The following talk by Stephanie Snuffer was given at a conference held in Sandy, Utah on July 14, 2019.

Transcript

I wanna thank those that organize this and every other conference—put on by volunteers; facilities are rented by them, at their expense, so that we can come and participate. I don’t know how much work or preparation went into this, but 17 days is not inconsequential in terms of the effort that has been required by everyone that has worked on this. Part of what we believe is to sacrifice, as part of the religion and that—and that putting on a conference requires that, and it requires a lot of hands to make it work.

Is—is that better? Okay, I lowered my voice when I said, “Is that better?” [Audience laughter.] I would rather be out in the hallway screaming like we heard a little— better go— Okay, can you hear me? 

Okay, now that we’ve got that all figured out, since my wife and I are one, the first part of this talk is gonna be given by her—assuming that she’ll actually get up and do this. All—all of the best marriages are fiery, and the idea that you—you somehow failed because you had an argument—what was it? Day four of the marriage? We have this running joke—we keep score. What am I? 12,727 argument wins—and she has four, or was it five? [Audience laughter.] Which—which is a reflection of her charity and generosity. And oh, you just said get the—get the sheep hook out. 

She’s gonna talk. 

STEPHANIE: Okay, now you have to re-do all this nasty whatever. 

Okay, I’ve detected a theme. Jennifer, thank you; Tyler, thank you; and some of the others that I’ve heard—like a genuine legitimate theme, and I think I’ll stick with it, okay? And the good news is, as far as I can tell, there will only be one repeat set of scriptures from my talk to Jennifer’s talk. So—

I’ve noticed that there are Ten Commandments—ten (oh, someone needs to give me some water, by the way), not 15, not a hundred, and not a thousand, but ten. And that doesn’t seem like a lot to save the entirety of mankind, right? I mean, when I was leaving lists for babysitters, I left more than ten commandments. [Audience laughter.] It takes more than a list of ten things to take care of our dogs when we leave town. So, I find it interesting that there are only ten. But I’m gonna focus on two—the first two. 

So, in Mark chapter five, verses 44 and 43 [45] (and you have to excuse me; I have had a terrible cold, and so forgive whatever comes out): 

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment…? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is: Listen, and hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like [unto] this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto Him, Well, Master, you have said the truth; for there is one God, and there is none other but him. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. (Mark 5:44-45 RE, emphasis added)

So, the question is, What is this thing about loving yourself, k? I’m not sure, but let’s take a look at it. So, I’m wondering if God gives love your neighbor as yourself as the second great commandment because he thinks we’re all ego-maniacal narcissists, and the only possible way we’re able to love other people is if we love them as much as we love ourselves?  Yep—no, I don’t think so, because there are plenty of examples of people who are literally selfless people and who give up their lives and everything they have for other people. So, that can’t be it.

So let’s start with Romans 65: 

Therefore, owe no man anything but to love one another, for he that loves another has fulfilled the law for this: You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet; and if there is any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying —  namely, You shall love your neighbor as yourself (love works no ill to his neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law), and that, knowing the time — that now [it] is high time to awake out of sleep, for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. (Romans 1:65 RE)

Did you all catch that? If there is any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in the command to love your neighbor as yourself. If you love God and your neighbor, the other eight commandments take care of themselves—because people who love each other work no ill to their neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law, and our salvation is nearer than when we believed. So, it is—quite literally—time to wake up. 

Galatians 1:19: 

I wish they were even cut off who trouble you; for, brethren, you have been called unto liberty. Only use not liberty for an opportunity to the flesh, but by love serve one another; for all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you be not consumed one of another. (Galatians 1:19 RE)

So, here are a few interesting commentaries on that “bite and devour” thing. In the Weymouth New Testament, it says, But if you are perpetually snarling and snapping at one another, beware lest you are destroyed by one another (Galatians 5:15 WNT). The Contemporary English Version says, But if you keep attacking each other like wild animals, you had better watch out or you will destroy yourselves (Galatians 5:15 CEV). Okay? God’s Word Translation says, But if you criticize and attack each other, be careful that you don’t destroy each other (Galatians 5:15 GWT). 

So, how do these words apply to you? And me? Because they do—that’s why they’re part of the scriptures. I just described us; that is us. So, let’s ask it again: What’s up with loving our neighbors as ourselves?

So, Luke 8:7 says: And he answering said, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself…. But he [the man asking the question], willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? (Luke 8:7 RE) 

Well, we’re not gonna do that, are we? We’re not gonna try and justify who our neighbor is. Okay? So, who are our neighbors, and what does it mean to love them?

In this context, I can tell you what love doesn’t mean. It is not necessarily an intense feeling of deep affection; it is not necessarily a great interest and pleasure in something; and it is not necessarily to feel a deep romantic or sexual attachment to something.

Enos two—Enos two & three says:

Now it came to pass that when I had heard these words, I began to feel a desire for the welfare of my brethren the Nephites; wherefore, I did pour out my whole soul unto God for them. And while I was [thus] struggling in the spirit, behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind again, saying, I will visit thy brethren according to their diligence in keeping my commandments. I have given unto them this land, and it is a holy land; and I curse it not, save it be for the cause of iniquity. Wherefore, I will visit thy brethren according as I have said, and their transgressions will I bring down with sorrow upon their own heads. And after I, Enos, had heard these words, my faith began to be unshaken in the Lord. And I prayed unto him with many long struggling for my brethren the Lamanites. 

And it came to pass that after I had prayed and labored with all diligence, the Lord said unto me, I will grant unto thee according to thy desires because of thy faith. And now behold, this was the desire which I desired of him: that if it should be so [be] that my people the Nephites should fall into transgression, and by any means be destroyed, and the Lamanites should not be destroyed, that the Lord God would preserve a record of my people [that] the Nephites, even if it so be by the power of his holy arm, that it might be brought forth some future day unto the Lamanites, that perhaps they might be brought unto salvation. For at the present, our strugglings were vain in restoring them to the true faith. And they swore in their wrath that if it were possible, they would destroy our records, and us, and also our [all the] traditions of our fathers. (Enos 1:2-3 RE, emphasis added)

In Helaman 4:2, it says: 

And it came to pass that in this year Nephi did cry unto the Lord, saying, O Lord, do not suffer that this people shall be destroyed by the sword, but O Lord, rather let there be a famine in the land to stir them up in remembrance of the Lord their God, and perhaps they will repent and turn unto thee. And so it was done according to the words of Nephi, and there was a great famine upon the land, among all the people of Nephi. And thus in the seventy and fourth year the famine did continue, and the work of destruction did cease by the sword, but became sore by famine. And this work of destruction did also continue in the seventy and fifth year. For the earth was smitten, that it was dry and did not yield forth grain in the season of grain; and the whole earth was smitten, even among the Lamanites as well as among the Nephites, so that they were smitten that they did perish by thousands in the more wicked parts of the land. (Helaman 4:2 RE)

And then we move on to Nephi—and just as a side note, I’m pretty sure Nephi did not love his brothers, k? I just don’t think he did. They were abusive; they were violent; and they were fratricidal, okay? But this is what he does—Nephi 2:4:

And it came to pass that when I, Nephi, had spoken these words unto my brethren, they were angry with me. [Yes, so what’s new? They were always angry with him.] … But it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord, saying, O Lord, according to my faith which is in thee, wilt thou deliver me from the hands of my brethren? … And it came to pass that when I said these words, behold, the bands were loosed from off my hands and feet, and I stood before my brethren and I spake unto them again. … And it came to pass that I did frankly forgive them all that they had done, and I did exhort them that they would pray unto the Lord their God for forgiveness. … And after they had done praying unto the Lord, we did again [a] travel on our journey towards the tent of our father. (1 Nephi 2:4 RE, emphasis added)

Genesis 11:4-9—again, another story of fratricide, k? Pretty sure Joseph didn’t love his brothers, and his brothers certainly didn’t love him—because 4-9, And a cert… 

Genesis 11:4-9: 

And a certain man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. And the man asked him, saying, What do you seek? And he said, I seek my brothers [brethren]; tell me, I pray you, where they feed their flocks? And the man said, They are departed from here, for I heard them say, Let us go to Dothan. And Joseph went after his brethren and found them…. [And when he comes, they see him, and they conspire against to slay him] And they said one to another, Behold, this dreamer comes. [They don’t even call him by name, okay? And they have so much contempt for Joseph that they just call him “the dreamer.”] Come now therefore and let us slay him and cast him into the [some] pit, and we will say some evil beast has devoured him, and we shall see what will become of his dreams. And Reuben heard it, and he delivered him out of their hands and said, [Let’s] not kill him. And Reuben said…Shed no blood, but cast him into this pit… [That’s great—we’ll just cast him in this pit…Verse 7:] And it came to pass when Joseph had come unto his brethren…they stripped Joseph out of his coat, his coat of many colors that was on him, …they took him and cast him into a pit. And the pit was empty, [and] there was no water…. And they sat down to eat… [And lo and behold, they see] a company of Ishmaelites coming [came] from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery, and balm, and myrrh,  going to carry it down to Egypt. And Judah said… [Hey] What profit [it is] if we slay… and conceal his blood? Come…let us sell him to the Ishmaelites…let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother and our flesh. [Well, that’s nice. We don’t hate him enough to kill him, but we just sell him to this band of Ishmaelites.] And his brethren were content. [So, they sell him for 20 pieces of silver. Reuben went back to the pit; Joseph wasn’t in it.] …he rent his clothes.  And he returned [to] his brethren and said, The child is not; and I, where shall I go? And they took Joseph’s coat, …killed…the [goat], …dipped the coat in…blood. And they sent the coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father and [they] said, [Oh, oh, oh, it’s so terrible!] (Genesis 11:4-9 RE)

Okay, so you know the story. Lots of stuff happens, and then this—Genesis 11:39-40:

Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all them that stood by him, and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me! And there stood no man with him while Joseph made himself known unto his brethren. And he wept aloud, and the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard. And Joseph said unto his brethren, I am Joseph. Does my father yet live? And his brethren could not answer him, for they were troubled at his presence [because, yeah, what happened to you?]. And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph, your brother whom you sold into Egypt. Now therefore be not grieved nor angry with yourselves that you sold me here, for God did send me before you to preserve life. For these two years has the famine been in the land, and yet there are five years in which there shall neither be plowing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve your [you a] posterity and [in] the earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So now it was not you that sent me here, but God. And he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and [a] lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land[s] of Egypt. [And more happens and more happens]…And he fell upon his brother Benjamin’s neck and wept. And Benjamin wept upon his neck. And [Moreover], he kissed all his brethren and [he] wept upon them. And after that, his brethren talked with him. (Genesis 11:39-40 RE)

The foregoing scriptures illustrate that forgiveness, intercession, and relationships do not have to be based on love, as we culturally define it here. 

So let’s get back to who our neighbors are. We’re gonna start with the most intimate relationships and work out from there. At the top should be my relationship with the gods, which is not always my focus, but ideally, it should be; and then we go partner/spouse, family/children, extended family (aunts, uncles, in-laws), friends/co-workers/religious community/work community/neighborhood—blah, blah, blah—until we get down to our enemies. The makeup of these relationships might look different for everyone. Some of us may have all of them, and some of us may have only a few. But we all have intimate and significant associations or relationships, and we all have enemies. 

So, how do we do it? How do we love them? (So, as a side note, I would like to make a distinction here—service is not love. It can be motivated by love, but there’s a difference, because serving is actually quite easy—dropping off my gently-used clothes, tithing, dollar bills, blankets, granola, water bottles, taking my old “but I’m getting a new washer/dryer” to someone in need, plant a garden, make a casserole, take a salad or a dessert—don’t get me wrong; these are great. We should engage in these. These are really nice things to do. However, they can be done at an arm’s length—no conversation, no association, no relationship, no love, no risk. Relationships are where the real work takes place. Relationships are difficult and effortless. They are risky, and they are safe. They are uncomfortable, and they are comfortable. They are rich and rewarding; and they ebb, and they flow. They are the vehicle wherein we move through and into love, charity, sanctification, and ultimately, salvation. To be a part of the family of God up there requires us to create a family of God down here.) 

So, moving back into “How we justify who our neighbors are, and why we think we don’t need to love them,” I’ve got some hypothetical scenarios—completely made-up (except I have heard variations on themes):

• Example one: My best friend doesn’t go to church anymore. She believes some strange things that I’m having a hard time understanding. Our religious beliefs were a pretty significant part of our relationship, and I don’t believe we have much in common anymore. She is willing to talk to me about some of this stuff, [inaudible] (excuse me) and I do listen, but because I know she’s wrong about her new beliefs, I think I should just stop being friends with her. I’m really torn. I’m worried about how this will affect what kind of person she is, and I don’t want her wacky ideas influencing my family. 
• Example two: My daughter has confided in me about some frustration and hurt she’s been dealing with because of the way her husband (my son-in-law) is treating her. I am resentful and holding a grudge. I treat him fine in public—and I do love him—but I can’t help thinking negative things about him because of what I know. When I express my frustration to my friend, she commiserates with me and agrees that I am justified in resenting him. 
• Example three: My sister borrowed a significant amount of money from me a few years back with a promise that she’ll pay it back. I don’t ask her for it because I don’t really need it, and I’m okay with my financial circumstances, and I really do wanna be charitable. The problem is: every time I see her buying something or spending money, I judge her, based on her promise to pay me back. When I talk to my husband about it, he says I should ask her to start a payment plan and get it back. We could use it for a vacation or something. And she did say she would pay it back. 
• Example four: My mother-in-law is not very nice. She’s critical and unkind. I feel really insecure when I’m around her, and it’s exhausting. For the sake of my relationship with my husband, I let her come over; and we associate with as much as reason associate with her as much as reason as is reasonable, but I stew and grumble about it for days before and after. My sister thinks I should just explain to my husband how difficult this is for me and suggest that he can see his mom without me. 

When I read an article or hear a news story about some tremendous act of forgiveness on the part of someone who has given absolution to another person for some grievous offense, I think, So what? The dad who forgives the drunk driver who killed his entire family; the woman who forgives the man who raped her; the elderly man who doesn’t hold a grudge against the businessman who conned him and stole all his money—so what? We treat these instances as though they are great acts of emotional heroism. We heap praise and adulation upon the people who are so magnanimous that they forgave the horrible bastard who grieved or assaulted or offended them. It’s ridiculous! We lie to ourselves when and if we think we are ever justified in resentment, grudges, judgments, or accusations. We are not, ever. 

The Lord’s standard is pretty clear, and there’s not much wiggle room. You want Heavenly Father to forgive you? You forgive each other. That sounds like a really good way of loving yourself. Forgiveness is a requirement—it is a condition—and the Lord has this to say about it. Third Nephi 5:34, And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors…. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if [you] forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (3 Nephi 5:34 RE). 

Colossians 1:13: 

Put on therefore as the elect of God, holy and beloved, hearts of mercies, kindness, humility of mind, meekness, long-suffering, bearing with one another and forgiving one another. If any man have a quarrel against any, even as Christ forgave you, so also do you; and above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness… Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. (Colossians 1:13 RE)

This sounds like loving yourself. Teaching[s] and Commandments section 157:58:

I have given you a former commandment that I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. And again, I have taught that if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive your trespasses… If men intend no offense, I take no offense, but if they are taught and should have obeyed, then I reprove and correct, and forgive and forget. (T&C 157:58)

God is the only one who judges correctly. He is the only one who can decide whether an offense was intended or not, and then He reproves, corrects, forgives, and forgets. We are rarely worthy to judge, and we are only able to reprove and correct people we have a relationship with—and we are always expected to forgive and forget. 

So, the real question comes down to this: Do we believe these words? It’s pretty much that simple. Relationships with spouses, children, co-workers, parents, siblings, friends, enemies require vulnerability, work, and a deliberate effort to see the good and be the good. Relationship [inaudible] (excuse me)—relationships are emotionally fulfilling. People who have community live longer and healthier lives. Working on those relationships and having them be positive and uplifting for your benefit sounds like loving yourself. 

[Inaudible] (Excuse me.) 

I have a simple formula that works for me, and I’ll share it with you. I figure that every single interaction I have with another human being will achieve one of three things: 

• The experience will either build our relationship with a positive interaction, 
• It will leave it unchanged or status quo, or 
• It will tear down the relationship with a negative interaction. 

Grocery store clerks, gas station attendants, students, teachers, husbands, children—doesn’t matter. The good news about this formula for me is that I get to choose, every single time with every single person. It’s never out of my control. There is no love for others or yourself if your time’s spent focusing on flaws, criticizing, imputing intent, or taking offense for no good reason. 

Here’s what the Lord says about judgment, flaws, criticism, ascribing motive, offense, and intent—and it’s time we start taking Him seriously. So, He moves on from the Ten Commandments to the Sermon on the Mount. 

In Matthew 3:40, He says: 

Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people: Judge not unrighteously, that you be not judged, but judge righteous judgment; for with what judgment you [shall] judge, you shall be judged, and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matthew 3:40 RE)

(It’s like a person with a cold’s worst nightmare. [Audience laughter.]) 

The difference it here that I see between the no judging and the righteous judgment is likely related to Final Judgment, as opposed to all those in-between judgments that we can do if we think we have the Lord on our side, in terms of righteous judgment. 

And then moving from Matthew into Third Nephi—Third Nephi chapter six, verse six: 

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull that [the] mote out of thine eye, and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam [out] of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again, and rend you. (3 Nephi 6:6 RE)

And so I say to that: What the heck does that have to do with anything? So, on the assumption that it is actually related to what came before that, I spent a reasonable amount of time contemplating it, and this is my version of pearls and swine and dogs and whatever. It’s a strange ending to this particular thought; so, what if it means that we are the dogs and swine, and judging is a holy and precious act—one that we don’t have anywhere near the godliness to engage in, at least without seriously pursuing God’s help—and we will get out of the attempt (and all we will get out of the attempt) at that kind of judging is trampling and rending. So, that’s my take; and so, let’s not do it. Okay? Let’s just not do it. 

In the foregoing scriptures, we are being told to worry about ourselves first (and that should take a long, long, long time). And then, if we need to, we can worry about other people after that. So, in theory, if we’re as critical towards ourselves as we are others, we should be doing a lot of repenting, improving, growing in love and charity and empathy—as we make ourselves better; because it’s just about beams and motes, people. That’s it—just don’t do it. 

When it comes to our interpersonal life, knowing how to make yourself better takes a lot of courage and introspection; you have to be willing to be clear on what’s wrong with you. It’s a lot easier to think about what’s wrong with other people. So asking questions like: 

• How did I make that better or worse? 
• What did I do or say to make them react that way? 
• What did I say or do to cause their defensiveness? or 
• Why did I do or say what I did or said, and how and what could I have done differently? 

are absolutely necessary in order to become more Christ-like. However, if focusing on other people is your jam, then do it charitably; impute the highest motive and best motive to other people; assume their best intentions; engage in empathy and perspective-taking. These are godly acts. They make your life better. They wash away the bitterness, anger, hurt, and unhappiness you feel when you’re focused on the negative. This sounds like loving yourself. 

Ephesians twelve and sixteen:

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you that you walk worthy of the vocation with which you are called, [and] with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, in one body in [and] one spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling — one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. Can you be angry and sin not? Let not the sun go down upon your wrath, neither give place to the Devil. Let him that stole steal no more, but rather let him labor, working with his hands for the things which are good, that he may have to give to him that needs. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to [the] use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the holy spirit of God whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, [and] wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you with all malice. And be kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you. Be therefore followers of God, as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ [has also] loved us and has given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour. (Ephesians 1:12,16 RE)

So, it still comes down to one simple question: Do I believe the words of God? 

And then He raises the standard again—Third Nephi 5:24 through 26, 30, and 31.

[24:] Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, and it is also written before you, that thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment of God. But I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council, and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire. 

[25:] Therefore, if ye shall come unto me, or shall desire to come unto me, and rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, go thy way unto thy brother and first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come unto me with full purpose of heart and I will receive you. Agree with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him, lest at any time he shall get thee and thou shalt be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost senine. And while ye are in prison, can ye pay even one senine? Verily, verily I say unto you, nay. 

…And behold, it is written, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you that ye shall not resist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compare [compel] thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and to him that would borrow of thee, turn thou not away. 

And behold, it is written also that thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy; but behold, I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, [and] do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father who is in Heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and…the good. Therefore, those things which were of old time, which were under the law, in me are all fulfilled. Old things are done away and all things have become new…  (3 Nephi 5:24-26;30-31 RE)

These admonitions are designed to make your life better. Much like the other eight commandments, the first two are so that we can (and will) live loving, Christ-like lives, being obedient to God’s instructions, which we really need to take seriously. 

Having said all that, I don’t believe we can actually do any of this. Down here, the natural man takes over, and we’re pretty much incapable of living the standard—at least on our own. We need God—we need God to change us. Inter-personally speaking, most of us aren’t capable (or even willing) to do the hard work of evaluating ourselves, of checking our own “beams,” of considering our own motives, of loving ourselves enough to become godly. We need to be willing to let God change us, mold us, and make us into something He can use to further His kingdom. 

I had an experience several years ago that really opened my eyes and helped me see clearly some things that were seriously wrong with me. Some of you have heard this story, and I’m gonna tell it again because it illustrates why I feel so passionately about this subject:

Years ago, we took the family down to “Circus Circus” in Las Vegas for a softball tournament. And the team was in the arcade, Denver was in the hotel room, the girls were swimming, and it was my job to just be the “mother” down at Circus Circus. But there were so many parents there, I didn’t have to be in the arcade; so, I was reading—and I remember the book I was reading; it was called The Element by Sir Ken Wade Ken Robinson. And I was sitting outside on a marble platform, outside of Circus Circus. And I was watching loads of people just walking by—back and forth, back and forth; and I was having a heyday judging these people. Ever been to “Circus Circus”? Okay, I—I mean, I can’t even—I had thoughts going in my mind, things like, “Oh my gosh, I would hide my children from that person.” I would literally put them behind my legs and—and hide them from people. 

And I was just (in my mind, obviously—I wasn’t talking to anybody; no one was there)—but I was on a rant, put my book down, people-watching. And as clear as (I don’t know)—it was in my mind; it wasn’t an audible voice—but as clear as day, I hear, “How dare you. These are My people! And at the moment, I love them more than you.” No, that wasn’t it—but the fact was, I was suitably chastised for what I was doing. And I thought, “Oh, I mean…and I”—it didn’t take me, I mean I didn’t need anything more than that. It was instant. It was like, “Oh my gosh, that is 100% true.” 

So, as I thought about it (over the next few months and whatever), I came to two conclusions: 

• One, I am literally, figuratively, theoretically (and every other adverb word)—I am no better than any one. Period. End of story. That’s it. 
• Conversely, nobody is better than me. K? So there is no—like Jennifer said—there are no “subs” this, or I am not“subbed” to anyone, people are not “sub” to me. 

And so, as I contemplated this and have tried to incorporate this into my life over the past several years, I see it everywhere. I see it in books I read. I see it in the scriptures I read. I am looking for it because I am truly, truly trying to change me. This was one of those moments in my life where God literally transformed me. He woke me up, and He completely altered the way I see my neighbor. 

And I’ve had several more of those experiences, but it’s probably because I’m looking for ‘em. So start looking for ‘em. So, in addition to “start looking for ‘em,” start asking the question, “What lack I yet?” And then listen to the answer. Start seeing people the way God sees them and then engaging with them in a way that reflects that. Start asking God to take the scales from your eyes, so that you are no longer deceived into thinking whatever is untrue for you. Start wanting to change you, and start taking the things God says seriously. 

Now, you might think I’m being too absolute or too literal, and that’s fine. You might even be right. However, ask yourself this: Was Jesus absolute and literal when He ended verse 31 with this: Therefore, I would that ye should be perfect, even as I or your Father who is in Heaven is perfect. (3 Nephi 5:31 RE)

The post Love Others As Yourself appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The lecture was given at a conference held in Sandy, Utah on July 14, 2019.

Transcript

See, when they told me about the theme of this conference, I thought, “Well, it’s right down her alley—Why would I talk about that when she spent years thinking about the very topic?” So I’m not going to talk about that; she covered the subject, and I’m gonna talk about something else.

There are three ideas that create a lot of problems, a lot of tension, a lot of conflict and discussion—and I want to address those three subjects here with you today: Authority, Keys, and the Kingdom of God. 

On the subject of “authority,” the scriptures draw a contrast between two kinds of authority. One kind involves preaching, teaching, or statements holding self-evident or compelling truth that convicts or convinces the hearers of the truth. There are some examples of this.

Matthew 3:49 (RE): And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings with his disciples, the people were astonished at his teachings, for he taught them as one having authority from God and not as having authority from the scribes. The authority was resident inside the message—didn’t have to be borrowed from somewhere, didn’t require a badge, didn’t require a collar, didn’t require a mitre; it simply held compelling truth that, in the ears of the listener, convicted them.

When they asked Jesus where He got authority from, they might just as well have posed the question, “How do you preach with such persuasive conviction?” Because Christ had moral authority. It was that same moral authority that caused the guards—who came at night to arrest Him in Gethsemane with their swords and with their armaments—to stumble backwards and fall down when He identified Himself, “I am the man” (see Testimony of St. John 11:2). This is the prophetic form of authority.

Another form of authority involves the right to exercise control or demand obedience that is obeyed because of fear of the one holding that authority. There are examples of that in scripture. Jesus called them and said, You know that the princes of the gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them (Matthew 10:3 RE). He’s explaining to His disciples another form of authority.

The Apostle Paul held this second kind of authority before his conversion. He said: And many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them (Acts 12:40 RE). This kind of authority is a priestly form of authority.  

Priests deal with rites, ordinances, commandments, and procedures. This durable approach to preserving a belief system allows a dispensation of the gospel to continue long after the prophetic founder has died. Moses, for example, established a system of rites and observances that then became the religious fare of priests who perpetuated the system from the time of Moses until the coming of Jesus Christ. 

Prophets deal with God and angels. They receive new insight, promises, and covenants. Their conduct can even appear to violate the tradition of the religion they follow, but that is only because they are not bound to the tradition as practiced by the priests. Instead, they have penetrated into the underlying meaning the original power—the purpose of the rites. They expressed the original view from heaven that motivated the founding prophet. 

The prophetic form is rarely present, even among the people of God. It comes to restore and refresh, to call to repentance, and to move God’s work along. The priestly operates for centuries trying to perpetuate the founding prophet’s restoration, but once the religion falls exclusively into the hands of the priests, traditions always creep in that stray from the original and keep forms intact without maintaining the spiritual substance. 

It’s been the history of God’s people that those who are raised at a time of only the priestly form will always assume they are guided by God’s messengers holding God’s authority, and therefore, the prophetic is alien to their thinking. This is the condition Nephi foretold would happen after the Book of Mormon came forth. 

They shall teach with their learning, and deny the holy ghost which giveth utterance. And they deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel. And they say unto the people, Hearken unto us and hear ye our precept, for behold, there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men. Behold, hearken ye unto my precept. (2 Nephi 12:1 RE)  

Nephi teaches: Believers in our day will eventually choose the priestly over the prophetic. But Nephi counsels us to, instead, always choose the prophetic over the priestly. People accept priestly authority over the prophetic word of God because of false traditions. Those who arrive late at the scene in the generation after God’s voice has become quiet, then start traditions to explain away that silence. Generations that follow them do not even notice there is no God todaybecause he hath given his power unto men (ibid).

In the present circumstances of the Restoration, when the priestly authorities speak, all of the Restoration traditions (from the LDS to the FLDS), claim that is the voice of God. The tradition of priestly authority in Christ’s day justified the guard in striking Jesus. 

The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spoke openly to the world. I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple where the Jews always assemble, and in secret have I said nothing. Why do you ask me? Ask them who heard me what I have said unto them. Behold, they know what I [have] said. And when he had thus spoken, [behold,] one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Do you answer the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of…evil, but if well, [then] why do you smite me? (John 10:4 RE, emphasis added)

The officer was so subject to the priestly tradition that he was only able to conceive of the high priest as God’s representative. It made him blind to the Son of God because he could not imagine something greater than the established and trusted priestly tradition. It was that same priestly tradition that made Ananias think he had the right to have the Apostle Paul struck on the mouth for testifying of Christ. Ananias, no doubt, thought of himself as the authorized and empowered priest who spoke for God. Culturally, and according to their traditions, Ananias was correct. 

On the next day, because he desired to have known with certainty why he was accused of the Jews, he commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down and set him before them. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by…to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite you, you whitewashed wall, for do you sit to judge me after the law, and command that I be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by [him], Do you revile God’s high priest? (John 12:20 RE, emphasis added)

Ananias was defending his role and his office. He was the anointed high priest and, therefore, believed he deserved, even required, respect. He believed that if you disrespect the high priest of God, then you likewise disrespect God. The officers who received this command likewise thought everything was as it should be—Paul had no right to disrupt the priestly tradition. But the priestly tradition must always give way to the prophetic. The priestly tradition has no right to judge the prophetic, but the prophetic has every right, and invariably the duty, to judge the priestly.

Then there is the concept of “keys.” The best way to conceive of a “key” is as knowledge or understanding; it means something that unlocks the hidden truths you did not previously comprehend. A new, true concept that acts like a catalyst to solidify an idea that eluded you is a “key.” When the term “eternal punishment” was defined as God’s punishment (because God is eternal, and punishment for Him is “eternal punishment”), we had a new key given to us. 

Prophets hold keys because they unlock understanding. And this greater Priesthood administers the gospel and holds the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God (T&C 82:12). 

This, therefore, is the sealing and binding power, and in one sense of the word the keys of the kingdom, which consists in the key of knowledge (T&C 151:12).

And then we have in Proverbs: It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings to search out a matter (Proverbs 4:1 RE). It’s an important thought; we’ll return to that when we get to the Kingdom of God.

Joseph Smith taught, “Salvation cannot come without revelation; it is in vain for anyone to minister without it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJS hereafter], p.160). Joseph taught, “Where there is a prophet, a priest, or a righteous man unto whom God gives his oracle’s; there is the kingdom of God and where the oracles of God are not, there the kingdom of God is not” (TPJS, p. 272). Joseph Smith could ask and get an answer from God. Because of this, he held the keys of the kingdom—because God presided. God is the King of His kingdom. When His voice is silent, you have no kingdom because the King is not speaking. When we cannot have an answer from God, there is no Kingdom of God—because the King’s voice is silent. 

A key concept is one that solves the riddle, answers the question, or clears up the controversy. A key removes ignorance. When God explains something to improve man’s understanding, He provides us keys or knowledge. 

The Book of Mormon is filled with keys, including giving us answers to: 

• who (at least one of) the other sheep were that Christ mentioned to His disciples in Jerusalem. When you explore that topic and you go into the closing comments of Nephi, you find a bit more about the other sheep because they’ve been divided, they’ve kept records, and they will be visited. When you go to the allegory in Jacob chapter 5 (LE; see also Jacob 3 RE), you learn yet more about the other sheep and how the vineyard has been populated with His sheep worldwide.
• One of the other keys of the Book of Mormon is what Christ did following His ascension into heaven. That same Jesus—two angels standing by—”that same Jesus whom you saw ascend unto heaven, shall in likewise return” (paraphrase, see Acts 1:3 RE). Well, He did that; He’s gonna do it in glory to judge the world in the future, but He did that again in order to visit with the Nephites—because the description of the ascension to the Nephites in Third Nephi mirrors the description of the ascension in the book of Acts. It’s symmetrical. 
• Book of Mormon has keys to tell us what happened to other Israelites who were led away from Jerusalem. 
• It explains and defines what it means to be redeemed from the fall. 
• It explains and clarifies—in a way that the entire Christian and Jewish world could never understand—how pre-Babylonian Judaism really was practiced. 
• It explains and clarifies that many Israelites were divided from the land of Jerusalem and continued as organized bodies in scattered parts of the world. 
• It explains that many prophets wrote scriptures that we know nothing about. 
• It tells us and promises that a great body of scripture exists, which God intends to gather into one. 

There are many other keys or insights that have been kept from our knowledge, and the Book of Mormon reveals some of them.

“Keys” and the “Kingdom of God” are necessarily linked together. Because Samuel could obtain the voice of God, Samuel held the keys of the Kingdom of God. When the people of Israel demanded a mortal king, God explained to Samuel what their request really meant. 

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Listen unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. (1 Samuel 4:2 RE)

Reigning is what a king does. Reigning is what God, through Samuel, was doing for the people of Israel. They were rejecting their Heavenly King because they wanted a mortal king in His stead. 

According to all the works which they have done, since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, in which they have forsaken me and served other gods, so do they also unto you. Now therefore listen unto their voice. Nevertheless, yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. (ibid.)

Now I want you to listen carefully to what Samuel does with that commission to warn the people about what happens when you displace God as the king, and you put a man in the place of God. What will happen to you: 

This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fift[y], and will set them to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be compounders, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them [un]to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed [out] of your vineyards, and give to his officers and to his servants. And he will take your menservants and your maidservants, and your best young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. [And] he will take the tenth of your sheep, and you shall be his servants. And you shall cry out in that day because of your king whom you shall have chosen you, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.  (1 Samuel 4:3 RE, emphasis added)

This is how the Kingdom of God is evicted from earth. Prophets fall silent, and priests overtake the kingdom to make it theirs. Then, possessing the kingdom, they take a tenth of all the people earn and divert it to their captains, to their appointed authorities—and they require the young men and daughters to serve as servants in the kingdom of the supplanters.

Emma Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and William Marks all said that without Joseph Smith there was no longer a Kingdom of God on earth. 

Dispensations are founded by prophets who establish practices and forms of worship to be administered by priests. In the moment a dispensation is founded, both the prophet and the priest are present. Moses was a prophet and established priestly rites. Christ was a prophet (and more), and He also established priestly rites. Similarly, Joseph Smith was an authentic dispensation head who was both a prophet and established priestly rites. We expect to have added to the prophetic voice heard among us an additional priestly set of rites in a temple founded by God. We await commands to identify the location and to begin construction. We’ve been told to expect that command will come.

The reason an apostasy can be concealed from the view of the religious believers is because the presence of continuing priestly tradition conceals the absence of the prophetic tradition. Concealing the fact that the prophetic is gone happens so easily because priests focus on authority and move the idea of authority into the central, even controlling, issue for salvation. 

Catholics held a monopoly for a thousand years, using the idea of keys from Saint Peter as the foundation upon which the religion was built. It was not until the Eastern Orthodox faith departed, there was any choice to be made between keys. Only then could people choose between claims of keys in Rome and keys in Constinople [Constantinople]. It took Martin Luther to finally peel away the fraud of keys held by wicked men, independent from righteousness. His expositions on the priesthood of faith allowed a divorce between claims of priestly keys and faith in God. It took Martin Luther’s revolution in thinking to spread for several hundred years to create a religious landscape where Joseph Smith and a new dispensation of the gospel could be introduced. 

These things move slowly because mankind is generally imprisoned by their traditions and are incapable of seeing the difference between the priestly and the prophetic. This blindness becomes the tool through which the priestly tradition controls mankind. 

• Priestly tradition is stable; authoritarian; controlling; focused on outward conduct; amasses wealth, power, and prestige. Priestly tradition can continue in the absence of spirit, revelation, or even godliness. Priestly tradition can become the friend of government, business, and empires, and can work hand in hand with the powers of this world. 
• Prophetic tradition is unruly, unpredictable, and challenges the god of this world. It cannot work with the powers of this world, but strikes at its authority. It cannot exist without the direct involvement of God and angels, and it cannot be divorced from continuing revelation. 

You can have both traditions without an apostasy. You can have the prophetic without an apostasy. You can even have a priestly tradition without an apostasy, but that is much less likely. In any complete apostasy, the presence of the priestly tradition is essential to be able to accomplish the trick of an unacknowledged apostasy. The trick to successfully substituting apostasy for the Kingdom of God is to distract people into thinking there hasn’t been any change. The believers need to think everything remains intact. Apostate priests always claim there has been a perfect continuity and preservation of the keys.

So the idea of apostasy changes in the hands of the apostates. Instead of focusing on the silence of God in absence of the prophetic, apostasy is redefined to require individual conformity to the group. Only individuals become apostate, not the group. This allows claims of apostasy to be discussed under the watchful eye of the priests without anyone ever searching into the overall condition of a fallen people. 

The Jews mocked efforts to tell them they were apostate. They thought it was humorous when Lehi preached the idea, because they were so very religious, so devout, so unassailably active in following God. The idea was absolutely laughable that they were apostate. 

The Apostle Paul said the problem would begin at the top with the shepherds who would teach them falsehoods as truth. For I know this: that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also, of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them… (Acts 12:4 RE). These new leaders would have only a form of godliness without any real power to save. 

Paul wrote:  

This know also: that in the last days, perilous times shall come; for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous [covetous of their authority, covetous of their status, covetous of their rank, covetous of the priest-HOOD and of their priestly position], boasters, proud, blasphemers [it’s blasphemy to attribute to God what God did not authorize. It’s not merely bearing false witness, it’s also blasphemy. You hear blasphemy from the religious leaders who, speaking and pretending to act in the name of God, have no authority or permission from Him to do as they claim], …unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, without self-control, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.  (2 Timothy 1:8 RE)

The Christian world adopted another false replacement of the original church. It became so universal it was hailed as the Universal (or Catholic) Church. It “rule[d] from the rivers to the ends of the earth” as the only official form of the faith established by Christ. To accomplish this, Satan was concerned with the macro-institutional failure, not just individuals falling away. That’s always his objective! If the religion becomes corrupt, then devotion for even the best of people is meaningless. They cannot achieve salvation because the Kingdom of God has departed. 

Satan is involved in strategic defeat of mankind. The small tactical battles between people is the concern of lesser fallen spirits. It’s the small, minor spirits who follow Lucifer who tempt individuals to commit sin. Success for the adversary is not accomplished in petty enterprises. He wants “failure for the whole” so none can be saved. For that, apostasy must be universal. He has never succeeded by admitting there has been a failure—the trick is always to have the apostasy come unnoticed, unacknowledged, and from within. 

Christ quoted the Father as He foretold what would happen: 

At that day when the gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fullness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations, and if they shall do all these things, and shall reject the fullness of my gospel, Behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fullness of my gospel from among them. (3 Nephi 7:5 RE)

Apostasy must first be noticed, acknowledged, and exposed before it is possible to repent and return. Until then, it progresses a-pace, discarding and rejecting what might have been given, all the while being happily ignored by the believers whose devotion will not save. The enemy succeeds when he manages to get us not to reject ordinances, but to change them. As soon as they are changed, they are broken.

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. (Isaiah 7:1 RE) 

And the day comes that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people, for they have strayed from [mine] ordinances and have broken my everlasting covenant. They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walks in his own way and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol which waxes old and shall perish. (T&C 54:3)

Those two statements about changing the ordinances and breaking the covenant are: first, a quote from Isaiah who prophesied about it happening; and second, a revelation through the Prophet Joseph Smith saying it was happening. 

Changing the ordinances has always been an important step because then even people who believe there was a restoration through Joseph Smith can continue to claim they follow a true religion, while practicing one that has been broken. These practitioners become like the ancient Jews who mocked Lehi because they knew they were still righteous; they knew Lehi was foolish, even fraudulent. They still had the truth, the ordinances, the temple, and the priesthood. Lehi was thought to be merely a mistaken crank. 

The Kingdom of God is with us, and for the present, we are still left among people who have not awakened to their awful situation. We should warn them and seek to recover as many as will listen. If you’re awakened, warn your neighbor. We have a work to do among others before the Lord will have us depart from people He still loves and hopes to save. 

I’ve seen and read of prayers and fasting by those among us who want a temple. Why do you think the Lord hesitates in giving the command? When He answers and says for us to remain and labor among other people He hopes to save, do you think we can neglect that obligation and still hasten His command to build a temple? I leave it to you to answer those questions.

Now, I want to clarify a point, because Joseph Smith actually knew what he was doing and—had he been around long enough—would have accomplished a work that was still at its very incipient stage at the time that he was slain. In the Council of Fifty, which he called the Kingdom of God (which was nondenominational because members of other religious beliefs were invited into the Kingdom of God)— 

The Kingdom of God was not the church. The church was simply a mechanism for promulgating the gospel, disseminating the Book of Mormon, and accomplishing a certain work. But the Kingdom of God was something different. 

Inside that Kingdom of God, Joseph Smith had himself anointed a king; and Emma, a queen. Hold that thought for one moment, because there’s a statement made in Second Nephi. These things need to be understood.  

But behold, this land, saith 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 [rise] 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 for ever that hear my words. (2 Nephi 7:2 RE)

Joseph Smith knew exactly what he was doing. He intended to be a king, subordinate to the King of Heaven. He intended to create other kings, subordinate to him, all of them subordinate to God. Because the God of this land and the King that will rule over this land is Christ. He that raiseth up a king against me shall perish (ibid). Joseph Smith was not seeking to establish a kingdom against God. He was seeking to establish a kingdom subordinate to and obedient to the overall King of Heaven—as a subordinate to Him. Joseph Smith intended to establish the Kingdom of God and to be a king because that is what the Kingdom of God consists of. 

Look, I read it just a moment ago. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings to search out a matter (Proverbs 4:1 RE). Joseph Smith was always searching out and revealing new things to the people. It was his honor as the king to do that. The glory of God to conceal a thing but the honor of kings to search out a matter— and who is the king that allowed the earthly man to search the matter out? It is the King of Heaven; it is Christ. The one who conceals is also the one that can reveal. Joseph Smith was fitting the pattern.

And then, this last thought—and we’ll end, and you can socialize or fight among yourselves or… or she and I can go argue in the hallway about something.

Joseph Smith wrote a letter that was never canonized—an excerpt from it, altered in its form even, got published in the LDS canon of scriptures—but the entire letter that he wrote is now in the Teachings and Commandments, section 146. And there’s a statement that gets made that I want to make sure, as part of this talk, I clarify or give a key (yeah, there’s one), so you can comprehend this thing. 

The standard of truth has been erected. The “standard of truth” is the Book of Mormon. It’s been erected because it’s been put into print. It’s been in print, albeit in an altered form— until we fixed that with the latest set of scriptures; it goes back to manuscripts and tries to fix as much of that as possible. Nevertheless: 

The standard of truth [that is, the Book of Mormon] has been erected. No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing: persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall [have been] accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say, The work is done. (T&C 146:20)

This prophecy is not about an institution. This prophecy is about the “standard of truth” going forward. And while the “standard of truth” has gone forward primarily in the hands of missionaries belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to whom credit should be given for all of that good work, it is going to go forth independent, meaning no one is going to own and control and have the institutional right to profit from the “standard of truth” going forward. It will sweep the earth, and right now, one of the biggest challenges of getting the Book of Mormon to be taken seriously by people is the apparent coupling of the Book of Mormon to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are people out there who have great offense, umbrage, and opposition to the LDS Church who, for that reason alone, will not consider reading the Book of Mormon. But it is another testament, and it was always intended that it go forth independent of everything else. 

I’ve spent a great deal of time and effort, including just within the last few months, traveling around the country, attending conferences in Tennessee with evangelicals, speaking to a group in Montgomery, Alabama that included Catholics and Baptists and others, attempting to get them to take seriously the Book of Mormon as an authentic Christian message, separate and apart from any institution. I would hope Presbyterians and Lutherans—I would hope that people that belong to the Church of England—would all be willing to look at the Book of Mormon and see what it adds to their Christian faith. I’ve said before and I’ll repeat it again: we can baptize anyone who is willing to accept the doctrine of Christ. You don’t have to swear allegiance to the Southern Baptist Convention in order to be saved. You don’t have to pledge allegiance to the Pope or kneel to the president of any of the various Restoration groups. 

Accept the doctrine of Christ. There are those who, free of charge, will baptize you. They expect nothing from you. They intend to sacrifice their time, their means, and their effort in order to perform the ordinance. No one is profiting. None of you who are practicing the faith in the form that it is presently being practiced should profit from that. We gather tithes, and we use that tithe to help those among us who need assistance—and there are presently some people among us who need assistance. And the glory of God is manifest in their life by the outpouring of your generosity. You’re going to help them. You’re giving of funds to help them defray their indebtedness, answering their medical needs. Those are the kinds of things that knit hearts together. That’s what the religion was intended to accomplish. It was not intended to buy the minister a house or to pay to fly a church official with his bodyguards in first-class to Europe to attend area conferences. It was not intended to build ornate marble floors and statuary, in order to prop up the claim of priests who know not God. 

