organization, the structure, the ordinances that they perform, their right to do them, the responsibility to do them, or the necessity of the Church being the instrument through which the great latter-day work that is going on is going to unfold. But I do think that it’s going to take a few twists and turns before the end of this story is written. We are a very Americanized church at the moment that is growing primarily in Africa, Latin America, and some parts of the Orient. We tend to try and export cultural baggage that if you read the Book of Mormon alone and read the commandments alone, does not necessarily require that baggage to go along with it. I suspect we are going to have some trauma to go through before we finally segregate what’s true and right, pure, necessary, essential, and what are just old habits or traditions. That’s the way the Book of Mormon puts it, the traditions of your fathers. All of that is as a result of good and sufficient reasons. 

We had the Army of the United States, the majesty of Congress and the Supreme Court arraigned against the Latter-day Saints. It’s the product of history. The Church was outcast. It was the object of the targeted, intentional, systematic dismantling by the government of the United States. In order to win over the right to exist, the right to hold property, the right to keep our temples, the right to have a state in which we could enact laws to protect and preserve our own property, the right to sit on juries–because we had that right taken away from us–we had to become American and we had to give up some things, and we had to acknowledge some things. In the process of doing that, the Republicans, who were the primary persecutors of the saints, we have gone so far to appease at this point that we are Republicans. It’s just the most bizarre transformation of all. 

We are now part and parcel not just Americans but we’re conservative Americans. We are Billy Graham Americans. We are Norman Rockwell Americans. We are Americans from the 1950s trying to take into Generation X and rap music a Norman Rockwell persona. We are trying to be “uber” Americans. In some respects we just ought to relax. 

The fact is that… I should probably not admit this but I will. For Father’s Day… I don’t know that I should admit this. For Father’s Day my wife gave me… Now she’s laughing because she knows what I’m going to say. She gave me a Kid Rock CD, who happens to be, by the way, an extraordinarily talented musician–obscene, to be sure. The label had a price tag that had been strategically placed to block the parental warning, so when I opened it and the price tag came off with the outside plastic I said, “Parental warning? Did you know that?” “Oh, no.” Well, it has the one song that he did as a duet with Sheryl Crow on it. It has some other stuff that’s really good on it but it also has some obscenity. Well, I like to bust out Kid Rock from time to time to shock the folks who come to my house that need shocking. Look, there’s no reason for us to be as uptight as we are. We are so anxious. Being anxiously engaged does not require anxiety. We tend to view ourselves as being, if we’re straight and narrow we must be rigid. Sometimes the best way to conform to the surface is to be limber, is to be adaptable, is to be willing to accept some new ideas. 

Brigham Young had this attitude about whatever truth there is out there, we want it. I don’t know how many of you have read the Van Der Donckt, the B.H. Roberts’ debates. They were gathered up…I don’t know the name of the book. I think it’s called the B.H. Roberts Van Der Donckt Debates. Van Der Donckt was the chaplain of the United States Senate and evangelical minister who was given the tabernacle to come and preach against us, come revile against us, and he did. Then B.H. Roberts delivered a sermon to tell the other side of the story, and then Van Der Donckt was invited to rebut B.H. Roberts. Then B.H. Roberts gave a surrebuttal to that, and the whole exchange was welcomed. Everyone was welcome to give their ideas. 

On occasion the guys who are standing outside of the Conference Center with all their vitriolic nonsense, on occasion they stumble on a defect of ours, and we ought to be able to accept the criticism and say, “You know what, on that score we suck.” We ought to be willing to say, “We ought to do better, and we can do better.” We’re embarrassed that as possessors of the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ we’re unwilling to shed some of that, or to welcome in some other truths. I think that what we have restored to us anticipates that there will be other streams of thought which converge with our own, and as they converge with our own those other streams of thought are going to inform us about ideas we haven’t quite got our hands around yet. I think as we grow into the Buddhist world, Buddhist converts to the Church are going to bring to our attention understanding about the Book of Mormon that we don’t penetrate just yet. I believe that Islam is going to bring to us some understandings and insights from the Book of Mormon that we won’t get without them. I believe that the gospel program was intended to welcome these divergent streams of thoughts and to help us flesh it out, and to help us see, ah, there’s more to this than we, in our little narrow Western vantage point, have yet been able to discern. 

The post The Road to Emmaus appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.