Well, I’ve enjoyed everything that I’ve seen and heard in this conference. There was a mom who had a little baby a couple rows in front of us during the opening prayer, and the baby, during the prayer, lost all patience with the length of our opening prayer and began to offer a petition of her own. And I really enjoyed that! And to my dismay, mom got up and took the child out. I was trying to figure out what the child was praying for ‘cuz I was thinking, “I might want some of that too, if I could….” Babies don’t have words yet; they have noises. And a lot of time the noise sounds like a cry when, in fact, they could be communicating phenomenal things to us, their tongues not being loosed for our sake because if we heard what they had to say— 

Perhaps they’re announcing the judgment of angels upon our poor assembly. Perhaps they’re celebrating in what way they can. I love it when the kids are around, and that noise, to me, is a delight, not an irritant.

Let me end by bearing testimony to you that all of the good things that you do, all of the faith that you have, all of the labors that you do for Christ’s sake, in seeking after Him with a pure and unworldly/unprofitable in this world motivation— all of that cleanses your soul and brings you closer to heaven. You want to know how to get angels to pay attention to you? Sacrifice for the benefit of others.  

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

MAN: Denver, can you take some questions?

DENVER: I’ll take one question. It’s gotta be a good one. Does anyone got a good question? Yeah, oh okay…

MAN:  So, you mentioned one thing. So one thing that’s been on my mind is, as a group, what lack we yet? You’ve got to admit, you’ve been kind of pessimistic about our prospects for Zion. And you mentioned one thing during this talk and that was about opening our mouth to those who the Lord loves. Anything else you want to say? 

DENVER: Yeah, I want to—

MAN: Can you justify your pessimism?

DENVER: Yeah, okay. So the question was premised on my pessimism that I’ve expressed before, and I want to challenge the premise because I thought something happened over at the conference in Grand Junction, last conference we had, that was— 

There was a real different look and feel to what went on over there. And to me, it was like we had turned a corner. 

We have been a really rancorous group of people who are strongly opinionated. It’s like we’re refugees from an abusive experience in a hierarchical religion that, as soon as we are set at liberty, everyone wants to pick at the slightest hint that you’re aspiring to be the next Relief Society president or the next bishop or—just all of that. There’s a decompression, there’s a “post-religious trauma syndrome” that was really evident. Everyone was walking around saying, more or less, “I’ve been abused. Religion has been a source of anxiety and trouble in my life, and you’re practicing religion—but by damn, you’re not going to practice your religion on me! I mean, I want to have the liberty with which Christ has made me free. I do not want to have that experience repeat itself. I want nothing of that.”  And that—we were wearing that, and probably every one of us were wearing that chip on all of our shoulders. 

I didn’t see that over at Grand Junction. I didn’t see people worried about the motivations of one another. I didn’t see them looking for cause to complain or cause to take offense at what someone else was saying. I thought we turned a corner, and something happened. And maybe we needed a little while to decompress. Maybe we needed a little while to— 

And as other people come in, they’re probably going to walk in with exactly the same attitude that many of us had for the first several years because of our prior experience. We’re just going to have to bear with that. And they need to get over that, because there’s a lot of personal intrusiveness and personal abuse that goes on in the name of the Restoration. It’s worse among the fundamentalist group. It’s worse among the people that have come out from that tradition to say, “Let us—let us join in here.” All of them have suffered from religious abuse.

But I am not as pessimistic as I was. I really—

I was authentically down, and now I’m saying, “Ah, this may happen.” In fact, at this point—

MAN: But don’t you think that’s a minority? As I look around at the fellowships, and I don’t see that clamor, and that— and I have maybe just a little…

DENVER: No, but it dominated the dialogue; the conflict dominated the dialogue. And that’s one of the tools that get used. You can have 10 good people, and if you have two of them (or two others, so there’s a total of 12), if two of the 12 are willing to be rancorous and complaining and upsetting, that spirit will invade the other 10. The problem is not just aggregating good people, the problem is also knowing how to not take offense from the people that are still running around pecking on one another. We’re gonna have those people, and more of that attitude will come as people say, “I can no longer uphold this tradition. I respect Joseph; I respect the Restoration; I accept the Book of Mormon; I believe that God intends to bring back Zion—I believe all those things.” But they come among us with this trauma, and they need a while to decompress. We’re still gonna have that. What we need to do is to become adult enough to do the kinds of things that Jennifer Willis and my wife were talking about earlier today, about not taking those offenses—and letting them vent. Maybe what they’re talking about is absolutely therapeutic and healthy for them, and they need to vent. Just don’t join in; just don’t encourage it. Let ‘em know you understand. Put an arm around them and say, “I’ve been there,” and then move on. “Hey, let’s go help weed a garden.”

There was an occasion when a son and I (he was a teenager, at the time) were really at odds—I mean, a pretty sharp conflict— and he and I about came to blows with one another. And I didn’t like the way that left, and I didn’t like the way that unfolded. So the next day, I got him up early (it was on a weekend), and he and I went out and worked in the yard. There was a project that needed to be doing, and we did the project together. It involved shovels and a lot of hard work. And both of us, for about, I don’t know, a couple of hours, we dug like angry men. After two hours of digging and taking it out on the project that needed to be done, we didn’t have the energy left to fight anymore. It, we— “You thirsty? You wanna run down to McDonald’s and get something?” And it was over; the conflict was over because the backyard took the anger, and we got over it.

People act rationally; people don’t vent without a cause. For the most part, when it comes to religious anxieties, what motivates them can be very deep, can be very troubled, can be very sincere. And if you extend empathy and sympathy and hear ‘em out, you may find that underlying all of that is not aggression, underlying all of that is a broken heart and disappointment with what their fellow man has done.

I mean, one of the things that Christ—in the Sermon on the Mount—tells people to do is to bless those that curse you. Every one of us have seen the religious phony, the hypocrite, the pretentious religious character who comes along, portraying themself as something that they’re really not. The reason Christ in the Sermon on the Mount says to bless the people that are despitefully using you or abusing you and to do good that treat you evil for His namesake is because they’re doing that to you, initially, because they think you’re one of those hypocrites. They think you’re one of those false religionists. They believe you, too, are nothing more than the last guy who abused someone on the mission, who took advantage of their position of authority, who exploited (maybe in a way that was felonious, and they ought to be in jail) victims—and they’re angry about that, and they’re taking it out on you. But if you really are a disciple of Christ, you will turn the other cheek; you will return kindness for goodness; you will ask them, even as they crucify you, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Many times they literally do not know what they’re doing. They’ve got in their mind a monster, and they react to that monster. And it takes a while before they begin to recognize the image of Christ in the countenance of the kindly and the forgiving. You have to be the kindly and the forgiving. And there are a lot— 

In fact, the whole—the whole theme of this conference is devoted to that very issue. 

How do we get along better with one another? Start assuming that underlying much of the anger and hostility and friction is a broken heart and a legitimate reason for their anger and their fear and their troubled heart. And soothe that troubled heart. 

That is a good question.

Thank you. 

The post Authority, Keys, and Kingdom appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following thoughts were shared at the 2nd Annual Joseph Smith Restoration Conference held at Boise State University in Boise, Idaho on June 8, 2019.

Transcript

I don’t know, can you hear me? Is this mic good?

Clearly, most of you are not familiar with the writings of Hunter S. Thompson, or you would have been a little surprised by him being quoted here: the father of “Gonzo journalism” and the author of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas—a laugh-out-loud funny, but obscene, book. [Audience laughter]

I’ve enjoyed every talk that has been given today: 

• The first one was the recorded testimony of Tony Davis, who essentially made a plea for us to unite, which has been echoed then in every talk that has been given at the conference this year. This is the second year of this conference. And I have to tell you, last year it felt like we were trying to pull into different camps, and this year it feels very much like we’re all trying to pull into one camp. In just one year of reflecting on this subject—remarkable differences. I would suggest all of you go listen to the talks last conference, and then listen again to this conference. There has been meaningful progress that has been made.

(Jeremy, you dropped something when you pulled your… Yeah, he’s good.)

• I learned something from Neil Simon’s talk. 
• I noted the omission of Jeremy Hoop’s musical number from the schedule. I don’t know if that’s an answer to prayer—his or ours. [Audience laughter] 
• I thought Michael Kelly’s comments were, to me, very insightful—I do not know a lot about the Church of Christ and the Temple Lot, and I’m interested now to know if the view expressed by Michael Kelley is a widespread view within that community, or it’s his conclusion as a result of the tension that you feel from trying to parse through Mormon history. And I intend to investigate that after today. 
• I thought James McKay’s reminder about the vigor of the Book of Mormon as a tool for conversion was important. 
• Jeremy’s talk (delivered much too fast because of the time constraints) contained fabulous information that everyone ought to go back and listen to and look at. [Speaking to Jeremy:] Was that in writing? If it is, can you put the written copy out? That was getting a drink with a fire hose. [Audience laughter]
• Tausha’s “Time to Unify the Branches” was wonderful. 
• The music “Come Thou Font”—that song gets to me. 
• And Adrian’s “Why We Need to be Wrong” was terrific.

I want to go to the Book of Mormon, and I want to look at what it says as if the Book of Mormon was only written to address us, to address you, to speak to people who not only have become believers in the Book of Mormon but who have read and are reading the Book of Mormon. It does not make much sense to think of the Book of Mormon as a text that’s designed to tell you, “Hey, you’re okay, but everyone else is screwed up.” It makes a whole lot more sense to read the Book of Mormon as if it’s saying, “I—God—would really like to save you. But you are so riddled with error, you are so riddled with false tradition, you are so riddled with wrong ideas that I’m gonna give you a text in the desperate hopethat you might take it seriously enough that it might bring you a little closer to Me. To the extent that you will accept it faithfully and fully, it will bring you a lot closer to Me.” But I’m begging you—

Please give heed to these words, because God wants to bring you, as someone that takes the book seriously, closer to Him.

It was in the same year that the Book of Mormon had been published, a church had been organized (although all it was, was locally gathered believers in a fellowship; no—absolutely no—hierarchy). They held elections to approve people to hold the position of Elder, but that didn’t mean anything other than they were elected to a position of Elder. Right now, in any branch of any of the various iterations of the Restoration, people could get together and elect a woman to be an Elder. There’s nothing that would prevent that, because the position is not the same thing as priesthood. You do not have to hold priesthood to hold office. You do not have to hold anything but an election to hold an office—in any of the branches. There is no such thing as the “priesthood of Elder”; there is only an office that you can occupy by being elected. You could elect a man to be a Relief Society president if you got enough votes for it. That doesn’t mean that he is a female; it means that he is the president of the Relief Society. The same is true of a Sunday School president. There’s no such thing as a priesthood office called “Sunday School president,” but there’s an office within an organization. Most of what we assume to be “priesthood” is simply an office.

For many years in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the president of that organization, over a two-decade period, took the position that no one needed to have the priesthood conferred upon them. According to Hebrew J. Grant, it was enough simply to set them apart into an office of the Church. And so, for a period of two decades, what people received was ordination (or conferral) of an office within an organization.

Well, there are a lot of things that are peculiar about the history of the various Restoration movements that ought to raise serious questions in your mind about whether or not the traditions of your fathers that have come down to you really represent a conferral or a conveyance of what the Restoration commenced as and has been delivered in continuity; that is preserved, intact, true—and your salvation can be gambled on it.

That first year after the Church existed, after the Book of Mormon had been printed, speaking to a revelation given to two members that had been called to the ministry in October of 1830, the Lord said this: 

               “My vineyard has become corrupted every whit, and there is none which does good, 

                 save it is a few, and they do err in many instances because of priestcrafts, all having

                 corrupt minds” (T&C 16:1, emphasis added)(D&C 33:4)

Okay? It didn’t say, “Fortunate for you two, you belong to a true branch.” [Audience laughter] It didn’t say, “Now I’m gonna tell you about all those folks out there who were in a state of rapid decomposition, hell-bent for the nether regions of darkness in the afterlife.” He’s talking to them about them and everyone else. “My vineyard has become corrupted every whit, …there is none which does good, save it [be] a few, and they do err in many instances because of priestcrafts, all having corrupt minds” (ibid). An enemy has snuck in and corrupted your mind—every one of you. You all possess a corrupted mind.

Well, if that weren’t good enough to set things on the right course, in September of 1832, not quite two years later (little over a year and a half), another revelation is given. And this one is specifically talking to everyone who, between 1830 and September of 1832, had become converted/had accepted the Book of Mormon/had been baptized/had joined the organization of a church that existed at that point. So now, you cannot escape these words because they’re addressed to the folks from whom all of you, one way or another, derive your tradition. So these are those folks from whom you spring as a believer: 

             “Your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you

               have treated lightly the things you have received, which vanity and unbelief have

               brought the whole church under condemnation” (T&C 82:20)(D&C 84:54)

We didn’t have branches back then. We didn’t have Communities of Christ versus LDS versus FLDS versus— 

It is one. It’s still one; we don’t have any break-offs. So this is the trunk from which you all spring. The whole Church, all of you, the whole of this is under condemnation.

“And this condemnation rests upon the children of Zion, even all, and they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon, and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say but to do according to that which I have written, that they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom. Otherwise, there remains a scourge and a judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion, for shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, …I say unto you, nay.” (T&C 82:20, emphasis added)(D&C 84:56-59)

Okay? You’re not gonna be allowed to do that. So you’re not gonna get possession of a Holy Land because He’s not gonna allow you to pollute it. Because at this point, with our various traditions, if we were to go occupy that land it would become instantly polluted because of what we bring with us, because we are not of one heart, we are not of one mind; and therefore, we can’t help but pollute it. 

The condemnation that we received, we have learned for not only to say but to do according to that which I have writtendid not mean solely that they were saying but not doing, it meant that they weren’t even saying what the Lord had written. Hence, the need to go back, repent, and redo the scriptures from the ground up. Hence, the need for the scriptures.info website that you referred to because the scriptures of all the various groups have been corrupted. And all of us remain under condemnation until we stop “not saying” according to what He’d written, and then we begin to doaccording to what He has written. (That project will culminate in the publication of leather-bound versions of those scriptures within the next few months.)

Well, with that introduction, then—

[Speaking about the AV technology on the podium] You see, I’m afraid I’m gonna touch this, and then some slide is gonna jump up on the screen, and then we’ll all be distracted because if there’s a screen to watch—well, we’ve been conditioned. [Audience laughter]

Okay, so let me then read from the Book of Mormon with that assumption in mind that we began with—that this is talking to you about you; to you about your congregation, your denomination, your organization; to you about the whole of this. Okay? And I hope it makes you squirm. 

“He [this is talking about the Lord: He] commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world, but they seek not the welfare of Zion. Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord…hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity, they were nothing; wherefore, if they should have charity, they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish. But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion, for if they labor for money, they shall perish.” (2 Nephi 11:17 RE, emphasis added)(2Nephi 26:29)

So that’s the first part of this. The only reason we should practice our religion is to sacrifice for the bringing about of Zion. We’re not to be remunerated. We’re not to be compensated. If we’re not sacrificing, we cannot develop faith. Therefore, sacrifice for your religion is mandatory. 

          “And again the Lord hath commanded that men should not murder, that they should not

           lie (ibid)[great comments about lying made today in Jeremy’s talk]

        …that they should not steal, that they should not take the name of the Lord their God

          in vain (ibid). 

That doesn’t mean swearing; that means testifying to something as the Lord’s doctrine or teaching when it is, in fact, not His and attributing it to Him— that’s taking the name of God in vain. 

        …that they should not envy, that they should not have malice (ibid)—envy, malice are

          particularly relevant when you consider how the various Restoration branches have

          regarded one another, have condemned one another, have competed with one

          another, have failed to recognize the goodness that exists within each body of the

          Restoration congregations. 

           …that they should not contend one with another (ibid). 

That’s the only thing that has been happening since the various factions have broken up into the “Rigdonites” and the “Josephites” and the “Brighamites” and the “Bickertonites” and the “Strangeites” and the “Hedrickites” and “What’s-that-guy-in-jail-ites.” 

            …that they should not contend…with [one] another, that they should not commit 

              whoredoms, …that they should do none of these things. For whoso doeth them shall

              perish (ibid)—(2Nephi 26:32)

“Whoso doeth them”—any of them. We’re contending with one another? It’ll perish.

              …for none of these iniquities come of the Lord. For he doeth that which is good

                 among the children of men, and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of

                 men. And he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness, and he

                 denieth none that come unto him  (ibid)(2Nephi 26:33) 

This is the verse that we got read earlier today by Neil Simons. These are the words that precede what he was talking about—about the absence of divisions.

…he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen, and all are alike unto God, both Jew and gentile. But behold, in the last days, or in the days of the gentiles, yea, behold, all the nations of the gentiles, and also the Jews, both those who shall come upon this land and those who shall be upon other lands, yea, even upon all the lands of the earth, behold, they will be drunken with iniquity and all manner of abominations. (Ibid, vs. 17-18 RE, emphasis added)(2Nephi 26:33 & 2Nephi 27:1)

Just so you know, when these words were written as part of Nephi’s valedictory address talking to those who would read the Book of Mormon, he wants it really clear that he’s including within this description the Gentiles who shall come upon this, the American land, or you—you who have a copy of this book to read. 

Nephi is trying to summarize what he would like us to get out of his effort in summarizing the vision that he had that he was forbidden from writing; but others had written about the same thing, and so he co-opted the words of Isaiah, put them into his book as his testimony—and so that we understood that he was applying the words of Isaiah with his own (Nephi’s message), he gives his valedictory summary of his text in the closing chapters of Second Nephi. This (what I just read and what I’m about to read) comes from that closing summary by Nephi of what he would like the Gentiles to get out of this, to understand out of his message:

“For it shall come to pass in that day [when the Book of Mormon comes forward], …the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when…one shall say unto the other, Behold, I, I am the Lord’s — and the other shall say, I, I am the Lord’s, — and thus shall everyone say that hath built up churches and not unto the Lord.” (2 Nephi 12:1 RE, emphasis added)(2Nephi 28:3)

I don’t have a church. The one I was loyal to kicked me out because I was more loyal to a truthful history than to fairytales. I was still willing to belong to and support with my tithes and with my attendance, but I did not think it had a credible claim to be the Lord’s—too many departures, too many failures, too many lies, too many plain errors. I thought it had value—I think every branch of the Restoration has value, but the Book of Mormon has greater value than any of them, greater value than all of them collectively.

“And they shall contend one with another, and their priests shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with their learning, and deny the holy ghost which giveth utterance. And they deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel. And they say unto the people, Hearken unto us and hear ye our precept, for behold, there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men.” (Ibid, emphasis added)(2Nephi 28:4-5)

Hands were laid on heads. Voilá! [Audience laughter] You are a priest! Not just a priest—a Melchizedek priest. And Melchizedek may have done something that was great, but don’t worry about it, kid—you’re just as great. [Audience laughter]

“Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine[s], their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride, they are puffed up. They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing, and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart because in their pride they are puffed up. They wear stiff necks and high heads…”(Ibid, vs. 2, emphasis added)(2Nephi 28:12-14)

See “stiff necks” means you do not bow in reverence to God’s will; you’ve got another agenda rather than God’s, so your neck is stiff because you won’t bow to Him. And “high heads” means you’re proud of what you know. It’s the point Adrian made today: we need to realize, no matter how much we think we know, none of us know that much. None of us ought to hold our heads high. All of us ought to be willing to become as a little child and heed and hearken to the holy ghost that giveth utterance. And what is the most often utterance given by the holy ghost? 

           “Repent. Repent, forsake your false ideas, forsake your false traditions, return to Me.” 

         “They wear stiff necks and high heads, yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and

           abominations” (ibid)—

You know, “abominations” is a terrible word; it just sounds bad. But it means that what you’re doing is you’re celebrating something false as a religious sacrament—that you’re treating something that isn’t God’s (or even approved by Him) as His. It’s abominable. It’s blasphemy. It’s repugnant to God, and it ought to be repugnant to us. 

C.S. Lewis wrote a book called Mere Christianity. We ought to get back to the mereness of the Restoration, because in its mereness, the Restoration asks us to repent, be baptized, read the words that we get in the Book of Mormon, and then search for and find that God who caused the Restoration to come about to fulfill His purposes. And His purpose is to save us.

…abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray, save it be a few who are the humble followers of Christ (ibid). This sounds very much like that revelation given to the missionaries being sent out during that first year of the Church, they have all gone astray—now the words here are slightly different: 

“They have all gone astray, save it be a few who are the humble followers of Christ. Nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men. O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all [they that] preach false doctrines, and all [they that] commit whoredoms and pervert the right way of the Lord, Woe, woe, woe be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell.” (Ibid, vs. 2-3, emphasis added)(2Nephi 28:14-15)

“Woe, woe, woe” is a three-fold condemnation. You can be condemned with one “woe” or with two, but when you’re condemned with three “woes,” that follows you on into what comes next. You just don’t want to wind up there, particularly when you have the means in your hands to understand how to avoid these kinds of errors and this kind of condemnation.

Well, Michael Kelly this morning referred to a statement by Paul in his letter to the Galatians: 

           “Though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that 

            which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:2 RE)

           (Galatians 1:8)

What is that gospel? See, it’s almost as if when Christ set up and called twelve apostles to be the ministers He sent into the world to preach repentance unto the world, whom He called and whom He ordained—it’s almost as if one of the very first acts of the Lord was to call Paul outside of the organization He had set up, outside of the group that He had authorized, outside of the group that He had ordained. Why would the Lord call Paul on the road to Damascus and give to him a dispensation of the gospel when there was already an existing dispensation of the gospel in the hands of the twelve who had been with Him all throughout His ministry? It’s almost as if the Lord wanted to make the point from the outset: 

Don’t ever assume you can rely on a structure. 

God will call whom He will call, and Christ made that point with Paul. And so when Paul writes to the Galatians, “Let anyone that preaches a different gospel than the one I’ve delivered to you be accursed,” we ought to ask ourselves, “Well, what then is the gospel that Paul preaches?” It’s a gospel founded upon a man who can bear witness and testimony, like the other twelve could, that Jesus Christ was the resurrected Lord who came and sacrificed, died and rose from the dead, who will draw all men to Him. And Paul knew that. 

That gospel—that same God who did something very similar with Joseph Smith, who came and delivered to him a dispensation of the gospel in which Joseph could testify—that Lord (who lived, who died, and who rose again) lives and testifies and is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His gospel is unchanging; His act doesn’t change. That gospel of ascension, in which men are brought up unto Him—

Amos foretold this:

(And we read these words as if they applied during a 1700/1800 year hiatus between the death of Christ and His Apostles and the opening of the heavens to Joseph Smith. We don’t read these words as if anything like this began again at the death of Joseph and Hyrum. But I want you to consider that these words may be a description of what began immediately upon the death of Joseph and Hyrum.)

“Behold, the days come, [saith] the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land — not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from…north even to the east. They shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord and shall not find it.” (Amos 1:27 RE, emphasis added)(Amos 8:11) 

Oh, you’ll find plenty of 

• lo hear’s and lo there‘s; 
• I, I am the Lord’s;
• God hath finished his work and give His authority unto me— 

You’ll find plenty of those. You’ll find plenty of preaching involving the traditions of fathers—but you also find a famine. Then, Micah said: 

“Then shall the seers be ashamed and the diviners confounded. Yea, they shall all cover their lips, for there is no answer of God… The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money. Yet will they lean upon the Lord and say, Is not the Lord among us? No[ne] evil can come upon us.” (Micah 1:8 RE)(Michah 3:7)

Evil will come upon them, because Zion is what the Lord intends to preserve. We should be desperately seeking for that. 

Isaiah said: 

“The land shall be utterly emptied and utterly spoiled, for the Lord ha[th] spoken this word. The earth mourn[eth] and fade[th] away; the world languishe[th] and fade[th] away; the haughty people of the earth do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance[s], broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore ha[th] the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate; therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.” (Isaiah 7:1 RE)(Isaiah 24:3)

Well, that’s coming. 

Look, whenever the Lord sets about to do a work, vessels are broken, traditions are discarded. Reform may work to splinter Catholicism, but reform does not work to repair a restoration. It doesn’t, and it can’t. You either need a restoration or you’re just messing with an old bag that can’t take a new patch. 

Christ said— 

(This was in a conversation with Nicodemus. Nicodemus was one of the Sanhedrin. He was a member of the Seventy, one of the “presiding authorities”; one of those who could speak with authority, with the confidence that he occupied a position approved by God—a governor in the land.) 

Jesus told him, “You’re gonna have to get baptized.” And Nicodemus, who’d already been baptized— 

See, when they came and they questioned John’s baptism, they didn’t question baptism; they questioned the authority of John to baptize, because everyone was being baptized. And Nicodemus, who’d been baptized, came to Christ; and Christ told him, “You gotta be baptized again.” And Nicodemus’ reaction was, “Why do I gotta go do that? I mean, that seems redundant.” And Christ’s answer to him is the same answer that has to be given to everyone, in every branch, at any time when restoration begins again: 

“No man also sew[eth] a piece of new cloth on an old garment, else the new piece that fille[th] it up take[th] away from the old and the rent is made worse [the tear]. And no man put[teth] new wine [in] old bottles, else the new wine doe[th] burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled and the bottles will be marred. But new wine must be put [in] new bottles.” (Mark 2-3 RE)(Mark 2:21) 

In other words, any time a restoration begins anew, there has to be baptism again because you have to acknowledge and accept the fact that God speaks again. 

Well, as was mentioned, a new set of scriptures has begun the process of repenting and returning. And those new scriptures are not the only thing that is underway. In addition, rebaptism… it doesn’t—

You’re not joining an organization; we have no organization to join. The problem with all the Restoration splinters is that they’re competing with one another. We have no interest in providing a competing organization. We offer baptism. We accept the Book of Mormon—not just as a text, but we accept the Book of Mormon as a covenant. 

The early Saints voted to accept Lectures on Faith. They voted to accept the revelations that were found in the Doctrine and Covenants. They never accepted the Book of Mormon, either as a volume of scripture (they just assumed it), and they certainly never accepted the Book of Mormon as a covenant. 

In an effort to undo the condemnation that was given in September of 1832, we’ve gone back, we’ve recovered the scriptures as accurately as it is possible to do so today—not only to say what the Lord wanted said as accurately as possible, but also to do according to that which is written. Once it is said correctly, the next thing is to do it. 

And so baptism is being offered anew—rebaptism. Most of the baptisms you read about in the Book of Mormon are rebaptisms. They’d already been baptized once before, but they had to repent and return and be rebaptized. All those people that Alma went out in the wilderness and baptized at the waters of Mormon—those were all rebaptisms. All the great accounts of conversion in the Book of Mormon are reconversions/rebaptisms, with the exception of recovering some particularly militant apostates who had not practiced in faithfulness the religion that they had been given at the outset. 

Look, I hope this conference continues. If as much a difference in spirit can occupy this conference next year as is different from last year to this, then we really are headed towards a greater unity. Tausha lamented all the frustrations she had in trying to get this thing put together. [Speaking to Tausha] Oh, you worry too much; it’s that red hair. You just leave it alone. If you’re inspired to do it, when it happens, it’ll take care of itself, as it has today. 

What I saw today (compared to last year) is progress. It’s astonishing. It’s wonderful. And I feel closer to all of those who have spoken from the various traditions today. I hope we can grow closer again from now until the next of these. And I hope that there is a next of these. 

Thank you. 

The post “Joseph Smith Restoration Conference” 2019 appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This 8th lecture in a series of messages to Christian audiences around the world was delivered May 18, 2019 in Montgomery, Alabama.

Transcript

I want to talk about religion—but I don’t want this topic to be what it usually is, and that’s a source of unease and friction and conflict and debate and discomfort and—I mean, religion is one of those things where we find it really easy to do two completely contradictory things: love religion—because we want to be close with God—and take offense at our neighbor—because their religious views differ somewhat from our own when, in fact, the Author of the religion is telling us all to love one another. If we’ve got Christ in common, we ought to be able to de-emphasize our dissimilarities and emphasize our similarities to find peace in Him. 

If you study the events that occurred following the New Testament—that immediate generation following the New Testament; you can see it in the book of Acts; you can see in in the letters of the New Testament—Christ commissioned twelve apostles, and He sent them out with a message to bear about Him. But Christianity, in the immediate aftermath of Christ’s life, had various kinds of Christianity. We had a Matthean Christianity that was based upon the teachings of Matthew. We had a Pauline Christianity that was based upon the teachings of Paul. We had a Petrine Christianity, and it was based upon the teachings of Peter. (It was the Petrine version of Christianity that ultimately got the broadest sweep that resulted in the formation of the Catholic Church.) But Christianity did not start out centralized. It started out “diffused.” It’s almost as if what Christ wanted to do was to get the word out and let everyone have in common some very basic things, in which we could find peace and love and harmony with one another—but outside of that, to explore, perhaps, the depths of what the message could be and not to have it insular, rigid, and one-size-fits-all.

We had during that very earliest period— 

You had obviously-commissioned companions that had walked with Jesus, had been witnesses of His teachings. He had brought them aboard; they had heard the Sermon on the Mount; they had witnessed miracles. John (in his gospel) makes it clear that they weren’t really up-to-speed with what Christ was doing and what He was about, because He would say things, and they wouldn’t understand Him. From John’s gospel, what happened was: it was retrospective; it was post-resurrection. When they knew—now—that Christ was going to come, He was gonna die, and He was gonna be resurrected, and then He was gonna ascend into heaven to be in a position of glory—that they looked back retrospectively and they say, “Ok, now I get it. Now I understand what He was talking about. Now those statements about the necessity that He suffer come full circle, and we get it.” But walking with Him during this time period, they were really not tuned in to comprehending what the Savior was intending to do and ultimately would do. 

Then after all that, we’ve got this guy who is a persecutor of the Christians and an opponent of Christianity who—on his way with a commission to try and bring Christians to justice— on the road to Damascus, gets interrupted in what he’s doing: 

“Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [Now it’s] hard for [you] to kick against the pricks” (Acts 9:4-5; see also Acts 5:8 RE). The pricks were what you’d use to drive the donkey—if it kicked, it impaled itself, and it could be a fairly nasty wound; they didn’t kick without suffering. And Christ is telling him, “That’s what you’re— You’re like a mule; you’re so mule-headed about what you’re doing, and you’re actually doing something that is, ultimately, going to be to your harm.” So Paul comes aboard—he’s told to go to Cornelius [Ananias]; he goes to Cornelius [Ananias]. He gets baptized, and then scales fall from his eyes (he’s been blinded for a while). “Scales” are is a great word—as an English translation—because they not only imply, potentially—like the scales of a fish; like a contact lens that’s opaque, and you can’t see through it. But they also imply judgment—that Paul’s judgment about things were was wrong, and the scales needed to be put aright. 

So Paul comes aboard. But Paul is just as much what Paul was “before” as he was “after.” And so Paul and Peter never do quite get on the same page. And Paul writes that he “withstood [Peter] to [his] face, because he was to be blamed”(Galatians 2:11; see also Galatians 1:6 RE), which makes it clear that you can be a Pauline believer in Jesus Christ, witness of His resurrection, and in communion with Him; and you can be Peter, who walked with Him and was told, upon the foundation (that he was part of), that this church would be built. And you can authentically be Christian in both cases and the two of you absolutely not agree on much of anything. So Christ set up, at the beginning, a Christianity in which there was a necessary diversity, a necessary broad-mindedness, a necessary tolerance. 

The apostle Peter would write about coming into the union of faith. It’s a theme that you see in James; it’s a theme that you see in Paul—about growing into unity. So, why would we have a Christian establishment, at the outset, in which we have this diversity of thought, with the expectation that you will grow into unity—and we’re told “love one another; as I have loved you…love one another” (John 13:34; see also John 9:5 RE). So, why would it be set up that way if Christianity was simply supposed to be “mutually-opposing camps with differing points of view,” in which your-particular-brand-of-Christianity will ex-communicate their-brand-of-Christianity, and your-brand-of-Christianity will denounce (as “the great whore”) Catholicism, instead of everyone saying: 

• What has the Lutheran group observed about Christianity that can help bring light, knowledge, and understanding to me?
• What has Catholicism preserved from their traditions that can help enlighten my understanding, because it’s a treasure that we have not preserved in our own right? 
• And what is it within the Baptist movement that has developed a keen insight into some of the most penetrating beliefs that Christ taught?

Why do we separate into denominational differences and hold this hostility towards one another?

One of the things that I personally believe in is that you have to take the money out of religion in order for religion to ultimately be its greatest self. I believe that in order to have faith, you have to sacrifice for your faith. That means that no one can or should pay me for anything I do as a religious individual. I have to sacrifice to come here. I have to sacrifice to prove my belief in Christ. No one gets to pass a plate, collect money, and give it to me. I have an obligation, instead, to donate, to sacrifice, to serve.

We have an incipient group of people—very small—but people that believe that we do have an obligation to give tithes and offerings. But we collect tithes and offerings in very small groups, and once the money’s collected, then within the group, the question is asked, What are the needs; who among us has a need? And if there is a health need, if there’s a food need, if there’s a housing need—the money is used to benefit those that are in need among the household of faith. And no one gets to be paid. The reason why Catholic priests are hostile to Lutherans, and Lutherans are hostile to Methodists, and Methodists hostile to Baptists, and Baptists hostile to the Church of Christ is because the clergy of the respective denominations have a financial stake in making sure that their version of Christianity survives. 

I went out to a Christian Evangelical conference in Memphis, Tennessee a couple weeks ago—again, on my own nickel.

[Stephanie Snuffer:] Nashville. 

[Denver:] Oh, it was Nashville. 

[Stephanie:] Not that it matters. 

[Denver:] Yeah—no, it was Nashville. It was a national conference, lasted for days. Went out with some Evangelical folks, met some new Evangelical friends; and our last day there, when we were on our way to the airport, the driver was a retired Air Force Chaplain. (He’d been enlisted; he left, used the GI bill to get through ministerial school, became a Chaplain, came back in as a Captain, served his twenty years, retired.) After he was retired, he went to work as a Methodist church leader—I think Bishop; he was ordained to something—and he led a Methodist congregation in South Carolina until he retired again. And he was being paid retirement from both the Air Force and from the Methodist church because their clergy have a financial setup in which they’re not only compensated during their time of ministry, but they’re then also compensated in the retirement. So, he’s all on board with Methodism, and that’s just the way things work in this world. 

During the period of time between that very first generation of Christianity and 324 AD, when Constantine determined that it was a mistake to have made Christianity the religion of Rome (because they were in disagreement), and his internal strife was not going to be solved by making Christianity (he thought it was one religion)—

The factions were so opposed to one another over teachings that they literally were—Christians were killing Christians. And so the answer to the need of the Roman empire to have a “state religion that would unify” was not going to be served. And so he had (what is called by the “historical Christian movement”—and that includes everyone, it includes all denominations—they called it) the First Great Ecumenical Council. He summoned all the Bishops to Nicea; he put them under arrest, and he told them they could not leave until they reached an agreement on some fundamentals of what the Christian faith was so that once that was adopted, we had an orthodoxy. And they nearly got unanimity, but there were a handful that would not agree, and they were exiled from Rome. So they had a state religion that was now agreed upon.

If you look at what are called the ante- (or the “prior to”), the ante-Nicene fathers—and you read the works of the ante-Nicene fathers, there are a lot of teachings that were still left over from that first generation that began to evaporate once you reach the 324 AD time period. It still required years of conflict—and many more years of death and killing— before Christianity settled down into a stable form that you could call “orthodox.” 

During the time period prior to 324, there were multiple kinds of Christianity. One of them gets identified as “proto-orthodox.” The reason the one form is regarded as proto-orthodox is because it will eventually win the battle. Once it’s won the battle, then you can go back in hindsight and you can say, well, that was the one that was the predecessor to what will become orthodox Christianity over time. That was the Petrine church—or the Petrine view—which emphasized priestly authority, which emphasized the necessity of a priestly intervenor. 

That view held sway until a split that occurred at about a thousand [1000] AD between the East and the West, between Constantinople and Rome, between two Bishops who were vying for primacy. And so you have the Orthodox Christianity that spread into Eastern Europe and into Russia—the Greek Orthodox Church being part of that; the Russian Orthodox Church being part of that—and once again, they preserved some teachings in Christianity that got dropped off the table in the Western church (or the Catholic church)—doctrines that you don’t hear much about. 

You get down another 500 years to 517 [1517] AD, to the time of Martin Luther, and Martin Luther comes along a devout—

He was a sincere, a religious man as ever lived in the Catholic faith. He believed. And he believed with all his heart—believed so much, that he saw signs in his life of God intervening to do things. He saw miraculous events that showed him that God was walking with him. Martin Luther went to Rome and was horribly disappointed by what he saw as corruption and as profiteering and as something that could not possibly be true because these men were doing vile things—prostitutes were at court with Bishops; everything about what was going on was unseemly.

But Martin Luther believed. In fact, in the universe of Martin Luther’s Christianity, salvation required a priest “to save.” If you did not have a priest, you could not access salvation. And so Martin Luther’s dilemma was, “Is it possible—is it even possible to be a Christian, separate from the clergy that comes down from the time of Christ? Is that even possible?” 

Reading in the New Testament in the book of Romans, he comes across the passage that says it is by grace that you are saved; it’s through the instrumentality of faith; and that faith is, in itself, the means for salvation. So Martin Luther conceives the idea that salvation just might be possible, separated from the Catholic clergy, if you rely upon the grace of Christ and the faith that you have in Him. And so Martin Luther took the brave step of trusting what he had read, and he founded the Protestant movement, based upon the concept that it is possible to be saved separate from, then, a hierarchy that’s grounded in Rome. Well, that separation began—

As soon as you have Lutherans, you’re inviting someone else to come along—like John Calvin—to say, “Wait a minute. You’ve got part of the idea, but you don’t have it really in place.” You have John Wesley; you have Zwingli; you have a number of Protestant leaders, all of whom say, “Yeah, Martin Luther got one thing right, but he didn’t get everything right.” And so immediately, you begin to divide up, and the Protestant movement morphs into dozens—and then hundreds and now thousands—of different denominational divisions that are saying, “Yes, BUT—all those other churches got some things right, BUT! There’s still something that they’ve omitted that needs to be done.”

So, I was raised by a Baptist mother, and I was shown the Baptist religion from my youth. I never joined the Baptist Church. My next door neighbor, my best friend, was a Catholic altar boy—Rick was a Catholic altar boy! And so was Wayne. (You’d need to know those two guys before you understand how broad-minded Catholics are about their altar boys.) And so, on occasion, I would go to Rick’s church. Mary was really devoted and (his mother) —Rick was just a pedestrian that happened to be, on occasion, in the Catholic church. I was always interested in religion. I always thought there was something to this—that Christianity has a core that is true. I believed that. Over the years, the more I have examined it—

I’m an attorney, and I do trial work. In the courtroom, witnesses of an event (if they’re telling the truth) will agree in broad-brush and will disagree on details. If they agree on all the details, someone’s lying, because that’s not the way witnesses work. Witnesses—

If you’re standing on one side of the street and you see an accident, and you’re standing on the other side of the street and you see the same accident, what is left on one is right on the other. They will disagree, if nothing else, from the vantage point from which they observed it. You also have the tendency to focus on “something,” as opposed to “everything.” And if everyone is focused on a different “something,” the story that you will get from people—swearing to tell the truth, under oath—will be different versions; same general theme, same large-picture outcome, but they will disagree many times on the details.

“Oh, I didn’t notice that”—because that’s the way humans are. “I didn’t notice that. I didn’t hear that. You’re sure he said—he really said that? Because when he was speaking, he said this, and I know he said this. The reason I know he said this is because that struck me to the heart. And when he said that, I was thinking back about twenty things in my life, and so when I tuned back in—you’re telling me that one of the things I missed is what you heard about that? I find that astonishing! I wish I’d heard it.” My story and your story and the next person’s story of the event (if they’re authentic, in the courtroom), you will always find details are different. Same major theme. 

Jesus Christ had a group of witnesses in a single generation—in a single generation! This isn’t a work of fiction! You have four different gospel accounts that come into being in a single generation of time, in which they all agree on the massive truth that this was the Son of God who came into the world to be the sacrificial lamb, who died—He was rejected and died—and who was resurrected and ascended into heaven. All four of them agree on that. And yet, only Matthew has the Sermon on the Mount. Some of them mention feeding five thousand; some of them mention feeding seven thousand; and some of them mention both. But not all of them mention everything. There are differences. It’s what you would expect if you’re dealing with an authentic account of a real person that lived a real life and left behind people who were so astonished by what they witnessed from this man that they wrote accounts. And whereas, before, they were cowering, and they were running, and they were denying that they knew that man, after His resurrection (and they witnessed that), they went forth boldly and proclaimed who He was, performing miracles themselves, based upon the name of Jesus Christ. Something actually happened. And that something was the life of Jesus Christ. And these men went willingly; whereas, before they ran and hid, after His resurrection—after they became acquainted with Him—they went willingly to their deaths as witnesses of Him.

So I believed that there was something authentic about Christianity. I just wasn’t quite sure about the brand of Christianity that my mom, a Baptist, was teaching me in my youth. I also—going down to the Catholic Church—was skeptical. (It was Pope John VI—was the pope back then; seemed like a decent enough chap. The first Catholic pope that impressed me was Pope John Paul I. That guy was—he was a fan of Mark Twain’s, ok? Pope John Paul I was the greatest pope that ever lived, as far as I’m concerned.) 

I thought there was something missing from the Baptist faith. I thought there was something theatrical and hollow, even inauthentic, about what I saw in Catholicism—not because the pageantry wasn’t depicting something noble and great and wonderful, but because the players weren’t always up to the job of carrying off the pageantry. There were times when it appeared to me that the last thing the priest in Mountain Home, Idaho was interested in was celebrating the service—the Mass. He did it anyway, and it was lifeless. His heart wasn’t in it. And so, it seemed to me, hard for that to drive religious conviction if the heart of the priest is not in the celebration of the Mass. The Baptists were always into the celebration of what they do because it’s based upon a sort of charismatic movement, in which enthusiasm is expected—an expected part of it. But I remember the pious gestures, the things from the pageantry of Catholicism that depicted things, that depicted holiness—and I believe there is holiness. I honestly believe there to be holiness. But I think it is hard to imitate it, instead of authentically be it. That’s why a Mother Theresa stands out as a global figure because she didn’t imitate it. And Mother Theresa stands as evidence that there is such a thing as Catholic holiness. 

Another one that stands out in history as an authentic evidence of Catholicism having holiness is St. Francis; St. Francis believed and accepted the Sermon on the Mount. He lived the Sermon on the Mount. He went to Rome to get an order commissioned by the pope, and the pope laughed at him and said, “You can’t—you can’t get anyone to live the Sermon on the Mount.” He said, “I would give you an order if you could come back here and bring with you twelve men who would be willing to live the Sermon on the Mount.” (St. Francis was the guy that—if you saw him in the cold in winter and you gave him a coat—he would wear that coat until he ran into someone that had a greater need than he; and then he would give away his coat to the person in need. When he decided that he was going to become a priest, his father—who was a wealthy man—went and intervened and said, “You can’t do this—everything about you, I paid for! You are utterly dependent upon me, and I refuse to let you go do this.” St. Francis took off all his clothes, handed it to his father, and came to the clergy a poor and naked man—literally. He was a devout man.) When he came back to the pope with twelve believers, the Franciscans were commissioned, and the order of the Franciscans came into being. 

The current pope is named after St. Francis. I think St. Francis was an authentic Christian. In the last two months of St. Francis’ life, he reported that angels were visiting with him. There are a lot of people that dismiss that end-of-life spiritual experience (and telling tales of angels and visits and such things) as, you know, the frailties of a dying body. I don’t think so, in the case of St. Francis. I think that he was ministered to by angels. 

There’s an expression—it’s found in places some of you would find dubious—but there’s an expression about how some people do not “taste death.” The statement that they do not taste death doesn’t mean they don’t die. It just means that their death is sweet because they die in companionship with those on the other side who bring them through that veil of death in a joyful experience. There are a handful of people who have reported that, as they were dying, angels came and ministered to them. I think all authentic Christians, in any age, belonging to any denomination—I don’t care what the denomination is—I think all authentic Christians who depart this world find that death is sweet to them and that they are in the company of angels as they leave this world. And I don’t think it matters that the brand that you swore allegiance to—and you contributed your resources to support— matter anywhere near as much as whether you believe in Christ, whether you accept the notions that He advances about the Sermon on the Mount, and whether you try to incorporate and live them in your life. 

Jesus took the Law of Moses as the standard. What the Sermon on the Mount does is say, “Here is the standard, but your conduct should not be merely this. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 201:13) is not enough—you must avoid being angry with your brother; you must forgive those who offend you; you must pray for those who despitefully use you.” Just refraining from murdering one another, with a reluctant heart, bearing malice at them—“Well, I didn’t kill the guy, but I got even!”—that’s not enough! That’s not the standard that Christ is advancing. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14) is not good enough—don’t look upon a woman to lust after her in your heart. Jesus is saying, “Here’s the law. And you can do all of those things and be malevolent; you can be angry; you can be bitter; you can be contemptible; you can hold each other out as objects of ridicule. Its purpose is to make you something more lovely, more wonderful, more kindly, more Christian.”

Christ says to be like Him. The Sermon on the Mount is an explanation of what it’s like to be like Him. St. Francis made the effort of trying that, of doing that. I suspect that the first time St. Francis gave away a coat in the middle of winter to someone else, that it pained him. He probably felt the biting sting of the cold and thought, “How wise is this that I’m doing?” Because it’s always hard to accept a higher standard and to implement it for the first time. But I suspect by the hundredth time he’d done that, he didn’t feel the cold anymore; he felt the warmth in his heart of having relieved the suffering of another person. Because the practice of Christian faith involves the development of Christian skill and the development of Christian charity in a way that changes you. You don’t remain the same character that you were when you began the journey! You become someone absolutely and fundamentally different. 

So, while I was in the Air Force, away from home, I was attending a University of New Hampshire night-class—some kind of organizational behavior class. Having grown up in Idaho, I knew what Mormons were, and this professor, Cal Colby (he’s from Brandeis University, but he was teaching a night class for the University of New Hampshire) just gratuitously started attacking Mormons. And my honest reaction was, “What the hell are you talking about Mormons in New Hampshire for? That’s a local infestation somewhere out in the West, and there’s no—there’s none of that going on here.” And in the middle of his diatribe, a guy raised his hand, and Colby called on him. And a fellow named Steve Klaproth defended—because he was Mormon—defended Mormons. I made the mistake afterwards of saying to the fellow (I didn’t know his name at the time, but I know him now—Steve), “Good job!” I always hate it when a person in a position of strength picks on someone in a position of weakness, and so I went to the guy that was weak and said, you know, “Good job!” He mistook this for interest in his religion. And I wound up (trying to be polite), I wound up being hounded, literally—pamphleteered, missionaries coming. It was—it was gosh awful. 

Well, I left New Hampshire on what’s called “Operation Bootstrap,” where they send you to college. I went to Boise State University. The Air Force paid for me to go to school. I came back. When I came back there was this campout; the campout was at the birthplace of Joseph Smith in Sharon, Vermont. And I went to the campout. There was a book that was in the Visitor’s Center, and they gave me a copy of that book for free. Steve says, “You should read this.” I read that. And at that moment, I was surprised because my reaction to Mormonism had been very, very negative. But the ideals that were expressed in this one statement were lofty and noble and Christian and charitable, and I wanted to know, “Where did this come from?” It was something that Joseph Smith had written; a revelation that Joseph Smith had received. 

Well, I got baptized for the first time in my life on September the 10th of 1973, into the Mormon church. I was a Mormon until September the 10th of 2013—forty years to the day. And on the 40th anniversary of becoming a Mormon, I was excommunicated from the Mormon church. 

So, I don’t say this to sound like I’m bragging or exaggerating, but I do not know anyone alive today that knows as much about Mormon history as I do. Because while I was part of that, and then afterwards, still, I’ve read every historical document that I can get my hands on; I’ve read everything that Joseph Smith said that got recorded, wrote, or transcribed when he had a scribe writing for him. My understanding of Mormon history is encyclopedic, really. 

There’s a thing that goes on in Salt Lake City called the Sunstone Symposium. It’s run by people who are, basically, renegade Mormons—intellectuals—and it started out being friendly to the Mormon church; it grew into outright hostility and anger towards the Mormon church; and then it converted into a mixed bag. And some of it is pro; some of it is con. And I’ve spoken at the Sunstone Symposium. One of the things I’ve presented was a paper about Brigham Young, in which Brigham Young’s megalomaniacal-presiding over Mormonism (during the late 1840s, into the early 1850s) and the excesses that went on during that time period—including murders that occurred on Brigham Young’s watch—were laid out. Sunstone asked the Dean of Mormon History—the guy that is most respected, Thomas Alexander—to respond to my paper. And Thomas Alexander came and responded to my paper. I was talking about Brigham Young’s literal regarding of himself as an actual king from the time they got out of the valley in 1847, until the time he was deposed by the Army of the United States as the territorial governor in 1857. I was talking about that period of time. Thomas Alexander got up and said, “No, Brigham Young didn’t believe those things because he said things in 1860 and in 1870…” and he read the quotes from 1860 and 1870. Well, as soon as he was deposed as governor he knew he wasn’t king. All 1860 and 1870 have to contribute is the fact that Brigham Young ultimately managed to grapple with reality because he had been deposed. But what he was saying in that early time period is exactly what he meant. So after Thomas Alexander got through with his rebuttal paper, I got up and, for five minutes, dismantled the Dean of Mormon History’s view.

The Mormon church is a cult. It is not an authentic Christian organization. But I believe that you can find Christians who are Mormons. I believe that you can find Christians in every denomination that are out there. I believe that there is an authenticity to belief in Christ that transcends every denomination that’s out there. I wrote books about the history of Mormonism that expose many of the things that the Mormon church represents to be true—I show to be false, including their authority claims; including their [in]consistent following of what the founder of Mormonism stood for, believed in, and practiced himself. 

Joseph Smith raised the largest Army. The largest standing Army in the United States in 1844 was under the command of Major General Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois. Literally, he could have taken on the United States Army and defeated them. And do you know what Joseph Smith did with a standing Army larger than anyone else in the United States; larger than the federal government; larger than any of the state militias? Do you know what he did? He disarmed his soldiers; he turned the canons over to the state of Illinois; he surrendered to the governor of the state of Illinois; and three days later, he was murdered while he was in jail. He would rather personally die or give up his life than to have people on both sides of a fight die as a consequence of a religious dispute. 

In 1837, Joseph Smith was in Missouri; and while he was in Missouri, hostilities broke out between Mormons and Missourians. Part of the problem with the hostilities was that leaders around Joseph Smith were spoiling for a fight—literally, spoiling for a fight. Guy named Sidney Rigdon who was a counselor to Joseph Smith gave a speech in which he said, If you people show any more aggression towards us, we’re gonna wage a war of extermination, and we will wipe all you Missourians out. It’s called the Salt Speech; it was delivered on July the fourth of that year. It’s an incendiary talk. 

There was a Mormon named Sampson Avard who went about provoking hostilities with the Missourians. Sampson Avard was a Mormon, and he had a group that he called the Danites (based upon the tribe of Dan—the blessing that is given to Dan in the 49th chapter of Genesis talks about Dan being an asp in the way that bites the horses; it’s a preamble of the violence that the tribe of Dan would render in the posterity of Dan—so Sampson Avard took the name “Danites” as his group). And they began to retaliate by burning houses, burning fields, stealing cattle, stealing hogs, bringing them back. Joseph Smith found out about it, and he demoted Sampson Avard. He was relieved of all responsibility, and Joseph made him a cook. So the guy who was the militant leader is now a cook. 

Hostilities ultimately did break out. It was inevitable that there be retaliations. Each side were saying that they were the victim, and the governor of Missouri said, “We’re gonna wage a war of extermination,” quoting what the Mormons had said in that July 4th talk. And so Mormons were expelled from the state of Missouri. The militia was outside Far West, Missouri (a town called Far West). Joseph Smith and his family, friends, and Mormons were inside Far West. They had a defensive position from which they literally could have caused so many casualties that the militia could never have overrun the town. The cost in blood would have been too high. Joseph Smith surrendered and told his people to surrender their arms, and he deflated the tension. 

He was taken into custody by the state of Missouri; he was charged with treason against the State for fomenting rebellion. And they had a series of hearings trying to get witnesses to prove that Joseph Smith should be held for trial on the charge of treason. And no one—no one—could prove that Joseph Smith was involved with any of the hostilities, until the guy who actually caused the hostilities, Sampson Avard, came to the courthouse to testify—to blame Joseph Smith for everything he [Sampson Avard] had done. 

And so Joseph Smith was held over on the charge of treason, based upon the testimony of the guy who knew what cattle were stolen, what hogs were stolen, what fields were burned (that he was responsible for.) And he simply said that all that—that Joseph engineered that. And so, based upon the testimony of traitors, Joseph Smith was held in prison for a period of six months, over a winter time-period in an unheated dungeon that had bars but no glass on the windows. And they suffered for six months in a Missouri prison. 

He was allowed to escape and get back to his people, all of whom had been driven out of Missouri. But while he was in prison—and while he had the opportunity to think about everything—Joseph Smith composed a letter from Liberty Jail that breathes with the spirit of Christian compassion, forgiveness, love, kindness, and refraining from abusing others. This is a man who got betrayed by his friends, and he turns around and shows—for his friends—compassion. 

One of the books that I’ve written is called A Man Without Doubt. In it, I set up the historical context out of which Joseph Smith produced the three longest writings of his own in his life. It’s a letter from Liberty Jail; it’s Lectures on Faith; and it’s a statement of his own history because the church historian had stolen all the manuscripts. Time and time again, the worst enemies of Joseph Smith were Mormons—people that claimed to follow the religion that he was developing. 

Joseph Smith, in my view, is authentically Christian the same way as Saint Francis is authentically Christian. The problem is (and it is an enormous problem)—the problem is that everyone outside of the Mormon world looks at him as the property of the LDS Church. They look at him as if he were accurately represented by a group of people that, time and time again, he condemned and, time and time again, betrayed him. A Man Without Doubt is an attempt to let people see Joseph Smith as a Christian, divorced from the LDS Church or any of the splinter Mormon groups, and to see him, potentially, as an authentic Christian— in the same way that I think Martin Luther and John Wesley—even John Calvin, although Calvin was so militant, he’s kind of a drum-beater that scares me a little—nevertheless, he was authentically Christian. 

I think that everyone who sacrifices for the cause of Christ can help contribute to my understanding of what it means to follow Christ—because people who follow Christ bear the evidence of that discipleship in the way in which they walk and the things that they do and the things that they give up—in how they discipline their heart and how they discipline their mind; in how they treat one another. When you find someone whose life bears evidence that they are authentically Christian because of what they do; they are authentically Christian because of what they say— 

Christ said it’s not what goes into the mouth that proves you’re unclean. It’s what comes out. What do you say? How do you display the grace of God in your life? I can tell you one way you don’t display the grace of God—and that’s by condemning merely because of their affiliation with one Christian group or another, condemning them as being inauthentically Christian. 

Christ looks upon the inner person. All of His parables—all of His parables suggest there’s something very different about authenticity and inauthenticity. There are ten virgins—well, what are virgins a symbol of? If Christ is using the virgin as a symbol, He’s talking about good people. These are good religious people; they have to be. And of that group, only five were allowed in. 

There’s a wedding feast—and at the wedding feast, He invites friends, and they don’t come. Well, who are the friends of Christ that are invited to come to His wedding feast? And they don’t come. They don’t come because their hearts aren’t right; their words aren’t right; their mind isn’t right; they are not authentically what Christ is trying to have us be. But He invites, and they don’t come—because they will not be His. And so He goes out, on the highways and the byways, to try and find anyone that will come. And “anyone that will come” suggests that, well, they could be a Samaritan. Think about the Parable of the Good Samaritan from the perspective of a Jewish audience—they were nothing but apostates! And yet he uses the apostate as the illustration of authentic Christian discipleship. They invite in—off the highways and the byways—strangers, people that you don’t expect to be invited ‘cuz they’re not at your church every week; they’re going to some other place or, perhaps, no place at all. And yet, they’re invited in, and they’re allowed to remain, so long as they have on the wedding garment. In other words, if they come, having donned the mantle of authentic Christianity, they’re welcome—they’re welcomed. We care and we fight about religious issues that are of no moment at all to Christ. And we do that because we’re paying clergymen every week to rile us up so that we’ll stay loyal to them and their congregation— and we’ll contribute, and we will view one another with fear and non-acceptance. 

You take the money out of Christianity; most ministers would go into politics. They would not hang around. I’m not lying—they have done polls of Christian ministers to ask them if they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was resurrected. The majority of Christian ministers do not have faith; what they have is a career. And they can’t abandon their career. “If I leave your employ, what’s gonna become of me? Because I’ll be a poor man.” And so they stay employed, preaching what they don’t believe. It’s one of the reasons why I think Father Ordway—in Mountain Home, Idaho—made the gestures, and his countenance was devoid of the holiness that should be expressed, of the joy that should be expressed. I saw that in my friend Rick’s mother, Mary. I saw in her that fire of belief, that devotion. I didn’t see it in Father Ordway. 

Well, I’m trying to get people to consider the possibility that authentic Christians could come from anywhere, among any people—and that we can fellowship with one another. And that it is even possible to fellowship with one another, even independent of an employee-hireling priest—in which we study together; we worship together; we rejoice in Christ together; we try to figure out how to be more authentically Christian in what we do, and what we say, and how we treat one another, and how we view one another. 

And then to take the next step and to contribute our tithes and our offerings to a group of believers to help believers, to help each other—so that it’s not just the support of the clergy and the support of the buildings, and the support of the programs—but it’s also helping the fatherless and helping the mother who has no one to help her. And to have Christianity, not just theoretically modeled in feel-good sermons, but actively part of life and part of how we deal with and treat one another, in which we all say,  “We’ve all sinned; we’ve all fallen short of the glory of God, but let’s not let that cause me to condemn you. Let’s not let that stop me from trying, in as authentic a way as I can, to be charitable or kindly to you, and you to me, and us to the people in need among us.” Because if there were ever an authentic group of people who are Christian who were helping one another, the appeal of that would cause everyone who comes into their midst to have a change of heart. They’d want to be part of that; they’d want to live that kind of life because there’s no better life than the one that Christ taught us to model in the Sermon on the Mount. 

Anyway, I’ve talked for an hour—and my experience teaches me that when you’ve had people sitting and listening to you for an hour, you’re a wicked and despicable man if you make them sit and listen to you any longer. So, unless there’s anything that someone wants to talk about, ask about—

I really do know a lot about Mormon history, and it’s not at all what the Mormon persona is represented to be—either by the church itself or by its critics. In some ways, its history is much worse than the critics tell you. And in some ways, the very beginning of it was much different and much better than what they represent. 

I believe that Brigham Young introduced the practice of plural wives. I believe that Joseph Smith was an ardent opponent of that. I believe that Joseph Smith has been falsely portrayed because Brigham Young didn’t think he could bring that into the practice unless he laid it at the feet of Joseph Smith. And I think there’s been a lot of history in Mormonism that tries to lay at the feet of Joseph Smith responsibility for the things that traitors and treacherous and evil men did—and escape responsibility for it by saying:

“Joseph taught it.” 

“Oh, he taught it in private.” 

“Oh, he lied to the public.” 

“He lied to the public about it, but in private he practiced it, and he taught it.”

And I have to tell you, Joseph Smith was not that kind of man. I read the letters between Joseph Smith and his wife, Emma. Emma was a stronger personality than Joseph. Emma was his trusted counselor and guide. Joseph deferred to her; he took advice from her; he took counsel from her. She was better educated than him. The stories that have been attributed to Joseph Smith—

You should read A Man Without Doubt. You should go back and reconsider whether what you think Joseph was, is it all supportable by a true-telling of history—because I don’t think it is. And that’s one of the reasons why I’m an excommunicated Mormon because—

Because I think the truth is valuable, and it’s worth searching out. 

The post 8th Address to Christians appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following comments were given at a Q&A session on April 21, 2019 in Grand Junction, Colorado.

Transcript

Apparently our ten minutes are up. And I hate to take away from the 1:00-5:00 lunch hour. I mean, you must be planning on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter dinner all combined for a 1-5 lunch. And I hate to disappoint you, but I’ve been told that that’s a misprint on the schedule and that you will not be given a 1:00-5 p.m. lunch break, that things will resume at 2:30 with Rob Adolpho and his wife, Quintina. We call her “Q.” It’s spelled “Quintina.” [Inaudible audience comments.] “That’s right,” says a voice out of the dark that I assume is Q’s. We call her Q,; Rob calls her, “Yes, ma’am.”

Ten minutes for a bathroom break seems utterly unreasonable; so when they get back and they ask you what they missed, tell ‘em, “The most amazing stuff ever! And we’ve been sworn to not repeat it! And he told the folks to delete it from the recording.” [Audience laughter.]

But I guarantee you, you can’t warm coffee with a pillar of fire. And by the way, that is true.

Okay, so, [reading off the program] “Q&A with…me.” I guess I could ask myself questions that I really wanted to answer. I’m not obligated to follow any—

Look, one matter that should not come and go without observation is this date, this day, and this commemoration which, based upon all of our reckoning, is the Eastern Easter Sabbath. It also coincides with the Passover. In one of the groups that we were attending yesterday, the subject of the Passover and the various observances under the Law of Moses were discussed—the Holy Days. 

And one observation that I made yesterday (and I want to repeat and maybe expand on) is that there are actually two Passovers. The one occurred anciently in Egypt—when the blood of the lamb was put on the lintel and posts, and the Destroying Angel passed over those who had been marked by that and preserved all of the firstborn in those households. 

There will be a second Passover. This one is more expansive and will involve the destruction of all the wicked. It is referred to, as part of the covenant that we received (now in the Teachings and Commandments section 158, in versesparagraphs 16-18), it says:

I will teach you things that have been hidden from the foundation of the world and your understanding will reach unto Heaven. And you shall be called the children of the Most High God, and I will preserve you against the harvest. And the angels sent to harvest the world will gather the wicked into bundles to be burned, but will pass over you (emphasis added) as my peculiar treasure.

So the Passover, which was instituted as a symbol prior to the Law of Moses, will be one of those observances that will be fully restored in due time, because Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and brought it to an end. But all those things that had been instituted by God as an observance prior to the Law of Moses—which includes the Passover—that will be preserved, even though the Law of Moses was brought to an end and a completion. 

So the Passover, which was instituted before the Law of Moses was established, is one of those observances that was not only relevant at the moment that the children of Israel were saved and freed from their slavery in Egypt anciently, but it is an observance that has relevance also to a second promised Passover in which, at some point in the future, the wicked will be gathered into bundles—as the scriptures describe it—and burned; and the covenant people of the Lord will be passed over, preserved, and allowed to continue safely. Therefore, Passover is relevant to our day as much as it is to them anciently. 

All of the things that are most important in scripture relate to two (and only two) moments in time—largely two (and only two) generations of people. The first was that that was here at the time the Lord came into mortality, and the second is the time when the Lord will return again in glory to judge the world. 

(I was asked also to announce that one of the organizers of this event, Brian Bowler, and another fellow, Jared Walter, are both celebrating their birthdays today. [Audience applause.] So happy birthday to both of them, and I’m sorry to impose on you to be here, instead of somewhere eating cake.)

The events that occurred on the morning of Easter occurred so early in the morning that the place was still dark when the Lord rose from the tomb. 

You have to be on a place where you can see the horizon into the distance (and along the Wasatch Front in Utah, you don’t get a chance to see the sun or the moon rise on the horizon until it’s up, you know, 30 degrees above the horizon of the earth because the mountains obstruct your view, and you can’t see into that distance). But if you’re on the ocean, if you’re on a shoreline, if you’re in the plains and you can see the horizon (the curvature of the horizon), there’s a moment that occurs—and it can be anything from a split second to perhaps as long as a minute—when it arises. It’s the same atmospheric phenomenon as you witness at the poles in the Northern Lights. The Northern Lights are happening because of magnetic and curvature of the atmosphere, trapping of particles, and it sets off these dancing lights that you can see in the Northern Hemisphere.

On the horizon, there comes a moment each day, as the sun and the earth are moving, that the very first bit of light emerges as this brief, dancing, green light—green flash—on the distant horizon. That moment marks the “new day” anciently. So when you saw that, it would designate that now the day has arrived. It’s dark out. It will remain dark, but that instant, that flash, that atmospheric— 

So if you’re charged with being a watchman to designate when a religious observance is going to occur and it is relevant to mark the moment at which the new day arises or arrives, you’re watching the horizon, and you’re looking for that instant when it occurs. That instant—which is long before the daylight surrounds you and you have something other than the darkness of night on you—that instant is actually memorialized in one of the titles that’s given both to the Lord and to his chief adversary, Lucifer; that’s a Son of the Morning—because that moment marks the instant that the morning arises. 

Christ’s resurrection occurred then—on whatever the moment was that that occurred, on that morning, on the day of the resurrection—that was when the events were set in motion to honor that observance. And so, when they came to the tomb early that morning, it would be based upon that appreciation for how holy days (or days themselves) were reckoned and not based upon what we do with our clock and our reckoning. It was—it’s tied to nature. It’s tied to those circumstances that are built in as part of this creation. 

And so, when the resurrection occurred, there’s only one gospel writer that observes that it was still dark, and that’s John; he points it out. It’s been in the Bible all along. But in all honesty, to me, “morning” meant “sun’s up,” daylight; we could see about. 

The account that appears in Come, Let Us Adore Him (now will appear as one of the sections in the Teachings and Commandments) was something shown to me that I recorded in my journal—and in fact, the content of that is quoted directly out of my journal. I do not like the idea that any story, any account, is to be trusted to recollection weeks/months/years after the fact. In one of the criticisms that we have about some history involving Joseph Smith is that they’re later stories/later developments that got inserted into the narrative, and they weren’t contemporaneous with him. So I don’t trust anyone to record anything—or to preserve anything that I consider to be significant—other than myself, and I record it on the date in which it happened, at the moment that it occurred. And then if I, as was done with the book Come, Let Us Adore Him (or what is now part of the Teachings and Commandments), is later publicly disclosed (‘cause those things were not publicly disclosed for years), then when they are, the only account that gets disclosed publicly are word-for-word, exactly what got written at the time in which the event took place. So you’re getting the narrative and verbatim—exactly what was recorded by the witness on the day in which that occurred. 

Now, when the stuff that just got added was shown to me as something that was proposed to be included, it lifted out a bunch of ellipses—you know, three dots (…). It lifted out a bunch of ellipses from the account that appears in Come, Let Us Adore Him. And I said, For purposes of putting it out there as something to be looked at, reviewed, and respected in the future, just drop all the ellipses out. And so all the ellipses were dropped out. That’s because there’s a bunch of stuff that went on that’s recorded in my journal (that is not in that account), that draws more attention and distracts away from what was important. What is important is in that account. The ellipses represent another moment of profound stupidity—ignorance on my part—that is in the journal account. But I thought, There’s no reason at all to focus on that. But I’ll tell you about it so that you know what got lifted out. (I’m past the point of being embarrassed about my own stupidity. I acknowledge that all the time—including my wife just a day or so ago, which she reminded me of a couple of times this weekend.) What happened was—

As I was recording the account, at the point in which I’m trying to put into words the joy, the exultation, of our Lord—because He had finished the course; He had actually arrived at the point that culminates everything that had been expected of Him, and He’d done it perfectly—at that moment, in the journal, I wrote the words that “the joy that He experienced on that morning made the sufferings in Gethsemane pale in comparison.” And as soon as I wrote those words, I felt instantly condemned. In fact, I had an angry God on my hands because that was not appropriate for me to have recorded. So it was so abrupt—it was so immediate—that I stopped writing altogether. I just drew a line in the journal, and I left, and I went to work. 

I was haunted by that all day. And when I got back home, I got the journal out, and I wrote in there that what I wrote before was completely inappropriate because there is nothing that can make the suffering in Gethsemane pale by comparison. There simply is no joy, there is no triumph, that can make the obliteration of that thing that He endured on our behalf pale. It cannot pale. And so, once I confessed that I’d screwed up, then the condemnation lifted, and the account then continued and finished up. In between the ellipsis is my foolishness, and I saw no reason—in being required to bear testimony of the resurrection of the Lord—to insert into that me running around, ya know, marring the furniture and spilling Coke on the floor. I thought the best thing to do was to keep it focused exclusively— 

The Lord did not make me a witness of His resurrection to have you focus any attention on me. It is all about Him and only Him; and therefore, the narrative needed to be excised to get the idiot-witness out of view and to put the Lord front and center and squarely within view. 

It’s another example, in my view, of just how ill-fitted I am to what’s been asked of me. If I could lay hands on someone else’s head and say, “There you are; now go get ‘em,” and drift off into the background and not occupy any public attention again, it would relieve me of an extraordinary amount of anxiety and self-questioning at every turn. 

It’s not enough to me to pray and get an answer. For me to pray and get an answer is an easy thing, but any answer that I get, I take it and I scrutinize it for motive, for desire, for my personal potential involvement with the content. I scrutinize it for any weakness of my own that may appear there. Then I take it to the scriptures, and I look for anything in there that could challenge, contradict, or raise an issue about what is recorded. And then when I’m satisfied that it is actually pure enough to be regarded as something that I can trust, then I take it back to the Lord to get re-confirmation before I’m willing to do or say anything regarding it. And there are many, many things that I’ve learned and been exposed to that I don’t talk about. It’s just not appropriate, and I assume that, at some point, it will be the kind of material that the Lord reveals to each person individually as His (and His prerogative alone) and not something that belongs to us. 

I also don’t think that rapid-fire inquiries to God are appropriate. It’s a fearful thing to approach the Lord, but it’s also a fearful thing to then be entrusted with an answer from the Lord and to be accountable to Him for what you do (or you fail to do) with what He has provided. No one of us deserves the kind of responsibility that He alone can impose. No one deserves it. And anyone that feels the burden of it should fear their own weakness above anything and everything else. It’s not cause for celebration. It’s cause for questioning yourself, questioning your motives, and questioning whether or not—in the wisdom of the Lord—work can and should be done. 

———

Now there were some questions that were provided to me, and some of them were actually answered in the talk, and so they don’t need to be answered again here. But there’s one question: 

Question: In your opinion are the people ready to have the commandment to build the temple in our day? Are we ready to have the commandment? If not, could you offer suggestions on what more we could do to prepare more completely?

Answer: Well, my opinion on that really doesn’t matter because, unlike some other things, my view on that is that when you go to D&C section 124 (I don’t know what it is in the T&C; I need that set of leather scriptures so I can learn my new layout—these things are too heavy and bulky to carry around), it’s apparent—

They had decided on building a temple. They had chosen a location for the temple. They had begun digging at the spot for the temple before there was the inquiry and the commandment given in [section] 124, the January 1841 revelation. And the wording of the revelation says that “the spot that you have selected is acceptable” (see D&C 124:43-44). K? 

If you think carefully about that language from the Lord, what it means is the Lord was willing to permit or entertain the ambition of the people, which doesn’t necessarily mean that the people should have been doing what they were doing. It doesn’t mean that the place was the right place, and it doesn’t mean that God was going to protect it. It means that He will allow them to do that. And then He warns them that if they want Him to come and restore, and they want Him to come and vindicate, and if they want Him to protect them so that they cannot be moved out of their place, then they need to dothings. And the things that they needed to do were a list of fairly specific things that they failed, subsequently, to do. 

So, I think (I’m fairly certain) that I could pray and get permission to build a temple today. I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to inquire. I’m not going to suggest one thing to the Lord about either a location for the temple to be built or when a temple ought to be commenced in its construction. In my view, “asking and getting permission” are not the same thing as the angel Gabriel appearing next to the altar to respond to Zacharias and say, “The Lord is now going to redeem His people Israel, and you shall have a son, and he shall go before Him.” It must—must—be at Heaven’s initiative. It must be at Heaven’s timing. It must be at the place chosen by the Lord. 

Why is it reasonable to expect the Lord to defend—and the earth to defend—the spot that is our choosing? All of these things are a matter of covenant and a matter of prophecy—and their prophecies will be vindicated. The covenants will be fulfilled. God fully intends to do exactly what He has foretold will be done. But for us to push the envelope when this is the great temple on this hemisphere, this is the building to which His tabernacle (meaning His person) will come and occupy that tabernacle (meaning the temple built for the establishment of Zion)—it needs to be entirely entrusted to the care of the Lord and only to the care of the Lord. And so, the issue of what my opinion is, is—

My opinion was, No, of course not; we’re not ready. I sat in on those meetings yesterday and took in things, and I was impressed. I was—we are—we are learning how to get along. In the scripture committee that I participated in, there are very strong personalities holding very strong opinions on a variety of very important topics, in which it’s expected that people with strong personalities and strong opinions would dig their heels in. And I have to tell you, there were lots of discussions. There were lots of exchanges of points of view. I don’t think there was ever a single dispute. There was never a fight. There was never an argument, even when it took time to come together. The process— I think everyone involved grew in ways that were extraordinary over the course of the whole thing. 

And there were some people who came very late to the project and who came late after having spent years doing work that explored, more deeply, details that the other people who had been working on it for a couple of years had not plunged to that depth. And so when he came, you would think people that had spent a couple of years plunging into one level of understanding would sort of resent the newcomer who comes late to the party— and he was one of the younger fellows to participate—and yet, he was openly and warmly accepted, and all of his corrections and additions were welcomed. No one was egotistically involved in trying to get it their way. The only objective was to try to get it right. Everyone was keenly aware of how badly things had gone in the handling of the scriptures in 1833 and 1835, in 1840. Everyone was keenly aware of how mangled the text—in places, of all the volumes of scripture—had become and of how neglected the fullness of the scriptures, as defined by Joseph Smith, had been treated. 

Literally, what is coming out in print is a historical marker, a milestone event in which, for the first time, what God intended to hand to people at the beginning of the restoration is finally capable of being handed to you. It is an historic moment that literally marks the beginning of a fulsome restoration. We now have scriptures upon which everything else will be possible to be built. That hasn’t existed until now. It is a new beginning, and I’m not sure that what was said made it clear enough, but we’re accustomed to the print on demand publishing industry. You do not make this quality of a publication by printing it on demand. You have to order exactly the number of books that you want printed, and you have to pay for every one of them before you receive the delivery of any one of them. 

Right now the price break is 1,400 copies. The cost of that many books being paid for before we get delivery of any one of them is so great that we’re probably going to order 1,000 copies in order to eliminate the cost of paying in advance for an extra 400 of them, but it will cost more per copy for the 1,000. But in aggregate, it will cost less money to place that order than it will to get to the next price break. And so, the plan right now is to order 1,000 copies, and the mechanism for being able to do that is going to be to create a site at which you can purchase and pay for the scriptures in advance, so that you place the order for whatever volume you want (or volumes you want )printed. There’ll be a set of three: a Old Covenants, a New Covenants, and a Teachings and Commandments—an order will be for all three volumes. If you want one copy, you buy one. If you want ten, you buy ten. If you want twenty, you buy twenty, but you pay for them in advance, and then it will be months later that they will be delivered. 

Unlike what happens with typical book publishing, there’s no markup on any of these. They have volunteers that are going to handle them. They’ll have volunteers that will drive copies down to some cities where distribution will be made. All of the costs of handling are gonna be borne by voluntary work. Now if you’re at a location where it has to be mailed, then the price to you will include the price of shipping to you as a direct cost. If these were handled the way books normally are handled in a scripture setting, the price of these to you would be probably double whatever the price is going to be as the order gets placed. 

One of the things that we do not know right now is if there is enough demand to take advantage of the price break at 1400 copies so that we order and pay for 1400 copies to be made, or whether we’re going to pay a little more per volume but only incur the total cost for getting a 1000 of them printed. But whatever it is in terms of that number, when those are printed and when those are sold, that’s the end of printing the leather-bound version of the scriptures. There will be no plans for ever producing them again. 

Undoubtedly there will be a second printing but that might be five years from now, that might be ten years from now. We don’t know when there may be a second printing of the scriptures. So the first printing will be an ordered, funded, paid for, complete, first printing, and that’s the only one that will exist—at least for some period of time, until demand drives a second printing. In the meantime, the way in which the scriptures will be available will be electronically (in your handheld), electronically (online on your computer), or a print-on- demand source that you can purchase through Amazon. 

Yesterday, those who were present heard the report that the print-on-demand at Amazon has been taken down temporarily because all of the layout for the leather-bound scriptures are now completed. And those are being loaded into the Amazon print-on-demand version so that if you buy a paperback version from Amazon—the page, the layout, the page number, everything about that will be identical with the leather-bound version because the same layout is going to be used for both of them. I don’t know how you are with your scriptures, but for me, if I want to quote from D&C section 76, beginning with the description of the telestial—it’s on right side, lower; it’s about, beginning verse 99; and it’s in your book; it’s right there. Well, the utility of having the same layout for your paperback and for your leather-bound version is the ability to recall the page and the layout on the page from book to book to book, so that there’s no mistaking what you’re trying to find and where you’re trying to find it. This version (the print version that I’ve used), I have not invested the effort to try and know the page number, know the approximate location, know the—where it’s going to be on the page, because I’ve known that we’re going to get a new layout. But when the leather-bound ones come out, I intend to pore over those to find/to discover the new material that’s there and to find the old familiar stuff and relocate it. So when it becomes available for ordering, keep in mind that if you don’t get one of these, it may be many years before it’ll be possible to order them again. 

Question: Okay, there was a question that was posed by Tim Malone about Layton Conference where I said:

God demands…our hearts turn to the fathers or we will be wasted at His return. This requirement is not to turn to them in just a figurative way, where we do genealogical work to connect ourselves with our recently deceased forbearers. That work is  a wrong-headed effort to seal people to those kept in prison. The return of our hearts will require us to have the same religion, and the same beliefs in our hearts that the original fathers had beginning with Adam. Only in that way will our hearts turn to the fullness [fathers].

Then he says, Given the fact that the LDS church has spent hundreds of millions of dollars building temples specifically for the purpose of sealing individuals to their deceased ancestors, are you advocating that we cease family history research as a waste of time? If so can you provide some specific counsel how we could better utilize the time?

Answer: Okay, the answer is: I’m not saying you cease doing genealogical work. When work— Originally, umm…originally—[Denver chuckles.] How to put this— 

The way in which temple work for the dead was intended to be done was that work of baptism for the dead was confined to only those ancestors you personally knew who you believed would have accepted the gospel with all their heart (had they been permitted to tarry) and were only kept from accepting the gospel because they died at a time before it was available for them to embrace. That’s one category. 

A second category was those ancestors about whom you have enough information from their diaries, their letters, their journals, or accounts of their life so that you believe them to be the kind of people that would have embraced the gospel had they lived at a time when the gospel in its fullness was on the earth. So that is a second category. 

And then the third category was those ancestors who appear to you and asked that their temple work be done. 

Those were the only ones for whom temple work was supposed to be done, according to the criteria that was established by Joseph Smith at the beginning. It was not a, “If you know a name, go get a baptism for ‘em.” That was never the criteria. The criteria was limited to those three specific categories of people. 

The place in which genealogical research for your ancestors becomes most important is that second category, in which—through genealogical research—you may be able to locate an ancestor about whom there is enough that you can recover (as information or biography) to know that they were the kind of people who would’ve embraced the gospel had they been permitted to tarry long enough to have accepted the gospel in its fullness while it was on the earth. You can’t figure that out unless you have genealogical research and something more than just a name on a name-extraction-program. It’s gotta be someone about whom you’ve dug long and hard and deep—to find out about them and their lives— to make some kind of an evaluation about them, to make a judgment call. Otherwise, what you’re left with are a bunch of names, and the only way to get those names in a position to do work is the third category—in which you know about their existence, but you have no way of telling whether they’re suitable for the ordinance; and therefore, they must come and request it. They must appear, and they must make the request—and so they slide into that third category. 

The second category can only be achieved through a lot of hard work and genealogical study. The first category you should know from your ancestors that you were familiar with. That probably goes back no further than perhaps a great-grandfather or, more likely, a grandfather or a grandmother. It may go to a great-uncle, a great-aunt. It may go to a deceased aunt. But the criteria was as was outlined, and the second category is where the genealogical work the Church invests money is apt, suitable, just fine. 

Question: What words of encouragement can you give to someone whose spouse is not on board with what is happening now? 

Answer: Look—first of all, unlike the scriptures that other groups of people accept, we actually have an answer to this in our scriptures. It’s in the Teachings and Commandments, [section] 149, verse 3—it’s paragraph 3: 

Suffer no man to leave his wife because she is an unbeliever, nor no woman to leave her husband because he is an unbeliever. These things are evil, and must be forbidden by the authorities of the church, or they will come under condemnation, for the gathering is not in haste, nor by flight, but to prepare all things before you, and you know not but that the unbeliever may be converted and the Lord heal him. But let the believers exercise faith in God, and the unbelieving husband shall be sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, and families are preserved and saved from a great evil, which we have seen verified before our eyes.

That’s one of the sections of the Teachings and Commandments that was from Hyrum Smith (who was, at the time, a president of the church—co-president, in fact—the prophet to whom Joseph said the church should give heed). That’s the instruction. 

And I mentioned Tim Malone; he’s a great example of this. Tim and Carol Malone are separated, and he talks openly about that in the things he publishes, and he’s true and faithful to her. He’s doing the right thing. He’s the right example. He’s doing what Hyrum advised and what the Teachings and Commandments recommend that we do—and continue without haste. 

Question: And then—oh, some guy named Adrian Larsen. I don’t know. Shoot—you really wanna go there? 

Question: This is decidedly limited in what is appropriate to be said, but the question is about: Since Christ came to fulfill the law, and the practice of animal sacrifice was done away with, and what we’re to offer is a contrite broken heart and a contrite spirit as a sacrifice, and animal sacrifice was a type to teach the people of the coming Messiah—He fulfilled that. Why would animal sacrifice be reinstated? 

Answer: OK, as— I don’t want to get out ahead of where we are at this point, but let me say, it will be done for entirely appropriate purposes that will be perfectly satisfactory to the understanding of those that are involved. It’s not gonna be some kind of temple-turned- slaughterhouse. It’s not gonna be a production line in which the hems of your garments (and the blood shaking from the hems of your garment) becomes a cliché because of the abundance of the flowing of blood in the courtyards of the temple of Solomon and later the temple of Herod. It will be decidedly confined, limited, for purposes that will be adequately understood by those who, on the rare occasions when that practice is reinstated, participate, witness. But I think that’s all that can be said. You won’t be disappointed. 

Question: We’re separated from the first Fathers—to whom our hearts must turn—by a vast expanse of time, language, and culture. How can we best reach out in our hearts and our minds to these successful mortals? 

Answer: You know, that’s a great question. There is an enormous advantage that you’ll find in reading the new scriptures and all of the things that have been added that focus upon that, both in the Old Covenants and in the Teachings and Commandments, in particular those two, where our knowledge of what the Fathers were up to is enormously expanded; and then in parts of the New Covenants that have been added through the Joseph Smith translation. I think the scriptures equip us to accomplish something that— 

Study them; look there. 

Question: In the “Elijah” talk, you made reference to the fact that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit out of order—that they were to wait until after the Sabbath; that partaking prior to the Sabbath caused work to be done on the Sabbath. Can you explain expand on this subject, please? 

Answer: The problem was not that they were never going to be told—they were never gonna be told to partake to not to ever partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it’s that they were forbidden to partake so that there could be a day of rest—a Sabbath. Everything was supposed to stand down. And then, after they stood down for the day of rest, on the first day of the next week, they were then to introduce the knowledge of good and evil in a way that would’ve been benign, in a way that would’ve transitioned from the original paradisiacal state into a state in which knowledge of good and evil and mortality itself could enter the world, much as it will be present during the Millennium among the righteous. 

But instead, in an act of defiance (that resulted in them being kicked out of the Garden because of transgression)—and an act that caused labor then to occur on the Sabbath— they partook out of season in obedience to the one who seeks to always counsel people to rebel against the order of Heaven, to disobey and to set at naught the commandments and instructions of the Father, even when doing so means harm to yourself or to others—because the adversary is only interested in the destruction of people, even those who trust and rely upon him. He has no good end in mind for them. And so they partook out of the ordinary course. As a consequence, there was a fall. 

The Fall introduced, on the Sabbath day, the mortal experience. And so, the seventh day—the day of rest—would then require six days of labor to precede their next day of rest, which always put the Sabbath out of sync because of the original rebellion—which is why the Lord was resurrected on what they thought was the first day of the week. It was, in fact, the first day of the week—according to their reckoning—and the seventh day of the week—according to the original creation—had everything been honored in the original commandment and instruction. And so the worshipers moved the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday, to that first day of the week( which was, in reality, simply restoring back the original violated time frame). And the early Christians observed, as the seventh day of the week, the correct day of worship, the day that we worship on, which is Sunday and not Saturday, although the tradition of following, in a number of places remains to do so on Saturday. 

It’s more important that you keep a day holy, that you set it aside as a day of worship, than it is to figure out the chronology of everything that’s gone on. If it was so important for us to get exactly the right day of the week aligned with everything, then we’d all be John Pratt. [Audience laughter.] 

Question: [This question was not read aloud; Denver read it silently and then answered it: “We are obligated to teach our children that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman and that chastity is important. As the LDS church has employed various strategies to promote these values in recent years, suicide rates among the young have climbed in Utah. Do you think this has to do with the way the LDS church has handled these issues, and if so, do you have any insights into what we might do differently to better help youth who struggle?”]

Answer: Oh, man. OK. Wow. Marriage. One man, one woman. Chastity is important, and there’s accommodation going on everywhere to try and allow divergent forms of marriage to be acceptable or tolerated. And some of that is being done as a desperate measure to try and reduce suicide rates among young people, where suicide rates in Utah have climbed. 

Let me, as clearly as I can put it: Wickedness never was and never will be happiness. There is—embedded into each of us [inaudible comment], as deeply as our DNA itself—a course in life which, if pursued in the proper way, will result in the bearing of children and a fullness of joy, experienced as a consequence of introducing offspring into the world for whom you are granted the challenge, the privilege, and the opportunity of nurturing and caring and teaching. These are things that stretch you beyond your comfort zone. These are things that will tear at your heart. These are challenges that will befuddle you, that will make you question and reevaluate and reconsider—time and time again—who you are and what you’re saying and how you’re treating these, your children. 

The institution of marriage was designed—by its very nature, by that God who created us— to allow us to engage in that god-like process. It can be experienced in the way that God intended in one, and only one, way—that is, through the marriage of the man and the woman together; through their union that is intended to produce offspring; through herstruggle to bear and bring forth the child; through his protection and providing for her during her period of inability and her period of nursing and caring for the infant (that is utterly dependent upon the body of the mother for its existence). All of these things are god-like. They are instructions; they are experiences that are intended to convey—through the mortal body and the mortal experience—things that replicate and reflect a divine perspective about life itself, about who God is. Because God is a male and a female, and they are productive; their love results in the creation of more life. They experience a fullness of joy, and when you have all joy in its fullness, the only way in which it is possible to make more joy is to create others in which they, too, can experience a fullness of joy. And so that increases through offspring, through family, through progeny. 

You will not reduce suicide rates by pursuing a course that says wickedness can be entertained, the purposes of God can be frustrated, the experiences that God intended for us to go through and to have in this life can be set at naught, and you can approach the whole thing in a different mechanism in a different pretense. Because however deeply you may feel about that structure, at its core it is defective. It is desolation. It is a practice that if it were universally engaged in, then all who are here today will be the last generation that will ever live, because it produces desolation. And if, at the core of the relationship what you have is a desolate future, there is no amount of psychological treatment, anti-depressive medication, or lies you can tell to yourself that will make you say, “What I’m engaged in is not, in the eyes of God, abominable.” You cannot destroy that truth. If you want happiness—because of the way we were created by the Creator Himself—it is to be obtained by following the path ordained by the Creator to realize the results that He established in your heart, in your soul, in your spirit, in your body, even in your DNA. [Audience applause.]

Question: Did Emma know the same things that Joseph did? Was she taught from on high as he was? Was he allowed to share everything with her? 

Answer: I would be shocked if Joseph Smith did not share everything with Emma. I would be shocked. 

Question: [Reading] …I think I’ve already covered that.

Question: I noticed a phrase—pursue judgment—in both the “Answer and Covenant” and in our Heavenly Mother’s words, quoted in “Our Divine Parents.”

Answer: Pursue judgment is that you pursue the treatment of others as you would have yourself be treated. You treat them in the same standard. 

Question: Oh, I love this question: Share some more of the ways that nature testifies of Christ. 

Answer: I hope you garden. If you don’t, you should garden in order to experience all the plagues of Egypt [audience laughter], because that’s what happens whenever I attempt to garden. There are these loathsome pests that will come along and consume and destroy and invade your garden. They’ll eat everything except zucchini, as it turns out. And zucchini produces in such abundance and so quickly—and ripens so quickly—that all you’re left with is a bag of seeds, and they’re dreadful. 

But there is a pest that invades the garden that will eat everything and destroy and wreak havoc that eventually entombs itself in a chrysalis. And the pest, while it’s inside this apparent self-made tomb, has died, and gone away, but eventually, it will arise from that cocoon, from that tomb, and it will come out, and it has assumed a wholly different form. Unlike that loathsome creature—that crawled around, ugly and haltingly, across your garden, consuming and destroying—once it emerges from the tomb, it now takes flight. It’s joined with the sky, with the heavens itself. And it goes about, thereafter, taking pollen and fertilizing the garden and becoming productive. Where before it had destroyed, now it helps create; now it becomes an agent that produces fruit, that produces vegetables. This little insect is a powerful sermon embedded in nature to testify of who Christ was and, more importantly, to testify of what Christ did that will affect you, that will turn you from what we are now into something glorious, heavenly, and capable of ascending in flight up on high. 

Question: Oh, how does equality work when we’re all given different gifts, abilities, and levels of understanding, some of which may be more outwardly manifest? Should we encourage one another to use our gifts to benefit all, even though this makes us appear unequal? 

Answer: Equal means that you do what you can do, to the best of your ability to do, for the benefit of all that can receive. Not everyone can do what someone with a gift or a talent can accomplish, but all can appreciate the benefits of that gift or talent. We’re supposed to find joy, worship God, and bless our fellow man through the gifts that are given. In fact—I don’t know what section it is now; I know what the old number was—but the gifts that are given, the Lord says, specifically, are given as a benefit for the church (the definition of the church being all those who repent and are baptized, not some institution). So the blessing that is given to one has been given in order to bless and benefit the lives of all others. And as a consequence of that, you’re depriving the community of faith—of the gifts—when you don’t do the best you can with the gifts you’ve been given. They are intended by you, to be a sacrifice by you, for the benefit of others. And if others look on and say, “Gee, I wish I could do that, but I’m not double-jointed, and I’m not interested in riding on one of those things,” then, you know, you can admire the X-Games, but you don’t have to join ‘em. 

———

We are going to break for lunch, and lunch will end at 2:30, at which time, Rob and Quintina Adolpho will be giving a presentation on recovering the lost sheep. This is something that both of them are earnestly engaged in and they addressed at a conference over in Hawaii a little while ago. I don’t know how much background you have on the two of them, but Quintina is, among other things, a PhD and counselor and Blackfoot (and providing counseling services and care for the Blackfoot people on a reservation). So it will be more than worth your time, given the fact that the covenant requires that, among other things, we must reach out to recover the lost remnant of people on this land. And we have Q from this land and Rob from Hawaii, both of whom identify with native peoples in a way that would be helpful to any who care to come and attend and for all who watch the recording of this at a later time. 

Thank you. 

The post Q&A at the “A Hope in Christ: The Temple” Conference appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following was presented at a conference held in Grand Junction, Colorado on April 21, 2019.

Transcript

Because everything we do is voluntary, and because no one gets paid to do any of the things that are done as part of the endeavor that we share together, in order to host a conference like this, those that choose to do so, do so at their own expense, with volunteers doing everything that gets accomplished—arranging for the use of all the facilities that get used (including this one today) and sacrifice in order to be able to host an event like this. This was a remarkable conference for the last three days now. And everything that has been done, and everything that got organized, and all of the facilities that were made available were done by the local group here that chose to sacrifice in order to make it possible. I wanted to start out by expressing my appreciation for all those who have worked to make this possible and all of the events and participants. I think it’s been a marvelous conference, and I appreciate the opportunity to be invited. 

We study the Old Testament to learn about individual salvation from God. We study the New Testament to learn about individual salvation through Christ. We read the Book of Mormon to reassure ourselves that, like those who lived before us, we can be individually saved in our day. We study the revelations of Joseph Smith to learn about individual salvation. 

Historic Christianity and the various Mormon traditions have all focused on individual salvation. Christians have been “born again” and found salvation through God. Mormons have had their “calling and election made sure” and claim God has saved them. Throughout the Judeo-Christian landscape, individual salvation is the great quest, the overarching yearning, and the religious end to be obtained. 

Salvation is individual. There is only individual salvation and no such thing as collective salvation. While I accept this as true, there is something else that is equally true: God wants “people” to collectively be His. 

In the revelations of July 14, 2017 and October 4, 2018 received from God (those are in the Teachings and Commandments as sections 157 and 176), the emphasis has been on “people.” Both responses by the Lord have gone beyond individual salvation to focus on people, Zion, and the New Jerusalem. Consider these words from the Answer to the Prayer for Covenant, addressing the importance of God’s people: 

I, the Lord say to you: You have asked of me concerning the scriptures prepared on [your] behalf of all those who seek to become my covenant people, and therefore I answer you on behalf of all the people, and not as to any individual. For there are those who are humble, patient and easily persuaded. Nevertheless, people who are quarrelsome and proud are also among you, and since you seek to unite to become one people, I answer you as one. I covenanted with Adam at the beginning, which covenant was broken by mankind. Since the days of Adam I have always sought to reestablish people of covenant among the living, and therefore have desired that man should love one another, not begrudgingly, but as brothers and sisters indeed, that I may establish my covenant and provide them with light and truth… 

For the sake of the promises to the fathers [I will ] labor with you as a people, and not because of you, for you have not yet become what you must be to live together in peace. If you will hearken [unto] my words, I will make you my people and my words will give you peace. Even a single soul who stirs up the hearts of others to anger can destroy the peace of all my people. Each of you must equally walk truly in my path, not only to profess, but to do as you profess… 

There are many things yet to be restored unto my people. It is ordained that some things are only to be given to people who are mine and cannot otherwise be given to mankind on Earth. You do not yet understand the glory to be revealed unto my covenant people… 

It is not enough to receive my covenant, but you must also abide it. And all who abide it, whether on this land or any other land, will be mine,…I will watch over them and protect them in the day of harvest, and gather them…as a hen gather[eth] her chicks under her wings. I will number you among the remnant of Jacob, no longer outcasts, and you will inherit the promises of Israel. You shall be my people and I will be your God, and the sword will not devour you. And unto those who will receive will more be given, until they know the mysteries of God in full… 

You pray each time you partake of the sacrament to always have my Spirit to be with you. And what is my Spirit? It is to love one another as I have loved you. Do my works and you will know my doctrine; for you will uncover hidden mysteries by obedience to these things that can be uncovered in no other way. This is the way I will restore knowledge to my people. If you return good for evil, you will cleanse yourself and know the joy of your Master. You call me Lord, and do well to regard me so, but to know your Lord is to love one another. Flee from the cares and longings that belong to Babylon, obtain a new heart, for you have all been wounded. In me you will find peace, and through me will come Zion, a place of peace and safety… 

Be of one heart, and regard one another with charity. Measure your words before giving voice to them, and consider the hearts of others. Although a man may err in understanding concerning many things, yet he can view his brother with charity and come unto me, and through me he can with patience overcome the world. I can bring him to understanding and knowledge. Therefore, if you regard one another with charity, then your brother’s error in understanding will not divide you. I lead to all truth. I will lead all who come to me to the truth of all things. The fullness is to receive the truth of all things, and this too from me, in power, by my word and in very deed. For I will come unto you if you will come unto me. Study to learn how to respect your brothers and sisters and to come together by precept, reason and persuasion rather than sharply disputing and wrongly condemning each other, causing anger. Take care how you invoke my name. Mankind has been controlled by the adversary through anger and jealousy, which has led to bloodshed and the misery of many souls. Even strong disagreements should not provoke anger, nor to invoke my name in vain as if I had part in your every dispute. Pray together in humility and together meekly present your dispute to me, and if you are contrite before me I will tell you my part. (T&C 157:1-2,19,44,48,51,53-54, emphasis added)

These are God’s words in the Answer to the Prayer for Covenant. The focus is on the community and not on the individual. It’s taken me years to notice that. This focus is different for a reason. Our traditions have not and cannot bring Zion; that will require viewing God’s work in a new way. Individuals may be saved individually and have been throughout history. But Zion is not about individual salvation. Zion is about covenant people of God, individually saved as a prerequisite, then gathered together to live in peace. 

As part of the same revelation there is a covenant that contains language that also moves the focus to community instead of individual: 

Do you covenant with [the Lord] to cease to do evil and to seek to continually do good? 

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

Third: Do you agree to assist all others— who covenant to [do] likewise accept this standard to govern their lives— to keep the Lord’s will, to succor those who stand in need, to lighten the burdens of your brothers and sisters whenever you are able, and to…care for the poor among you? 

Fourth: …do you covenant to seek to become of one heart with those who seek the Lord to establish His righteousness? (T&C 158:2-5, emphasis added)

After those questions are answered:

Now, hear the words of the Lord to those who receive this covenant this day: 

All you who have turned from your wicked ways and repented of your evil doings, of lying and deceiving, and of all whoredoms, and of secret abominations, idolatries, murders, priestcrafts, envying, and strife, and from all wickedness and abominations, and have come unto me, and been baptized in my name, and have received a remission of your sins, and received the Holy Ghost, are now numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel. I say to you: 

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

And I, the Lord your God, will be with you and will never forsake you, and I will lead you in the path which will bring peace to you in the troubling season now fast approaching. 

I will raise you up and protect you, abide with you, and gather you in due time, and this shall be a land of promise to you as your inheritance from me. 

The Earth will yield its increase, and you will flourish upon the mountains and upon the hills, and the wicked will not come against you because the fear of the Lord will be with you. 

I will visit my house, which the remnant of my people shall build, and I will dwell therein, to be among you, and no one will need…say, “Know ye the Lord,” for you all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 

I will teach you things that have been hidden from the foundation of the world and your understanding will reach unto Heaven. 

And you shall be called the children of the Most High God, and I will preserve you against the harvest. 

And the angels sent to harvest the world will gather the wicked into bundles to be burned, but will pass over youas my peculiar treasure. 

But if you do not honor me, nor seek to recover my people Israel, nor teach your children to honor me, nor care for the poor among you, nor help lighten one another’s burdens, then you have no promise from me and I willraise up other people who will honor and serve me, and give unto them this land, and if they repent, I will abide with them. (T&C 158:9-19, emphasis added)

People claim they have kept the covenant, but such claims cannot possibly be true. God’s covenant is for and about “people”—His people. It is not possible for an individual to keep the covenant. Everybody rises together, or everybody falls together. The covenant can only be kept as a community. Individuals acting alone can never accomplish what is required of the group. 

The October 4, 2018 revelation (T&C 176) also focuses on community. It begins by addressing “people” and not the individual. The Lord’s voice to “people” begins and ends with two questions. After asking the questions a second time, He gives an answer to what ought to have been learned. Here are the Lord’s words to the people: 

You ask on behalf of my people and therefore I answer my people. Hear, therefore, my words: What have you learned? What ought you to have learned?

And then at the end:

…I ask again, What have you learned? What ought you to have learned? I say to you…there is need for but one house, and I accept the statement you have adopted and approve it as your statement to be added. But I say again, there was honor in the labor of others. Whereas I look upon the heart and see faithful service, many among youdo not look at, nor see, nor value what I the Lord love in the hearts of my people. As I have said before, I say again, Love one another, labor willingly alongside each other. Learn what you ought, and when I ask you to labor, do so wisely even if you know not beforehand what you will find. I do not ask what you cannot do. Trust my words and proceed always in faith, believing that with me all things are possible. All who have been faithful are mine. (T&C 176:1-2,12-13, emphasis added)

(Just as an aside, when the sacrament was passed and the group of brethren who came up here to perform that came up on stage in flannel and shorts and motley-colored shirts—to look upon that, to me, was a delight. It was a statement of the fact that righteousness holds no costume up to pretend to be something it isn’t. Righteousness comes in divergent forms and manifests itself in unexpected ways. Had any one of those individuals come up to pass the sacrament, among some congregations, dressed as they were today, they would have excited the judgment, the censure, the horror of someone observing them in that garb. But to us it’s accepted, and it’s acceptable. I would hope that if one among us chose to wear a white shirt and a tie to come up to pass the sacrament while standing among them, that none of us would look upon that judgmentally and with disfavor, but that everyone would be welcomed, everyone would be accepted, and that we would be just as tolerant of others and their idiosyncrasies as we are of what we expect to be among us.)

God mentions His “people” in order to get our attention. The prophecies of God’s last-days work and the fulfillment of God’s covenants with the Fathers are not merely for individual salvation. The covenants are about “people” or a divinely organized community. Righteous individuals isolated and scattered throughout the world are incapable of vindicating the promises made to the Fathers. There must be people gathered together and living the correct pattern before the Lord returns. 

Enoch saw the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ into heaven. He wanted to know if Christ would return again from heaven to save the earth. In response to Enoch’s inquiry, the Lord gave a promise and covenant that is still unfulfilled. Here is the account. Enoch asks: 

Wherefore, I ask you if you will not come again on the Earth? And the Lord said unto Enoch, As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfill the oath which I have made unto you concerning the children of Noah. And the day shall come that the Earth shall rest. But before that day, the heavens shall be darkened and a veil of darkness shall cover the earth, and the heavens shall shake and also the Earth. And great tribulations shall be among the children of men, but my people will I preserve. And righteousness will I send down out of heaven. Truth will I send forth out of the earth to bear testimony of [mine] Only Begotten, His resurrection from the dead, yea, and also the resurrection of all men. And righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out [mine] own elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, a holy city, that my people may gird up their loins and be looking forth for the time of my coming. For there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem. And the Lord said unto Enoch, Then shall you and all your city meet them there, and we will receive them into our bosom. And they shall see us, and we will fall [on] their necks, and they shall fall upon our necks, and we will kiss each other, and there shall be my abode. And it shall be Zion which shall come forth out of all the creations which I have made and for the space of a thousand years shall the Earth rest. (Genesis 4:22 RE, emphasis added)

The Lord has every intention of keeping His promise to Enoch. There will be those who are gathered. There must be people gathered to a place, a holy city that meets the description and fulfills the promises God made. The people must gird up their loins or, in other words, must be living the godly religion that declares things as they really are—a religion founded on truth. Truth requires us to know things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come.  Many past things that are hidden from the world must be revealed. God’s people must know ancient truths so their hearts can turn to the Fathers. But it will be to covenant people, not individuals, to whom this outpouring will be given. A covenant body will belong in a New Jerusalem. The City of Enoch will meet them there, and then they and the Lord will receive them [unto] our bosom. This is something more than individual salvation. Those involved will be individually saved, but the community itself must exist as something greater than individuals. There must be a “body” or a “bride” for the Bridegroom to embrace. 

The focus on community or people in these last two revelations is similar to that throughout the Old and New Testaments. It’s everywhere. It is particularly clear that the prophecies about the last-day’s Zion require a people to belong to God and to be regarded by Him as His. 

In Isaiah, foretelling the future Zion, we learn: 

And then shall they say, How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that brings good tidings unto them, that publishes peace, that brings good tidings unto them of good, that publishes salvation, that says [to] Zion, Your God reigns. Your watchmen shall lift up the voice; [and] with the voice together shall they sing, for they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion. Break forth into joy, sing together, you waste places of Jerusalem; for the Lord has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord has made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. Depart, depart, go out from there, touch no unclean thing; go out of the midst of her; be you clean that bear the vessels of the Lord. For you shall not go…with haste, nor go by flight, for the Lord will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rear guard. (Isaiah 18:8 RE, emphasis added)

John also revealed how a group must depart from Babylon to be saved: And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, …that you [may] receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities (John 7:2 RE, emphasis added).

This theme is also throughout the Book of Mormon and revelations through Joseph Smith. Christ describes the end-times’ Zion and its accompanying sign in 3 Nephi: 

And verily I say unto you, I give unto you a sign, that ye may know the time when these things shall be about to take place, that I shall gather in from their long dispersion my people, O house of Israel, and shall establish again among them my Zion. And behold, this is the thing which I will give unto you for a sign: for verily I say unto you that when these things which I declare unto you…shall be made known unto the gentiles, that they may know concerning this people who are a remnant of the house of Jacob,…concerning this my people who shall be scattered by them, …that the gentiles, if they will not harden their hearts, that they may repent, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, and know of the true points of my doctrine, that they [the gentiles] [that they] may be numbered among my people, O house of Israel — and when these things come to pass, that thy seed shall begin to know these things, it shall be a sign unto them that they may know that the work of the Father hath already commenced unto the fulfilling of the covenant which he hath made unto [all] the people who are of the house of Israel. (3 Nephi 9:11 RE, emphasis added)

“[All] of [them] of the house of Israel” in Christ’s prophecy includes the gentiles who have accepted a covenant with Him. 

In a prophecy from Joseph about those who will be in Zion, he states: 

The Lord hath brought again Zion. The Lord hath redeemed his people Israel according to the election of grace, which was brought to pass by the faith and covenant of their Fathers. The Lord hath redeemed his people, and Satan is bound, and time is no longer. The Lord hath gathered all things in one. The Lord hath brought down Zion from above, the Lord hath brought up Zion from beneath. The Earth hath travailed and brought forth her strength, and truth is established in her bowels, and…Heavens have smiled upon her, and she is clothed with the glory of her God, for he standeth in the midst of his people. Glory, and Honor, and Power, and Might be ascribed to our God, for he is full of Mercy, Justice, Grace, and Truth, and Peace, for ever and ever. Amen. (T&C 82:28, emphasis added)

These are just examples. The scriptures foretelling a return of God’s people are in all passages of prophecy describing the latter-day Zion. You cannot keep the covenant. I cannot keep the covenant. Only we can keep the covenant. The covenant was apparently designed by God to require all to labor together. This is a long way off, but God is working to bring His people along so they may be able to keep the covenant together. 

Creating unified people who qualify to worship God in truth (that is, knowing accurately the past, present, and future) is an extraordinary challenge. Only God can do it, and He must have willing people. It will require a new civilization. Prophecy likens that civilization to a stone carved out of a mountain that will roll out to destroy all the corruptions of Babylon, Medes and Persians, Greeks, Romans, and modern societies. 

Anciently, civilizations were founded around the temple. Hugh Nibley studied ancient temples because of the LDS temples. He saw the effects temples had in the ancient world. In Temple & Cosmos, he explained their role. All of what I’m about to read comes from Temple & Cosmos: 

It is the hierocentric point around which all things are organized. It is the omphalos (“navel”) around which the earth was organized. The temple is a scale model of the universe, boxed to the compass, a very important feature of every town in our contemporary civilization, as in the ancient world. (Years ago, Sir James George Frazer noticed a definite pattern among ancient religious cult practices: they all followed the same patterns throughout the whole world. He explained that as representing certain stages of evolution in which the mind naturally expressed itself in those forms. But since then the gaps between these various cultures have been filled in, to show that civilization was far more connected.) Civilization is hierocentric, centered around the holy point of the temple. The temple was certainly the center of things in [Babylon], in Egypt, in Greece—wherever you go….

It is the scale model of the universe, for teaching purposes and for the purpose of taking our bearings on the universe and in the eternities, both in time and in space… 

The temple is the great teaching institution of the human race; universities are much older than we might…expect. A university began as a Greek Mouseion, a temple of the Muses, who represented all departments of knowledge. The Egyptian called it the “house of Life.” It was an observatory, a great megalithic complex of standing stones (later columns and pylons), with amazingly sophisticated devices for observing and recording the motions of the heavens…  

The creation hymn was part of the great dramatic presentation that took place yearly at the temple; it dealt with the fall and redemption of man… 

In short, there is no part of our civilization which doesn’t have its rise in the temple. Thanks to the power of the written word, records were kept. And in the all-embracing relationship to the divine book, everything is relevant; nothing is really dead or forgotten. In the time of gathering of all things together, we gather everything good that ever was—not just people—that nothing be lost but everything be restored in this last dispensation. In an all-embracing relationship nothing is ever really dead or forgotten. Every detail belongs in the picture. …Where the temple that gave us birth is missing, civilization itself becomes a hollow shell. 

The temple must be there. It is not just a myth, it is the core of all…our civilization. (Temple and Cosmos, Hugh Nibley, 1992)

I read that from Temple and Cosmos because I agree with those words.

The Lord is equal to the challenge. He will establish a new civilization. It will be founded on the fullness of His gospel. Lost truths will be restored; the path of righteousness will be returned. 

Society is broken. Everywhere we see corrupt cultures based on corrupt laws, corrupt religions, corrupt values, and ultimately, corrupt thought. Beginning again requires re- civilizing people. To be free from corruption requires a change in thinking. If the Lord is to accomplish this, there will need to be a new temple at the center of that new civilization. 

The Lord talked with Enoch regarding His return and started with a description of His temple: For there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem (Genesis 4:22 RE, emphasis added). It can only become Zion and a New Jerusalem if the Lord’s tabernacle is there. His temple will be where He teaches all that must be understood to please God. Then, when people rise up to become what the Lord expects, His risen Tabernacle of glory, and the Lord Himself, will come to dwell there. 

There is a great deal of work to be done to establish a foundation. And an even greater work thereafter. When God has His people, they are always commanded to build a temple. Joseph Smith explained: 

What was the object of gathering the…people of God in any age of the world? …The main object was to build unto the Lord a house whereby He could reveal unto His people the ordinances of His house and the glories of His kingdom, and teach the people the way of salvation; for there are certain ordinances and principles that, when they are taught and practiced, must be done in a place or house built for that purpose. (Joseph Smith Papers, History, 1838–1856, Vol. D-1, p. 1572)

Joseph Smith taught the Relief Society that “the church is not now organized into its proper order, and cannot be until the temple is completed” (Joseph Smith Papers, Relief Society Minute Book, p. 36). Some believe that meant temple rites would fit inside the existing church organization. However, it is possible, if the temple had been completed, the people might have been organized in a new and different order, resembling the order in the age of the patriarchs. Joseph never had the opportunity to participate in that advancement. Before the temple was finished, Joseph was dead; and those who were leading had no intention or ability to reorganize the church into the “proper order.” 

The need for covenant people to cooperate in building a temple has been the same in any age. Temple builders founded the earliest civilizations. They did this to imitate the antediluvians. The Book of Abraham account suggests there was something in Egypt below the floodwaters worth waiting for the waters to recede. Some observers claim there is physical evidence that the earliest temple-complex structures in Egypt were built prior to the flood. They use archeological evidence at the Giza site to conclude the place was once under water, consistent with the description in the Book of Abraham. 

When the first temples were built, or inherited by ancient civilizations, the center of life, government, education, culture, and art was at the temple. This was handed down from the first generations. The temple was founded before and will be needed to be the foundation again. When there has been an apostasy, temple building has been part of restoring. A new civilization will only become possible through teachings learned in the future House of God. The necessary ordinances can only be restored in that setting. There you will receive an uncorrupted restoration of the original faith taught to Adam and the patriarchs.

Joseph Smith was told that God intended to restore what was lost (meaning the fullness of the priesthood), but it was only to be accomplished through a temple. These were the Lord’s words to Joseph: 

For, for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise that those ordinances might be revealed which had been hid from before [the foundation of] the world… Therefore, verily I say unto you that your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places, wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and judgments for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory and honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name. (T&C 141:12)

Joseph was martyred before there was a place where God could come to restore what had been lost. Joseph began to roll out a portion of temple ceremonial worship, but it was never completed. Uninspired men who have changed, deleted, and added to what remained from Joseph have corrupted those incomplete ceremonies. 

The gospel is for redemption. Redemption from the fall returns man to God’s presence. Ascending the heavenly mount is always taught in a properly-organized-temple’s ceremonies. Ascending to heaven, redemption, and becoming part of the Family of God are all part of the ancient temple rites and must also be part of future temple rites. 

The concept of “adoption” is widely recognized as part of Christianity. The term is employed loosely to mean that a person believes in Christ and recognizes Him as their Savior. The language of Paul is often cited and understood to claim believers are adopted into God’s family. 

For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs: heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans 1:34 RE)

Language in the Book of Mormon has also been used to support a loose understanding of the term “adoption.” Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women—all nations, kindreds, tongues and people—must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters (Mosiah 11:28 RE).

The loose understanding of “adoption” was considerably tightened around October 1843 when Joseph Smith expanded his use of sealing authority. It grew from establishing marriages to include, also, man-to-man sealing through adoption. The last eight months of his life, Joseph sealed or “adopted” other men to himself. There was no settled, formal ordinance that has been preserved, and the proof of Joseph’s practice is mostly post-mortem, as those who were exposed to the practice only vaguely recalled what he had done. 

Nearly a decade after Joseph died, when temple ceremonial work resumed in the Endowment House in Salt Lake, Brigham Young declared that adoption was the crowning ordinance. It was more important than the other temple rites, including washing, anointing, endowment, and marriage sealing: 

This Chain must not [be] broken for mankind Cannot be saved any other way. This Priesthood must be linked together so that all the Children may be linked to Father Adam. …we will seal men to men by the keys of the Holy Priesthood. This is the highest ordinance. It is the last ordinance of the kingdom of God on the earth and above all the endowments that can be given [to] you. It is a final sealing an Eternal Principle and when once made cannot be broken by the Devil. (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 5, 13 January 1856, Vol. 2, p. 1033-1034)

In that talk, Brigham Young taught that the “turning of hearts to the fathers” foretold by Malachi was only to be fulfilled through adoption. He also taught the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham regarding “his seed” would only be fulfilled through the temple ordinance of adoption. LDS Church leaders unsuccessfully tried to sort out how to practice adoption.

In a meeting of the reorganized School of Prophets in Salt Lake City on January 20, 1868, attended by the church presidency Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Daniel Wells, along with Elders John Taylor, Orson Hyde, George A. Smith, Erastus Snow, George Q. Cannon, Phineas Young, and Joseph Young, the topic of adoption was discussed. President Wells conjectured: “On Adoption he supposed it had reference to the linking together of the Priesthood…that it might reach back to the link that had long since been broken, that it might present one unbroken chain” (Salt Lake School of the Prophets: 1867-1883, pp. 11-12; entry of 20 January 1868). In response Orson Hyde said: “The Doctrine of Adoption he knew but little about and should decline touching it until the line is chalked out” (ibid, p. 12). Scholars struggle to make sense of what Joseph was doing. And the attempts to reconstruct Joseph’s later adoption innovation are insufficient to give any firm understanding of what took place, how, or why. 

Thirty years before he would become church president, Wilford Woodruff concluded that adoptions would be something a resurrected Joseph Smith would return to sort out during the millennium: “Man also will have to be sealed to man until the chain is united from Father Adam down to the last Saint. This will be the work of the Millenium and Joseph Smith will be the man to attend…it or dictate it” (Salt Lake School of the Prophets: 1867-1883, p. 42; December 11, 1869).

A half-century after Joseph’s death, the apostles struggled to know how it ought to work or who should be sealed to whom—how and what effect it would have in the afterlife. In a meeting on June 1, 1893, attended by Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Francis M. Lyman, John Taylor, Marriner Merrill, Abraham Cannon, George F. Gibbs, John D. McAllister, Nephi Cannon [Clayton] and James Jack, they “had some talk about the ordinance of adoption in the temple. Joseph F. Smith said Pres. [Brigham] Young had told him to follow in ordinance work for the dead the rules which [would] ordinarily govern similar work for the living” (Candid Insights of a Mormon Apostle: The Diaries of Abraham H. Cannon, 1889-1895, p. 388). The practice was to seal faithful children to parents, and faithful parents to Joseph Smith.Woodruff explained: “I was sealed to my father, and then had him sealed to the Prophet Joseph” (ibid, p.488).

The concept of adoption affected how people understood the afterlife. This led some people to view adoption as a chance to pursue their self-interests. People began to aspire to improve their post-mortality by recruiting and acquiring descendants using adoption. The Logan Temple president was told to end his practice of recruiting adoptees. Eventually president Wilford W. Woodruff announced a final adoption practice on April 8, 1894: “Pres. Woodruff announced the doctrine of the sealing of children to parents as far back as…possible to trace the genealogy, and then seal the last member to the Prophet Joseph [Smith]” (ibid, p. 496).

Family relationships were reckoned by sealing, not biology. For example, Heber J. Grant was the biological son of Jedediah Grant, but because his mother was sealed to Joseph Smith, he was regarded as Joseph Smith’s son.

What Joseph Smith understood about adoption did not get passed to subsequent church leaders clearly enough to preserve the practice intact. In September 1887, two months after John Taylor died, his son-in-law, John Whitaker, wrote in his diary: 

I went back to the office where I found [Apostle] Brother Lorenzo Snow and [First Council of the Seventy member] Jacob Gates. They conversed a long time. He finally entered into a deep subject on “The Law of Adoption.” Brother Gates said he didn’t believe in it as did also Brother Snow. He [?] referenced back to the time that Brigham Young was in Kirtland[;] he had a person asked him about it and he said “I know nothing about it.” President Taylor on one different occasion had a letter written to him for the following reason: it was [two undecipherable words followed by] of … J[oseph] Smith or rather Sister Eliza R. Snow Smith (Brother Gates didn’t know which)…about 70 persons were adopted into President J[oseph] Smith’s [family;] Sister Snow Smith said “she didn’t understand the law” but had no objections to them being sealed to her husband. And this led Brother Gates to write to President Taylor asking him if he knew anything about it. He never answered the letter. But on another occasion Brother Gates saw him and asked him plainly. President Taylor said he knew nothing about it. And also just lately when asked by Brother Snow, President…Woodruff knew nothing about it. [“]It hadn’t been revealed to him.” I know this at this time to say [or show] a prevailing feeling among the Twelve that they don’t understand it. George…Cannon also said he didn’t understand it. (“Adoptive Sealing Ritual in Mormonism,” Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 37, No. 3, Summer 2011, p. 3; pp. 101-102)

As John Taylor’s health was declining in the last month of his life, Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal on June 8, 1887: “I wrote 4 Letters to Jaques Emma Clara & Roskelly. I did not rest well. To much deep thinking to Sleep” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journals, Vol. 8: 1 January 1881 to 31 December 1888, p. 441). Roskelly was employed as the recorder in the Logan Utah temple. That letter included the following mention of adoption: 

I have adopted this rule in Sealing and Adoptions: to take such as the Lord has given me, and leave the result[s] in His hands….Paul talked a good deal about Adoptions, but we did not understand much about it, until the Lord revealed it to Joseph Smith, and we may not, perhaps, understand it now as fully as we should. Still the Sealings and Adoptions are true principles, or our Prophets have been badly deceived. (“Adoptive Sealing Ritual in Mormonism,” Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 37, No. 3, Summer 2011, p. 3; p. 103)

Adoption became progressively more controversial as time passed. Since the idea was not well understood by church leaders, they could provide no answers to questions on the subject. While bishop, Edward Bunker denounced the idea altogether, resulting in an 1892 church court that the church president and one of his counselors attended. The former bishop was charged with teaching false doctrine, and in his defense, he wrote a letter to the high council stating: 

The adoption of one man to another out of the lineage, I do not understand and for that reason I would not enter into it. And adopting the dead to the living is as adopting the father to the son. I don’t believe there is a man on earth that thoroughly understands the principle. If there is, I have never heard it taught as I could understand it. I believe it is permmited [sic] more to satisfy the minds of the people for the present until the Lord reveals more fully the principle. (Edward Bunker, Letter to the Bunkerville High Council, April 25, 1891, Edward Bunker Autobiography (1894) 37, microfilm of holograph, MS 1581, LDS Church History Library)

In his summary of the court proceeding, Wilford Woodruff relegated the subject of adoption to one of the “mysteries” which church members ought to avoid discussing because they cause difficulties. He wrote: “June 11, 1892 We Met in the Tabernacle at 10 oclock on the trial of Bishop Bunker on Doctrin [sic]. We talked to them Plainly of the impropriety of indulging in Misteries [sic] to Create difficulties among the Saints. They professed to be Satisfied” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, supra, 9:203).

Although John Taylor perpetuated the practice, over time it diminished and then disappeared beginning with Wilford Woodruff’s presidency. Woodruff changed the policy in April 1894 to seal within biological families as far back as were known and then to seal and adopt the last parents to Joseph Smith. This made adoption less of an issue and the genealogical search for ancestors of greater concern. But by 1922 the de-emphasis on adoption allowed it to be ignored altogether. The practice Woodruff announced in 1894 was deleted in the published account by the Utah Genealogical Society and from Clark’s Messages of The First Presidency. Today adoption has vanished from the LDS church and was never practiced by the RLDS church or other branches of the Restoration. 

Joseph Smith did not leave the Christian practice of “adoption” a loose idea, with believers becoming sons of God by conversion, belief, or baptism. He tied it to both authority to seal and an authoritative ordinance. Both of those were lost when Joseph and Hyrum were killed. 

If adoption is (as Brigham Young thought in 1856) the highest ordinance above all the endowments that can be given, if it is needed for the gospel (as taught to Abraham) to be restored, then the loss of adoption rites is indeed a sign of apostasy. Brigham Young taught adoption would bind a person beyond the devil’s power to break. But adoption was abandoned before the end of the 1800s. Adoption will need to be restored as a rite (with an accompanying authoritative ordinance and sealing) in order for the things Joseph Smith alone understood and taught to be renewed. 

The LDS church has attempted to preserve other ordinances Joseph Smith began. Unfortunately, those ordinances have also been poorly preserved, changed, and compromised.

Joseph did not live to see the complete Nauvoo temple, and he never finished the temple ceremonies. Thirty-three years after Joseph died, Brigham Young explained that he was the one who finished the ceremony, using what he could recall from Joseph’s initiation: 

[W]hen we got our washings and anointings under the hands of the Prophet Joseph at Nauvoo, we had only one room to work in with the exception of a little side room, or office, where we were washed and anointed, had our garments placed [on] us, and received our new name. And after he had performed these ceremonies, he gave the key words, signs, tokens and penalties. Then, after we went into the large room over the store in Nauvoo, Joseph divided up the room the best that he could, hung up the veil, marked it. Gave us our instructions as we passed along from one department to another, giving us signs, tokens, penalties, with…key words pertaining to those signs. 

After we had got through Bro. Joseph turned to me and said, “Bro. Brigham this is not arranged right but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.” I did so, and each time I got something more, so that when we went through the temple at Nauvoo I understood and knew how to place them there. We had our ceremonies pretty correct. (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, supra, 5:3104)

“Pretty correct.” “Approximately good.”

About a year and a half after the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum, Brigham began to introduce the endowment to the general church membership. This was done in the attic of the unfinished Nauvoo Temple using canvas partitions. As these endowments proceeded, Brigham continued to make additions, changes, and alterations to the ceremony Joseph had introduced. By the time of the exodus from Nauvoo in February of 1846, over 5,000 members had been endowed. Endowment ordinances resumed in 1852 in the Council House in Utah and then in the Endowment House, which was completed in 1855. 

When there was a large number of ordinances being performed, Brigham Young admitted the ceremony was the best he could do but would be fixed when Christ returned and Joseph was resurrected. He explained: 

After Joseph comes to us in his resurrected body He will more fully instruct us concerning the Baptism for the dead and the sealing ordinances. He will say be baptized for this man and that man [for] that man [and] be sealed to that man and such a man to such a man, and connect the Priesthood together. I tell you their [sic] will not be much of this done until Joseph comes. He is our spiritual Father. Our hearts are already turned to him and his to us. (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, supra, 13 January 1856, 2:1034)

From May 1842 until 1877, the temple rites were transmitted orally. Wilford Woodruff recorded on January 14, 1877: “Spent the Evening with Presidet [sic] Young. He requested Brigham jr & W Woodruff to write out the Ceremony of the Endowments from Beginning to End” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journals, supra, 7:322). Putting the ceremony down in writing in 1877 was necessary to standardize the variations between sessions. Those variations concerned Brigham Young. Once there was a manuscript, Brigham Young introduced a 30-minute lecture that was delivered before the veil as the endowment concluded. Because he added his Adam-God teaching as part of this lecture, it was subsequently removed. Also, because some who participated in killing Joseph and Hyrum Smith were still alive, he added an oath of vengeance. This was also subsequently removed when it became public knowledge during the Reed Smoot Senate Confirmation Hearings before the US Senate. 

Because Brigham Young was only able to get “our ceremonies pretty correct” (as he described it), it is clear he did not preserve exactly what Joseph Smith introduced. He said that he expected the rites to be fixed by a resurrected Joseph Smith for the millennium. 

Brigham Young’s successor, John Taylor, also saw the temple rites in a somewhat disorganized and incomplete state. Forty years after Joseph’s death he explained to the School of the Prophets:

The reason why things are in the shape [that] they are is because Joseph felt called upon to confer all [the] ordinances connected with the Priesthood. He felt in a hurry on account of certain premonition that he had concerning his death, and was very desirous to empart the endowments and all the ordinances thereof to the Priesthood during his life time…. (Salt Lake School of the Prophets: 1867-1883, supra, p. 527; entry of 12 October 1883)

His remarks concluded with: “Had Joseph Smith lived he would have had much more to say on many of those points which he was prevented from doing by his death”(ibid). Though survivors made a sincere effort to copy what Joseph had begun, they admitted it was not altogether correct and would need further help from a resurrected Joseph Smith before it could be recovered. Had Joseph Smith survived, he may have been able to provide a ceremonial tour back through the seven heavens to the throne of God.

Succeeding generations of LDS leaders who were not taught by Joseph Smith have likewise taken advantage of the idea that the ceremonies were not perfectly preserved and could be “corrected” from time to time. The result has been numerous alterations of the temple endowment, washings, anointings, and sealings—the most recent of which were adopted four months ago.

Although the ceremony was first put into writing in 1877, portions of it were not written down because it was initially considered taboo to include the descriptions of specific signs and penalties. Those remained unwritten through at least 1923. Changes in the written form of the ceremony began during the Reed Smoot Confirmation Hearings, when the oath of vengeance was removed. Changes have continued to be made by the LDS church,  the latest implemented in January 2019.

Christ taught parables that included invited guests being barred from attending the wedding feast. In one, the guests are called “virgins” to suggest that they possess moral purity and would be welcomed to the event. In another, there are strangers on the highway invited because others refused to come. Both parables, however, have some who are ultimately excluded from the wedding, a symbol of Christ’s return. These parables raise an important issue about the Lord’s return. There is a reason why five of the ten virgins could not enter into the wedding celebration. Likewise, those invited to attend the wedding feast that arrive without a wedding garment will be excluded. In both cases, those excluded were not welcome as they were unprepared. 

There have been only two societies in recorded history that became Zion. Because of the age of the world at the time, both were taken up into heaven. We have very little to help us understand why these two succeeded. Apart from describing them as of “one heart, one mind, and no poor among them,” we know little else. But perhaps that is one of the most important things we can know about them. Maybe the point is that nothing and no-one stood out as remarkable or different within the community. There were no heroes and no villains; no rich and no poor; no Shakespearian plot lines of betrayal, intrigue, ambition, conflict, and envy. There was no adultery, theft, robbery, murder, immorality, and drunkenness—in other words, nothing to entertain us. Because all our stories, movies, music, novels, television plots, and social media are based upon and captivated by everything that is missing from these societies. 

The centuries-long period of peace described in the Book of Mormon occupies only a few short pages in 4 Nephi. Their society was marked by the presence of peace, the absence of conflict, and abiding stability. This is what they attained: There were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore, there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free and partakers of the Heavenly gift (4 Nephi 1:1 RE). Because there was no future ministry for them to perform, their Zion society was not taken up to heaven. Because the world was not yet ready for the Lord to return in judgment, neither Enoch nor Melchizedek returned with their people to fall on their necks and kiss them. 

These people were most remarkable for what they lacked. How they grew to lack these divisions, contentions, and disputes is described in very few, simple words: They did walk after the commandments which they had received from their Lord and their God, continuing in fasting and prayer, and in meeting together oft, both to pray and to hear the word of the Lord. And it came to pass…there was no contention among all the people in all the land (4 Nephi 1:2 RE).

What were the names of their leaders? We don’t know because, apparently, there were none. Who were their great teachers? Again, we don’t know because they were not identified. Who governed? Apparently no one. They had things in common, obeyed God’s commandments, and spent time praying and hearing the word of the Lord. They were so very unlike us. 

To make the point clear for us, the record of these people explains: There was no contention in the land because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people; and there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness (4 Nephi 1:3 RE). All the negatives were missing because the love of God dwelt in their hearts. 

Something else describes them: And surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God (ibid). Consider those words carefully. You cannot be happier than by allowing the love of God to dwell in you. The happiest people who have ever lived did so by the profound peace they displayed, equality they shared, fairness they showed one another, and love of God in their hearts. 

This is a description of our social opposites. Reviewing the Answer to the Prayer for Covenant, the Covenant, and the recent parable of the Master’s House shows that the Lord is pleading for us to become this. It’s not easy; it will require civilizing the uncivilized. However, it is necessary to become the wise virgins and the invited guests wearing the wedding garment. 

Five of the virtuous virgins who were expecting the wedding party to arrive were, nevertheless, excluded. They were virgins like the others; but the others were allowed to enter, and they were not. They did not lack virginity. They did not lack notice. They were not surprised by an unexpected wedding party arriving. But they lacked “oil,” which is a symbol of the Holy Ghost. They failed to acquire the necessary spirit with which to avoid conflict, envy, strife, tumult, and contention. To grow into the kind of people God will want us to welcome into His dwelling requires practice, experience, and effort. People have not done it. Devout religious people are not prepared to live in peace, with all things in common, with no poor among them. God is trying to create a civilization that does not yet exist. 

It is a privilege for God to give guidance to help prepare His people. There has always been a promise from the Lord that those who inherit Zion will be given commandments from Him to follow. He declared: 

Yea, blessed are they whose feet stand upon the land of Zion, who have obeyed my gospel, for they shall receive for their reward the good things of the earth, and it shall bring forth [it’s] strength. And they…shall [also] be crowned with blessings from above, yea…with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time, [that] they…are faithful and diligent[ly] before me. (T&C 46:1)

Those who mock or criticize efforts to complete the Restoration are defining themselves as unworthy by their own words. No matter how good they may otherwise be, when they embrace conflict, envy, strife, tumult, and contention, they cannot be invited to the wedding of the Lamb. 

We need more commandments from God to prepare for what is coming. The example in 4 Nephi commends those people who walk after the commandments received from our Lord and God. There should be fasting and prayer. People should meet together, pray, and review the words of the Lord. Every step taken will make us more like those virgins who have oil in their lamps and less like the foolish virgins who took no effort to make the required preparation. 

It’s not enough to avoid outright evil. We have to be good. Being “good” means to be separate from the world, united in charity towards each other, and to have united hearts. If we are ready when the wedding party arrives, we must follow the Lord’s commandments to us. They are for our good. He wants us to awaken and arise from an awful slumber.

The third such society will not be taken into heaven. Instead, it will welcome the return of the first two to the earth. Why would ancient, righteous societies caught up to heaven want to leave there to come and meet with a city of people on earth? Why would they fall on their necks and kiss that gathered body of believers? And above all else, why would Christ want to occupy a tabernacle and dwell with such a community? Obviously, because there will be people living on earth whose civilization is like the society in heaven. 

The Ten Commandments outline basic social norms needed for peace and stability. Christ’s Sermon on the Mount was His exposition on the Ten Commandments. He expounded on the need to align the intent of the heart with God’s standard to love your fellow man, do good to those who abuse you, and hold no anger. He took us deeper. Where the Ten Commandments allowed reluctant, resentful, and hard-hearted conformity, the Sermon on the Mount requires a willing readiness to obey. Christ wants us to act with alacrity to follow Him. He taught us to treat others as you would want to be treated.

The answer to these questions is easy to conceptualize and easy to verbalize. But living the answer is beyond mankind’s ability to endure. We do not want to lay down our pride, ambition, jealousy, envy, strife, and lusts to become that community. 

Enoch prophesied about the last-days Zion. He saw the earth was pained by the wickedness upon her. He wrote this account: 

Enoch looked upon the earth and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying, Woe, woe is me, the mother of men. I am pained; I am weary because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest and be cleansed from the filthiness which has gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face? And when Enoch heard the earth mourn, he wept, and cried unto the Lord, saying, O Lord will you not have compassion upon the earth? (Genesis 4:20 RE)

The answer describes things that have not happened—but may happen in our day, if we choose to follow the Lord. The opportunity has been offered. The Lord’s answer to Enoch was in the form of a covenant. That covenant will be vindicated, but only by those who will rise up to obey Him. God’s words will not fail, and this will happen: 

And the Lord said unto Enoch, As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfill the oath which I have made unto you concerning the children of Noah. And the day shall come that the earth shall rest. But before that day, the heavens shall be darkened, and a veil of darkness shall cover the earth; and the heavens shall shake, and also the earth. And great tribulations shall be among the children of men, but my people will I preserve. And righteousness will I send down out of Heaven…[I will] gather out [mine] own elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I [have] prepare[d], a holy city, that my people may gird up their loins and be looking forth for [a] time of my coming. For there shall be my tabernacle…it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem. And the Lord said unto Enoch, Then shall you and…your city meet them there, and we will receive them into our bosom. And they shall see us, and we will fall [on] their necks, and they shall fall [on] our necks, and we will kiss each other, and there shall be my abode. (Genesis 4:22 RE, emphasis added)

The last-days Zion and her people were planned, foretold, and chosen thousands of years ago to live on earth when righteousness would come down out of heaven. They will be here when truth is sent forth out of the earth to bear testimony of Christ. And, like a flood, righteousness and truth will sweep the earth. Any who have witnessed a flood know floodwaters carry a great deal of debris, dirt, and detritus. Today there is a flood of information, recordings, and teachings sweeping the earth. The Internet has made it possible for an individual sitting at a keyboard to speak to the entire world. Righteousness is sweeping the earth, while floodwaters are disturbing the whole world. 

In Joseph Smith’s day it was required for an army of messengers to be sent. There was a practical limit on how many people Joseph could personally teach. Outside the direct sound of his voice only printed words could carry the message. He and those who followed him invested in a press to publish newspapers and books to carry the truth. But that still was not enough— It required an organized body of missionaries to take the publications, repeat the message, and convey the new truths came through revelation to Joseph Smith. Even with the enormous investment of time and resources made while Joseph was alive, there were places and people who never heard a thing about the Restoration while Joseph lived. 

Today we must still warn others. However, we have much more greater means available to us. We can use a keyboard to reach the whole world. There are people in Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia, and South America, and across North America who participate in our conferences. I want to send greetings to our brothers and sisters in Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere who cannot travel to be with us. The flood of overflowing the world today includes the promised righteousness and truth, but it requires the Lord’s elect to distinguish between the filth, folly, and foolishness to find freedom from sin through Christ, who is the foundation of righteousness and truth. 

Prophets have described how this will happen. Isaiah described a coming age of peace when righteousness and truth have their opportunity to bear fruit. He spoke of Christ and of the power in Christ’s teachings to transform the world itself. That same world that Enoch heard lamenting, pained by the violence on her face, will find rest. Isaiah foretells what will happen just prior to the Lord’s return: 

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And 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—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. And he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling together, and [the] little child shall lead them. 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 [an] 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. 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. (Isaiah 5:4 RE)

How will Christ smite the earth with the rod of His mouth? By teaching peace to people who are willing to obey and live at peace. What will it take to see the wolf dwell with the lamb? Why does the wolf kill the lamb today? The wolf kills because it’s hungry. If the same shepherd who feeds the lamb also fed the wolf, then the wolf would not need to kill. 

Wolves can be domesticated. I once owned a mixed Wolf-Malamute we named Cicely, after the fictitious town in Alaska that was the setting for the TV show Northern Exposure. Cicely looked entirely like a wolf, and her behavior was lupine. She was very gentle with her clan—our immediate family and friends. My children were still young then, and our neighborhood had other young children who came over. Cicely recognized them and accepted them as “belonging.” However, an adult man trying to read an electrical meter once entered our backyard, and Cicely regarded this as a threat to her clan. The man scarcely escaped through the gate. Wolves are intelligent animals and, inside their clans, are capable of treating young children with gentle, protective care. They are also capable defenders against threats. 

Under the peaceful guidance of a kindly shepherd, the wolf and the lamb could learn to lie down together. Lions have been domesticated, as have bears. When Adam was given dominion over the earth, all the animals that came to him for naming dwelt together peacefully. Why do we assume that nature is violent? Why regard it as “red of tooth and claw?”

The scriptures speak of an idyllic time, in the beginning, when man and nature were entirely at peace with one another. The scriptures also foretell of a coming idyllic age when that peace is restored again. Why do we accept these bookends as true without ever considering the role of man in destroying the original peace? Why do we assume we have no obligation imposed upon us to reform creation back to the original? The prophecy of Isaiah is not magic imposed by God on a reluctant creation. It will require shepherds to care for creation. 

Who are “they” in this passage? — They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain. 

And why is the passage, They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, followed by the statement: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea? These are connected thoughts. It should be obvious to you that this can only be fulfilled by a different civilization than one in which we live. Ours can never produce such results. 

Isaiah also describes what it will be like after the Lord’s return. After He comes to dwell with those prepared to welcome His return, events will unfold in this way: 

For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered nor come into mind. But be glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem and joy in my people, and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. In those days, there shall be no more from there an infant of days, nor an old man that has not filled his day; for the child shall not die, but shall live to be a hundred years old. But the sinner living to be a hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses and inhabit them, and they shall plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build and another inhabit, they shall not plant and another eat; for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and [mine] elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass that before they call, I will answer, and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, says the Lord. (Isaiah 24:9 RE)

The same words are used to describe the prepared people before the return of the Lord and those with whom He will dwell after His return. Neither of these shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, says the Lord. What will they be like who do not hurt nor destroy? Can you imagine such a society? Isaiah’s description reflects this incident involving Joseph Smith and Zion’s Camp:

In pitching my tent we found three massasaugas or prairie rattlesnakes, which the brethren were about to kill, but I said, “Let them alone—don’t hurt them! How will the serpent ever lose his venom, while the servants of God possess the same disposition, and continue to make war upon it? Men must become harmless, before the brute creation; and when men lose their vicious disposition and cease to destroy the animal race, the lion and the lamb can dwell together, and the sucking child can play with the serpent in safety.” The brethren took the serpents carefully on sticks and carried them across the creek. I exhorted the brethren not to kill a serpent, [a] bird, or an animal of any kind during our journey unless it became necessary in order to preserve ourselves from hunger. (Documentary History of the Church 2:71–72)

Last year while my wife and I were hiking the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in Draper, Utah, she was in the lead. We were going at a rapid pace. (She always does that—that’s why she’s in the lead, because she wants to set the pace). We were going at a rapid pace, and she passed a rattlesnake so quickly that when it began to rattle its warning, she’d already passed. But I heard it before I reached it, lying only inches off the trail when I stopped to look. (I grew up in Idaho, and rattlesnakes are very common there.) After watching it for a few moments, I started to talk to it in a calm voice and made no menacing movement towards it. As I took the time to talk calmly, without advancing toward it, its nervous rattle began to slow and eventually stopped. Then it uncoiled—which only happens when the snake is not defensive. I suppose the calm of my voice and my non-threatening demeanor relieved the little animal’s fear. It began to slowly move away, and I encouraged it to stay off the trail because another passing hiker or bicyclist would probably try to kill it. 

I thought of Joseph Smith’s words when I encountered that snake: “How will the serpent ever lose his venom? …Men must become harmless….Men [must] lose their vicious disposition[s] and cease to destroy.” 

I know however well I may treat an animal, another will soon come by and mistreat the same animal. Nature will refuse to be at peace with mankind while mankind continues to slay, abuse, and misuse the animal kingdom. 

But the prophecy is about God’s “holy mountain.” It raises the question, if there were a place occupied by people who do not hurt or destroy in that holy mountain, could nature reach peace with the people in that place? 

Cicely acted to protect the children in my yard from what she regarded as an intruding threat. It was her nature to do so. She wanted her clan to be safe. Toward her clan, she showed affection, played, and gave us all companionship. But to the threat, she was menacing. 

In the first Zion, the people were at peace with nature. But that place was apparently protected by nature. What scripture describes is not magic or “fairy dust,” but a perfectly natural process. This creation has been ordained by God and framed with intelligence to follow certain principles established before the foundation of the world. Any people in any age who follow the same pattern will receive the same result. What is described in this passage about Enoch and his city? 

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 spoke 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…lions were 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. (Genesis 4:13 RE)

Would a lion that had been befriended by Enoch and his people be inclined, by its nature, to protect the people it viewed as part of its clan? Would a bear protect its shepherd and guardian? Would a wolf? Is it possible for a civilization to exist that does not hurt nor destroy in all their land? If they would not hurt nor destroy in all their land, would it be a holy place? 

We live in a very different civilization from the one described in prophecy. But the one described prophetically will not just one day appear. It will require effort, learning, obedience, and sacrifice to change. 

The earth rejoiced at Enoch’s people. The earth protected those people. Earthquakes, landslides, and floods stopped the wicked—and the animal kingdom, including predators like the lion, rose up to protect the City of Enoch. For those who are prepared to receive the people of Enoch and Melchizedek, and those who will welcome the Lord to dwell among them, that can and will happen. 

Everybody will have to make changes. The most important changes have been provided in a blueprint revealed in the Answer to Prayer for Covenant, including the terms of the Covenant. We are expected to remember and obey these words:

My will is to have you love one another.  As people, you lack the ability to respectfully disagree among one another….

Wisdom counsels mankind to align their words with their hearts, but mankind refuses to take counsel from Wisdom….

There have been sharp disputes between you that should have been avoided. I speak these words to reprove you that you may learn, not to upbraid you so that you mourn. I want my people to have understanding….

Satan is a title and means accuser, opponent and adversary; hence once he fell, Lucifer became, or in other words was called, Satan, because he accuses others and opposes the Father. I rebuked Peter and called him Satan because he was wrong in opposing the Father’s will for me, and Peter understood and repented. 

In the work you have performed there are those who have been Satan, accusing one another, wounding hearts and causing jarring, contention, and strife by their accusations. Rather than loving one another, even among you who desire a good thing, some have dealt unkindly as if they were…opponents, accusers and adversaries. In this they were wrong… 

For you are like a man who seeks for good fruit from a neglected vineyard— unwatered, undunged, unpruned and unattended. How shall it produce good fruit if you fail to tend it? What reward does the unfaithful husbandman obtain from his neglected vineyard? How can saying you are a faithful husbandman ever produce good fruit in the vineyard without doing the work of the husbandman? For you seek my words to recover them even as you forsake to do them. You have heretofore produced wild fruit, bitter and ill-formed, because you neglect to do my words…

You have not yet become what you must be to live together in peace. If you will hearken to my words, I will make you my people and my words will give you peace. Even a single soul who stirs up the hearts of others to anger can destroy the peace of all my people. Each of you must equally walk truly in my path, not only to profess, but to do as you profess. 

The Book of Mormon was given as my covenant for this day and contains my gospel, which came forth to allow people to understand my work and [to] obtain my salvation. Yet many of you are like those who reject the Book of Mormon, because you say, but you do not do. As a people you honor with your lips, but your hearts are corrupt, filled with envy and malice, returning evil for good, sparing none— even those with pure hearts among you— from your unjustified accusations and unkind backbiting. You have not obtained the fullness of my salvation because you do not draw near to me… 

Hear therefore my words: Repent and bring forth fruit showing repentance, and I will establish my covenant with you and claim you as mine….

It is not enough to receive my covenant, but you must also abide it. And all who abide it, whether on this land or any other land, will be mine, and I will watch over them and protect them in the day of harvest, and gather them in as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. I will number you among the remnant of Jacob, no longer outcasts, and you will inherit the promises of Israel. You shall be my people and I will be your God, and the sword will not devour you. And unto those who will receive will more be given, until they know the mysteries of God in full… 

You pray each time you partake of the sacrament to always have my Spirit to be with you. And what is my Spirit? It is to love one another as I have loved you. Do my works and you will know my doctrine; for you will uncover hidden mysteries by obedience to these things that can be uncovered in no other way. This is the way I will restore knowledge to my people. If you return good for evil, you will cleanse yourself and know the joy of your Master. You call me Lord, and do well to regard me so, but to know your Lord is to love one another. Flee from the cares and longings that belong to Babylon, obtain a new heart, for you have all been wounded. In me you will find peace, and through me will come Zion, a place of peace and safety….

Be of one heart, …regard one another with charity. Measure your words before giving voice to them…

There remains [a] great work yet to be done. Receive my covenant and abide in it, not as in the former time when jarring, jealousy, contention and backbiting caused anger, broke hearts and hardened the souls of those claiming to be my saints. But receive it in spirit, in meekness and in truth. I have given you a former commandment that I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. And again, I have taught [you] that if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you forgive not men their trespasses neither will your Heavenly Father forgive your trespasses. How do I act toward mankind? If men intend no offense, I take no offense, but if they are taught and should have obeyed, then I reprove and correct, and forgive and forget. You cannot be at peace with one another if you take offense when none is intended. But again I say, Judge not others except by the rule you want used to weigh yourself….

(One of the questions that someone asked is, why we are admonished to pursue judgement? The answer are those words I just read to you: I say, Judge not others except by the rule you want used to weigh yourself. Pursue judgement whenever the opportunity presents itself. Use judgement to evaluate based upon the standard you want applied to yourself, and pursue judgement).

The Earth groans under the wickedness of mankind upon her face, and she longs for peace to come. She withholds the abundance of her bounty because of the offenses of men against me, against one another, and against her. But if righteousness returns and my people prove by their actions, words and thoughts to yield to my Spirit and hearken to my commandments, then will the earth rejoice, for the feet of those who cry peace upon her mountains are beautiful indeed, and I, the Lord, will bring again Zion, and the earth will rejoice. 

In the world, tares are ripening. And so I ask you, What of the wheat?… 

Cry peace. Proclaim my words. Invite those who will repent to be baptized and forgiven, and they shall obtain my Spirit to guide them. (T&C 157)

That excerpt contains nearly 2,000 words of instruction. There is no basis to claim ignorance. Is it possible for people to change their civilization and go from strident, quarrelsome, and pugnaciousness to loving one another? 

Perhaps the Book of Mormon contains one account to give us hope. Following conversion, one group of Lamanites were led by a king who encouraged them to lay down their un-bloodied weapons rather than ever shed blood again. This meant they could not defend themselves. After their king finished his proposal this took place: 

And now it came to pass that when the king had made an end of these sayings, and all the people were assembled together, they took their swords and all [their] weapons which were used for the shedding of man’s blood, and they did bury them up deep in the earth. And this they did, it being in their view a testimony to God, and also to men, that they never would use weapons again for the shedding of man’s blood. And this they did vouching and covenanting with God, that rather than shed the blood of their brethren, they would give up their own lives; and rather than take away from a brother, they would give unto him; and rather than spend their days in idleness, they would labor abundantly with their hands. And thus we see that when these Lamanites were brought to believe and to know the truth, [that] they were firm and would suffer, even unto death, rather than commit sin; and thus we see that they buried the weapons of peace, or they buried [their] weapons of war for peace. (Alma 14:9 RE)

When their resolve was tested, they passed. Rather than take up arms they laid down their lives: 

Now when the people saw that they were coming against them, they went out to meet them and prostrated themselves before them to the earth, and began to call on the name of the Lord; and thus they were in [the] attitude when the Lamanites began to fall upon them and began to slay them with the sword… Thus without meeting any resistance, they did slay a thousand and five of them; and we know that they are blessed, for they have gone to dwell with their God. Now when the Lamanites saw that their brethren would not flee from the sword, neither would they turn aside to the right…or…the left, but that they would lie down and perish, and praised God even in the very act of perishing under the sword—now when the Lamanites saw this, they did forbear from slaying them; and there were many whose hearts had swollen in them for those of their brethren who had fallen under the sword, for they repented of the thing which they had done.

And it came to pass that they threw down their weapons of war, and they would not take them again, for they were stung for the murders which they had committed. And they came down even as their brethren, relying upon the mercies of those whose arms were lifted [up] to slay them. 

And it came to pass that the people of God were joined that day by more than the number who had been slain….(Alma 14:10-12 RE)

This event is astonishing and many have been shocked by the extreme behavior of these believers. We are not being asked to lay down our weapons and be killed. We are only being asked to lay down our hostility, slander, and abuse of one another to become peaceful and loving. This is a good thing that benefits everybody. Despite this, we keep our pride, ambition, jealousy, envy, strife, and lusts. These destructive desires are preferred over forgiving offenses in meekness, love, and kindness. None of us are asked to die for a covenant, but are only asked to be more like Christ and forgive and love one another. This seems so difficult a challenge that we quarrel and dispute among ourselves. We remain haughty and self-righteous and fail to realize self-righteousness is a lie, a mirage, utterly untrue. We must trade our pride for humility, or we will never be able to keep the covenant. Remember, it is a group who must keep the covenant, not individuals. Together we must act consistent with the obligation we agreed to perform before God. 

Now, I want to be clear about what I am NOT saying: Nothing in what has been said implies that people must be vegan. In the age of the first patriarchs, we learn this about the second generation: And Abel listened unto the voice of the Lord. And Abel was a keeper of sheep…And Abel, he also brought [forth] the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering…(Genesis 3:6-7). There are animals whose lives are given them for the benefit of mankind. Abel raised sheep for the benefit their lives offered in food, clothing, and even company. 

I am also NOT suggesting we attempt to domesticate wild animals. Until there is a community that has tamed the wild hearts of human residents and has a land to occupy, animals will remain justifiably fearful of man. Nature will not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, the hostile and the benign, the people of peace and the people at war with the animal kingdom until there is a “holy mountain.” That will be the place made holy by the actions of the people who dwell there. When the earth sees that righteousness has returned to her face, she will yield her abundance for those whose feet walk in the way that is beautiful. 

If we obey the commandments that have been given, we can qualify to inherit a land on which to build a temple. The objective of the covenant was to confer the right to live on the land, surviving the judgments coming upon the wicked. Weneed to live up to our end of the covenant. It is clear the Lord is willing to bear with, guide, give commandments to help prepare, and reprove His people when needed. We should not rely on the Lord’s patience, but should be eager to obey His guiding instruction. His commandments are not to limit us, but to increase light and truth. Some intelligence is only gained by obedience to His commandments. 

Joseph Smith tried to teach the people. They failed to do as they were commanded. They lost the opportunity to have the fullness of the priesthood restored to them. As a result of their failure, for nearly two centuries, institutions have pretended the fullness was restored and they inherited it. Until now, no people have acknowledged the failure, repented, and asked the Lord to restore the fullness of the priesthood. 

Salem was a land filled with abominations. Melchizedek, by faith, obtained the Holy Order, taught repentance, and persuaded them to reform.  Nauvoo was a viper’s den. It was a place with widespread adultery and conspirators who precipitated the murders of Joseph and Hyrum. 

Why, during His mortal ministry, did Jesus Christ not establish a place of peace, a city of Zion? Was not Christ the greatest teacher of all?

Reflect on this and consider whether the people who were taught by Melchizedek lived with and were taught by Joseph Smith, would they have repented, obeyed and obtained the fullness? 

If Enoch’s people lived in Nauvoo, would they have repented? If Joseph, instead of Enoch, taught the people of Enoch, would there have been Zion? Had Joseph, instead of Melchizedek, taught the people of Salem, would they have forsaken their abominations? 

Is Zion the result of the teacher or the people? 

The people matter more than the teacher. As long as the gospel is taught, including the need for repentance and obedience, any faithful teacher may be enough. But nobody can bring Zion with people who refuse to repent and obey God’s commandments. The teacher is necessary, but only a community of people willing to heed the gospel can fulfill the prophecies. 

I have to temper the foregoing by the lesson Alma preserved (I think perhaps quoted from the writings of Zenos) about Melchizedek: 

Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem, and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abominations—yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness. But Melchizedek, having exercised mighty faith and received the office of the High Priesthood according to the Holy Order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent. And Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore, he was called the Prince of Peace, for he was the King of Salem; and he did reign under his father. Now there were many before him, and…there were [also] many afterwards, but none were greater. (Alma 10:2 RE)

If people who had all gone astray and were filled with iniquity and abominations were moved by his message of repentance, could Melchizedek have persuaded Nauvoo to abandon their wickedness, strife, ambition, jealousy, and adultery? There is no answer because of Christ’s inability to bring Zion. Christ was greater than Melchizedek, and He could not accomplish with His contemporaries what Melchizedek did with his. 

None of us is spared from mutual failure. We are not Zion. We will never be Zion if we do not repent. All of us must repent, turn to face God with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy, or we will not establish godly peace among us. 

The Answer to the Prayer for Covenant and the Covenant are the beginning blueprint. That blueprint teaches the need to be better people. Following it is more challenging than reciting it. No one can learn what is required without doing. Working together is the only way a society can grow together. No isolated spiritual mystic is going to be prepared for Zion through his solitary personal devotions. Personal devotion is necessary, of course, but the most pious hermit will collide with the next pious hermit when they are required to share and work together in a society of equals having all things in common. Do not pretend it will be otherwise. Failing to do the hard work outlined in the covenant is failing to prepare for Zion. It’s failing to have oil in the lamp. It’s failing to put upon you the wedding garment.

If you think you are one of the five virgins who will be invited in when the bridegroom arrives and have never attempted to obey the Lord’s commandments, you will find yourself left outside when the door is shut. If you come from the highways and byways without a wedding garment because you failed to keep the covenant, you’ll be excluded. 

As aggravating and trying as people are on one another, we need to go through this. There is no magic path to loving one another. Some people refuse and must be left outside. When it comes to loving others, some things must be abandoned, some things must be added, some things must be forgotten, and some things must be ignored. But learning what to abandon, add, forget, or ignore is only through the doing. We chip away at ourselves and others by interacting and sharing. 

We will learn things about one another that will distress us. And we may well wish we didn’t know some things about others. How will the socially-offensive become socially- acceptable without help from a loving society? And how can a society become loving if people are not broad-minded enough to figure out that some things just don’t matter? Few things really are important. If a man is honest, just, virtuous, and true, should you care if he swears? If a man has a heart of gold and would give you assistance if he thought it was needed, should you care if he is rough and uncouth? 

The adulterous and predatory will rarely reform and must often be excluded. They will victimize and destroy. We are commanded to cast out those who steal, love and make a lie, commit adultery, and refuse to repent. The instructions we have been given state: 

You shall not kill; he that kills shall die. You shall not steal…he that steals and will not repent shall be cast out.You shall not lie; he that lies and will not repent shall be cast out. You shall love your wife with all your heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else…he that looks upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the spirit, and if he repent not…shall be cast out. You shall not commit adultery, and he that commits adultery and repents not shall be cast out; and he that commits adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsakes [it] and does it no more, you shall forgive him; but if he does it again, he shall not be forgiven, [and] shall be cast out. You shall not speak evil of your neighbor [nor] or do him any harm. You know my laws, they are given in my scriptures. He that sins and repents not shall be cast out. If you love me, you shall serve me and keep all my commandments. (T&C 26:6, emphasis added)

This teaching is still binding. If your fellowship includes those who ought to be “cast out” you have the obligation to do so rather than encouraging evil. Be patient, but be firm. If a person refuses to repent and forsake sins, you may end fellowship with them and include those who are interested in practicing obedience and love. 

There is work to be done. Almost all of it is internal to us. The five prepared virgins and the strangers who brought a wedding garment will be those who keep the covenant. It is designed to give birth to a new society, new culture, and permit a new civilization to be founded. 

The Lord’s civilization will require His tabernacle at the center. Through it, a recovered religion will be fully developed. God’s house will include a higher law—an education about the universe—and a divine university will be established. It will be an ensign in the mountains, and people from all over the earth will say: Come, let us go up to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us; we will learn of his paths, to walk in them (see Isaiah 1:5; 2 Nephi 8:4 RE). That place will house a new civilization. There will be no hermit gurus proud of their enlightenment. 

No one will offer himself or herself up as some great idol to follow. It will be a place of equality, where people are meek and lowly, serving one another without any attempt to compete for “chief seats.” 

Christ’s apostles competed to be greater than one another. In the New Covenants, Luke 13:6, Christ’s reaction is recorded: 

There was also a strife among them: who of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they who exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but it ought not…be so with you. But he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who is chief, as he who does serve. For whether is he greater who sits at [the] meal, or he who serves? I am not as he who sits at a meal, but I am among you as he who serves. 

Christ is the great example. Christ would have fit into Enoch’s city, would have been welcomed among Melchizedek’s people, and could have dwelt in peace with the Nephites of Fourth Nephi. Has He, as once before between Jerusalem and Emmaus, walked among them unnoticed to enjoy their peaceful company?

I cannot keep the covenant. You cannot keep the covenant. Only we can keep the covenant. 

But if we do, God’s work will continue and will include the fullness previously offered to the gentiles  and rejected by them.  It is impossible to understand the promises that Elijah will “turn the hearts of the children to the Fathers” unless the fullness is recovered. Joseph Smith cannot fix or finish the Restoration by returning as a resurrected being in the Millennium, as conjectured by Wilford Woodruff. If the necessary rites are not returned before the Lord’s return, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming (JSH 3:4 RE). There will be a new civilization built around God’s tabernacle where He will dwell. We know the purpose of that house will be for the God of Jacob to teach those people to walk in His ways. We know Joseph Smith began adoption sealing as the highest ordinance and is now been lost. 

We have been given a new revelation that explains resurrection and adoption to the Fathers in heaven are linked together: 

I was shown that the spirits that rose were limited to a direct line back to Adam, requiring the hearts of the fathers and the hearts of the children to be bound together by sealing, confirmed by covenant and [by] the Holy Spirit of Promise. This is the reason that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have entered into their exaltation according to the promises and sit upon thrones and are not angels but are gods. (T&C 157:42-43)

The fullness can only be returned through a temple accepted by God as His House. He must return to restore that which has been lost. But ungodly people cannot build an acceptable house for God. There is no commandment to build a temple because people are not yet qualified to do so. So far we have been spared the experience in Nauvoo, where an abortive attempt to build a temple in which the fullness could be restored resulted in the Lord not performing His oath. Nor did the Lord fulfill the promise they expected to receive. Instead of blessings, the people in Nauvoo brought upon themselves cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments by their follies and abominations. If we are going to receive that same condemnation, it would be better to not begin to build a House of God. 

Only we can keep the covenant. Only those who keep the covenant together can establish a new civilization with God’s holy House at its center. 

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. 

The post Civilization appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The comments shared here were given in Independence, Missouri on April 10, 2019.

Transcript

My name is Denver Snuffer. I’m an attorney from Sandy, in Salt Lake. It’s a suburb of Salt Lake. I graduated from Brigham Young University’s law school. And I’m an excommunicated Mormon, because one of the things they taught me to do in law school was to critically think. And as a result of critically thinking, I followed a number of historical issues through to their logical conclusion. I wrote an alternative history of the Restoration, explaining how I think it might better fit within the scriptural model that says the Gentiles were going to behave in a certain way. And I was told, “Either withdraw that book from publication or we’re going to excommunicate you from the Church.” And I had contracts in place that obligated me to leave it in publication, so I got the boot.

Now, I didn’t come to Mormonism from birth. I was born to a Baptist mother. And I learned that Joseph Smith was a ne’er-do-well founder of a cult and someone to be feared, not admired. I grew up in Idaho. I was in the military during the Vietnam conflict, but I was stationed stateside. I was in New Hampshire and ran into a Mormon fellow who sicced Mormon missionaries on me, who proceeded to pamphleteer and filmstrip me. And over the course of a number of months, they finally persuaded me to actually take Joseph Smith seriously. 

I was at the birthplace of Joseph Smith in Sharon, Vermont; spent a weekend there. It was Aaronic priesthood commemoration, and this was, more or less, a campout. While I was there, I went to a visitor’s center, took a copy that they gave me (for free) of a triple combination, in which the fellow that was befriending me suggested I read Section 76: the Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory. I read the Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory, and it struck me that a scoundrel could not write this. A fraud could not write this—the loftiness of the content, the beauty, the symmetry, the light that came through. This shook me up because I’d been very dismissive of the whole Joseph Smith thing, and now here I have something (from the very scoundrel) that read like a transcript from heaven. It was disturbing. But I finally resolved to seriously investigate whether or not Joseph Smith amounted to much.

I was baptized into the LDS version of Mormonism when I was 19 years old. I was baptized on September the 10th of 1973. I was excommunicated from the LDS Church on September the 10th of 2013—40 years, to the day, from the time I came into the LDS Church to the time that I went out. But where I came in, reluctantly accepting Joseph Smith to be an actual messenger from God, I went out firm in the conviction that Joseph Smith was everything he purported to be and probably more. He probably understated it. 

If you read the words of Joseph Smith— 

One of the best –One of the best places to get your hands around Joseph is to get one of the Joseph Smith History versions (that you find in the LDS publication of the Joseph Smith History) and just read the account of the visit of John the Baptist when Aaronic priesthood is bestowed. Then (in the LDS version) they give you a footnote, and the footnote is Oliver Cowdery’s account of the very same thing. Joseph Smith’s version is remarkably understated—simple words, small vocabulary, homespun, plain. It reeks of honesty and simplicity. And then you read Oliver’s account of the very same thing—it’s ornate, it’s flowery, it’s overstated, it’s lawyered. I mean, to his discredit, after he left the Church, Oliver Cowdery wound up practicing law. And we all know what the scriptures have to say about lawyers. So Oliver certainly fell from grace [comment said sardonically].

Joseph Smith is an enigma. He is a blank screen onto which you project who you are, literally. I have read probably every document that Joseph Smith ever authored. I have studied every journal that was written for him. I’ve read all of what the critics and the anti-Mormons had to say about Joseph Smith. Anytime a new Joseph Smith biography rolls out, I’ll get it, and I’ll read it. 

If you take the moment that Joseph Smith died (June the 27th of 1844), if you take that moment and you go backward in time, and you say, “How do I construct the history of Joseph Smith from the beginning of his birth in 1805 until June the 27th of 1844, using only materials that existed at or before the moment of his death?” you come away from that endeavor saying, “Joseph could not possibly be a polygamist.”

You heard him say a moment ago that Joseph Smith III and David and Alexander—they came out to Utah. You know that when they came out to Utah, it so upset the apple cart that their first cousin, Joseph F. Smith—who would subsequently become president of the LDS Church—began, in the same 1860’s when they came out, to go around to get affidavits, in an affidavit book, of women who would swear an oath that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and/or was their plural husband and/or taught them about polygamy. All of these affidavits were created in the 1860s. Brigham Young had the notion of polygamy taught publically for the first time in 1853. Joseph Smith had been dead for nine years by the time it became public news. Well, the best way to get people who are loyal to Joseph Smith to accept a principle that you want to advance, is to pin it on Joseph Smith, whether it belongs there or not. But the people who knew Joseph best had a very different view of where that originated.

On that evening when the angel visited him in his home, Joseph Smith recorded—and this was in 1838, he recorded—He called me by name… (This is the angel Nephi—turned into Moroni, subsequently, but the angel Nephi:) 

He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was [in the original it said Nephi; in this version it now says] Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. (Joseph Smith History 1:33; see also JSH 3:3 RE)

First words out of his mouth. First words out of the angel’s mouth: “Get used to it, Joseph. People are going to say things. They’re going to say things that are good about you, and they are going to speak evil about you.” And the angel goes on to describe a few other things. The light gathers around him; he departs. And then the light starts up again, and the angel shows up again. And when he shows up again, He commenced, and again related the very same things which he had done at [the] first visit, without the least variations (ibid. vs. 45; see also RE 3:7), which means that the second visit that occurs that night, the angel tells him the same thing about how people are going to talk about him, both good and evil. 

Then he ascends, and he returns a third time. And the third time: But what was my surprise when again I beheld the same messenger at my bedside, and heard him rehearse or repeat over again to me the same things as before; and added a caution (ibid. vs. 46; see also RE 3:8)—not to try and get the plates to get wealthy. Three times that night, and it starts out the very same way all three times, “Joseph, your name is going to be had for both good and evil”—on the same night.

Then Joseph, the next morning—he’s tired; he goes out to work. When he goes out to work, his father says, “You’re unable.” And he sends him home. On his way back home, he collapsed from exhaustion. When he wakes up from that collapse:

First thing…I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night. (ibid. vs. 49; see also RE 3:10) 

So for the fourth time, he gets told the very same thing.

Audience Question: So why was it Nephi, when we’ve always thought it was Moroni, then?

Denver: The name got changed to Moroni later. In all of the early accounts, the name of the angel is Nephi. Joseph Smith wrote that the name of the angel was Nephi; he wrote that.

Audience Question continued: In his history?

Denver: Repeatedly. In multiple accounts of his history, the name was Nephi.

One of the little known facts about the visit of the angel is that before the three witnesses got their vision of the plates, the angel that would show those plates to the three witnesses appeared to the Whitmers’ mother. Mother Whitmer saw the angel, and he identified himself to her also, and he identified himself by the same name—as Nephi.

Well, I have a supposition, and I’ll give you my supposition, okay? Moroni was the last one to write in the book. He was the one to finish the record, and he was the one to bury it. And therefore, someone got to thinking: if he was the one that buried it, and if Nephi had lived long ago and wasn’t around when the book got finished—wasn’t around when Mormon condensed it, wasn’t dealing with the text at the end, and Moroni buried it up—maybe we should say it was Moroni, ‘cause he was the one that put it in the ground. Makes more sense; he’d know where it was.

But there’s a problem with that. Joseph Smith was very clear about the intangibility of a spirit. A spirit is not composed of the same stuff as are resurrected beings, who are composed of physical matter after the resurrection. Moroni lived 400 years after Christ’s resurrection. There is only going to be a general resurrection, that will include him, at the Second Coming. Nephi, on the other hand, lived 600 years before Christ. And at the resurrection of Christ—it’s recorded in Matthew—that many of the saints that slept, arose and went into the city and were seen by people. So, people in Jerusalem saw that there were resurrected beings. 

And then in His discussion with the Nephites, Christ said, “Hey, Samuel prophesied that when I arose from the dead that there would be others who were resurrected. He prophesied of that; and it happened! And that’s not in your record.” And so, the Book of Mormon has that commentary by Christ. As He looks at the records, He says, “You have omitted the fact that there were those who would be resurrected.” Well, Nephi would have died at a point that he would be one of the candidates for resurrection, which means that he could easily handle the plates.

The Three Witnesses saw the plates, and were shown them by an angel who took the plates and opened and turned the pages to show them each one of the pages that had been translated. And so, it makes sense that the name of the angel would have been Nephi. If you think that Nephi couldn’t be told where to go and find the plates, I mean, that’s just plain silly. You do not need the last guy who handled them and put them under the stone in the box to be the only guy who… “Shhhh, keep it a secret. I buried the plates there. No one knows.” And so, I think the reason the name got changed was someone thought it through and concluded it makes more sense to have the fellow who buried the plates be the one who restores the plates, instead of thinking it through the rest of the way and saying, “Wait a minute; he would be a spirit being—in spirit prison and incapable of physicality.”

Audience Question: So the Mormons have—don’t they have Moroni at the top of the temple?

Denver: Yes, they do. It’s silly. Yeah.

Audience Question: So, well, that should’ve been Nephi, then?

Denver: It should’ve been, yeah. It should’ve been.

Audience Question: I guess they could always say it’s Nephi?

Denver: No, no, they are very clear: it’s Moroni. Yeah, think he’s got a name tag on, representative of— 

I shouldn’t be irreverent like that, actually. Okay, so, four times he appears to him.

By the way, John Whitmer was called to be the Historian for the Church. John Whitmer had all of the records that existed in the LDS Church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—no hyphen, small ‘d’—unlike what the LDS claim today). And he was excommunicated, disaffected, in the 1838 timeframe. So, the history of Joseph Smith that you read in the LDS version was Joseph Smith sitting down to re-write the missing history that they couldn’t get back from John Whitmer, and it’s a replacement history. It was written in 1838. And in 1838, he said it was Nephi. It was copied; he proofread the copy in 1839—it was again Nephi. He published his history in the Times and Seasons—it was Nephi. The first time that it shows up with the name Moroni, I believe, was in the Messenger and Advocate. I think that’s where it first shows up, and that paper was edited by someone other than Joseph. So, it crept in there.

So, Joseph composes a replacement history in 1838. The Missouri conflict breaks out, later, in 1838. And Joseph winds up arrested and confined—ultimately confined in the Liberty Jail. While he’s in the Liberty Jail, he writes a very lengthy letter—it’s written in two parts, but it’s a single letter, portions of which have been added to the LDS version of the scriptures. And in one portion, after Joseph has been pouring his heart out about the circumstances and asking God why he’s being put through this gosh-awful mess, and why his people have been put through what the people have been put through, and why isn’t God answering him and doing something and pouring out His anger on the people?— Joseph gets a letter from home. It excites his mind. The letter is brilliantly written about how his mind, it’s going from one offense to the next to the next like lightning; he just, he cannot keep his mind composed; until finally, he says, he sits down exhausted from the mental anguish of it all. And then, then, the still small voice creeps in, and he hears God in it, and God says: 

The ends of the earth shall enquire after thy name and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee while 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. And thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of traitors. (D&C 122:1-3; see also T&C 139:7)

Why would the wise, the noble, the virtuous—why would they want blessings from under the hand of Joseph Smith if Joseph Smith is not himself a wise and noble and virtuous man? It makes no sense.

Well, I have read histories that have attacked Joseph Smith as one of the vilest characters that has ever lived, and they make a plausible case for that. And I have read histories that make Joseph out to be noble and virtuous (although in my estimation none of those adequately capture who he really was), and they make a plausible case. The problem is not that there isn’t source material from which to write a positive or a negative history of Joseph Smith. The problem is that you can’t reconcile them; they can’t be the same man. You literally are forced to choose. When it comes to Joseph Smith, the blank canvas that Joseph Smith is that’s standing in front of you, you have to pick up and color it. And whatever you color it with is more a reflection of you than it is of him.

I’ve reached the conclusion to color in Joseph Smith using the most wise, the most noble, and the most virtuous version that I can construct of the man—the man who helped write the denunciations of John C. Bennett, the man who removed the authority of Sampson Avard in order to prevent Sampson Avard from going out and extracting vengeance that led to the Missouri conflict.

I choose to view Joseph as someone who was noble, who was a peacemaker, who, when the Missouri militia showed up, chose to have his people surrender their arms rather than to have open conflict. I choose to view Joseph as the one who surrendered the muskets and surrendered the cannons of the Nauvoo Legion, even though they outnumbered the United States Army at the time, rather than to have armed conflict. I choose to view Joseph as the one who said, “I go as a lamb to the slaughter with a conscience void of any offense against my fellow man or of God” (see D&C 135:4). I don’t think an adulterer and a liar and a thief could have made such a statement. I choose to color the picture in of Joseph as what I believe him honestly to be: a man of extraordinary virtue.

Well, in that Joseph Smith History, he begins his account by talking about the religious conflict that existed at the time, that provoked him to go out and pray and try to get an answer about which church to join. And he makes this point after talking about the ‘Lo here, Lo there, some going to the Methodists, some going to Presbyterian,’ and he says:

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. (JSH 1:5-6; see also JSH 1:11)

Look, the legacy of Joseph Smith has been turned into over 80 different denominations that claim Joseph Smith as their founder. And if you don’t think that Mormonism today—in the landscape, taking them all into account—aren’t engaged in a strife of opinions with all of the seeming-good feelings one towards another entirely gone, then you aren’t paying any attention to what these various sects are saying, claiming, and doing. The headquarters in Salt Lake City is a multi—multi—billion dollar organization. They have enough resources that they’re about to develop a community in Florida that will have everything necessary for a half-a-million people to live in the community. It’s a commercial development. They’re not building it for members; they’re building it as a real estate developer to sell to the public—a half-a-million-population community that will include streets and water tanks and utilities and schools; that will include business districts; that will include gas stations; that will include everything you need in order to have a community of half-a-million people living.

Audience Question: Where is that in Florida?

Denver: It’s just outside Orlando. It’s on a former cattle farm that they’re now converting over to commercial development. It will pencil in, over the course of the development, in excess of a trillion dollar investment. A trilliondollar investment, ‘kay?

Mormonism—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—is a small subsidiary (admittedly, it’s a tax-free subsidiary, but it’s a small subsidiary) venture of the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They own Bonneville Communications. They own universities. They own banking interests. They own a lotof real estate interests. And they have this tax-free subsidiary called the “Church”—and the only thing that’s required for them to do to maintain that is every six months provide some meaningful, uplifting talks in their general conferences and get the sustaining vote. And they get it automatically. But they’re becoming increasingly more vacuous. 

Yes?

Audience:  Sorry.

Denver: No, it’s fine.

Audience Question: A couple things: first, with Joseph Smith, you know, at Liberty Jail he says, I, Joseph Smith, Jr., you know—young Joseph, you’ll be the next prophet. Okay, so when I see that and know that he is a member, you know, of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wouldn’t you say that if you resolved already about Joseph Smith, wouldn’t you say that this is the true church then, because Joseph Smith, Jr., you know, brought it up?

Denver: I think–I think all of us fall into the institutional trap. It’s that old game: Button, Button, Who’s Got the Button? Are you trying to determine who is it that has the prerogative? Who is it that has the right?

The Book of Mormon has a message about Christ. And the revelations through Joseph define the church—not in a corporate sense but in a believing sense. All who will repent and come unto Him are His church. Does that church necessarily have to have a hierarchy? Does it have to have structure? Does it have to have offices? Well, each one of the denominations contend and say, “You have to have… and we’re it.” The Book of Mormon and the revelations through Joseph Smith dial that back to: If you belong and support and fellowship in the Community of Christ (and I used to belong and can’t fellowship within the LDS Church), but you and I can agree on the fundamentals of the religion and agree on who Christ is and that salvation is through Christ alone—there’s no reason why you and I can’t have fellowship with one another. There’s no reason why we ought to be dividing ourselves. 

Eighty different denominations. The most wealthy one has fairly little regard for the substance of the religion anymore. All of them have their pet causes, their hooks, what they claim: “This is why we are the best version of that.” But what if the best version of that doesn’t exist in an institutional way, with someone presiding over someone else? What if the best version of that consists of you and me viewing each other with equal dignity, equal care, equal concern, and that we can fellowship across any boundaries?

What if–What if I can offer baptism that reflects all of the Restoration, but the person that comes to me is Catholic, and their family’s Catholic, and their friends are Catholic; and they would like to continue to fellowship with the Catholics but they believe in the Restoration, and they believe in Joseph Smith, and they accept the Book of Mormon? Why can’t I baptize him or her, and let them fellowship with who they want to fellowship with, and rejoice that both of us have found in each other a brother or sister in which we accept Joseph, we accept the Restoration, we accept the work of God? 

Why does denominational differences occupy the center (instead of just the outer) periphery? Why isn’t denominational affiliation largely superfluous? And what matters is understanding that God did a work through Joseph Smith, and it didn’t get completed? It did not get completed. Much of what we argue over are the beginning stages of something that’s supposed to develop into, ultimately, one heart, one mind, no poor among us. What if our denominations don’t want there to be no poor among us? What if our denominations are interfering with our ability to be of one heart?  What if they purposefully do not want us to be of one mind? 

If you are the adversary, if you’re the enemy, if what you fear above all else is the coming of Zion, what’s the best way to hedge up the way and to prevent the coming of Zion? It’s to make sure that all of the good feelings that people have towards one another are entirely lost in a contest of opinions and a strife of words, in which what separates us is far more important than accepting the things that matter, that are eternal, that are divine. How are we going to become of one heart and one mind if the only thing that’s on our mind is our differences? How are we going to become of one heart if our hearts can never become united because, well, you accept that brand, and I don’t, and there’s something wrong with that brand?

Audience Question: So what is the attraction of the Mormon Church that brings so many of them in?

Denver: They have some bundle of truth. All of these Restoration groups, even— 

You can take the most odious version of Restoration Mormonism Sectarianists, take the worst of the group—that’s probably that “Warren Jeffs thing” that went on in Colorado City with the giving and taking of child brides. It’s odious; it’s repulsive. And yet, the Book of Mormon is a better teaching document to understanding Christ, and the universal nature of Christ, and the fact that Christ’s post-resurrection ministered globally, than anything that we’ve got in the New Testament. The revelations through Joseph give us more information. I mentioned a while ago the Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory; it supplies greater answers. You take someone from out of that odious cult headed by Warren Jeffs and you let them sit through a Presbyterian meeting, and they’re going to say, “My religion holds more, it gives me more truth, there’s more substance to it.” Even though there’s a darkness to that cult, it still appeals. All of the Restoration denominations offer something that has value, and it’s value above what you get merely from a New Testament church.

But the plan of the adversary is to stop the culmination of what the Restoration’s intended to accomplish: unity. The Community of Christ does a far better job of giving lip service to unity than do probably any other of the various sects. But it’s still the same problem; it’s still exactly the same thing. You put a brand on you, and that brand is “I belong to this denomination,” and you instantly feel like you need to be competitive.

Right now, the only church that I ever joined I got thrown out of. I was too candid, I was too honest, and they couldn’t tolerate that. And the man who is the president of that organization, Russell Nelson, is the one that came to my stake with my membership records and gave them to a new stake president. He released my old one, and he called a new one. My old stake president defended me and refused to kick me out. He called a new one, handed him my membership records, and said, “The committee thinks this guy has to be disciplined.”

And so, I’m un-churched. I am as committed a believer in the Restoration. I think I know as much or more than many of the Mormon historians that are regarded as authorities on Mormonism. I read every volume of the Joseph Smith Papersas they come into publication, and I make notes all over the margins. They are inconsistent in their storytelling. I pick out the problems. My notes and my version of the Joseph Smith volumes are flooded with notes that are correcting the problems that the Church historian’s office makes as they put these things into print.

But, at the end of the day, what matters is not who can make the better argument. What matters isn’t who can make the better historical claim. At the end of the day, what matters is who among us accepts the Restoration through Joseph Smith, accepts the Book of Mormon, accepts the teachings, and are willing to live them. And who among us is willing to fellowship with anyone else that they have a common belief in God’s work currently underway. Because that’s what matters. I went to Lamoni and talked, and I was happy to do that. I’ve come here during the general conference of the Community of Christ, and I’m happy to do that. I’ve been to Dallas to talk to Baptists. I’ve been to Atlanta.

Audience Question: So have you heard of the Baptist preacher that read the Book of Mormon, yes?

Denver: Yes.

Audience Comment: I think he’s started a movement of where it’s every sect, you know, come together with the Book of Mormon.  

[crosstalk]

Denver: That’s Lynn Ridenhour, yeah.

Audience Comment: Sidney Rigdon did that type of conversion; brought his whole church on.

Denver: Yeah, he did.

Well, look, one of the problems with the history writing of Joseph Smith that happened is that there are villains in the story of Joseph. There are a number of villains. Some of those villains figured out that they could take the villainy that they were accused of and they could ascribe it to Joseph and to make him the responsible party for what they were up to. When Joseph was confined in jail and they were going through the preliminary hearing— the preliminary hearing’s purpose is only to determine if there’s a plausible case that can be made against him for treason. Witness after witness after witness failed to make out a plausible case, and Joseph Smith was likely to be released because there wasn’t a good enough case to hold him on the charge of treason in Missouri—until one of the disaffected Mormons not only stepped forward, but came to the courthouse to testify. And it was because of the villainy that that man had been up to (that he said Joseph Smith was the author of) that Joseph was ultimately able to be held to stand trial on the charge of treason. Well, the state of Missouri lost their stomach for that, and they let Joseph escape, and he never was tried. But that allowed them later to make trumped up charges that said he evaded prosecution, and so they tried to get him back in Missouri in the 1842/3/4 time frame.

The same thing happened with John C. Bennett, the mayor of Nauvoo. When he got caught with his philandering, John Bennett did exactly the same thing. He attributed his villainy, his sexual improprieties, to Joseph Smith. He said, “Joseph. I learned this from Joseph.” And so you get people who themselves are guilty of wrongdoing, improprieties, and villainy saying that it’s not their sins; they learned this from Joseph—and Joseph is the sinner.

Again, it’s the same thing—Joseph would be both good and evil spoken of. And you can find villains that say, “No, no, I’m not the real villain; he is. Blame him for what I’ve done.”

Audience Comment: The Laws and the Higbees did that when the Expositor was…

Denver: In fact, one of the reasons why Law was not sealed to his wife by Joseph was because he was an adulterer. And so, when Law got his ambition (to have the sealing) turned down, Law accused Joseph of what Law was up to. It’s the same thing over and over again.

I left my cell phone at home. I was planning to do and bring some things with me including— 

I have written a book, and I was going to bring copies to hand out to anyone that said they’d read it. I’ve written a book about Joseph Smith called A Man Without Doubt. In A Man Without Doubt, I take three things—three of the longest things that Joseph Smith ever wrote—and I lay out a background, a history, a context for why the document got written, and then simply give you Joseph’s document to read: the Joseph Smith History, the Lectures on Faith, and the letter from Liberty Jail. But I give you a context beforehand so that you can see the history. What were all the circumstances that were going on? What was happening at the moment that led to Joseph writing the document? And then I get out of the way, and I let Joseph speak. Joseph writes things of surpassing, heavenly value. You can’t take a corrupt heart and produce the beauty and the light that Joseph Smith produced, that he called down from heaven; can’t be done.

Audience Question: Last question. So then what is your purpose in having these meetings, like you’ve been to Lamoni, you’re here, so what…?

Denver: Well one of the observations that— I’ve been kicked out, and I’m un-churched. The couple who have spoken before me, the Bartells, are actually now affiliated with the Community of Christ. One of the things that I have seen and learned from them and from others—I have seen it in the LDS Church; I’ve heard about it in the Community of Christ—is that Joseph Smith is occupying an increasingly lower estimation in the eyes of all the Restoration people.

Audience Question: So that’s what you share, your belief of Joseph Smith, and that he was the man that…

Denver: Joseph Smith was everything that he said he was, and he was probably much more; his tendency to understate when he described things, his tendency to be hesitant to step out of that role of the meek teacher, his hesitancy to call down glory on himself.

One of the things that has become apparent to me is that Emma Smith was a stronger personality than Joseph Smith, and Joseph deferred to her. Joseph viewed her advice and counsel with extraordinary respect and seriousness. The caricature that some people turn Joseph Smith into is mirrored by the caricature that they turn Emma Smith into. Emma’s not even recognizable in the stories that you get from the Utah community; it’s a distortion.

I would like to see everyone who believes in the Restoration say, “Let’s stop picking fights. Let’s try to get down to the highest, the most noble, the most virtuous, the most wise view of what the Restoration was, and where it was headed, so that we, perhaps, stand a chance of, at some point, having one heart, one mind, and coming together in a way that would allow us to have no poor among us.” Because if we’re waiting on the denominations to do that, it will never happen. It will never happen. The institutional self-interests will not permit it.

I see within the Community of Christ a drift that is trying to accommodate and obtain popularity from the world. They want to fit in, within the current cultural and political climate. That same thing is taking place in the Salt Lake church. The ones that are trying hardest to hold the line against accommodating the world are the most virulent forms of Mormonism—they’re militant; they’re isolated; they’re polygamist. They’re an aberrant form of the Restoration, and they’re ugly. The ones that are succeeding are destroying the Restoration because they want to hold on and to grab more success.

If you and I don’t rise up above this clamor, if you and I don’t find common fellowship and value—in the words of the Book of Mormon, in the revelations through Joseph, in the things that we were bequeathed as our common inheritance—and forget about what separates us and try to find unity, if we don’t do that, it’s not going to happen. Won’t.

Yes?

Audience Comment: The Community of Christ sponsors the John Whitmer Historical Association. And a few decades back there was the Community of Christ, there was the RLDS version of it, and then there was the LDS version of it—and different groups have their version of history. But over the last few decades, I guess, there has been an intentional effort to…

Denver: Bridge the gap.

Audience Comment continues: We accept everyone, from wherever you are coming from—whether you came from here and moved over there, or came from there and moved over here. We accept all who want to study this history together, and let’s find out what we can, warts and all.

Denver: That’s true, but the needle…

Audience Comment continues: There has been an effort to…

Denver: The needle on polygamy has moved to the version Brigham Young and his affiants gave. And the Community of Christ is now more or less conceding that Joseph Smith was the author of some things that, I still believe, there’s not an adequate historical record to pin upon Joseph.

[crosstalk]

Audience Comment continues: We need to get involved in that…

Audience Comment: Not everybody is following this.

Audience Comment continues: Well, I felt like Joseph Smith was a true, divine prophet. He came along… But with the rise of power and prestige, I mean, Nauvoo was bigger than Chicago in its day. [Denver: Yeah, it was.] And so, all of these people that were clamoring to make a fortune, and that type of thing, and had their own villainy—as you put it —kind of led us a little bit off the track in that really short, whatever, fourteen years’ time. [Denver: Yeah, it was. Yeah.] And so, when Brigham Young, who actually, when they had trouble in Missouri, he organized all of the people to move over to Nauvoo. So, he was already seen as an apostle that was an organizer/leader and took them over there. So, when Joseph was killed, he took the role again of taking us out of danger and moving everybody out to Utah. So, that’s why he had the rise and popularity when Joseph was in jail and other places.

Denver: But he also didn’t—he didn’t claim that he was going to run the show. He was saying that he would be a caretaker, and that Joseph Smith III would ultimately (or sons of Joseph would ultimately) come and assume their position. He was an incremental grabber of power. He was not an abrupt one.

Audience Comment continues: Why did Brigham Young or one of his top people… I think one of them gave Joseph Smith III a knife that missed, like a switchblade that didn’t work right. Another one gave him a gun that didn’t fire right—I hope there’s no bad thing that happened to the young boy. But when he went out to Utah, there may have been that intention, that he was a caretaker, but it translated into them just taking over. Whereas the majority of the church, I heard 115 splinters, you know, people claiming leadership when Joseph died… 

[crosstalk]

Audience Question: Wasn’t Brigham Young the president of the Twelve, council…?

Audience Comment: He was at the time, and that’s why he had his club.

Audience Comment: He wasn’t such a peacemaker out there in Utah, either.

Denver: Oh, no, no, no. He wasn’t.

[Crosstalk]

Audience Comment: They went out there thinking that they would find the true church—whatever you want to determine that to be—the true church, and had to leave during the night on their own, however you want to say it. It was dangerous.

Denver: Just one point that I want to clarify. At the time that Joseph Smith died, you had Sidney Rigdon (who was back in Philadelphia) who was one claimant. You had James Strang (who was up in the timber mission in Wisconsin) who was one claimant. You had William McClellan (who was down in Texas)—Joseph had sent him down to Texas, presumably, to find a place to go to, and he just never left; and he was a member of the Twelve, and he stayed a member of the Twelve for quite some time, until they finally got around to throwing him out. And there was Brigham Young. And Emma Smith was solicited by all of the various claimants to come. But those were the five main at the time; and Emma stayed behind, refusing to fall in line with any of them.

Audience Comment continues: And maybe they moved away to be a little bit safe for a little while, because her husband was killed. But they all wanted, ultimately, the seed of Joseph to lead them forward. That was the thing. And they all came back when young Joseph was a little older, and solicited for him to be their leader because that would give them the ultimate… 

Denver: During the, what was called the Mormon Reformation at the— 

Brigham Young and the leadership of the Church were running out of time. Brigham Young and the leadership of the Church took the position that the reason they were having droughts, the reason why all the cattle got killed in the hard winter and they were starving, the reason why the elements were treating them so poorly was because God was mad. And God was mad because the members weren’t faithful. And so, he began a program called the Home Missionary Program, in which there was a list of questions that home missionaries were supposed to go around and interview people. The purpose of that list of questions was to find out if you were doing something that was unforgivable, that required your blood to be spilled on the ground through blood atonement, because Brigham Young instituted, literally, a reign of terror.

When Johnston’s Army came out to Utah, the people who were resident in Utah viewed that, among some quarters, as liberation. The spring following Johnston’s Army’s arrival in Utah, there were over 3,400 people that left to go back east. They have records of that because the—or they know the numbers on that because the migration to the east occurred in wagon trains and other supervised exits that they kept numbers on. But there was likely an even larger number than that, that evacuated out to California, going west to escape the kingdom of Brigham Young.

I wrote a paper called “Brigham Young’s Telestial Kingdom,” that I presented at the Sunstone Symposium. I’ve got a website. It’s on a page called “Downloads”—there’s a bunch of papers I’ve written. One of them is “Brigham Young’s Telestial Kingdom.” denversnuffer.com.

Audience Question: Do you have a business card?

Denver: I don’t have it.

Audience Question: Well, is there something on the bottom of your flier?

Denver: Is it?

[crosstalk about the information]

Audience Comment: Brigham Young was not so very nice to Emma either.

Denver: Oh, no, no, no! He called her a wicked, wicked, wicked woman! He said that Joseph once said he’d go to hell to be with Emma, and if he wants to be with Emma, that’s exactly where he’s going to have to go. Brigham Young and Emma Smith… 

Audience Comment: He was not nice to her.

Audience Comment: They didn’t get along.

Denver: They did not get along. If Brigham had persuaded her to go west, he would’ve required her to marry him.

Audience Comment: Well, anything that had Joseph Smith’s name on it, Brigham tried to take from the, you know, he tried to take back. Well, there was some things that I think Emma got out of all of that because she had kids to support.

Denver: Yes, she was able to get some property transfers. Joseph Smith had a pending petition for bankruptcy when he died because of all of the losses that they’d suffered in Missouri. Emma Smith got a number of assets transferred to her before Joseph filed for bankruptcy—to engage in some asset protection before that. And Emma was able, because of the transfers to her, to hold onto some of the property; which is why she was able to relocate back to Nauvoo. She owned a lot of property in Nauvoo.

Audience Comment: She didn’t give up the Mansion House.

Denver: She did not. Listen, thank you for coming out. It was wonderful to spend some time with ya, and I hope it was useful. Thank you.

The post Celebrating the Family of Joseph and Emma Smith appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following talk was given in Centerville, Utah on March 3, 2019.

Transcript

The oldest, Old Testament scripture is the Book of Job. It’s older than even the Pentateuch. There are three Old Testament texts in the King James Version of the Bible that are universally regarded as Wisdom texts: Job and Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. A total of seven Old Testament texts have been regarded as Wisdom literature, some of which are not in the King James Version.

Wisdom literature is about mature faith, where disappointments and difficulties are accepted and anger against God for life’s setbacks is exposed as foolishness. Wisdom literature teaches about enduring, patient, determined, and resilient faith. Job’s friends mistook his suffering with divine disfavor. One of the major themes is faithfulness through adversity and trials.

The first verse of the Book of Mormon echoes with Wisdom. It contains a profound lesson learned over a lifetime. Nephi explained: Having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days (1 Nephi 1:1 RE). He saw many afflictions. He was highly favored of the Lord in all his days, including those in which the affliction was visited on him.

How can one suffer many afflictions and be highly favored of the Lord? Wisdom literature would suggest that perhaps they are related to one another. Do those who are highly favored need to encounter afflictions to understand God’s grace and favor toward them? That is a Wisdom theme.

When we say life should be easier, we are foolish. We’re not wise.

In his final blessing to his son Helaman, Alma says something similar: I…know that whosoever shall put their trust in God shall be supported in their trials, and their troubles, and their afflictions (Alma 17:1 RE). Trusting God does not remove life’s trials. Trusting God will not keep afflictions from you. Trusting God will not prevent troubles in your life.

The Book of Mormon explains a mature form of faith in God: resilient in the face of difficulty, enduring in the day of trouble, comforting in the moment of affliction. The faith of the Book of Mormon writers is not superficial, conditional, and weak. It bears up under trial; it is proven in troubles; it accompanies during afflictions.

The Book of Mormon is, among other things, a Wisdom text. What if trials, afflictions, and troubles are not negative? What if they are gifts provided as an opportunity to prove us therewith so that we and God may show what is in our heart?

Job asks: Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? (Job 2:3 RE). Christ taught: In this world there are difficult trials to be faced by my followers, but those who remain devoted will, like me, finish the path and experience the fullness of joy (Testimony of St. John 10:29 RE).

Each person experiences religion uniquely. No two persons have read exactly the same library of materials, which is why study of scriptures become a valuable common basis for understanding one another.

Reading scripture calls forth from each person all their background, education, and experience as they study and learn from the text. If a Christian reaches deeply into the New Testament canon, they’ll eventually be lead to study New Testament Greek. Then they will discover New Testament Greek is commonly believed to have been Koine, a dead form of language about which today we must make assumptions. There’s also a theory that the New Testament was translated into Koine from Aramaic, and that theory is called the Peshitta Primacy, also known as the Aramaic Primacy. If the original was in Aramaic and the Koine version a translation, then there will be unresolved questions about the quality of that translation that we can no longer answer.

Assumptions make hardline Christians insecure, and therefore, they insist nothing or very little has been lost in understanding Koine Greek. We do not know for certain the correct pronunciations for some Koine words. We also do not know the full definitions or meanings for many of the words.

If we’re humble about the challenges we would admit we cannot fully know what the writers intended by what they wrote in the New Testament texts. We think we can get close, but we should be humble enough to acknowledge the imperfection we confront.

Scholars who delve deeply into the Old Testament find another challenge. The Old Testament was written in a form of ancient Hebrew that is a dead language. Although Hebrew has been revived, the Old Testament is written in a dead form. We do not know how many Old Testament words would be correctly pronounced. We do not know all the definitions for Old Testament language. If we’re humble about the challenges, we would admit we can never fully know what the writers intended by what they wrote in the Old Testament texts. We think we can get close, but we should be humble enough to acknowledge the imperfection we confront.

The majority of Christians feel no need to read their scriptures in the original Koine Greek or ancient Hebrew. Whether they are right about that or not, the more deeply you venture into textual scholarship, the more humble you should become about what you actually are able to understand. 

In contrast, if you accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, it presents none of these challenges. It was translated by the gift and power of God into English. The English spoken in 1830 is fully known and understood today, and dictionaries published in 1830 are still available today. Any slight shift in meaning between 1830 and 2019 can be fully determined.

In addition to varying forms of ignorance and study, diligence and sloth, interest and indifference that separates each of us in our religious beliefs, there are also false spirits that mislead and confuse.

The term “false spirit” is not limited to the idea of a devil, imp, or mischievous personage but includes the much broader attitude, outlook, or cultural assumptions that people superimpose atop religion.  False spirits in the form of ignorant, incomplete, or incorrect ideas are easily conveyed from one person to another. People convey false spirits every time they teach a false idea, and the student accepts the idea.

False spirits infect every religious tradition on earth. This is not limited to eastern religions that deny Christ but also include Christianity and Mormonism. So long as there is anything false or any error, a false spirit prevails. Different religious structures lend themselves to be overtaken by false spirits through different means.

If you have a hierarchy, only the top needs to be taken captive by a false spirit. If it is a diffused religion, then all you have to do is take captive the theological seminaries in order to spread the false spirit. But if the religion is individual and each person is standing on their own—accountable for their relation to God, accountable to learn, to pray, to reach upward, and to have God connect with them individually—then the only way to corrupt a diffused [individual] religion is to corrupt every single believer, every single practitioner.

In the new scriptures there is a section in which Joseph Smith discusses at length the topic of false spirits. It’s an editorial he published in the Times and Seasons on April the 1st of 1842. This new section 147 in the Teachings and Commandments is worth careful study—the Teachings and Commandments being the new volume of scripture recovering and restoring the text as it was originally; available (if you’re interested) either for free online to read at www.scriptures.info, or if you want to purchase a copy, it’s available through Amazon.

This new section of the Teachings and Commandments is worth careful study. Keep in mind the meaning of several words. Priesthood means a fellowship. You can have a priesthood that is a fellowship of men. You can have a priesthood that is a fellowship  between men and angels. You can have a priesthood that is a fellowship between man and Christ; and you can have a priesthood that is a fellowship between man and God the Father.

In section 147, Joseph Smith ties discerning of false spirits to priesthood, and therefore, when a person has an association with heavenly angels, they are not apt to be misled by fallen false spirits.

Joseph Smith also uses the term “keys” in section 147. Joseph used to term to mean understanding—the greatest “key” being the ability to ask God and receive an answer. 

In the Teachings and Commandments (Section 10 Verse 1), I have given him [referring to Joseph] the keys of the mysteries of the revelations which are sealed. In section 141,  Joseph, speaking about his ordination of Hyrum and endowing and in blessing him: Joseph, who shall show unto him the keys whereby he may ask and receive (vs 32), and then a reference again in that same section to another servant, Let my servant William…also receive the keys by which he may ask and receive blessings (vs 33).

Joseph used the term, “keys of the kingdom” to mean: when a person can ask and receive an answer each time he asks, they hold the keys of the kingdom because the kingdom belongs to God, and God must direct its affairs for it to be His. 

Here are some excerpts from Joseph’s editorial, section 147: One great evil is that men are ignorant of the nature of spirits: their power[s], laws, government, intelligence, [and so on], and imagine that when there is anything like power, revelation, or vision manifested, that it must be of God (vs 6; emphasis added). That is a great evil.

After criticizing the experiences of Methodists, Presbyterians, and others, Joseph inquired about manifestations of false spirits: They consider it to be the power of God and a glorious manifestation from God — a manifestation of what? (ibid). He’s just described what these people take as glorious manifestations, and he says, despite their supernatural appearance, it’s a manifestation of what? Is there any intelligence communicated? Are the curtains of Heaven withdrawn or the purposes of God developed? Have they seen and conversed with an angel — [and] have the glories of futurity burst upon their view? No! (ibid; emphasis added). In other words, nothing has advanced that is of God—edifying, instructing, and providing greater intelligence. It’s simply spiritual voyeurism, and its evil. 

Nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the Spirit of God (ibid, vs 9). Then he extends this outward as he continued: The Turks, the Hindus, the Jews, the Christians, the Indian in fact all nations have been deceived, imposed upon, and injured through the mischievous effects of false spirits (ibid, vs 10).

Then he (close to the end) says, 

And we shall at last have to come to this conclusion, whatever we may think of revelation, that without it we can neither know nor understand anything of God, or the Devil; …it is equally as plain that without a divine communication (emphasis added) they must remain in ignorance… The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and those that were sent of God they considered to be the false prophets and hence they killed, stoned, punished, and imprisoned the true prophets, and these had to hide themselves “in deserts, and dens, and caves of the earth,” and though the most honorable men of the earth, they banished them from their society as vagabonds, whilst they cherished, honored, and supported knaves, vagabonds, hypocrites, impostors, and the basest of men. (ibid, vs 11)

Read that section. False spirits are actively involved whenever God begins a work. And there are many false spirits—vying for your acceptance—now at work among us. 

That having been said, it’s time to stop dividing and begin uniting. There are enough divisions in Christianity and in Mormonism. This does not need to continue. The restoration is intended to bring unity not division. Division needs to end. 

In one of the accounts that Joseph Smith wrote (about what precipitated his calling by God)—that appears in the new Teachings and Commandments as T&C (Section) 146—Joseph wrote this about what provoked him to go out and to pray to get an answer from God about which church to join:

I found that there was a great clash in religious sentiment: if I went to one society they referred me to one plan, and another to another, each one pointing to his own particular creed as the summum-bonum of perfection. Considering that all could not be right and that God could not be the author of so much confusion, I determined to investigate the subject more fully, believing that if God had a church it would not be split up into factions, and that if he taught one society to worship one way and administer in one set of ordinances, he would not teach [other] principles which were diametrically opposed. (vs 4; emphasis added)

That’s what precipitated the restoration, and there are those who say we have reached a point of stagnation; we have reached a point of corruption; or we have reached a point of apostasy in the various factions of the Mormon world. And people can agree something must be done; something needs to be done.

But people are crying as much lo here, and… lo there (Joseph Smith History 1:11 RE) in their current search to try and reconnect through the restoration as were the Presbyterians and the Methodists and the Baptists at the time that Joseph went into the woods to pray.

What has come of the restoration? It’s reached exactly the point now that was a dead end at the beginning. What is wrong with us that we can’t overlook—based upon the individual experiences, the individual study, the individual’s comprehension, even the individual’s prayerful reflection and guidance through that—and accept one another, when in sincerity all of us are trying to follow God?

Why have we now managed to produce (among ourselves) contention, division, disruption? What is wrong with us? Better yet, what’s wrong with me? Because whatever it is, it’s wrong with every one of us.

It’s no different than the mess that Joseph Smith saw in the landscape of Christianity in 1820 when he went to the woods to pray.

We should be ashamed of ourselves. We should be ashamed of our division. It should repulse us so much that I should be readily willing to embrace you even if you have some idea with which I disagree. I don’t have your background. I don’t have your experience. I haven’t lived your life. I have to assume that you’ve reached the conclusion that you have reached because of the life you’ve lived.

And perhaps if you and I were to take a long enough walk with one another, we could reach an agreement. But we don’t do that, just like the Christian’s didn’t do that, because we’re unwilling to suffer the slightest variation to pass by without commenting on it, criticizing it, and rejecting it without ever considering that there may be a wealth of information that underlies that proposition. And if we understood that well enough, we might say, “Now that I understand, I see where your point fits in to a larger gospel context, and I need to embrace it. I would like to embrace it, but to do so in this fashion, because let me give you what underlies my experience, my background, and my education. ” Why do we do this?

The vineyard that the Lord began the restoration in was cumbered with all sorts of strange fruit. I mean—

(I’ve spent a lifetime referring to it as the Jacob chapter 5.  In the new Book of Mormon layouts, it’s one of the very few chapters that I can actually point you to from memory. It’s Jacob chapter 3 in the new layout. So I’m becoming familiar with it.)

Talking about the condition of this vineyard, and its cumbered with all sorts of strange fruit—none of it worth harvesting; none of it work keeping; none of it worth laying up and preserving against the harvest—the allegory says: 

This is the last time that I shall nourish my vineyard, for the end is nigh at hand and the season speedily cometh. And if ye labor with your mights with me, ye shall have joy in the fruit with which I shall lay up unto myself against the time, which will soon come. And it came to pass that the servants did go and labor with their mights, and the Lord of the vineyard labored also with them. And they did obey the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard in all things. (Jacob 3:26-27 RE; emphasis added)

Well, that’s fairly critical. The Lord’s going to labor with you, but He’s going to expect you to obey His commandments in all things. Have you recently read the Answer to the Prayer for Covenant? Are you determined to obey the master of the vineyard and his commandments in all things? Maybe we ought to read that twice before we berate one another, belittle one another, argue with one another, dismiss one another. Otherwise, we’re really not laboring with the Lord of the vineyard to help for the coming harvest. Instead, we’re embracing a false spirit, and we’re dividing one another, and we’re trying— 

Our ambition, whether we’re willing to acknowledge it or not, our ambition is to set this into the same sort of divisive factions as the Lord condemned to Joseph in 1820. They have a form of godliness but they [deny] the power thereof (JSH 2:5 RE). They teach for [commandments] the [doctrines] of men (ibid). They’re all corrupt.

And there began to be the natural fruit again in the vineyard. And the natural branches began to grow and thrive exceedingly, and the wild branches began to be plucked off and to be cast away (Jacob 3:27 RE; emphasis added).

Some of the plucking and some of the casting away is voluntarily done by those who submit to false spirits that stir them up to anger against one another, and they depart from fellowship thinking themselves justified before God, when in fact, all they’re doing is being plucked and cast away. 

And they did keep the root and the top thereof equal, according to the strength thereof (ibid). We are seeking to keep it equal. Everyone of us is on the same plain. No one’s getting supported by tithing money. If they are, that’s done by a local fellowship that has voluntarily determined that they have one among them in need. Because the tithes are gathered and used to help the poor. There’s no general fund being accumulated, and there’s no one who does anything that they get compensated for. 

This is the only group of people whose religion requires, incessantly, sacrifice. No one gets paid. No one gets remunerated. Everything that is done is done at the price of sacrifice. If you are a person in need among a fellowship, the tithes are appropriately used because that’s what they’re for. They’re for the poor. They’re not for the leader.

You have to keep the root and you have to keep the top equal. If you allow inequality to creep in at the beginning, the end result is lavish palaces in which some fare sumptuously and others ask to eat the crumbs that fall from the table because they’re treated so unequally, and their despair and their poverty and their need goes ignored.

Among us, it can’t go ignored, because the money is gathered at a fellowship level, and if there is someone is need among you and you don’t minister to their needs, you’re cruel. You’re… 

And thus they labored with all diligence, according to the commandments of the Lord of the vineyard, even until the bad had been cast away (ibid; emphasis added). If you can’t tolerate equality; if you can’t tolerate the top and the root being equal; if you can’t tolerate peace among brethren, then go ahead, and be bad and cast yourself away. If you feel moved upon to do that, well, that’s the Lord of the vineyard getting rid of you. 

Even until the bad had been cast away out of the vineyard and the Lord had preserved unto himself, that the trees had become again the natural fruit. And they became like unto one body, and the fruit were equal (ibid; emphasis added). 

That word “equal” shows up so often in the labor that the Lord of the vineyard is trying to accomplish with the people that you ought to take note. We ought to probably typeset it:

EQUAL

in double-sized font. We’re not going to do that, so you have to underline the word, or circle the word, or pay attention to it. The purpose is to go and become equal with one another. As soon as you set out to create rank and position and hierarchy— 

Admittedly, within the parable there is a top, and there is a root, admittedly; but the objective is to achieve equality. If you start out saying the one is greater or better than the other, you’re never going to arrive at the point that is the purpose of the parable, the purpose of the labor of the Lord of the vineyard: and the fruit were equal.

The Book of Mormon has had libraries of material written, and almost every single volume in the libraries of Book of Mormon material are filled with debates between polemics and apologists. All the literature basically debates the pro and the con. I spent decades studying the back and forth of polemicists and apologists. One of the fellows that I admire greatly is Hugh Nibley, and Hugh Nibley was one of the very first serious-minded Mormons to take the Book of Mormon seriously.  If you read what I wrote about the Book of Mormon history of scholarship in Eighteen Verses, you find that, literally, it was Hugh Nibley that ultimately persuaded the First Presidency that the Book of Mormon should be studied and taken seriously.

There were stake presidents and bishops in the LDS tradition who never read the book at the time, and when Hugh Nibley mounted a defense of the Book of Mormon, then-President David O. McKay essentially said, “You talk about it like you think it’s true,” and Hugh Nibley defended it. At the end of the day, however, Hugh Nibley is an apologist. He’s defending the faith. The Book of Mormon itself, on the other hand, has this passage from Alma where he invites you to experiment upon the word. He says, You ought to plant it. Now think for a moment about what it means to plant something. 

Alma says: But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. Just think for yourself, for a moment, how you would do that. Now we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place [unto that seed] that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed — if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the spirit of the Lord — behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts. And when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within [yourself], It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding; yea, and it beginneth to be delicious (un)to me. Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, yea. (Alma 16:27-28 RE; emphasis added)

And he goes on to describe what happens after that and how it converts into knowledge once you gained experience with the process. 

For ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened and your mind doth begin to expand. O then, is [not this][this not] real? I say unto you, yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light is good, because it is discernible; therefore, ye must know that it is good. And now behold, after ye have tasted this light, is your knowledge perfect? Behold, I say unto you, nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed, that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good. And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say, Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with [great] care, it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit. But if ye neglect the tree and take no thought for its nourishment, behold, it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root, it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out. Now this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable, but it is because your ground is barren and ye will not nourish the tree; therefore, ye cannot have the fruit thereof. And thus it is: [and] if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life. But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith, with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold, it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life. And because of your diligence, and your faith, and your patience with the word, in nourishing it that it may take root [ye shall] by and by… pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, …  which is white above all that is white, yea, … pure above all that is pure… And then you thirst not and you hunger not.  (ibid, vs 29-30; emphasis added)

Diligence, patience. Diligence, faith, patience.

We want a faith that will respond like Google. We don’t want God to prepare a banquet’ we want fast food and a short order cook and someone that will slap something on our plate fast, fast, fast! And the Book of Mormon is saying, “Slow down. Diligence isn’t quick. Patience isn’t fast.” Planting the seed—

It’s like the kids in elementary school that plant the pumpkin seed in the Styrofoam cup, and every day they go over and look at the Styrofoam cup, and nothing seems to be happening. And before long, a third of the class has killed the seed because they dug it up to see what’s going on. Patience. Patience and diligence. Three times: diligence and patience. Diligence and patience.

I have had spiritual breakthroughs that are so profound and so sacred that when I described them one time I did so with only nine words. But I can tell you why it happened: 

I taught the Book of Mormon in a Gospel Doctrine class for four different years on cycles while I was a Gospel Doctrine teacher, each time pushing the Book of Mormon deeper and deeper; always, for the first couple of decades, being a little reticent, being a little skeptical.  I accepted the arguments of the apologist. I knew, I understood, and I had studied the arguments of the polemicists.

But Alma was asking that I do something different. Alma was saying, “Hey, why don’t you just experiment with this thing, and plant it as if you believed it. Plant it as if you had faith in it. So forget about the pros and cons, accept the Book of Mormon at face value, and let the Book of Mormon define itself; let the Book of Mormon be the source from which you evaluate whether or not it enlightens you, whether or not it appeals to your heart, to your soul, and to your mind.”

And so I experimented on the word, and I took the Book of Mormon as if it were actually a revelation from God translated by the gift and power of God and delivered to me through no human instrumentality. Joseph Smith may have dictated it, and Oliver Cowdery may have penned most of it, but it was translated by the gift and power of God. Therefore, the book was translated into English by the Lord.

And so I took the Book of Mormon seriously. I entertained no doubts. I employed no apologetics. I just accepted the book and tried to understand it. As I did so, going through the text of the Book of Mormon, there were moments when there were glints where something leapt off the page to me, as if someone had flashed the reflection of the sun off a windshield passing down the street, and it aligns with the right angle of the sun. The text itself seemed to spark to me.

As I took it seriously, I could breathe the spirit of the writers. I beheld more as I went through that text than the text will yield to the cautious and wary reader. The Book of Mormon, like the spirits I referred to earlier, the Book of Mormon also has a spirit, and that spirit is Christ. If you want to relate to the spirit of Christ and not a false spirit, drop all your apprehensions, lower your guard, and see if the Book of Mormon does not yield the spirit of Christ. It was a better text than any other I had encountered in conveying the spirit of Christ. It is, in fact, the most correct book, and a man can get closer to God by abiding its precepts than any other book. 

It can be trusted as a source of direct information in our language. We don’t have to encounter uncertainties and hurdles in trying to manage the language and understand the vocabulary as is always the challenge when you’re looking at a New Testament or an Old Testament text.

The New Testament text has a statement that was made by Christ: 

Think not that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill; for truly I say unto you, heaven and Earth must pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the law untilall shall be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these  commandments and shall teach men so to do, he shall by no means be saved in the kingdom of Heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach these commandments of the law until it shall be fulfilled, the same shall be called great and shall be saved in the kingdom of Heaven. For I say unto you, except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 3:17 RE; emphasis added)

That’s a text from Joseph Smith’s translation or Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of the New Testament, and he’s added a few words in there, including the world “until.”

The English word that gets used in this text about “fulfilled” was translated from the Greek word pleroo. Pleroo can be interpreted: to make fully known, proclaim fully— instead of: to accomplish. In that sense a scholar might conclude from the Greek that Christ’s statement has nothing to do with ending or with completing the law of Moses. And there are scholars who have taught that—Christians.

So there’s an ambiguity about whether Christ intended for the law of Moses to come fully to an end. Or if he was simply establishing it firmly by fulfilling it or adhering to it. Any ambiguity about what Christ intended is removed when his declaration to the Nephites is added to your understanding:

And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words, he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses, for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away and that all things had become new. And he said unto them, Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away and that all things had become new. Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses. Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel. Therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfill the law; therefore, it hath an end… the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled, but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me. (3 Nephi 7:2 RE; emphasis added)

Those who teach the Law of Moses has not come to an end are led by a false spirit. That having been said, someone that has been misled by a false spirit does not necessarily mean that they are an evil person; it only means that they have been misled. Recall Christ rebuking Peter and calling Peter “Satan” because Peter was advising the Lord against the determined trip to Jerusalem where he would be crucified; and Peter told him, advised him, counseled him, and objected, [Far] be it…  from you Lord. [Don’t do this thing] (Matthew 9:2 RE). And the Lord, responding to Peter, called him “Satan.”

There are many people who are only kept from the truth because they do not know where to find it. The obligation of those who can teach truth is to teach it. Overcoming most false spirits is to be done by gentleness, meekness, pure knowledge, and persuasion not by rebuking, condemning, and dismissing the honest seeker for truth. At some point every one of us has emerged from a cloud of falsehoods into acceptance of some truth. We’re no better than others who remain under that cloud, but we have an obligation to invite them to join in receiving light and truth. Likewise, we have an obligation to continue to search for truth. Until you have an understanding of all things, you’re still mislead, at least in part.

The prophets are not all fulfilled and there will yet be many things returned and restored. This will include holy day(s)—when we have a holy place to observe in proper order the things practiced between the time of Adam until the time of Abraham. 

Now I want to talk for a moment about signs that are in the New Testament canon involving Christ, in order to get to a principle that we need to understand. In Matthew: 

And when Jesus departed from there, two blind men following him, crying and saying, Jesus,  son of David, have mercy on us. And when he [was] come into the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said unto them, Do you believe that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord. Then he touched their eyes, saying, according to your faith, be it unto you. And their eyes were opened. And sternly he charged them, saying, Keep my commandments and see you tell no man in this place, that no man know it. (Matthew 4:13 RE; emphasis added)

“You need to obey my commandments! You don’t tell anyone! You don’t tell anyone.”

And again departing from the borders of Tyre and Sidon [this is from Mark], he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the middle of the region of Decapolis. And they brought unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech. And they petitioned  him to put his hand upon him. And he took him aside from the multitude and put his finger into his ears, and he spit and touched his tongue. And, looked up to Heaven, he sighed and said unto him, …  (that is, Be opened). And immediately his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was untied and he spoke plain. And he charged them that they should tell no man. But the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published him, and were beyond measure astonished, saying, He has done all things well. He makes both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak. (Mark 4:14 RE; emphasis added)

This is from Mark returning from the Mount of Transfiguration: And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen until the Son of Man was risen from the dead (Mark 5:6 RE; emphasis added). In Luke, after raising a dead man’s daughter,  Her parents were astonished, but he charged them they should tell no man what was done (Luke 6:12 RE; emphasis added). In Luke, after healing a leper: He charged him to tell no man (Luke 4:10 RE; emphasis added).

Christ said to tell no one because it would attract the wrong kind of follower. It would attract the adulterers. It would attract the sign seekers. It would attract the wrong kind of people. Satan tempted Christ asking him for signs that were self-serving. Bread for the Lord to eat when the Lord was hungry. A show of angelic support when he would be cast off the Temple’s pinnacle. At his death, the wicked demanded signs from him. Spare yourself from the crucifixion; heal yourself. Signs are by their very nature self-serving and attention grabbing, and it is just inevitable. They attract followers, and the Jews knew this and feared Christ’s miracles would result in him becoming greatly popular. 

Then many of the Jews who came to Mary and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and … Pharisees a council, and said, What shall we do? For this man does many miracles. If we let him alone, all men will believe on him, and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. (John 7:7 RE; emphasis added)

But these would be the wrong kind of follower. The gentiles crave that sort of thing. Gentiles who try to get a sign to follow do so because their hearts are wrong. Signs follow faith. Signs follow faith by the will of God, not of man. From the Teachings and Commandments: And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name they shall do many wonderful works (T&C 82:22). You want a sign that someone is a follower of Christ? Go ask the single mother with children who’s being helped by the tithes of a fellowship that go directly to help her whether that is a wonderful work in her life and in her experience, and that’s the first sign—perhaps the primary sign; perhaps the greatest sign. Because it’s relieving the need of someone that needs it.

In my name they shall cast out devils, [and] in my name they shall heal the sick, [and] in my name they shall open the eyes of the blind and un-stop the ears of the deaf, and the tongue of the dumb shall speak, and if any man shall administer poison unto them, it shall not hurt them, and the poison of a serpent shall not have power to harm them. But a commandment I give unto them that they shall not boast themselves of these things, neither speak them before the world, for these things are given unto you for your profit and for salvation. (Ibid; emphasis added)

They are not given to you to boast about.

Melchizedek and the order of priesthood he obtained is described in the book of Genesis chapter 7, in the current set of scriptures, the Old Covenants: For God… [swore] unto Enoch and unto his seed, with an oath by Himself, that everyone being ordained after this order and calling, should have power, by faith, to break mountains (Genesis 7:19 RE; emphasis added). We have no direct account of when the mountains have been broken by those after that order. We have one indirect reference in the book of Genesis referring to Enoch: And he spoke the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled even according to his command, and the rivers of water turned out of their course (Genesis 4:13 RE).

You need to be careful how you parse that scripture. Enoch spoke the word of the Lord. The word of the Lord is spoken. And in response to the word of the Lord having been spoken, the earth trembled, and the mountains fled even according to his—the Lord—his command. And the rivers of water turned out of their course. Enoch preached, earthquakes followed, mountains moved. In Jacob 3:2 RE,  there is another reference: We obtain a hope and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.

That’s Jacob illustrating that the faith they have has this effect. He doesn’t describe that effect having occurred, simply that it’s there. Nephi explained this is the power that God entrusted him with in Helaman: For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God. Yea, behold, at his voice doth the hills and the mountains tremble and quake, and by the power of his voice are broken up and become smooth, yea, even like unto a valley (Helaman 4:10 RE).

He was given the sealing power. He was told that the earth will obey you—because he knew that he would not do anything with that power other than what God willed. And shortly after being entrusted by God to this, Nephi prays to God and asks God to send a famine to stop the people from killing one another. So here is someone who can speak the word of God, and the earth itself will obey him, and he uses that to get on his knees and pray and ask God. He doesn’t command anything.

That kind of endowment of priestly authority is done because God expressed His faith in the man. Can God have faith in you? Can God trust you? 

So the list goes on. 

• The mountains is the first thing. 
• To divide the seas. We have an example of that with Moses. 
• To dry up waters. We have an example of that with Joshua when they reached the river Jordan. 
• To turn them out of their course, which was done again at the time of Enoch.
• To put at defiance the armies of nations—Elijah.
• To divide the earth, to break every band. To stand in the presence of God. To do all things according to His will, according to His command (Genesis 7:19 RE; emphasis added).

When it comes to breaking every band, keep that in mind because we’re going to return to that in a moment. 

And then it says to subdue principalities and powers (ibid). These are in the spiritual realm. Commanding devils, subduing principalities and powers. These are rebellious spirits cast down from Heaven. These are those that pretend to be and often are false ministering spirits or angels.

And this by the will of the Son of God, who was from before the foundation of the world. And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into Heaven (ibid).

Not always the case. The only reason translation occurred is because a mission was assigned to them, but that’s outside of this. 

Any one of the foregoing signs is a confirming sign. It’s not required for all these signs to be given before faith is confirmed. And because these are gifts from God, it is God who decides when the sign will be given. God determines if, when, what, and how often a sign will be given—not the will of men.

Notice that the Brother of Jared’s moving of the Mount Zerin is not recorded in his record or Moroni’s abridgment of that record. It is only mentioned in passing as an illustration (see Ether 5:6 RE). Even if we have faith to participate, the signs are Gods. We are only witnesses. God sent Moses to deliver signs to Egypt, but the signs were God’s. There is only one way in which a mortal can have discretion to invoke God’s power which involves one of the three kinds of sealing power I previously discussed. That third kind is described in the book of Helaman and involves Nephi, and I’ve previously talked about that.

The reason Nephi was granted this authority was explained by God when he said, Thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will (Helaman 3:19 RE). When Nephi used that authority shortly afterward, he deferred to God, prayed and asked God if he would cause a famine to stop the violence of the degenerate people of his generation.

One of the signs that someone has this authority is that they can break every band. An illustration of this is in Nephi. In the first book of Nephi, when Nephi, in the wilderness is bound by his brothers, left behind so that wild beasts would kill him:

And it came to pass that they did lay their hands upon me,  for behold, they were exceeding wroth; and they did bind me with cords, for they sought to take away my life, that they might leave me in the wilderness to be devoured by wild beasts. But it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord, saying, O Lord, according to my faith which is in thee, wilt thou deliver me from the hands of my brethren? Yea, even give me strength that I may burst these bands with which I am bound? And it came to pass that when I had said these words, behold, the bands were loosed from off my hands and feet, and I stood before my brethren and I spake unto them again. (1 Nephi 2:4 RE)

Nephi is evidencing one of the signs of a person who is entrusted with that ordination of priesthood or that order of priesthood to which Melchizedek had been previously ordained. So we have a sign, and we have a testimony, and he’s broken the bands, and it confirms who he is. But later, on the boat, Nephi was bound again, and a tempest came up: 

Nevertheless, they did not loose me. And on the fourth day which we had been driven back, the tempest began to be exceedingly sore. And it came to pass that we were about to be swallowed up in the depths of the sea. And after we had been driven back upon the waters for the space of four days, my brethren began to see that the judgments of God were upon them, and that they must perish save they should repent of their iniquities. Wherefore, they came unto me and [loosened] the bands which were upon my wrists, and behold, they had swollen exceedingly; and also mine ankles [which] were much swollen, and great was the soreness thereof. (1 Nephi 5:30 RE)

Nephi could not break the bands, and he suffered because of it. Why would that same God (who entrusted to Nephi the power and the authority to demonstrate one of the signs that he was beloved and trusted of God, ordained to the order of Melchizedek, and could break the bands) leave him in a bound condition for days, while his hands and (his) feet are swelling? Why would he do that? Why is God not Google? Why is God not fast food? Why is God not a short order cook that can be bossed around by those to whom he has entrusted this authority? Why does God leave them always subordinate to the will of God? Why does the conferral of the sealing power upon Nephi and Helaman state that it is only because he will obey God? Why must all men always remain subordinate to God?

Moroni explained this principle:

Wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness — not until after the trial of your faith. For it was by faith that Christ shewed himself unto our fathers and after he had risen from the dead, and he shewed not himself unto them until after they had faith in him; wherefore, it must needs be that some had faith in him, for he shewed himself not unto the world but because of the faith of men…  Behold, it was by faith that they of old were called after the Holy Order of God. Wherefore, by faith was the Law of Moses given. But in the gift of the Son hath God prepared a more excellent way, and it is by faith that it hath been fulfilled. For [there is] no faith among the children of men, God can do no miracle among them; wherefore, he [showeth] not himself until after their faith. (Ether 5:2 RE)

I have witnessed many miracles. I have been ministered to by angles and have been both in the presence of and received instruction from Jesus Christ. I’ve been shown unspeakable things, but I know that I am nothing. I fear God, and I pray continually and submit to his commandments even when it’s difficult. I disagree with, I argue with, and I provide my best advice and counsel when I honestly believe something asked of me is unwise or when I believe I’m not the right person to be doing an assignment. 

God is willing to speak plainly as one man speaks to another. God has been patient, faithful, and willing to reason with me as one man reasons with another. I can’t tell you how often God’s words to Isaiah have been vindicated: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isaiah 20:2 RE).

God knows and understand every one of us. God knows and understands when healing would prove to be a curse and not a blessing. God knows and understands when some person of faith, like Job, is called upon to endure something. Christ in the garden begged that the cup be taken from him, and the Father refused that request. 

Have any of you ever witnessed the miracle of healing? Because I have; I’ve participated in some of those. But there are people I know who I would love to have healed, who I begged God for the blessing that they be healed. I’ve gotten answers. I’ve been told why they will not be healed. But I don’t have the ability to require God to heal at my insistence—nor do any of you; nor has any man ever, in all the account of scriptures. Christ could not heal some people in some instances, and he was the Son of God. In all of scripture, there is only one moment when it appears that anyone could be healed no matter what their condition was—only one time. And at that moment, Christ was resurrected, and he was appearing as a resurrected being, not still as a mortal. As a mortal, Christ could not heal some. As a mortal, Christ could not persuade the Father to change the Father’s will.

Some of you, like the antagonists of Job, have said to others of you that you don’t have enough faith to be healed. You’re worm-tongue. You’re a false spirit. You’re an accuser of the brethren. You have absolutely no right to make that assertion. Would you tell Christ, when he could not perform a healing, “Jesus, your problem is you don’t have enough faith.” Because that’s essential what you’re saying. You’re saying, Men ought to be sovereign; not God. You’re saying, Signs—which surely are given; signs follow people of faith incessantly. I don’t know how many times—

I’m looking at Rob over there taking notes. Hey, Rob, do you know I’m here? He hasn’t looked up. I don’t know how many times you and I, in company with one another, have witnessed signs. Signs are given. Signs exist. You know what? I’ve told a few family members; I assume Rob’s told a few family members. It’s never been on the Internet; it’s never been advertised, never found its way into one of my talks; and you know why? Because people that are only interested in signs are corrupt, and if someone will go perform some great sign and boast about it and that’s of interest to you, then take your gentile, adulterous predisposition, and go follow them. But you will not witness the miracles of God unless you submit to the commandments of God, and if you do that, signs will follow. 

Don’t judge another because you think God can be turned into an obedient servant that must heal if you have faith. It doesn’t work that way. It didn’t work that way for Christ. It won’t work that way for us. Go humbly to the throne of God, and petition him for intercession. If you have faith, He will either heal, or if you have faith, he will explain to you in an answer why it’s denied. You will know. You will come away with intelligence. What you cannot do is ignore heaven and demand that you have your way. God has been patient, faithful, and willing to reason with me. And God will be patient, faithful, and willing to reason with you.

There’s no institution for us, and none is planned. We are all on our own, accountable to individually accept the responsibilities of discipleship. We should help one another in that effort. But we are not powerless when strange fruit comes and cumbers our fellowships. If a teaching does not conform to the Book of Mormon, you are entitled to reject it, to correct it, to be done with it. The Book of Mormon is the standard for our faith, for our day. It is the rule for our beliefs and practices. It is a covenant for our day.

One of the greatest events that has occurred in history is that in our day—in your lifetime—new scriptures have become available. The extent to which that is a good work can hardly be put into words. Moses recovered scripture that had been lost. The Old Testament record originates beginning with Moses. Prior to Moses’ day, the only volume of scripture that we can definitely say is preceding Moses’ five books is the Book of Job.

In the Book of Mormon there is another prophet who may also have preceded Moses, and that’s Zenos. The Book of Mormon quotes directly writings of Zenos. Somewhere over three thousand words of Zenos are quoted directly in the Book of Mormon. He may also be older than the five book of Moses. All of the scripture that was recovered through Moses was recovered again, a second time, through Ezra.

There had been a great deal lost as a consequence of the Babylonian captivity, and when a remnant returned, one of the things that a leader in that remnant did was to recover scripture. So the Old Testament cannon that we’re familiar with is really a recovery by Ezra of what had been originally produced in part at the time of Moses. All these texts get corrupted over time.

We have a third attempt to recover the scripture that occurred through the prophet Joseph Smith. The prophet Joseph Smith was commanded to go through the Old and the New Testament and to make inspired corrections to it, and we have that. But the saints were condemned in [1832(1)] because they did not respect the Book of Mormon and the former commandments, not only to say but to do, and that condemnation rested upon all.

One of the things that has been discovered in the effort to recover the scriptures and to get them in a form that closely— At this point it’s hopeless to make it exactly, but it is extremely close to what was here originally. One of the things we’ve learned is that the condemnation was for two things: failure to say, and the failure to do. Most people think that the problem was the failure to do—like, You’re condemned because you say it, but you don’t do it. That’s not what it meant. God condemned them because they weren’t saying it, and they weren’t doing it. In other words, the Book of Mormon and the former commandments that had been entrusted to the saints: they failed to say it, and they failed to do it, because the text of the Book of Mormon had become “roughed up” in the process.

An extraordinary effort was required in order to try and get it back to the beginning. We know that we did not, because you cannot, at this point, fully recover the original—can’t be done. We got as close as we could, and in the process of that recovery effort and praying about it, as a sign to us of divine approval, God made edit corrections to the text of the Book of Mormon, and those have been put into— Divinely, recently obtained corrections to the text have been put into the Book of Mormon, almost every one of which are quotes of Christ. He fixed what he said into a correct set of instructions for us.

The original revelations of Joseph Smith were mishandled, mistreated. They were interlineated by people that probably shouldn’t have done that. A great deal of conscientious effort when into trying to get that recovered. We now have, for the first time—it didn’t happen while Joseph Smith was alive—we now have as close and as accurate a set of scriptures as can be recovered at this late date that are remarkably faithful to the restoration that the Lord intended through Joseph Smith.

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible—the Old and New Testament—when the Latter-day Saints left and came out West, that manuscript remained in the possession of Emma Smith. Emma Smith handed it down to her son, Joseph Smith III; and ultimately, the church that he led—the Reorganized Church—published the Joseph Smith Translation or the Inspired Version of the Bible. But when they published it, the committee that did the publication left out a number of the changes and corrections that Joseph Smith had made. Likewise, they felt it their prerogative to insert some editorial changes of their own. And so the Inspired Version of the Bible that people purchase and look at today is actually not what Joseph Smith did. The new scriptures have what Joseph Smith did—all of his punctuation changes; all of his alterations. And Joseph never published it during his lifetime and continued to make changes to the text right through the sermons that he delivered in Nauvoo.

Several times in his sermons he would say/read a verse from the Bible or the New Testament, and he would say, “I could give a plainer translation,” and then he says something about the verse that is plainer or more correct. For the first time, all of those Nauvoo-era alterations that he said “is plainer or more correct, or it should read,” all of those have been gathered and put into the New Testament and Old Testament of the New Covenants and Old Covenants text that are published. This is a great work. This is a sign. Whether you respect the effort that it took or the fact that it has finally rolled out or not, it is a remarkable, historical occurrence in your lifetime.

Now, I wrote a book— I wrote a book that got me into a lot of trouble. It was an intellectual exercise, it was a historical exercise. I was attempting to start from the theoretical standpoint that the Book of Mormon text and the prophecies of Joseph Smith foretell events that will occur when the gentiles obtain the restoration gospel. And so, as a matter of curiosity, investigation, study, and effort, I posed the question, “What would it look like if the things that are prophesied have occurred?”

Passing The Heavenly Gift is a text attempting to answer the question, “What if it’s already happened? How would you tell the story of the restoration?” It is not put out as a dogmatic claim that [in Cronkite voice], “This is our history, and you better look at it and know it’s the truth.” (That’s my best Walter Cronkite. He was the guy that everyone trusted, at one point.)

[In McConkie voice] “I did not regard it as my responsibility to declare the history, and your responsibility to accept what I declared,” —as if I were some, you know, McConkie figure. 

I did it as conjecture, to see: Does it fit? Would it work? Can the story be told that way? And I never reach a conclusion in the book.  I simply say, Look at what might have happened. The fact that it fits hand-in-glove may be incredibly persuasive (alarming, distressing…), but it doesn’t assert that its true, and that book took like 200,000 words to tell the story of the restoration.

Well, when the Kirtland Temple was dedicated (Joseph didn’t live long enough for the Nauvoo Temple to be completed, much less dedicated), but when the Kirtland Temple was dedicated, Joseph Smith thought that that occasion required a formal prayer to be given. And so Joseph prepared a formal prayer for the dedication of the Nauvoo Temple, and he said that that prayer, that dedicatory prayer was actually a revelation. That the content—it’s in the D&C; it’s Section 109 of the Doctrine and Covenants—it was an inspired prayer.

I wrote a book that was 200,000 words. I thought that petitioning God for his approval of the new scriptures required a formality akin to the formality of the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. And so, I knew that there needed to be a prayer presented.

I was prayerful about considering the content of the prayer, and one evening I sat down to compose a prayer for presenting the scriptures (which I intended to present to the scripture committee for their approval before presenting it to the Lord, and to get their input on the prayer). When I sat down, the prayer was revelation. It was what God wanted us to ask. Well that left me no choice to go the committee and say, “Hey, give me your input.” Because I don’t have the right to change what God wants the prayer to include.

It’s part of the new scriptures. That prayer tells the same story, in an inspired way—with far fewer than 200,000 words, with footnotes and chapter divisions. It is God’s view of what we have done with the restoration. 

I do not assert that Passing The Heavenly Gift is good, true, and faithful history.  But I testify to you that the Prayer for Covenant is, in fact, a revelation from God that tells you what the history of the restoration has consisted of. And if you want to know what has happened, read the Prayer for the Covenant that describes the project, and you’ll know what God thinks we have done and what we have not done.

The new scriptures is a historical event that throughout the entirety of history, going back to the time of Moses, has only happened three times. It happened with Moses; it happened with Ezra; it happened through the prophet Joseph Smith and through the faithful diligence of a remnant of the people who sought to reconnect, in our day, and to honor that third restoration through Joseph Smith. It is beyond historic. It is something designed to alter the course of history.

But some people look upon signs like that as inconsequential and easy to dismiss. I can testify to you that the heavens themselves rejoice at what happened there. Even if you’re dismissive; even if you’re nonchalant about it. It is, nevertheless, one of the greatest developments to occur in history, and it happened in your lifetime. The saints were rejected in 1844. Nothing has been done to repair the condemnation in [1832(1)] or to reclaim people since the rejection in 1844. No one has attempted to repent and remember the former commandments—not only to say, but to do—until today.

Stop your damn squabbling! Don’t go back and revert to pre-1820 Christian conduct that aroused God’s ire. I use the word ‘damned’ in the scriptural sense because that’s exactly what it is. Stop squabbling! Stop disagreeing! Surrender your pride! If you think you’re right; if you think someone needs to be corrected; if you think you have a higher, holier better way—stay and persuade. Be meek. Be humble. Solicit other people, and appeal to their heart.

We should welcome everyone. We should welcome Latter-day Saints. We should welcome Community of Christ. We should welcome Catholics. We should welcome Presbyterians. We should welcome every kind of person and then treat them with respect and kindness and understanding. Let them bring their ideas, and let you teach them those truths that you presently understand. The religion of Joseph Smith which—it’s in that video that was shown just before the opening prayer—the religion of Joseph Smith is to accept all truth. 

Just because it hasn’t entered into your hard heart and your closed mind yet, doesn’t make it untrue. There are truths in rich abundance that hail from all quarters of the earth. As religions have discarded truths, many of them have sought and fought to retain the most important core. And the most important core of many faiths and the highest aspiration and the highest ideal—

It doesn’t matter if you’re talking the Cherokee tradition, the Hindu tradition, the Islamic tradition, the Polynesian, the Hawaiian tradition. It doesn’t matter. The highest aspiration remains for the individual to connect to God and for God to recognize and connect with the individual. There’s really no difference. If we welcome one another, and we treat each other kindly—

Someone that may have a religion that is very strange to us, if they bring with them the aspiration to know God, and we can persuade them that God has done a work among us through Joseph Smith—through the labor that has been done to recover that restoration—maybe they’ll labor alongside us as the restoration wraps up.

There is a great deal left to be done. And there is no one seriously entertaining the possibility of constructing a city of holiness, a city of peace, a people that are fruit worthy to be laid up against the harvest. No one has made the effort until now. And while you may look at us and say, “You’ve done a crude job. You’ve done a rudimentary job. It needs improvement.” Then help us improve it! Stop sitting back and throwing rocks! This is a time to gather, not to disperse. The same garbage that existed at the beginning (when Joseph looked around and saw confusion and disharmony) wants to creep in among us. Recognize that’s a false spirit. 

If you’ll cast it out of yourself and if you’ll look at the words of the covenant that was offered in September of 2017, what you’ll find is that Christ wants us—like the Book of Mormon explains—to be meek, to be humble, and to be easily entreated.  And therefore, entreat one another to honor God, and recognize that all of us aspire to be equal, whether you’re at the top or at the root. The aspiration is the same: to be equal. 

Well, the time is far spent, and we need to be out of here in less than an hour, and there’s some work that has gone on behind the scenes that needs to continue.  So, I’m going to wrap this up. Let me end by bearing testimony to you that what I’ve said has not been just me up here giving a talk. Guidance has been given and content has been provided from a higher source than myself, and I hope you take seriously the things that have been said today. 

Because this is a Sunday, as an act of rebellion, I wore a tie; and because it’s a Sunday, I had someone give an opening prayer, and we’re going to have someone give a closing prayer. But if you want to know the history of the restoration from God’s perspective, read the Prayer for the Covenant, that’s in the Teachings and Commandments and you’ll see what God thinks the history is. If you want to know my research project and how I parsed it together in a lot more words than that, you can read Passing the Heavenly Gift. I don’t know how many footnotes are in there, but it’s a research project. Thank you.

The post Signs Follow Faith appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This lecture on the Book of Mormon as a Covenant was given at a conference held in Columbia, South Carolina on January 13, 2019.

Transcript

I have this portable triple combination that I brought with me because the copy that I have of the new scriptures is so cumbersome, and we have to pack everything to catch the plane flights. So, although I really prefer the new scriptures, for portability sake, I brought these.

One of the things that I have, and I want to point out to you these features in the new scriptures in hopes that you will take note of the same kinds of things. One of the things that I have found is that when you get a new set of scriptures, everything is laid out differently than the way that it used to be laid out in the set that you are accustomed to reading and using. As a result, what used to be on the top left-hand side is now on the bottom right-hand side. Everything is reoriented. And the new scriptures do not have versification. They are divided into paragraphs in order to have complete thoughts gathered together. The paragraphs are numbered in order to cite them, but the purpose was to be divided into paragraphs so you got a complete thought. Therefore, when you’re reading something you’re used to seeing out of context— Some verses in the scriptures are a phrase. They’re not even a sentence. They’re just a phrase. But the phrase belongs inside a sentence, and the sentence belongs inside a paragraph, and when you pick up the new scriptures and you read them in this current layout, everything changes. You begin to see things…. 

I have read one way a passage in a January 1841 revelation—the entire time, over 40 some years—I read it the same way. I got the new scriptures with the new layout, and I read the same material, and all of the sudden, it has a different meaning. I’m not going to take the time to read it, but I want you to find it. It’s the January 1841 revelation. When you have time, read it. And read the words about they shall not be moved out of their place , which I have always read to mean the people who are in Nauvoo. And if they are faithful, the people who are in Nauvoo shall not be moved out of their place. In the new scriptures, I read that, and I believe it is referring to Joseph and Hyrum Smith. That they would be preserved and not moved out of their place if the people were faithful. And if they were not, they were going to lose Joseph and Hyrum. Now it doesn’t matter whether the words are referring to the people living in Nauvoo or to Joseph and Hyrum. The sign was that they would be moved out of their place, and both were. We lost Joseph; we lost Hyrum; and we lost Nauvoo. So, things like that happen when you’ve got the new scriptures. 

Last night, as I was listening to Jeff and others who spoke, one of the things that struck me is that almost all revelation—going back to the days of Adam and coming right down to today—come as a consequence of understanding scripture. That was true even of Enoch. Because Enoch had a record that had been handed down from Adam. And in the case of Abraham, the records belonging to the Fathers fell into his hands, and he studied them to gain the understanding that he had. Micah quotes Isaiah. Isaiah quotes Zenos and Zenoch. Jacob quotes the allegory of Zenos. Nephi quotes Isaiah. All of them study scripture in order to get an understanding, and revelation is largely based upon expanding your understanding of scripture. The Book of Mormon is really the keystone of the religion but also the the keystone to revelation itself. It was intended to open our eyes to things that we couldn’t see before. The Book of Mormon is really a giant urim and thummim intended for our benefit. 

I was also struck by something that I went and found this morning. This is a passage in which Nephi is describing the saints at the very end, at the end of time, just before the scene wraps up. 

And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and it’s numbers were few because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters. Nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw. And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together… multitudes upon the face of the earth, among all the nations of the gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God. And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld [that] the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth. And they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory. 

And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth. And as there began to be wars and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying, Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots, and behold, thou seest all these things. (1 Nephi 3:28-29) 

These words don’t say that the coming conflict is against the covenant people of God or the church of the Lamb. Nor does it say that the wrath of God consists of God picking a fight with the wicked. In the case of the wrath of God, people are stirred to anger against each other. They decide. The wicked destroy the wicked because the wicked decide that they cannot put up with peaceful coexistence anymore. Their hearts are so angry with one another that they manage to inflict violence and death and destruction upon one another. 

Like the judgment that Mormon describes in Mormon chapter 9 (of the old set), God is a bystander. The wrath of God is manifest by the rejection of God and the violence that people turn upon one another. And the power of God and the glory of God—meaning the peace of God and the ability to live with one another in harmony without this raging conflict—that power is manifest among the people of God, the church of God, and the covenant people that belong to God. So, if you can maintain peaceful coexistence with one another as you worship God in the coming days, the power and glory of God will descend and be with you, because you managed to extract yourself from the coming conflict, rage, hatred, polarization. And if you don’t think those days are not commencing, then, well, you’re not watching the news. It’s just an ongoing political battle escalating continually. 

Well, the Book of Mormon— This is the Book of Mormon Covenant Conference. The Book of Mormon tells you what it’s for. 

Oh, one last thought about the church of the Lamb of God. At the time— at the time that these words were being written by Nephi, and he had seen the vision, and he’s talking about what he saw. At the time that he’s writing that prophecy, the earliest stages of the Nephite civilization had just begun. Nephi is still living. He has a wife. He has some children. He has brothers. The total group that are involved is not much larger than the group that we have right here today [about 25 people]. He’s looking down through history prophetically and he’s saying the saints—the covenant people of God, the people that the Lamb of God’s church—that group is “few.” Now if it was 16 million people scattered globally, in the reality of Nephi’s context, he would not describe them as few. He is not making a comparative analysis. He’s simply describing what he saw. He said they’re all around the world, but there’s only very few of them. If you go to the fellowship locator and you look at what you see among those that have identified themselves with the last days’ covenant, they’re all over the world, but there is really very few of them. 

We tend to think about numbers in the Book of Mormon as if their numbers were akin to what we’re accustomed to seeing in our day. One of the distortions that comes in is the rank, the identification. If we’re talking about someone who is a general, we would say, He’s a general, and we would expect a star to be on his shoulder. If they’re talking about someone that is a general, they would call him a captain of 10,000. It does not mean that he has 10,000. A captain of a hundred does not mean that he has a hundred. It means a rank. A captain of 50 does not mean that he has 50. It means that he has a rank. When the pioneer companies were organized, and they divided into captains of 100’s and captains of 50’s and captains of 10’s, those were simply identifying a role, a rank, a position. It didn’t mean that you had a hundred people in your company. It didn’t mean that you had 50 people that you were directing. It didn’t mean that you had 10 people over whom you had charge. It was simply a way of dividing them. So, when you get to the end of the Nephite wars, with “this and his 10,000” and “that and his 10,000” and “someone else and their 10,000” and they’re all slain, it doesn’t mean that you are reading about hundreds of thousands or millions who are dying. It means that someone in a position of rank and authority and all of those under his command were slain. What those numbers amounted to, we don’t know. But the designation that Nephi gives to what would be going on in the last days before the coming of Christ, when the wicked are destroyed by the wrath of God,—meaning that the spirit withdraws, and as it withdraws, their level of cruelty and violence increases—is few, probably describing gatherings like we have here. 

The Book of Mormon begins with a title page that was on the very last plate of the plates that Joseph Smith translated, and it appears as the first page of the Book of Mormon. 

An account written by the hand of Mormon upon plates taken from the plates of Nephi. Wherefore, it is an abridgement of the [records] of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites; written to the Lamanites [who] are a remnant of the house of Israel and also to Jew and gentile . 

The Book of Mormon was written for three groups. Three targeted audiences are identified right at the outset: the Lamanites, the Jews, and the gentiles. That’s who the Book of Mormon was sent to. In the Teachings and Commandments, section 158, there is a covenant offered to the gentiles, to the remnant of the Lamanites, and to the remnant of the Jews. These are the words of that covenant. 

Do you have faith in these things and receive the scriptures approved by the Lord as a standard to govern in your daily walk in life, to accept the obligations established by the Book of Mormon as a covenant, and to use the scriptures to correct yourselves and to guide your words, thoughts and deeds? (vs 3) 

It also goes on to say: But if you do not honor me, nor seek to recover my people Israel… then you have no promise (vs 19). 

The people that the Book of Mormon established as the target audience are the Lamanites, the Jews, and the gentiles. We have an obligation to try and reach out to the Lamanites, the Jews, and the gentiles. 

The title page goes on to say:

…written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation. Written, and sealed [up], and hid up unto the LORD, that they might not be destroyed; to come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof; sealed…by the hand of Moroni…hid up unto the LORD, to come forth in due time by..way of [the] gentile; the interpretation thereof by the gift [and power] of God. 

Did you get that? Almost in rapid succession, twice we’re told to come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof and the interpretation thereof by the gift [and power] of God . Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon. God translated the Book of Mormon and told Joseph Smith what He wanted that interpretation to say. I have read as many source documents as are currently available to review in print. There are some source materials I haven’t looked at because they are in private collections, and you have to travel to see those. But we have this fanciful narrative about how the Book of Mormon was translated. 

One of the things that went on in Kirtland was a “shouting Methodist” tradition. People would go into the woods, and they would shout praises to God in hopes that they obtained some kind of spiritual manifestation. The typical manifestation that they were able to create in this tradition was to be seized upon, bound up, and unable to move, which was considered a sign of God’s grace and redemption because they were seized upon by some unseen power that had such marvelous power as to bind them up so they could not move. One of the other things that the “shouting Methodists” tradition in Kirtland, Ohio encountered was the idea that as you’re out and shouting praises, often times standing on the stump of a tree that’s been cut down, there would be a scroll or parchment that would flutter down from heaven, and when it arrived, on the parchment, there would be words written, and you would read the words, and after you had read the words, the parchment would disappear; it would disintegrate. These were the kinds of manifestations that were the “shouting Methodist” tradition which, when Mormonism came to Kirtland, some of the Kirtland Mormon converts had similar experiences. 

Well, one of the stories which gets told about the translation of the Book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith would look in a hat, a parchment would appear, he would read the words off the parchment, and then the parchment would disintegrate as soon as the translation was written down, and then a new parchment would appear. 

At a conference in Kirtland, Hyrum Smith introduced his brother, Joseph. And as Joseph was getting up to talk, Hyrum said, “And Joseph is going to tell us about how the translation of the Book of Mormon took place.” Joseph got up in front of the people, and he said, “It’s not appropriate; it was translated by the gift and power of God.” And then he went on. He refused to describe the process. If you want to know how the Book of Mormon was translated, the Book of Mormon tells you how: by the gift and power of God. 

When pressed, after Joseph is dead and gone, and you want to sound like you know something, and you think back about the experiences of the “shouting Methodist” tradition in the early days in Kirtland, well, why not say scrolls would appear, and then when he read them, they’d disintegrate. There is so much that has crept into the reconstruction of events that are accepted by the LDS church, that are accepted by historians, that are accepted by the scholars. There’s only two people—I was gonna say one person—that knows how it was done—and that was Joseph—but there are two; the second one is God. How did God interpret the Book of Mormon? And, by the way, if you took only the etchings that are on the plates of the Book of Mormon, and you rendered a word for word translation of that set of inscriptions, would it read exactly like the Book of Mormon that we have? Or did God—in His mercy, understanding the weaknesses of our day—give us an interpretation that helps us to understand things in our language, maybe a little more clearly than if we had simply a word for word translation from the plates? These are things that Joseph may know, or he may not. But certainly God would know. When people pretend to know everything there is to know about the translation of the Book of Mormon, and then to mock the process, they’re really inviting… they’re putting their own foolishness on display, and they’re inviting the ire of God. The fact is that the witness to how this process unfolded confined what he had to say to, “it was translated by the gift and power of God.” And the source of these other fanciful tales—Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris (two of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon)—they were commanded to bear testimony, and their testimony was to consist of “the interpretation thereof was by the gift and power of God.” So when they go beyond that, to give details that they probably have no way of knowing a thing about, they’re actually violating the restriction that God put upon it “for a wise purpose.” 

Joseph Smith was not the translator. It plainly states that God was the translator. It does not mean that what was composed by Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Omni, and others on the small plates, and by Mormon and Moroni on the rest—and their abridgement—is necessarily exactly what was composed by them, because God used the interpretation of the text that He provided to state what He intended by His gift and power to be the message that we  receive today. It is literally Gods statement to us about the content He wants us to understand, adapted to our needs. It goes on to say, in this title page, 

An abridgement taken from the book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, [who] were scattered at the time the LORD confounded the language… which is to shew unto the remnant of the house of Israel [what] great things the LORD hath done for their fathers…that they may know the covenants of the LORD, that they are not cast [out] for ever. And also to the convincing of the Jew and gentile that Jesus is the CHRIST, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations….now if there [are faults], [they are] the mistake[s] of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of CHRIST. 

What are the covenants of the Lord that are supposed to be made known unto the remnant of the house of Israel that comes through the Book of Mormon? Well, the Book of Mormon tells you what they are: It shall also be of worth unto the gentiles, …not only unto the gentiles but [also] unto all the house of Israel, unto the making known of the covenants of the Father of Heaven unto Abraham, saying, In thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed (1 Nephi 7:3). So the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to alert the gentiles and the Jews of the covenants that were made, specifically the covenants that were made with Abraham. 

One of the great things about the new set of scriptures is that the Teachings and Commandments are laid out chronologically. There’s this tradition that the last great revelation that Joseph Smith received was in January of 1841, in which the Lord outlined the commandment to build the temple, and the signs that were to be given if the temple were completed in sufficient time, and how the church would be accepted with their kindred dead—or rejected with their kindred dead, depending on how they pursued this. That’s supposedly his last great revelation. In the Teachings and Commandments, however, what you see in the layout of Joseph’s revelations chronologically is that in 1842, the first installment of the Book of Abraham was published. And it appears in the Teachings and Commandments in its chronological layout, and then a few months later, the next installment of the Book of Abraham appears. And so the last largest revelation given to Joseph, although there were others that are included in this same time frame, is the text of the Book of Abraham. 

The Book of Mormon points to a recovery of knowledge and understanding about the covenants God made with Abraham. The Book of Abraham had to be revealed. It had to come forward. In order for us to understand the covenants that God made with Abraham, we had to get the Book of Abraham, which did not roll out until the 1842-and-beyond time period. Joseph’s work culminated in attempting to get on the ground ordinances that would have reflected more fully the covenants made with Abraham, but the Book of Abraham is part of vindicating the promises that were made in the Book of Mormon. So, as you read the Teachings and Commandments, and you see it unfolding chronologically, you see where the Lectures on Faith fit in. You see where the book of Abraham fit in. You see how Joseph’s ministry was taking on a trajectory that literally fits the pattern of what the Book of Mormon was promising would come forth and be vindicated. 

In the Book of Abraham: I have purposed to take thee away out of Haran… to make of thee a minister to bear my name [this is God’s great gift to Abraham; He is going to make of him a minister to bear his name] in a strange land which I will give unto thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession (Abraham 3:1). 

Ok. This is cumbersome language, but I want you to ask yourself, if the great gift that God gives to Abraham is to make of him a minister to bear His name, and then He mentions he is going to bear His name in a strange land, followed with, which I will give unto thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession . 

Is the gift that He is giving to his descendants “the land” or “the ministry?” I will give unto thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession, when they hearken to my voice. Does that sound like land, or does that sound like the ministry relating to hearkening to God’s voice. As He goes on to explain what his descendants are going to inherit: 

Thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and priesthood unto all nations. And I will bless them through thy name, for as many as receive this gospel shall be called after thy name and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as unto their Father. And I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee. And in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed, (that is, thy Priesthood)—for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee and in thy seed after thee. (ibid) 

The seed of Abraham are the people that hearken to the same God that Abraham hearkened to. If you hearken to that same God, you’re the seed of Abraham. And the ministry that you’re supposed to bear is the testimony that that God lives! And that that God is THE God over the whole earth; that His work began with Adam and won’t wrap up until the second coming of Christ in judgment on the world to save and redeem those that look for Him. 

We have to have the record of Abraham in order to understand the covenant that God made with Abraham in order to vindicate the promise that’s made in the Book of Mormon. One of the sharp edges of criticism of Mormonism is directed specifically at the Book of Abraham. There are a lot of intellectual arguments that are being made out there, a lot of challenges for why the Book of Abraham ought to be thrown out, and how the Joseph Smith papyrus that got recovered is really, simply, Egyptian Book of Breathings material that has very little to do with a record written by the hand of Abraham on papyrus, and so on. Well, if the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, the Book of Abraham was translated no differently, except by the gift and power of God. And it includes information that’s vital for us to understand in order for us to know what the covenants were that were made with Abraham—in order for us to inherit the same gospel that was given to Abraham, so that we can lay hold upon the same blessings that were given to Abraham, so that the covenants that were made with the Fathers can be understood, activated, realized, and we can obtain the blessings of those here in the last days. 

All this stuff fits together, and Joseph’s work had to necessarily include recovery of the covenants made with Abraham. Now, you may regard yourself as a gentile, but the covenant that was made with Abraham makes you a descendant of Abraham if you hearken to that same God and receive that same gospel. And Nephi explains who the gentiles are in relation to the family of Father Abraham also. This is Nephi: 

And it shall come to pass that if the gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks, and harden not their hearts against the Lamb…they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father. Yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel; and they shall be a blessed people upon the promised land for ever. They shall be no more brought down into captivity. (1 Nephi 3:25) 

Nephi is telling you, ”If you are willing to receive what God has offered, then you’re numbered among the house of Israel.” Jacob, the brother of Nephi, wrote about the gentiles. He said: 

He that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God, for he that raiseth up a king against me shall perish. For I the Lord [God], the King of Heaven, will be their king…I will be a light unto them for ever…. Wherefore, for this cause, that my covenants may be fulfilled which I have made unto the children of men, that I will do unto them while they are in the flesh, I must needs destroy the secret works of darkness, and of murders, and of abominations. Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and gentile, both bond and free, both male and female shall perish…. the gentiles shall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel. Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto [them and] thy seed. (2 Nephi 7:2-4) 

So Jacob, likewise, says gentiles who are willing to receive this as their covenant are numbered among the house of Israel, no longer numbered among gentiles. They change identities, just like the promise that was made to Abraham. You receive it, you’re his seed. 

Christ picked up the same thing in 3rd Nephi: That the gentiles, if they will not harden their hearts, that they may repent, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, and know of the true points of my doctrine, that they may be numbered among my people, O house of Israel (3 Nephi 9:11) . 

The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to reveal that God made a covenant with Abraham in the beginning, and at the end, God intends to vindicate the covenant that God made with Abraham by changing gentiles into the house of Israel, by covenant. When the restoration began, the people from the first publication in 1830 until September of 2015 [2017] in Boise, Idaho, no one accepted the Book of Mormon as a covenant. It had not been done. The Lectures on Faith got accepted. The Doctrine & Covenants got accepted. The church leaders got accepted. A First Presidency, a high council—all kinds of things got accepted—but not the Book of Mormon as a covenant until September…was it…what year was that? 2017. (It was an odd year, but not 2015.) 

September of 2017—it was the very first time in history that the Book of Mormon was received as a covenant. And in the words that I read you just a moment ago, Nephi mentions covenant people. You have to receive it as a covenant. God only works to bring people into His good graces by covenants. They have to be made. Without covenants, you cannot participate in what the Lord sets out. 

Well, the Book of Mormon was intended as a record for our day to restore our knowledge to make it possible for us to enter back into a covenant relationship with God, in order for the promises that were made to the Fathers to be vindicated. Abraham looked forward to having seed that would be countless. He had one son. But God told him, “Don’t worry about that.” The time will come when everyone who receives this gospel—that is, the gospel that Abraham had in his possession; the gospel that is unfolding in front of your eyes today—that will continue to unfold until all of its covenants, rites, obligations, privileges, understandings will all roll out. The restoration will be completed. But the promise was made to Abraham that whenever that is on the earth, those who receive it will acknowledge him, Abraham, as their covenant father—the father of the righteous. 

I want to comment about an issue that came up last night, both in remarks that got made by Jeff and comments that others made in the audience. During the early Kirtland era when there were a lot of false spirits that wound up creating a lot of mischief, the people were really wanting to have these miraculous signs to be given. Faith does not come from signs. It’s actually impossible to for that, to have a sign, and that as a consequence of the sign, you now have faith. It doesn’t work that way. That’s one of the reasons why Christ, when He did something miraculous like healing someone who was a leper or healing someone who was lame, He would admonish them, “Don’t tell anyone about this.” Because if the person who underwent this miraculous event went out and talked it up, then the people who heard that would be damaged in their ability to have fatih. Because they now had a sign. And if what you do is run after signs, then you go from sign to sign, and you never develop the required faith. 

By studying the scriptures and plumbing the depths of the message that we have in the scripture record that’s in front of us, you can arrive at a point in your understanding in which it really doesn’t matter if an angel appears to you or not. The angel’s purpose is never going to be to produce faith in you. If the angel is going to produce faith in you because of their appearance, then the angel ought not appear. Because they’ll turn you into a sign seeker. On the other hand, if you have developed faith by the careful study of what we’ve been given in the scriptures, and the presence or absence of an angel will have no effect on your faith—you will believe; you will have confidence; your understanding reaches the same depth with or without the angels presence—then there is no reason for the angel to withhold. There is no reason for him not to appear. 

When the brother of Jared went to the Lord with an interior lighting problem, and the Lord said,” What do you want as a solution?” The brother of Jared did not need to see the finger of the Lord in order for him to have faith that the Lord was going to solve the problem. He went out, he molten the stones, he took them back, he presented them to the Lord. He asked the Lord to take care of it. Is there any greater faith in saying, “Oh, as the Lord touched the stones I saw his finger,” or, “Here are the stones that will light in the dark that the Lord has now taken care of.” Because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil. Well, what was the knowledge that he had? It was the fact that his faith had grown to the point where he was taking what is behind the veil and unseen, and he’s pulling into this world—a physical manifestation of God in this world—by the stones that he had molten and by the request that he had put to the Lord. And so the Lord makes that manifestation here. His knowledge parted the veil because he had done the labor to make something in this world that connected God to it, in order to bless the people. All of this was an act of service and sacrifice and faith for the blessing and the benefit of others. It was selfless. But it was selflessness in a way that drew into the physical world what lies beyond the veil. 

And so he sees God’s finger, and it startles him. It startles him, and the Lord puts a question to him. It’s a question that is reflected earlier in Nephi’s writing. Nephi says, God loveth all who will have him to be their God. 

And the brother of Jared is asked, Did you see more than this. [Brother of Jared] No. [God] Will you believe me if I show myself to you? [Brother of Jared] Yea, I know you’re a God of truth and cannot lie; I’ll believe all your words. 

Why do you think the Lord posed the question, If I show myself to you, will you believe in me? Why do you think that Mormon writes about how he’s spoken face-to-face in plain humility, as one man speaks to another? We want the thundering and the lightning and the ground-shaking on Sinai, and when the Lord appeared to the brother of Jared, before appearing, He asked him, Now when you see me, are you going to believe me? He loveth all who will have him to be their God… Well, I knew not that God was a man… You seem so much bigger and better when you were the burly thunderer from behind the curtain announcing that you are the great and powerful Oz. But now that the curtain’s drawn aside and you’re like— Man was created in your image, and it literally means that. It takes some of the varnish off it all. 

God’s greatness does not consist in striking awe in the eye of the beholder because of glory. It consists in the humility, the virtue, the goodness, the purity of the being. We worship God, not because He is powerful. We worship God because He represents everything that is pure and holy and good—everything that is desirable above all else. The purity of that fruit that was delicious that father Lehi talked about and Nephi wrote about, it is so because of its goodness. Because it is exactly what the highest and the best and the most noble should be. That’s who God is. 

People that are brought into God’s presence are convicted of their own inadequacies because you see here, at last— now is a complete being, is a pure, just, and holy being. And in comparison, we all lack. We all lack. When Isaiah was caught up to the presence of the Lord, he is shouting, Woe is me; I’m undone; I am a man of unclean lips; I dwell among people of unclean lips. He recognizes the enormity of the gulf, the gap between him and God. And so God purges it. It’s because of the faith and the confidence that he has in God that Isaiah afterwards says, Here am I, Lord, send me. It’s not because Isaiah is suddenly a greater being than he was before. It’s because Isaiah had faith that this Being can indeed make one as flawed as we are cleansed, holy, pure, confidence in him. If I were to make one recommendation about the process, I would say forget about asking for signs, study the depths of the scriptures, and you’ll find yourself in company with angels who will come help you to understand what is in these scriptures—and in particular, above all, the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is a giant urim and thummim; used in the correct way, you’ll find yourself in company of angels—who are helping to tutor you—in a conversation, as you look into an understanding of what’s written in the scriptures. And then there’s no reason for them to withhold their presence from you. Adam, having conversed with the Lord through the veil, desires now to enter into His presence: There’s no reason after you have conversed through the veil for that presence to be denied you. But it follows an order. It follows a pattern. 

We have now arrived at that moment when there are going to be competing meetings going on. I did say that we’d do questions if people had any. So is there something someone wanted to have me talk about? 

———

QUESTION: I wondered if you would expound upon the studying of the scriptures…. A christian pastor I am acquainted with, in the process of studying, he ended up losing his faith, instead of developing faith. There seems to be that risk, like with Jeremy Reynolds and the CES Letter… Sometimes people lose their faith instead of developing it…. 

DENVER: The question is, Do you run any risks by studying that you can just as easily study your way out of belief as you can study your way into belief. 

The way that I think that works is… Everyone wants to understand, because of how proximate—how close—Joseph Smith is, everyone wants to understand how Joseph Smith did it. So, if we think we can figure out how Joseph Smith did it, then presumably that will equip us to understand or put it into context. But most people who are studying to figure out how Joseph Smith did it are only interested in debunking it. I want to know how he pulled this off because I’m a little skeptical that what he pulled off is actually genuine, and maybe if I can understand how Joseph Smith pulled that off, then I can understand how Jesus pulled it off. Then I can understand how Moses pulled it off. Then I can put it all to rest because I needn’t worry about it. Or, I want to understand how Joseph Smith pulled it off so I can pull it off, and when I get that and I figure it out, and I try it, and it doesn’t work for me, then I can say Joseph made it up because it didn’t work for me. I mean, there are a lot of pitfalls along the course of study. 

The first and primary question you have to ask is… Take a look around this world and, and ask yourself if—in this world—it makes sense to you that there is no Creator. Does it make sense to you that everything that’s going on here simply is a haphazard accident? That there is no creation; there’s no creator; there’s no divine plan; there’s nothing here that operates on any other basis than random chance? If you reach the conclusion that everything that’s going on here could possibly be by random chance, then read Darwin’s Black Box . There’s a little over 200 different things that have to line up perfectly in order for your blood to clot. If any one of those 200 things don’t happen simultaneously—it’s a little over 200—if any one of those don’t happen simultaneously, you will die. For some of those, if you get a cut and they’re not present, you’ll bleed out. You’ll simply die because you will exsanguinate. For others of those, if you get a cut, your entire blood system will turn solid, and you will die because clotting knows no end. Darwin’s Black Box makes the argument that it is evolutionarily impossible for trial and error to solve the problem of blood clotting because everyone of the steps that are required, if nature simply experiments with it, kills the organism. And that ends that. You don’t know that you are going to succeed until you’ve lined them all up, and you’ve made them all work. It is an interesting book, Darwin’s Black Box . In essence, it’s saying that the evolutionists require more faith really than do people that believe in God because the theory upon which they base their notion requires far too many things to occur by trial and error than is conceivably possible. 

Well, if there is a creation, then there is a Creator. If there is a Creator, then the question is… I assume all of you have had a father or a grandfather—someone that you respected—a mother or a grandmother, an aunt or an uncle that over the course of a lifetime developed skills and talents and humor and character—someone that you admire. And then they pass on. How profligate a venture is it to create someone that you—a creation that you view as noble, as worthy, as admirable, as interesting, as fascinating; some person that you love. Take that, and just obliterate it. God, who can make such a creation, surely doesn’t waste a creation. He’s not burning the library at Alexandria every day by those who pass on. God had to have a purpose behind it all. I don’t know how many of you have had a friend or a loved one or a family member who passed on who, subsequent to their death, appeared to you, had a conversation with you, in a dream, in a thought. I can recall going to my father’s funeral, and his casket with his body was in the front of the little chapel we were in, but his presence was not there. That may have been the hull he occupied while he was living and breathing, but I had no sense at all that my father was there. I did have a sense that he was present, but he wasn’t in the coffin. He was elsewhere in the room. I couldn’t see him, but I could have pointed to him, and said, He’s here. I fact, I made a few remarks at my fathers funeral, and I largely directed them at him. 

Nature testifies over and over again; it doesn’t matter when the sun goes down, there’s going to be another dawn. It doesn’t matter when all the leaves fall off the deciduous trees in the fall, there’s going to come a spring. There’s going to be a renewal of life. There are all kinds of animals in nature that go through this really loathsome, disgusting, wretched existence, and then they transform. And where they were a pest before, now they are bright, and they’re colorful, and they fly, and they pollinate. Butterflies help produce the very kinds of things that their larvae stage destroyed. These are signs. These are testimonies. Just like the transformation of the caterpillar into the butterfly—the pest into the thing of beauty; the thing that ate the vegetables that you were trying to grow into the thing that helps pollinate the things that you want to grow—that’s the plan for all of us. So, when you study the scriptures, the objective should not be, “Can I trust the text? Can I evaluate the text? Can I use a form of criticism against the text in order to weigh, dismiss, belittle, judge?” Take all that you know about nature, take all that you know about this world and the majesty of it all. Take all that you know that informs you that there is hope, there is joy, there is love. Why do you love your children? Why do your children love you? These kinds of things exist. They’re real. They’re tangible, and they’re important. And they are part of what God did when He created this world. Keep that in mind when you’re studying and search the scriptures to try and help inform you how you can better appreciate, how you can better enjoy, how you can better love, how you can better have hope. What do they have to say that can bring you closer to God? Not, can I find a way to dismiss something that Joseph said or did? As soon as Joseph was gone off the scene, people that envied the position that he occupied took over custody of everything, including the documents, and what we got as a consequence of that is a legacy that allowed a trillion dollar empire to be constructed. Religion should require our sacrifice. It should not be here to benefit us. We should have to give, not get. And in the giving of ourselves, what we get is in the interior; it’s in the heart. It’s the things of enduring beauty and value. If your study takes you away from an appreciation of the love, the charity, the things that matter most, reorient your study. 

QUESTION: Expound on the phrase, “the pavilion of thy hiding place?” 

DENVER: At that time Joseph was in Liberty jail and he was longing for that earlier companionship that he had been involved with. Joseph made a remark one time about how the apostle Paul had seen the third heaven and that he, Joseph, had seen the seven heavens. There’s a construct to the order of everything. And there are veils within veils within veils. I once analogized priesthood to fellowship, and there is more than one kind of fellowship beyond the veil. And there are councils, and there are places in the heavens where some are invited, and others will get there eventually. The pavilion of God is another way of saying, You have located yourself in a place high and lifted up—is one way that it gets described, in which God appears to be inaccessible at that moment. God appears to be outside of the range. Joseph was writing that in Liberty jail because he felt like God had abandoned him. 

In fact, one of the problems with the LDS version of the Doctrine and Covenants is that the language that appears right before God’s answer to Joseph is gone. It’s not in your D&C, but it’s in the Teachings and Commandments. Joseph got a letter from friends. It was very consoling. He was complaining to God because now he’d heard from his loved ones, but it made him reflect upon all the misery that had gone on in their being driven out of the state of Missouri while he’s locked up in a dungeon and unable to do or say anything to help them. And his mind—he describes how his mind is aflame with anxiety. His mind is jumping from point to point with—the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith says, “with the avidity of lightning.” The real word that he used was with the vivacity of lightning, but his mind is simply jumping from place to place to place because of the circumstances. Then just before the answer comes… 

Oh God where art thou, and where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place. How long shall thy hand be stayed. (D&C 121:1) 

That is part of the letter. Between verse 6 and verse 7, as it appears in the Doctrine and Covenants, is this long explanation that Joseph gives about how his mind is stirred up. He’s jumping from subject to subject. His anxiety… He’s worked up into a frenzy. And then he says, At last all the anxieties lie slain, and he reaches a state of peace and reconciliation, and when he is finally calm and his mind has settled down, the voice of inspiration comes along and whispers, 

My son, peace be unto thy soul. Thy adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment. (vs 7) 

The voice of God came to Joseph in Liberty jail when his mind came to peace. 

He grasps after the future with the fierceness of a tiger, retrogrades from one thing to another until finally all enmity, malice, and hatred and past differences, misunderstandings, and mismanagements lie slain, victims at the feet of hope. And when the heart is sufficiently contrite, then the voice of inspiration steals along and whispers, my son, peace be unto your soul. 

Finally, hope and peace, and then comes the answer. We have a lot of reasons to be anxious in every one of our lives. There is so much that troubles us, but the voice of inspiration steals along and whispers, when we finally are calm enough: Be still, and know that I am God gets read as, Be Still!! And know that I am God!! When what it’s really saying is, If you would like to know that I am God, quiet it all down. Because whatever pavilion I may occupy, I also occupy part of you. You live and breathe and move because God is sustaining you from moment to moment by lending you breath. He’s in you, and He’s with everyone of us. 

QUESTION: So you spoke of the need to plumb the depths of the scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon, and how it becomes a urim and thummim to us. The Book of Mormon itself informs us that this is the lesser things. It is intentionally withholding much. And it specifically states the purpose is to try our faith. The faith having been so tried, those who plumb the depths can expect more to come forth at some point—in terms of scripture; in terms of record. I guess the question there is—and not to minimize what we have been given because it is clearly enough for our present state and more—does that sort of thing, are those sorts of records that are promised a millennial sort of thing, after the Lord returns? Or, is it a sort of thing that, if we finally take seriously enough what’s been given now, can we expect more to come forth before the Lord comes? 

DENVER: I believe that how we respond to what we are given will drive that entirely, and whether we get it before the millenium or after is dependant upon us. But I also think— Look, the people who prepared the summaries on the plates—the abridgement—and the Lord who provided the translation of that, both know what’s being withheld. They abridged what they abridged with what was being withheld in front of their eyes. So they can’t tell you the abridged story without the content of what’s being withheld present in their mind. If you go through the text carefully, you’ll begin to see that there are patterns that start fitting together. I don’t think that when the rest of what has been withheld is suddenly brought out into the light— If you’ve carefully looked at what is in the scriptures already, you’re not going to say, “Wow! That is shockingly different!” You’re going say, “I always suspected that. And that fits in with this, and this fits in with that, and the picture begins to emerge a bit more clearly. Yeah, I’ve always sort of suspected that to be the case.” When we read the scriptures, keep in mind that the people writing them have in their mind the rest of the picture, and it leaks through, a great deal leaks through because you can’t— If you know the rest of the story, and you’re telling the tale, but you’re leaving out some of the big punch lines, but they are present in your mind, the punch lines are going to leak through. There is a lot that comes through in the Book of Mormon. The character and the nature of God is probably better understood by what we have in the Book of Mormon, and it is perfectly consistent with the testimony of the gospel writers who knew Christ in mortality. And if you take what we got in a fairly battered New Testament record and the Book of Mormon together and what happened in the life of Joseph Smith, and you weave them all together, you begin to understand that God is a very patient, loving, kindly being. And that the mysteries of God largely consist in developing the attributes of godliness in us. The things that matter the most are the things that make us more like Him—better people, more kindly. You want to know more of the mysteries of God, serve your fellow man, and be of more value to them. In the process of blessing the lives of others, you find out that you know more of the character of God as a consequence of that. 

Let me end by bearing testimony that God really is up to a work right now. And the work that is underway can culminate in Zion. Covenants were made. Promises were given. God has an obligation to the covenant fathers that He will vindicate. God’s words will be fulfilled, all of them. None of them are going to fall to the ground unfulfilled. The question is not, Will God bring about the culmination of all His purposes? The question is, Are we willing to cooperate with Him to bring those purposes to pass in our day? The offer that God makes—this appears in scripture nearly as often as the promise in Malachi—God says, How oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and ye would not. Could God have brought about His purposes and vindicated His promises in the days of Moses? Could He have done what He had promised to do when Christ was here on the earth? Could He have done it in the days of Peter? Could He have done it in the days of Joseph Smith? The question is never whether God will vindicate His promises. The question is, Will there ever come a people who will respond to the Lord’s willingness to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and be gathered, and be content with being gathered and being at peace with one another. We have that opportunity, but so many generations before us have had the same opportunity, and they would not. The question isn’t whether God is going to do it or whether God is willing to do it now. The question is, Are we willing to cooperate with Him in that process to do our part? We get really petty with one another, and we shouldn’t be. We ought to value one another so highly that we will do anything we can to support one another and to assist in bringing about the purposes of God. At the end of the day, obedience to God is simply blessing one another by the way we conduct ourselves. I like the Lamanite king’s prayer, “I will give away all my sins to know you.” We tend not to be willing to give away our sins. We want to harbour them and cultivate them and celebrate them. We ought to be more— We ought to love God more and our sins less. God can fulfill His promises in our day, before we leave this stage of the action. It can happen. Whether it happens or not is up to us and how interested we are in doing as He bids us. Of that I bear testimony, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. 

The post Book of Mormon as a Covenant appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This lecture was delivered at Graceland University, in Lamoni, Iowa, November 10, 2018.

Transcript

I have come to realize that everyone’s religion is eccentric. And it doesn’t matter how plausible an explanation they can make for it if you give them enough time. The first blush expression of whatever the religion is, it’s always eccentric. 

I was talking to a law partner of mine who is— He’s extraordinarily orthodox, mainstream Latter-day Saint. He’s been in a bishopric; I think he’s in a high council right now. And I’m currently an excommunicated, former member of the LDS church who is a religious fugitive and vagabond at the moment. And he was— They’re very careful not to talk religion with me at my law firm because who knows, the contamination of heresy may spread, and so everyone kind of avoids the subject. And I said, “Everyone’s religion is eccentric.” And he said, “No, no, not like this other guy….” And I said, “Wait a minute. You believe God is so pissed at the world that He wants to beat the world for their sins, and so to placate Himself, He sent a son here, and He killed the son or had the son killed, and that satisfied this angry God. And you believe this, and you think that that’s truth.” And he said, “Well, there’s more to it.” And I said, “Of course there’s more to it! But if I want to put it in terms that make it appear to be out of proportion, it’s possible to do so, and you can do that with any religion. Doesn’t matter what it is.”

So, I actually blame you people—probably these two on-campus ministerial folks. I blame you people for me becoming a Latter-day Saint. Now follow the logic on this.

I was raised by a Baptist mother. My father was Christian and a mason; he had hoped that I would join the Masonic lodge. And he put up with the Baptist minister coming for Sunday dinner, which was always fried chicken and mashed potatoes. (I don’t know what it is about Baptist ministers that provoke the fried chicken. They do, and it’s actually pretty good, so I was always glad to see the minister come if not for any other reason than the meal.)

Growing up, I never had the conviction that the Baptists really had the answer. So by the time I entered the military, I was vaguely Christian and unbaptized. And because you people didn’t send out any missionaries, and Salt Lake did send out missionaries, I was confronted with the Joseph Smith story and all that by the LDS version of the Restoration. I didn’t even know there was another version that was out there at the time. And they challenged me to read the Book of Mormon as part of the missionary discussions. And I read— They had earmarked, gave me a free copy, and I read those pages. And they wanted to know, after I’d read them, what my impression was. And I can still tell you exactly the words of my answer. I said, “It’s gotta be scripture. It’s every bit as boring as the Bible.” And I meant it. It did not connect for me. In fact, there was so much about the Restoration that my mother had told me, and I had that point of view that Bryce spoke about already embedded in me that made it impossible for me to really see this other paradigm that they were trying to advance and get me to buy into. 

The angel who appeared to Joseph Smith preliminary to the Book of Mormon plates being shown to him said, [paraphrased] Your name shall be had for both good and evil, or that people everywhere are going to speak of you in terms of both good and evil [see Joseph Smith History 1:33.]

I grew up with a Baptist mother who only spoke evil of Joseph Smith. So to me, Joseph was not to be trusted. He was a scoundrel. He was a predator. He was the epitome of what goes wrong when someone seizes upon the idea of a religion to advance their own personal lies, agenda, wealth, power, and influence. 

It really came as quite a surprise to me when we were at the birthplace of Joseph Smith in Sharon, Vermont, on a campout— They had a stake president; they had a fireside. The stake president got up, and he told the story of David and Goliath, which is Biblical (my mom had drilled that into me), except that he took this story as if it were actually true, as if all these people and all these events had really happened. And it struck me that there was a kind of naive, innocent literalism to what this guy was doing with the religion, and it was Biblical. And to me it was disarming; it was a little unsettling. How can a Mormon devotee of this imposter, tell a Biblical story in a way that evidences not only acceptance, but persuaded me that there might be more to it? He had actually computed the height of Goliath. Today, we have NBA players that are nearly that height. I mean, to me Goliath was like some Hollywood-animated character. No, he was of an attainable height. And the size of the spear that he threw—he calculated that. He gave that number, and I thought, “Actually, the guy who is nearly nine feet tall could throw a spear that has…” Everything about it seems plausible. Everything about the story he told convinced me that maybe, maybe there’s something there. A kernel. Maybe there’s a little spark of something good, even in this horrible, flawed religion developed by an imposter.

Well, they had a visitor center. And the visitor center had literature. The fellow I was with— They had what was called the Doctrine and Covenants. That’s about that much of this book. The fellow I was with at the visitor’s center told me there was something in that book I ought to read. I assumed that if you’re gonna take a book, and you’re gonna start dog-earing it that you’re going to have to pay for it. And he had dog-eared the page, and I thought, “Gah, you haven’t even paid for this thing, and you’re wrecking these people’s book.” And this elderly lady behind the counter told me that the book was mine. And I said, “Uh… I didn’t bring any money, and I’m not…” And she said, “No, no, we give these away.” And I thought, “Wow, foolish people. Here they are, they’re giving their stuff away. And here, it’s now my book, and you’ve dog-eared it? What the…what are you messing with my book for?”

The section that he had dog-eared is one that is common to both the RLDS and the Community of Christ, and that is the vision of the redemption of the dead that is Section 76 in the LDS version. It has a different number in the Community of Christ. But it is a vision of the redemption of the dead, in which during the translation or the editorial revisions that Joseph Smith made to the New Testament, in the Gospel of John, he comes across a statement concerning the afterlife which made him wonder about the segregation of people in the afterlife and the two categories of heaven and hell, and there had to be something more to that. And the vision of the redemption of the dead unfolds. I read that, and my reaction— The only way I can describe it is I was thunderstruck. How could a man who is an imposter and a deceiver compose a transcript of such sublime meaning and beauty as this? It was at that moment, for the first time, that I thought there may be more to Joseph Smith than what my Baptist mother has told me. 

It’s a fearsome thing to let loose of the anchor that holds you in the harbor that you were raised with as a child. But it was at that moment, whether I was willing to cut that anchor or not, that the chain was broken. Because if my mom could be wrong about the potential virtue of Joseph Smith, she could be wrong about a number of other things. Therefore, the search into the restoration of the gospel actually began as a consequence of that moment.

Now, the missionaries were persistent, basically because there’s no one in New England that was interested in Mormonism at the time. I had joined the military. I grew up in Idaho. And I had been assigned to New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, it was the New England States mission, and I don’t know how many missionaries they had out in that mission (a couple hundred, I guess), and one of them had actually managed to get one person who was willing to put up with their pamphleteering and film-stripping. And so I’m pretty sure that in their zone and regional meetings they talked about their investigator. Reluctant though I was, I was the guy that showed some interest. 

As the stories unfolded, and you hear about the pillar of fire that descends, and within it personnages who speak to Joseph and call him by name, and the story progresses. And a few years later he’s praying, and a conduit opens up and a light and a person of light appears and tells him about a book that is buried in a mountain that’s engraved on gold plates, and you hear about the founding stories of the Restoration. The impression, naive as I was, the impression I got was that you people, you people have religion like the New Testament. Angels come talk to you people. God appears to you people. It’s like Paul on the road to Emmaus, except now it’s happening today. This is the old religion, the one that Moses went up on the Mount— The bush is burning, the voice, the finger of God writing on tablets of stone—it’s happening again! Oh my word! Baptists have an old book, but you people have angels!

I’m thinking that I occupy a position of vast inferiority to you because the heavens are open to you, and they’re not to me. And I would like to have that experience. I would like to be part of you people. I want to rise up to your glorious level because, from where I am, all I got are words in an old book, written by other people in another language, in another time, from another culture that I’m trying to make applicable to me by interpretation. But you people have the heavens, themselves, available to you. 

So I want to obtain a testimony so that I can believe like you people believe. And I recall the night in which I sincerely undertook to try and be like you great people. I prayed, kneeling beside a government-issued bed with an army blanket on it. I had a roommate, but he wasn’t there. He was out partying somewhere, and I was alone in the barracks. And I knelt down; I prayed— I wanted to be like you guys. And with all the fervency and sincerity of a young soul wanting desperately to be something akin to what you had attained, I poured out my heart. And when I was done praying, I got up, I sat on the bed, and I waited. And there wasn’t a conduit to heaven, and there wasn’t a glowing man in the dark. It was just me, alone in the room, sitting there. I don’t know what I expected, but there wasn’t any of that. 

And as I thought about it, I thought, “You know, this story these Mormons are telling can’t be true because there aren’t any more angels appearing.” As I thought about that for a moment. I knew what was in the New Testament because we read that every morning at breakfast with my mom growing up, and there was nothing in there that said, “I’m revoking the authorization of angels to appear.” There literally was nothing in there. Then I thought, “Okay, but Joseph’s put out new scripture, and the Bible says, Whoever adds to this book shall be cursed; whoever takes away from it God will take away his part in the kingdom.” That’s in the book of Revelation. But then it entered my mind, “Wait, the book of Revelation was actually written earlier than many of the other New Testament books that are in there, so if it literally means you can’t add scripture, we have to throw out most of the New Testament. So that’s not a legitimate criticism.” I went through issue after issue after issue, thinking of a problem why it can’t be true, and as I thought of the problem, an answer always came that said, “No, because of…” 

After this meditative process that went on for about just under a couple of hours, my final thought was, “Okay, yeah, all of that may be good and well and not a reason to reject, but how do I know there’s even a God?” [Clapping once] That quickly, the words came into my mind, “Who do you think you’ve been talking to for the last two hours?” At that moment I thought, “This was not the way in which I expected to encounter God. But if I have now encountered God, and if He has spoken to me, and if this means that I can get into His good graces, then I have to act in response to what He just told me, or I might be cut off, and I would like more of this, not less of this.” 

So I told the missionaries I got an answer to prayer. And I thought, “I’m gonna be the world’s worst Mormon, but okay, I’ll be a Mormon. I’ll try. But I just don’t have what it takes to be that great a person” (‘cause I think you people are all great). And I went ahead, and I got baptized, and to my surprise, that connection with God did not go away or diminish, it grew. And it grew brighter and brighter. 

Understand, I assumed God and angels and the heavens themselves were wide open to all of you. I assumed it was a common experience for people to have angelic ministrants. I had every expectation that sooner or later you’re just going to find yourself in the presence of angels, because that’s what the Restoration is all about. So I had no doubt that that would happen. 

I had an experience in which I did encounter an angel. He had very little to say, but he certainly would have answered a question if I had put one. The words that he said to me were, “On the first day of the third month in nine years, your ministry will begin, and so you must prepare.” And then he waited. 

Now, some things that ought to be obvious if that’s a statement that’s made is, “Okay, how does one prepare? What is this ministry? What are you talking about? How am I to do what you just suggested I ought do?” But I wasn’t doing that. I was looking at him; I was looking at the clothing; I was looking at the scene. I was trying to take in— And there were things that were visible that were odd to me. Art, for example. And I thought, “Why would you have artwork in the afterlife or in the eternities or…?” I was like a tourist. If I’d had spray paint, I might have sprayed, “Denver was here.” I may have behaved really poorly, but I did not ask a question. 

So he leaves. I’m left thinking about that scene, and I can conjure it back up into my mind. I can see that moment right now, and it’s been decades. 

Well, I didn’t, at that time, know that you ought to keep a journal. I didn’t, at that time, know that you ought to keep a record and know dates. But I kept it in my mind, and I did what I thought was a calculation. And I calculated out when the first day of the third month of the ninth year had arrived, and on that date I’m expecting, “Hey, hey! Something big!” And the date comes, and the date goes, and nothing happens—just another day in school. It’s just nothing at all. So I thought, “Okay, ‘and so you must prepare’ is how heaven gets out of this. I didn’t prepare, so it’s my fault. I blew it. Not worthy, not prepared. Shoot! I wish I had known what I should have done.” Because obviously, I had not done it. 

The next year, on the first day of the third month, on my door comes an LDS bishop and Sunday School president to call me to be the new gospel doctrine teacher for the ward. It was actually a few days after they had extended to me the request that I teach gospel doctrine that I went back and realized it was the first day of the third month. And then I went back and recalculated everything, and because I had not kept a record, I had assumed that the nine year calculation began from the year in which I was baptized, which was 1973. But it had been sometime apparently months later in ‘74, so I was off by a year in my calculation. 

Well, in the LDS church, the gospel doctrine teacher is given a one-year curriculum to teach, in which you spend one year on the Old Testament, you spend one year on the New Testament, you spend one year on the Book of Mormon, and you spend one year on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History. And then when you finish with that, you start all over again, and you spend one year on each one of these, and you go through, and you teach them for a year. And then when that year ends, you start all over again. 

When I got called to be the gospel doctrine teacher, I had not yet gained any appreciation for the Book of Mormon. In all honesty, I didn’t know what to make of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith, the vision of the redemption of the dead, some of the things that Joseph taught, some of his revelations resonated with me. Old testament, not a problem; the New Testament, loved it. The Book of Mormon, to me, was a— It was hard for me to have that book resonate with me. I taught it. They give you a manual. I followed the manual, and we got through the year. And the calling to be the gospel doctrine teacher didn’t end. So, we cycle through, and I taught the Book of Mormon for a second year. 

In year one I used the the manual. In year two, I said to myself, “I’m going to bore me, even if I’m not boring the people. I’m going to bore me if I do that again.” So, I began to push into the Book of Mormon a little more carefully, using more resource material, studying it a bit more closely, and using outside material that had been provided by— This was the LDS church; this was by scholars. I began to have a little more appreciation for the Book of Mormon. There might be a little more to this. 

Well, as circumstances would have it, I moved from the city I was living in to a new city in Utah, and I would have been released if I had stayed where I was living. But when I moved to the new place, the new bishop asked me, “What is your calling in the ward you’re leaving?” And I said I was a gospel doctrine teacher. He said, “Oh good, good. We are releasing ours. We haven’t yet called anyone, so we’re going to call you.” So I changed cities, but I kept the calling, and I continued on being “this guy” teaching these scriptures. It was easy to push this material into greater depth. That was easy. This was a little more difficult. 

By the time I got through teaching the Book of Mormon a second full year, I began to realize there was a good deal more to this book than I had anticipated. And so the next time I went through, I assumed that this text was actually what it purported to be, and I began to have respect for it, trying to get it to tell me what it contains. 

The third year I spent on the Book of Mormon, I began to have experiences and a growth in faith that resembled those very earliest days encountering the missionaries. You see, I had joined Mormonism in New Hampshire, but I had gone to college in Utah. And in Utah, Mormonism is jaded. In Utah, Mormonism consists of one guy who holds all the keys, who’s the president of everything, that one rises to their feet when he enters the room, and you don’t sit until he sits, and when he’s through talking and he’s ready to leave, you rise, and you stay where you are until he leaves the room, because holy, holy, holy, he is the man. That’s Mormonism in Utah. No one expects an angel, except that guy might get one. No one expects an open vision, except that guy might get one. No one expects God to have a darn thing to do with you or me because He’s too busy with that guy. He’s the one who, if someone were to walk on water today, would be that guy. We are mere minions supporting the pyramid, atop which is that guy and God. And God won’t talk to us, but He will talk to him. So in Utah I realized angels don’t come talk to people, and they don’t expect angels to come talk to them. And no one expects spiritual connection to the other side except for an office, and that office owns the right to that. But we don’t. 

The problem with that realization is that it was contrary to my actual experience. I knew that I wasn’t just a minion at the time; I was a newly potential baptized person when God spoke to me, and I was a newbie, ignorant, fresh-out-of-the-water newbie when an angel had spoken and visited with me. So I knew the paradigm that prevailed in Utah could not be true. But it was only the third time through teaching the Book of Mormon for a year that that light, that ignition began to return, and the other side began to become more accessible, more understandable, more lively, more communicative. 

When I taught the Book of Mormon for the fourth year, I was able (in a 50 minute class) to cover one or two verses. We were assigned like eight chapters, and I said, “Okay, eight chapters—you can read the material. I want to delve into the meaning of this verse.” And for 50 minutes I talked about one verse or sometimes two verses. Because the Book of Mormon has that much to say.

There’s a bunch of scholarly efforts to talk about the content of the Book of Mormon, but the Book of Mormon itself explains how the translation process was done. This is in Second Nephi chapter 27. Nephi has used the Isaiah material to testify about Nephi’s experience. He does not have a Jewish intent, an Isaiah intent, in using Isaiah’s words. Nephi has been prohibited from writing about the vision that he has had, but the angel tells him, “others have seen this.” And so, Nephi, intending to express his own testimony of what God has shown him, uses Isaiah’s words to tell you Nephi’s visionary experience. When he gets to chapter 27 of Second Nephi, he begins to transition. He ceases to be directly quoting Isaiah, and he begins to paraphrase Isaiah in a transitional chapter 27 before he then gives you an explanation for why he said all of the Isaiah materials that went on before. And chapter 27 begins to be the transition from Isaiah quotes, Isaiah paraphrase, Isaiah meaning in the words of Nephi, in the experience of Nephi. 

So, in 27 we get to the Isaiah material where he talks about the words of a book that’s going to be delivered to someone who’s learned, who says he can’t read a sealed book, and then he’s going to go from there when the learned won’t do it. And God tells you how the Book of Mormon was translated: “I am able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee… I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work” (2 Nephi 27:20-21, emphasis added). The translation of the Book of Mormon was not done by Joseph Smith; it was done through Joseph Smith. The translator of the text of the Book of Mormon was God. God told Joseph what was in the text of the Book of Mormon. You want to know who translated it? God. 

Then we have The Testimony of the Three Witnesses. This is what the Three Witnesses say: “And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for His voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.” God translated the Book of Mormon. After God gave Joseph the words that God wanted to be included in the Book of Mormon, then the angel showed the plates to the Three Witnesses, and God vouched for the translation process that He had done, by the gift and power of God. 

Joseph Smith once said that a man can get closer to God by heeding the Book of Mormon than any other book, and that it was the most correct book that there is, and that if you will abide it’s precepts, you will come closer to understanding God. 

I started out with the Book of Mormon as a pedestrian looking at the book and saying, “Yeah, it’s something. And it’s part of the religion.” If I had not been called to be a gospel doctrine teacher and left in that position— I moved again into a third location. I taught gospel doctrine in Pleasant Grove, UT; Alpine, UT; and Sandy, UT in two different places there. I was this guy going through this material. It took between 10 and 20 hours of study and preparation each week for a 50 minute class, as I went deeper and deeper into the text of all these materials, but deepest of all into the Book of Mormon.

I think that you can be a Mormon Community of Christ member, a Mormon Latter-Day Saint, a Mormon in some of these rare splinter cults— I’m an independent, freelance, converted-to-my-soul believer in the Book of Mormon and the value of the Book of Mormon, without any denominational affiliation. I believe to my core that the Book of Mormon is the keystone to a religion, but I’m not sure it is the keystone to the religion that they practice in Salt Lake City anymore. I’m not sure it’s the keystone to the religion that’s practiced in some of these splinter groups. I don’t know enough about the Community of Christ to be able to evaluate that, but in June of this year I went to a conference in Boise, Idaho. I spoke there, and I heard from a group. These were— There was a member of a presidency and a seventy who had previously been members of the Community of Christ, and they had split primarily over the issue of the standing of the Book of Mormon; they had formed something that they called the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And their chief objection, according to these authorities from that group, was that the Book of Mormon was not being held in the kind of esteem with which, that they would like to hold the Book of Mormon. Therefore, they considered their version of what they were doing to be more genuine, better, and what have you.

I’m to the point where I believe truth is truth. I believe the Book of Mormon has value. And I’m tired of the peephole mentality where “I want to see the Restoration, Joseph, and the Book of Mormon through this lens, and anything that falls outside of that lens is corrupt, is to be opposed.” I don’t understand why we’re fighting. I don’t understand why we’re competitive! If you can teach me something about the Old Testament that I do not know, I want to hear it. If you can teach me something about the New Testament that I don’t know, I would love to learn about it. If you’ve got some insight into the Book of Mormon that can expand my understanding and appreciation of it, I would love for you to give that to me. 

And I have to tell you, the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a mess. I mean, to put it mildly, it’s a mess. It does not reflect the voice of God to Joseph Smith in the way in which the voice of God came to Joseph Smith. When the revelations of Joseph were sent for publication in what would have been called the Book of Commandments, printed in Independence, Missouri, Oliver Cowdery and William Phelps felt that they had the editorial right (Oliver believed this because of some things that had been said to him in revelation) the editorial right to make changes and alter the text. And they felt comfortable doing that. 

The Book of Commandments got— The press got wrecked by a mob, and so, although a handful of the manuscript printed sheets got salvaged and they got put together, the Book of Commandments got superseded by the 1835 publication in Kirtland of the Doctrine and Covenants. During the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants publication, Joseph Smith undertook to take the Lectures on Faith (that had been delivered at the School of the Prophets in Kirtland) to turn that into a standardized text that could be used elsewhere for instruction and understanding of doctrine. And so in Joseph Smith’s journals, he enters comments about the labor he was doing to get the Lectures on Faith prepared for publication. Everything else that went into the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants had been turned over to a committee. And the committee took what the Book of Commandments had done, and then the committee (now including Sidney Rigdon, among others), took and expanded and expanded— Section 27 of the Doctrine of Covenants in the LDS version is a vast expansion of something that was originally very small; I think four verses. And it’s now like 35 verses. 

Joseph Smith, when the Doctrine and Covenants was presented to the conference in 1835 for a sustaining vote as a statement of the religion, personally vouched for Lectures on Faith, and signed his name attesting to it being true and accurate, and he would answer for anything that is contained within that text. And the rest of the book was sustained by people as a standard of the faith and accepted, but Joseph made no such vouching for the balance of it. And the balance of it contained expansions, changes, deletions, improvements, as folks thought that they were making. 

Today if I were a gospel doctrine teacher in an LDS church, I would teach people how to parse this book in order to get back to where it ought to be. I would be unfit for the ministry, because I’d be subversive. 

The truth is oftentimes very subversive, because people really like to take textual material that’s considered authoritative and to wrap themselves in the cloak of that authority, in order to justify the agenda that they would like to advance. Sometimes the reasons people do that are noble. Sometimes the reasons they do that are laudable. 

When Martin Luther was confronted by a corrupt Catholic church, the problem that Martin Luther had to solve was how you could have salvation while you depart from the authoritative hierarchical structure. How do you get salvation and authoritative baptism without priestly authority, because the tradition that had been handed down for a millenium and a half—now and this was 1517 when Martin Luther finally reaches the point that he splits—how do you survive that split if authority to seal on earth and in heaven, if authority to baptize remains with the Catholic church, and they excommunicate you. How does salvation itself survive? The way that Martin Luther solved the riddle that allowed him to make the split—noble as that split may have been, laudable and as good as it may be that he took the step—was to take one of the letters of Paul in the book of Romans and to take the phrase of “salvation by grace” and to wrap himself in the authority of the words that appear in the book of Romans to vindicate the split to say salvation can be attained independent of the hierarchy, independent of the priesthood, independent of the ability claimed by the Pope and his priests to seal on earth, to forgive sins, to do what they do to minister in the gospel. And we have a chance, by the grace of God, to lay hold upon salvation and to make our way back to redemption independent of that structure. Martin Luther, bless his heart, created the rationalization that allowed John Knox and John Calvin and Zwingli and the other protestant reformers, in one generation, to split into numerous different protestant congregations. Just that quick—one generation. Those men met with each other. 

So then we get all the way down to the Restoration through Joseph Smith, when Joseph is troubling over which church, which branch ought he join. I mean, everyone knew in Colonial America that Catholics were wrong because the protestant reformation had succeeded in getting a toe hold in the Americas as an escape from the religious oppression of Europe. They were burning people at the stake; they were killing people over religious issues at the time that the colonies were founded. 

One of the things that the Constitution wanted to do was to divorce federal power from religious power. And when the Bill of Rights was adopted, the very first one was to guarantee religious independence so that people could think. So Joseph could rest assured that you don’t even need to trouble yourself over Catholicism, but as to everything else that is out there, “Which of all the churches ought I to join?” And the answer that he got was that, “Don’t join any of them. They teach for commandments the doctrines of men; they have a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”  

What do you think it means that religions deny the power of godliness? If you’re open to it, it puts you right back where I was, sitting on a bed in a barracks, talking to God and getting answers, because God is willing to be a lively participant in a living religion in which you and He, together, are part of the living gospel of Christ. 

The religion that Joseph Smith restored was intended to have a powerful form of godliness. Something that God only changes you and changes the landscape inside of you, but ultimately is intended to change this world; ultimately is intended to bring again something like the Garden of Eden. 

In the letter Joseph Smith wrote to the publisher of The Democrat, the portion of which is now the “Articles of Faith”— John Wentworth had sent a letter to Joseph; Joseph responded; he described the faith— Joseph said that we believe that there was going to come a time when there would be a Zion that would be built upon this, the American Continent, and that the earth was going to be renewed and returned again to its paradisiacal glory. 

I mean, think for a minute about what happened at the Fall. At the moment in which the Fall occurs, the harmony that once existed between this creation, man, and God was fractured. And man is sent out to labor by the sweat of their brow. Well, that fracturing in the Joseph Smith translation version of the book of Genesis— It’s in the Joseph Smith translation that’s used by the Community of Christ; it’s in the Pearl of Great Price as the book of Moses in the LDS scriptures— In that account there comes a moment when Enoch is caught up into the Heaven, and Enoch has this visionary experience, and he sees what’s going on on the earth, and he’s lamenting, and he wants to know when the earth is going to have the Lord come and visit it and redeem it. And the earth itself, in this vision, mourns over the wickedness that is upon her face. She wants that to be cleansed. 

That vision of Enoch suggests that this earth is sentient; this earth has a spirit; this earth is alive. If this earth mourns over the wickedness that is upon her face, she’s literally talking about something as intimate to her as your face is to you. If you can sense it, when there’s something—a fly, a mosquito, something that happens, a leaf brushes up against your face, the wind blows—if you can sense that on your face, and the earth is mourning the wickedness of men that’s upon her, how must the earth be responding to the way in which men behave? 

Does any man or woman have any business to look at another person on the basis on how they believe in these things and to judge and dismiss them? Do we have any right to treat one another as if we are in hostile camps? If we believe that something happened with Joseph Smith, and if we believe that the Book of Mormon is a gift given us for God, and if a person can get closer to God by abiding its precepts than any other book, then we outta celebrate whenever anyone says something laudable, prizeworthy [praiseworthy], noble, or enlightening concerning the restoration and the Book of Mormon. 

I am shocked at how bad a job we’ve all done with the history of the Restoration and the history of Joseph Smith. Right now the LDS church is in the process of publishing The Joseph Smith Papers. When they come out I read them cover to cover like you’re reading a novel. My set of these books, I don’t know how many— They’re in the teens now— but my set of these books has cross references, interlineations, I point out where the historian’s office is making a mistake because it’s contradicted by something that’s in an earlier volume. They’re not keeping their version of the story straight, but they are publishing source materials. Source materials, if you focus on them, will give you a much better view of what was going on. 

The fact that Bryce tells a story that’s preserved within the Community of Christ tradition-history of Joseph Smith III about Emma’s insistence— If you read the source material, you realize that as between the two of them, Emma Smith was the stronger personality. Emma Smith was the one who provided for Joseph a backbone, a stability. Emma was better educated than Joseph. Joseph not only loved her; he prized her. He deferred to her. He sought counsel from her. The relationship between Joseph and Emma Smith is not at all what is portrayed in Salt Lake City. They do not understand the relation between Joseph and his wife, Emma. It doesn’t exist. And the stories that are told there, and retold there, based upon third and fourth-hand accounts, some of which are summoned 40 years after the fact in order to support the institution that is in a death grip with the United States over the issue of plural wifery—and I’m expected to trust a 40-year late reminiscence about Joseph’s behavior in Nauvoo, Illinois at a time when litigation is trying to confiscate all of the property belonging to the institution of the LDS church, and the LDS church needs this supporting material in order to justify the changes, the aberrations that they have adopted to Mormonism?

There are a couple of really well-known, well-respected Latter-day Saint historical writers that I’ve crossed paths with. I won’t drop names—that just seems unseemly to me. But both of these—one’s called the “Dean of LDS Historians” as a nickname—one of these fellows and I were talking about the subject of plural marriage and Joseph and all that. I posed the question to both of these fellows, “If you take Joseph from the time of his birth to the date of his death, and you say we’re going to draw a line right here (it’s going to be on June 27th of 1844) and you’re going to look at everything that existed in written form that had been preserved through that moment in time, and you just stop the record right there at that moment, can you unequivocally state there is evidence that Joseph Smith had another wife other than Emma Smith?” 

Now, understand, these people are well enough acquainted with the body of the original source material— Most people are not well enough acquainted with that. Even the revelation that purportedly occured in Section 132, which is the big revelation that justifies it, is not in the handwriting of a clerk that wrote for Joseph Smith as a scribe. It’s in the handwriting of a fellow who worked at the store who was never a scribe, who claims that he copied from the journal of Joseph’s scribe at the time. It’s a copy of a document that got destroyed, so we can’t put that document before this date. And it didn’t even come to light until some time 1852, okay? It could have been created in 1850, 51, 52. Could’ve been created after June 27th. If you stop the clock right there, and you say, “What does the history of Joseph Smith reveal about that topic?” Both of these fellows said, “Okay, I see where you’re coming from. Okay, yeah, I get it. I just don’t believe it.” Tradition and peepholes are really difficult for people to part with. 

When you have been muzzled into a paradigm that says, It is this way; it can be no other way— We are just as apt as the protestant folly because the Lord wasn’t commenting to Joseph about the Catholics. He was talking about the protestants. We’re just as apt as they were after Joseph had explored the various alternatives, to have God say concerning us now today, we teach for doctrines the commandments of men; we have a form of godliness; but we deny the power thereof; and that our hearts are far from Him. 

If your heart is close to God, it also tends to be open to your fellow man. I wish that we felt no insecurities about our own beliefs and were willing to say, “I’m prepared to revise what I believe if you can give me reason to do so.” I welcome, want; I hunger, and I thirst after knowledge of things that are true.

I wrote a book called Passing the Heavenly Gift, in which I analyzed the history of the Restoration from the vantage point of using what the Book of Mormon says the Latter-day gentiles are going to do. I didn’t approach it as if I were a historian. I approached it as if I were trying to understand what the prophets in the Book of Mormon said the gentiles were going to do with the restoration of the gospel, and I posed the question, “What would that history look like?” On the assumption the Book of Mormon is telling us what the gentiles were going to do with it, I wrote a history that said, “This event means this part of the prophecy of the Book of Mormon was fulfilled. This event means what Christ said concerning the Latter-day gentiles was vindicated. This event is immediately following God telling you what the evidence, what the sign would be, and so this should be understood historically as fulfillment of God’s sign.”

And by the time I finished writing that history and got it out into print, what has been going on in Salt Lake did not appear to be all that praiseworthy from Heaven’s perspective. It appeared to be a shabby decay and a ruin. It appeared to be the very spot in which God said, “After they’ve done this, I’m then going to breathe new life into it again. I am going to bring again Zion.” The problem with the book is, if you believe that all members of your organization ought to be minions holding up a pyramid, atop which sits one guy at the pinnacle who has the authority, like the Pope, to bind on earth and in heaven, and everyone ought to be submissive and supportive, then that kind of history-telling becomes threatening. 

I was given the ultimatum that I either had to take that book out of print, or I would be excommunicated. For a whole host of reasons, including the fact that I have a publisher, I have a contract with the publisher, I went to the publisher and said, “I’m being given an ultimatum, it needs to be taken off.” He said, “Well if the church is opposed to it, it’s a good book to keep in print. So no, we’re going to keep this book in print.” So then I was told that since the publisher was interested in keeping it in print, they would be willing to purchase the copyright to the book. And so I went back to the publisher, and I said, “What would it take to buy the copyright from you for this book?” And the fellow’s reaction was, “You are shitting me!” (I mean, I’m quoting him, so don’t blame me for his language.) He said, “If they’re that interested in buying and getting it out, this book has to stay in print! This is Martin Luther, this is Galileo, this is historic! We have to keep this— No. No amount of money!” I said, “Well, okay. I don’t want to be in the middle of a lawsuit, but….” 

As I thought about the reaction, it struck me that it really doesn’t matter if the book ever has wide appreciation. The book has depth of meaning. It’s not important that you influence millions of people casually. But it is a wonderful thing if you can influence a single soul deeply.

Christ’s ministry was relatively modest in its accomplishment in terms of the people He influenced directly. By the time what Christ had founded had widespread political, economic, and even military influence, it had become so corrupted that Christianity itself was more political than it was religious. Today we have over 100 different denominations that claim Joseph Smith as the founder. But the fact is that precious few people have allowed the message of the Book of Mormon, that was intended to redeem not only latter-day gentiles but to redeem a remnant of the natives that were on this continent, and to ultimately redeem some of the Jews that remain as a remnant and to bring them together in a cause that will make the earth herself rejoice because wickedness has ceased from off her face. 

If anyone can grasp the depth of what the Lord complained about—a form of godliness but deny the power thereof— If there’s one piece of lifeline that God has extended to us in our day to get us out of that decrepit condition, it’s the Book of Mormon. We share that across all of the fractured parts of the Restoration, wherever it is. I know that the Book of Mormon contains valuable, indispensable prizes that have been given to us by God. I know that because I’ve lived it, and therefore, I look at the Book of Mormon as more miracle than mere text. 

I wanna thank you who have enough interest to show up on occasions like this, to be inconvenienced on a Saturday. And I want to thank the, in particular, the people here from Graceland for allowing this to take place. And thank Bryce for going to the trouble of getting this all organized.

I know that Joseph Smith was singularly called by God, not merely as just another protestant leader, but as a founder of something that was intended to retain vitality and godliness in a power that can change absolutely the destinies of where we’re headed in eternity and the heart that we have within us. 

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

The post Remembering the New Covenant appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.